Mary Matalin - Evil Witch or Ignorant Shill?

Seriously. How did James Carville marry this woman? I appreciate that he is able to separate politics from his real life. But she is so full of half truths and intellectual dishonesty; doesn't that spoil some of her charm, whatever charm she had to begin with? Is it because they are both into politics and both look like trolls? I don't know.

Let's examine some of her comments from yesterday's Meet the Press:

[John Bolton has] been in four Senate-confirmed positions with three presidents, and finally he is a wonderful man with a generous heart, a great sense of humor. He's quiet and he's a man of humbleness and humility.

He's explicitly against the United Nations. He abuses his staff. He tries to fire anyone who tells him anything that he doesn't want to hear. Does that sound like a diplomat to you?

the John Bolton that's being portrayed in this attack in another instance of nothing, no agenda, just obstructionism by the Democrats, is everything to do with politics on their side and in our side everything to do with getting the best people in the best place in the best policy to assure just not America's security but global peace.

I'm sick and tired of the word obstructionist. Hypothetical - if someone says, "I am going to kill my boss," and you try to stop him, are you being obstructionist? Or are you a hero? When people have really, really bad political plans or ideals and you stop them, you are being a patriot. Mary, you can call it obstructionism if you want, but the fact of the matter is "obstructing" these clearly bad decisions is about putting the best people in the best place and the best fucking policy.

MS. MATALIN: [referring to Pat Robertson's quote that the current judiciary is more dangerous that Osama bin Laden] I think that was an injudicious thing to say, but that the secular left has behaved imperialistically--there's no other word for it. They have subverted the democratic process by taking their issues to the judiciary. What the so-called religious right has done has taken their petition and their concerns into the democratic process, into the public square. They organize and they try to affect legislation, as opposed to being the subverted process of democracy which is what the secular left does.

This is all demagoguery. There is a secular left. There is a religious right. It is the way in which the secular left overestimates its uniformity is funny. They're not--there's not just Christian conservatives. There is a lot of the people who are concerned about traditional values and in politics and in the public square. There are lots of Jews, there are a lot of conservative Muslims. There are--it's ecumenical. There's Catholics. It's across the board. There is not a uniformity. There's lots of pluralism and they're part of the democratic process. And this is just demagoguery on the parts of these left-wing extremists.

First of all, um... We're behaving imperialistically? Secondly, you think it's we who are demagoguing an issue after Pat Robertson, of the religious right that you so revere, says that the federal judiciary, an entire branch of the government as defined by the Constitution of the United States, is more dangerous than Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda? WE'RE demagoguing the issue?

Third, the COUNTRY is secular, Mary. It was designed to be so. By your logic, by dividing the country into two camps - the religious right and the secular left - you're saying that one is either for the separation of church and state or for a theocratic government run by religious leaders imposing their religious views on the rest of us. Seriously, is that what you think Thomas Jefferson had in mind? Really? And finally - we're not "taking" our issues to the judiciary. The CONSTITUTION takes these issues to the judiciary. I mean, didn't you ever have a high school government class? You work in politics after all. Congress could choose to pass a law saying that tall people aren't allowed to work in our schools. The Constitution has set up a system of checks and balances allowing for someone to point out in a courtroom that that law is inherently unfair, at which point the Constitution allows for the court to overturn that law. We're not taking our issues to the courts - you're writing unfair laws which the courts are then overturning. That's the American system of government. I guess the only question I have for you, if you're against that sort of thing - Why do you hate America?

What the Republicans want is an up-or-down vote. What Senator Frist has offered to the Democrats is a--you want to filibuster, you can have 100 hours of debate on every judge. They rejected that. It's another example of obstruction. It's petty obstruction. It's not even principled obstruction.

Are you crazy? Don't answer that. Of course it's principled "obstruction." The senate has approved something like 95% of Bush's judges, a significantly higher percentage than the number of Clinton judges who were approved. And his were blocked with secret blue slips and the like. These, what is it, seven judges are all extremist right wing nutjobs. The Democrats have a duty to this nation to prevent them from being appointed for life. God bless 'em.

Really, James. What were you thinking? K Street on HBO was pretty cool though. Who saw that coming from Elliott Gould?