I wouldn’t expect any different than for Grayson to stonewall. After all with his over the top statements about Fox News, the fact that he would even entertain an interview with anyone at Fox would make him seem like somewhat of a hypocrite.

The funny thing is that I personally hate all the coverage he is getting. It’s exactly what Grayson wants as it puts ‘hard lefty’ money in his pockets. But that aside, I really enjoyed the back story on this clip which Griff tells during his followup with O’reilly. I won’t ruin it for you, but Grayson seems to have had a ‘Scozzafava moment’. And that makes me very happy.

Enjoy.

This is the most good-for-nothing 7 minutes of Fox News programming I’ve seen in a while. First, Cavuto is a financial guy on a semi-financial show who wastes over 7 minutes on something he’s tagged as ‘door gate’. What, there’s not enough going on in the economy? Sure, Harry Reid is playing hardball politics and and is hiding in his office while he tries to broker deals to shove legislation down our throats – I get that. But you can cover ‘door-gate’ in a myriad of ways that reports the news and doesn’t waste the viewer’s time.

Second, he brings his personal handy man on the show to do the segment! So now we have Cavuto using his show to apparently drum up ‘business’ for ‘Mr. Handyman’ under the guise of removing Harry Reid’s door. Last I checked, FNC charged for advertisements.

David Weigel found the transcript and below is the video of that encounter. Apparently Burris doesn’t know much about the federal government, and he got a lesson at the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing on czars.

I’ve just got one question. Since when does it make a president weak to kowtow to congress?

In the words of Weigel, listen to ‘the horror’.

BURRIS: This has — being a constitutional and political science student, I mean, this is Political Science 101 or Political Science, maybe, 1000. The panel’s just been terrific.

And I have so many thoughts just rolling through my head, I don’t even know where to start. I mean, this is — this is the meat that caused us political scientists to even exist, because you’re dealing with these major issues of the separation of powers and the creation of this country and whether or not you want your president to really have the powers that you granted it, and whether or not the Congress, which is on similar or equal footing, can then control or muscle in on those powers of the president.

Based on the fact that — especially the House of Representatives, since they stand for re-election every two years and senators much longer, you — you have this constant power struggle as who is really representing the people and what that representation is going to mean when it gets to the — the policy decision that’s going to impact the public.

And I don’t know whether or not — I don’t think you can come up with a definition dealing with this. Having served in a governor’s cabinet and having dealt with those staffers, it almost depends on how strong the cabinet member is as to just what and how he’s going to deal with those situations and those circumstances.

Because having experienced that on the state level, and knowledgeable to some extent on the federal level — I was very close to the — to the Carter administration and had good insights into the workings of the White House and all of those decisions that were being made and how the gatekeepers really sought to filter the information that got to the president.

Every president’s going to go through it. I don’t even know how we in the Congress can legally — I mean, I heard the distinguished ranking member say that we passed a law. We can pass a law and say there’s going to be a position in there, but I don’t think the Congress can tell the president who to put in that position.

I mean, if we do that, then I think that we’re violating the separation of powers. I mean, this is what we get into. And you can create a position. What happens if — what happens if the president says, “I don’t want to appoint anybody as secretary of state. I’m going to use the undersecretary as an acting secretary”?

Is there a law that would require us or require the president to appoint a secretary of state? Is there? Is there?

CASEY: A law that requires the president to appoint a secretary of state?

BURRIS: Yes.

CASEY: Specifically, there would not be a law requiring him to do that. Now, of course, if he wants the functions that you vested in a secretary of state performed, he — he probably has to do…

(CROSSTALK)

BURRIS: But there is no law that says he has to even appoint a secretary of state, is that — am I correct?

(CROSSTALK)

BURRIS: There’s a statute that says there’s a position — a secretary of state position…

CASEY: Right, right — shall be appointed in the following — yes — I’m unaware of any…

(CROSSTALK)

BURRIS: But is there a law that says the president has to make that appointment?

CASEY: Not that I’m aware of.

BURRIS: That’s the difficulty that we’re dealing with here. Is there a law that says that the president can appoint an acting person and how long can that person act?

CASEY: Yes. There is actually a law that governs…

(CROSSTALK)

BURRIS: OK. How long can that person act?

CASEY: It is — I would actually have to look at the statute but it’s a matter of months, it’s not…

BURRIS: A matter of months, so that person…

(CROSSTALK)

BURRIS: Otherwise, then, does the authority then leave that…

(UNKNOWN): (OFF-MIKE)

BURRIS: … that position?

(CROSSTALK)

BURRIS: And who then assumes that authority in that position if the president refuses to send the name up for confirmation to us?

CASEY: Well, yes, there — there are various — many circumstances in which an acting official can continue to serve, especially if they are the — the normal principal deputy of the office that — that you’re talking about.

BURRIS: And what about these midnight appointments, as we hear? You know, the judges in the interim time, or Congress in — in recess…

CASEY: Recess appointments.

BURRIS: The recess appointments. And they serve for only a certain period of time, and — and otherwise…

CASEY: Right.

BURRIS: … that person would have to leave the position and — I mean, you can see all the questions that are just flowing through my process here, as we try to talk about czars and policy-makers. This is even bigger than — than czars.

I mean — you’re — you’re wrestling with this — this just wonderful document that’s created 200 and plus years ago that created our entity and this thing called separation of powers.

We haven’t even gotten into the judiciary side of this, which could also raise a whole lot of other questions.

So, Mr. President (sic), I really don’t have many questions, I just — I got more questions than I have answers, Mr. Chairman, in reference to this, because I — I just sit here and listen to the experts talk, and every time there was a statement made, there’s a — there’s a new question come to my mind, well, what about this? What ifs — What if? What if? And — and so, I find this so fascinating, and I’m — I’m certainly going read each and every one of you all’s testimony.

I don’t know how I’m going to get back to — to, you know, the hearing again to try to follow up on this but, Mr. Chairman, I would imagine that our grandchildren are going to be still wrestling with this same problem.

I don’t know whether or not — given us wanting to have a weak president who’s going to kowtow to Congress or us having this — a weak Congress who’s going to let a president run all over us, which you see in some of these cases.

I mean if, you know, if — if you say that we’re going to appropriate some money, then they don’t want to spend it, you know, they don’t spend it.

And you just heard what my distinguished senator from Utah says, that who the gatekeeper is to stop the information from getting to the president. So, you know, I’m more frustrated than I am — with questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, this is — this is — I mean this is. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m done.

Well this doesn’t really need any commentary. We’ve all been disgusted for a long time with Obama continuing to demonize Bush and use him as a crutch.  And I heard Glenn Beck point out the other day that coaches don’t get to blame their predecessors for the poor play under their command. But Krauthammer really ups the ante on this. It’s really time for this to stop.

Enjoy:

Rush Limbaugh makes that point that NY-23 is a special election and since there are no primaries, then all this third party talk is really unnecessary.

Enjoy:

This will play automatically so you wont need to advance it.

I’m not sure if this is a hospital policy or something directly from the CDC for all doctors, but if this is true it’s quite worrisome. Connect that with the fact that some in our administration believe that they shouldn’t let a crisis go to waste and now we get into conspiracy territory.  I’m not saying any such thing, but if doctors are in fact reporting all flu cases as H1N1 then someone should be asking the administration some serious questions.

Any doctors out there know if this is true?

Arpaio is a hard lined sheriff and we need more men like him. Illegal is illegal – end of story.  The rules they are trying to subject him to are as unfair as the new hate crimes legislation that is waiting to be singed by O. Really, the problem is that the democratic party (and a few republicans unfortunately, PRESIDENT BUSH!) hasn’t wanted to do anything about illegal immigration for decades; and now the problem is so big that nobody seems to have a good answer.

Meanwhile, Arpaio is enforcing the law which makes people like Geraldo go nuts. This empathetic crap belongs in the garbage and not in our court system. Justice used to be blind, and that’s when it worked.

Enjoy the back and forth as Geraldo tries to pin him down:

Glenn Beck airs his interview with Trace Adkins on his weekend show.  It’s really just a light hearted interview, but funny nonetheless. Here’s a quote:

“You should just lighten up a little. Embrace the apocalypse Beck!”

This is a 30 minute clip from an hour long interview by The B-Cast (used with permission), and it’s a great interview. Lord Monckton, being an excellent speaker I might add, not only discusses more in depth the climate change treaty draft, but answers his critics (i.e. Politifact.com).  If you want to hear the entire hour long interview or other great interviews, please visit the The B-Cast. Here’s my favorite quote from the interview:

“And I don’t want to see this beacon of freedom extinguished. I don’t want to see your liberty disappear. I don’t want to see it all pass away so that the memory of democracy of government, of the people, by the people, and for the people, becomes just that – merely a memory. I want to retain the reality and the only way to retain the reality is to be extremely vigilant…”

The interview will play automatically so you wont need to advance it.