“President Obama doesn’t seem to be focused on the journey so far, just don’t reverse,” Major Garrett surmised.

“How can you run on a campaign slogan of ‘This is as good as it gets’?” Matthews asked. “Is there a mood that this President is probably going to lose as events take their course? Is he headed towards defeat?”

“‘You think this is bad, this could be worse’ — that is not actually a positive optimistic, hopeful ‘Morning in America’ kind of message,” observed CNN political correspondent Gloria Borger. “So I think Barack Obama has his work cut out for him.”

“The question is, do they feel like that?” Matthews asked. “Do you have a sense that there is a feeling out there that the Obama people know they’re going to face a very uphill battle this year?”

“I think they’re worried,” said Washington Post columnist David Ignatius they have been worried. it’s Obama’s way to play defense. That’s just how he has conducted himself as President. This year is his last chance to define himself for the American people in a clear way as a leader so that people might join him. I know one thing, Obama is the only candidate in this race who can say to the American public, I killed Osama Bin Laden. I took down America’s biggest enemy. I made the country safer. That could be powerful.”

Watch Matthews’ panel debate whether President Obama can overcome political obstacles to win a second term below via NBC:

Major Garrett brought up the Gingrich’s rise to the top of the pack and suggested it was solely due to the fact that more contemporary Republicans with higher popularity numbers than Gingrich are not currently in the race. Despite whatever flaws people think Gingrich is carrying with him in the race, Garrett pointed to his accomplishments as Speaker of the House in the 90s, including the Republican revolution of 1994 and welfare reform.

Matthews analyzed Gingrich’s fight in the race as a two-front war where he has to appeal to both the center-right and the far right. Whereas the center-right will embrace him for his ideas, Matthews argued, the far right has gotten about the Gingrich train because of the passion he has shown in the past few weeks to rile up Tea Party audiences.

RELATED: Rachel Maddow: Newt Gingrich Polling Well With Tea Party Because Of His Support Among Senior Citizens

However, Republicans are still wary of Gingrich on a number of issues, as Gloria Borgerpointed out, including his past positions on an individual mandate (which Romney has received the most criticism for in the race). Borger boiled the Gingrich-Romney battle down to whether you trust Gingrich’s “new principles” or Romney’s “no principles.”

David Ignatius recalls a Newt Gingrich who angered the Republican party in the 90s because they believed he was “erratic” and not a good leader for the party. Garrett added that Gingrich only narrowly won the vote to be reelected Speaker of the House.

RELATED: SuperPACs Attack Mitt Romney’s Attacks On Newt Gingrich By Airing Attacks On Newt Gingrich

Matthews then brought up the results of a poll he conducted on the “Matthews Meter” of the shows top 12 guests, and all but one of them agreed that the Obama reelection team is hoping for Gingrich as an opponent next year over Romney because Romney can still appeal to moderates in a way that could hurt the president in the polls. Garrett predicted that as the Iowa caucuses approach, Gingrich will only widen his lead in the polls and become more disciplined when the primary season is upon us.

Watch the video below, courtesy of NBC:

Texas Gov. Rick Perry made news Saturday night with his suggestion that the US foreign aid budget start at zero every year, but it was embattled pizza magnate Herman Cain who first took a stab at moderator Major Garrett‘s question, “You have said about foreign policy, ‘America needs to be clear about who its friends are and who its foes are.’ So this evening, sir, Pakistan, friend or foe?”

Cain drew laughs from the crowd, and rival Mitt Romney, by replying, “We don’t know.”

Texas Gov. Rick Perry followed Cain by suggesting that all foreign nations (including Israel) come to the US, hat in hand, to sing for their foreign aid supper every year. “The foreign aid budget in my administration for every country is gonna start at zero dollars,” Perry said. “Zero dollars. And then we’ll have a conversation. Then we’ll have a conversation in this country about whether or not a penny of our taxpayer dollar needs to go into those countries.”

Surging former House Speaker Newt Gingrich agreed with Perry, saying “what he (Perry) said made absolutely perfect sense.”

This is where an experienced political journalist like Major Garrett comes in handy, because he seemed to intuit that this question would be a good one for Rep. Bachmann. Garrett seemed to know that, despite the temptation to throw red meat, Bachmann’s experience in Congress might bleed through into a reasonable answer.

He asked her if she agreed with Perry on foreign aid to Pakistan, and for her assessment of the intelligence situation in Pakistan. Like a mere mortal suddenly given the gift of tongues, the woman who claimed that the HPV vaccine can give you mental retardation delivered a succinct, searing rebuttal to Perry.

“Pakistan is a very difficult area,” Bachmann stated,  ”I would not agree with that assessment to pull all foreign aid from Pakistan…because Pakistan has a nuclear weapon. We have more– people affiliated with Al Qaeda closer to that nuclear bomb than in any nation. This is an extremely important issue.”

Her nonsensical Israel-baiting aside, Bachmann casually nailed it on Pakistan, as did fellow second-tier candidate and reliable red-meat-vendor Rick Santorum, who served Perry, Cain, and Gingrich like a Denny’s Grand Slam breakfast. “I disagree with a lot of what was said up here,” Santorum said. “Pakistan must be a friend of the United States, for the reason that Michele outlined. Pakistan is a nuclear power.”

Apparently referencing Cain’s response, Santorum said, “we can’t be indecisive about whether Pakistan is our friend. They must be our friend… we must engaged them as friends, get over the difficulties we have, as we did with Saudi Arabia, with respect to the events of 9/11.The terrorists came from Saudi Arabia. And we said, ‘What– you know what? It’s important for us to maintain that relationship, in spite of those difficulties.’”

Santorum also scored some sanity points elsewhere in the debate.  On the subject of Iran, Newt Gingrich called for “maximum covert operations– to block and disrupt the Iranian program– including– taking out their scientists, including breaking up their systems. All of it covertly, all of it deniable.”

He sounded a lot like a guy complaining that he couldn’t see the participants at the Ninja Parade (that’s the point: you’re not supposed to see them, they’re ninjas). Later in the debate, Santorum demonstrated a grasp of this fact, saying, “there have been scientists turning up dead in Russia and in Iran. There have been computer viruses. There have been problems at their facility. I hope that the United States has been involved with that. I hope that we have been doing everything we can covertly to make sure that that program doesn’t proceed forward.”

Setting aside his distasteful (to put it mildly) positions on social issues, Santorum has consistently made the most of his brief exposure at the debates (perhaps because they have largely eschewed social issues).

Bachmann’s and Santorum’s responses fit into a larger observation of this debate, and the Republican field. The people who make the most sense on foreign policy (that’s a relative term) are those who actually have some experience at it. Bachmann, Ron Paul, and Santorum are all current or recent members of Congress, and Jon Huntsman was the US Ambassador to China.

Cain, Perry, and Romney barely have the foreign policy chops to eat a continental breakfast, and Gingrich is as far removed from his time in Congress as he is from wearing parachute pants. That bright line shows in the way the candidates answered this question.

Here’s the Pakistan portion of the debate, from CBS News:

In a Friday morning column, Gail Collins expressed glee at the looming GOP debate (which occurred Saturday night), and took a shot of mockery at Gingrich’s claim that his advice was not at all lobbying or an attempt to influence congress. Collins wrote:

Newt, on the other hand, is always good in debates if you like extremely pompous people who appear to be practically levitating with their own sense of personal wonderfulness. During the last outing, Gingrich’s most fascinating moment came when he explained why the mortgage lender Freddie Mac paid him $300,000 in 2006. First of all, it had nothing whatsoever to do with lobbying, or attempting to influence the Republicans who happened to control Congress at a time when there was talk of clamping down on the way Freddie operated. Just put that out of your mind.

Scarborough appeared to agree with Collins’ ridiculous assessment of Gingrich claims, though former RNC chair Michael Steele quickly pointed out that maybe Newt’s assertion isn’t that far off the mark; claiming that the former GOP House Speaker was paid to advise Freddie Mac and they ignored his advice.

Guest panelist Major Garrett made the most salient and reasonable point about this whole sordid mess, reminding fellow panelists and viewers alike that using the housing crisis as a political football is a disingenuous game in which no one wins. He appropriately assigned bipartisan blame by saying:

Folks, remember what you wish for and you ask for bipartisan consensus. Sometimes it’s ruinous, and there was a bipartisan consensus, home ownership was not only the definition of the American dream, but long-running economic vitality. We created a bubble in this country. It’s not just the community investment act, it’s the end of Glass-Steaggall. The securitization and monetization of mortgages that brought us to where we are now.

Kudos to Garrett for correctly proclaiming that the credit default swap mess is neither a GOP nor Democratic problem, and to point fingers simply at George W. Bush, Barney Frank or Newt Gingrich misses the mark.

Watch the clip embedded below, courtesy of MSNBC:

Garrett believed whoever becomes the Republican nominee will have to show they are confident and trustworthy, but pointed out that whatever connection the candidates have will have come through “the false intimacy of television.”

That’s the falsity of all this. You watch somebody over and over, you feel you know them. You don’t know them. You are not intimate with the President of the United States. But because television creates a false intimacy, if you can convey that level of trust, you can win.

There is no doubt that how a candidate appears on television influences how the voters see them. Garrett cited 1960 as the first year television debates started to matter to American voters. John F. Kennedy, who Matthews recently published a book about, famously came out looking better than Richard Nixon. Conventional wisdom at the time was if you heard the debate on the radio, Nixon won, but if you saw the debate, and how sweaty Nixon looked, you thought Kennedy came out looking better. You could argue that this was John McCain‘s problem in 2008, coming across as a grumpy old man in contrast to a cool, collected Barack Obama.

At the end of the segment, Matthews noted how candidates have been caught in embarrassing open-mic moments since the days of Nixon. He played a clip of Rick Perry saying, “Adios, mo-fo.” For viewers who don’t know what that means, Matthews recommended they check out Urban Dictionary.

Watch the video below, courtesy of NBC:

Moderator Major Garrett began by asking (co?)frontrunner Herman Cain for his stance on torture. After a long pause, Cain responded, “I do not agree with torture, period. However, I will trust the judgment of our military leaders to determine what is torture, and what is not torture.”

Garrett followed up by asking Cain if he believed that waterboarding is torture, or simply an “enhanced interrogation technique.”

“I agree that it was an enhanced interrogation technique,” Cain replied, to a mixture of laughter and light applause. “I would return to that policy, I don’t see it as torture, I see it as an enhanced interrogation technique.”

Rep. Michele Bachmann then weighed in, saying that as president, she would be willing to use waterboarding, to rousing applause, but also the odd jeer. She went on to claim that President Obama is “losing the War On Terror,” despite the President’s soaring terrorist body count.

Major Garrett, citing his “Spidey sense,” then tossed the question to Rep. Ron Paul, who received loud applause for saying that “waterboarding is torture,” and noting that “it’s illegal under international law, and our law. It’s also immoral.”

Even former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman got a loud cheer for saying that he opposes torture.

The explanation for this seeming schism in audience reaction to torture is likely contained in the debate intro. Congressman Paul is known for having an extremely loyal, intense following, and they were vocal during his introduction tonight. The applause for opposition to torture was loud, but localized, as an audience reaction shot shows.

Here’s the clip, from CBS:

Both Gingrich and Romney were surprisingly relaxed in their reactions to the protests. Romney insisted he cares more about creating a strong middle class than he does about the 1%. Matthews pointed to a Time Magazine poll showing that twice as many Americans have a favorable view of the Occupy Wall Street protests as view the Tea Party favorably.

RELATED: George Will: Occupy Wall Street’s ‘Plank’ Of Debt Repudiation ‘About To Go Mainstream’

Katty Kay admitted she was surprised by how long it took Americans to eventually come out to protest in light of how dire the economic situation has been for a while and given the ever-widening gap in income inequality. Joe Klein pointed out that even if Republicans like Gingrich may regard some of the protestors with disdain, the issues the Occupy Wall Street protestors are bringing up are ones that most Americans, even Tea Partiers, agree need to be addressed.

Major Garrett examined how President Obama has been dealing with the protests, and noted how much more “resonant” the president has been in fighting back against Republicans and arguing for the jobs bill he sent to Congress. Matthews and Garrett both noted that Republicans being perceived as “obstructionists” has damaged them in national polls. To that point, Klein pointed out that many of the proposals in the president’s jobs bill are provisions that Republicans have generally supported in the past, like tax cuts and infrastructure.

RELATED: Ann Coulter To Hannity: People Should Look At Wall Street Protesters With ‘Hilarity And Revulsion’

However, regarding the Occupy Wall Street protests, Klein pointed out that in all likelihood President Obama doesn’t even agree with a lot of what they’re saying. Nia-Malika Henderson stated that as long as the protests remain substantive and don’t turn into some kind of “hippie commune” or something, they should continue to get widespread public support. Garrett predicted the protestors wouldn’t go away until they see some indication that the economy is beginning to turn around.

Watch the video below, courtesy of NBC News:

The decor of Kelly’s Fox News office reveals an extremely organized, yet busy, individual. Perfectly hung picture frames purchased fresh from West Elm hang in precise symmetry throughout the office, though nearly all the frames are empty. The down-to-earth news host laughs off the empty frames, sharing her plans to cover her office with the faces of her kids, and revealing a larger challenge for any working mother: balancing the needs of playing an active and nurturing role in her children’s lives, while still pursuing an active career path.

While any television personality gets paid to come across in a “certain way,” it’s clear in her mien that Kelly isn’t in this business for the fame, fortune, or influence. She’s a whip-smart lawyer who doesn’t need a flack to parse her words for her. In that respect, she is a very tough interview – she seemed to recognize the subtext of every question that was coming – almost as though she spent roughly two hours a day on live television honing this very craft.

Mediaite: Let’s talk about your reception coming back. It seems as though a lot of people are happy to see you back on air. Can you just speak broadly about the reception you’ve received on Fox News, and perhaps elsewhere?

Megyn Kelly: It’s been very gratifying. It does have a feeling of family around here. It feels like I’m seeing family members who I haven’t seen in a long time. It’s been really warm, and the viewers have been incredible. Everyone had good wishes, they remembered my children’s names, and they’re so kind because they’ll write in e-mails like “We’re so glad to have you back, but the women who filled in for you did a great job too,” and I appreciate that, because those are my colleagues who I like and respect too. It just seems like they’re welcoming me back with open arms, but not to disparage anyone else who was there while I was gone.

On Fox News: “If people don’t watch Fox News, then it’s just a caricature… I think some people really can’t stand, for example, Sean Hannity. But if you met Sean Hannity, no matter how far to the left you are, you’d probably love him.”

Mediaite: The Mike Gallagher interview in which you called him out for some less than supportive comments he made about maternity leave was good TV. It seemed to be somewhat light-hearted, but you didn’t necessarily let him off the hook.

Kelly: I did not hear his remarks when I was on maternity leave because I was very unplugged. But then I gave an interview to Marie Claire, and the woman who interviewed me raised it with me. And I told her the truth. I thought it was a boneheaded thing to say. Then I saw the actual transcript of what he said, and I said, “I can’t believe that he would say this.” I know Mike Gallagher, he comes on my show regularly, what could he possibly have been thinking? And then I learned when he came on the show he was thinking I would never hear it. But to his credit, he knew I was going to ask him about it, and he came on and was a good sport anyway.

It was an opportunity to talk about an issue that actually is important to me. And he was fine with that. Some people feel the way he feels, and so it gave us a moment to discuss something that gets almost no coverage.

Mediaite: Marie Claire published a feature on you in which you reveal a nice story of how Roger Ailes which got some attention unto itself.

Kelly: I was actually amused that the takeaway was “Roger Ailes did a good deed!” I mean, his generosity to both people inside and outside the company is legendary. I guess because it’s rarely reported, it caught people by surprise.

Mediaite: Is there a disconnect between your personal experience at Fox News and the way you often see it portrayed in the media?

Kelly: I think people have an idea of what Fox News is. If people don’t watch Fox News, then it’s just a caricature, it’s not real, they have it in their heads that it’s something very different than what it actually is. I think to some extent the executives here have that same issue, and so does some of the on-air talent. I think some people really can’t stand, for example, Sean Hannity. But if you met Sean Hannity, no matter how far to the left you are, you’d probably love him. He’s a very super-nice guy, he always has time for everybody. Some people don’t like Geraldo because of his stance on illegal immigration or whatever. He is the most beloved man in New York City. You walk through the streets with that man, no one has the popularity Geraldo Rivera has. So I see that because I work with these guys every day, whether they’re executives or anchors, and I see it at a larger extent with respect to the channel.

>>>>NEXT – Megyn Kelly discusses getting mocked by Jon Stewart, her view on entitlements and maternity leave and how media obsess over the news.<<<<

What is new, though, is the rapidity with which Henry seems to have put those concerns to rest. On Friday, Media Matters ran a quick item praising Henry for pointing out that the Bush administration had contributed significantly to the current national debt:

I think Ed said it best when I interviewed him last year (he even name-checked Media Matters):

I always have struggled with the notion that there’s one media bias that defines the “media”.  It’s mostly been charged the entire media is liberal.  In recent years a lot of liberal folks like Media Matters, when I was covering the Bush Administration, felt like it was the opposite, that the press was way too soft on President Bush, didn’t ask enough questions before the war in Iraq.  Bottom line for me is, I think it’s in the eye of the beholder.  Depending on who’s in the White House, the other side is gonna say that the media is not being tough enough.  You’re not being tough enough on Obama now, you were much tougher on Bush.  That gets back to the previous answer: If we are tough and fair to both sides, let the chips fall where they may.  People are going to accuse individuals with bias, and they are going to be biased individuals, but to say the entire media is liberal or conservative is hogwash.  You do your own job, be as fair and tough, down-the-middle as possible, and let the chips fall where they may.  Let people make their judgments.

Hogwash, I say!

Ed Henry is the same guy now that he was before Fox News hired him, and the notion that he’s suddenly changed into a frothing wingnut is comical. It’s been the subject of some needling in the briefing room, but Ed, for his part, has taken the whole thing in stride, and his relationship with Jay Carney hasn’t suffered in the wake of their dust-up over the debt ceiling. Perhaps Media Matters‘ seal of grudging approval will put the whole thing to bed.

Take a look at our gallery and let us know: Do you agree with our choices? Vehemently disagree? Have you sworn to ever read anything debt-related ever again? And who would you have added or removed from our lists?

Winner: Chis Jansing (1 of 14)

Next ►

Chris Jansing earns high marks for hosting live coverage on MSNBC for five hours Sunday night, offering an real-time, in-depth look at the unfolding discussions.

Garrett and Jansing also discussed the Howard Beale-esque surge of phone calls and Congressional website-crashing traffic in the wake of the President’s speech, and Major made an observation that is likely at the heart of all of this mad-as-Hellness. “Typically, politicians feel they are sort of at the mercy of economic trendlines…But this is quite clearly a confrontation that is now causing economic harm, and we don’t know the magnitude, ultimately, of that harm, but this is a rare instance where politicians are creating an economic consequence, not the other way around.”

Much of the political wrangling around this issue centers around pinning the blame for the confrontation on House Republicans, but as Garrett also observed, many Americans simply want an end to it.

Here’s the clip, from MSNBC’s Jansing & Co.:

Update: Since this segment aired, the Obama administration has indicated that it would veto the Boehner plan: (via email from The White House)

The Administration strongly opposes House passage of the amendment in the nature of a substitute to S. 627. If S. 627 is presented to the President, the President’s senior advisors would recommend that he veto this bill.

Since we here at Mediaite are in the business of covering the media, it’s interesting to us to see how some major players in the industry are reacting to Rep. Anthony Weiner‘s scandal. On MSNBC’s The Daily Rundowm, host Chuck Todd chatted with Major Garrett and Liz Sidoti about Weinergate.

While Todd noted that Weiner has seemed “overly defensive” about the incident, Sidoti sagely pointed out that the general public is likely willing to forgive indiscretions – but cover ups? Not so much.

It was Garrett, however, who went out on a limb to say that, if Weiner doesn’t either own up or work towards finding out who out there is trying to malign his name by sending out pictures of bulging boxers from his Twitter account, people are going to go ahead and assume he did it himself:

Hacking. Prank. Distraction. No investigation. Nothing operative is happening at the FBI or Capitol Police. Every indication is that he did it. And because he won’t answer, people are going to jump to that conclusion.

And why are we all talking about this so much in the first place, especially when there are buses to chase? Todd explains:

This is what summer in D.C. is like in a non-election. There’s the serious, the speculative and there is silly and surreal. It’s going to be a wonderful 90 days. So glad the heat’s up.

Watch via MSNBC below:

h/t FishbowlDC

Matthews played a clip of Obama promising to capture bin Laden and Matthews suggested, “that’s a pretty good commercial right there, I would guess. If he can get this back in the crosshairs as an issue next year.” Garrett argued there will be a beneficial impact to Obama’s re-election campaign, but for a slightly different reason. Garrett predicted:

“Young people around the country . . . coming to the streets to celebrate. Young people who vote, and whose lives have been defined by the war on terror and all the things it has inflicted upon us, not only psychically but operationally. . . . These kids remember what it’s like to grow up with bin Laden as sort of the biggest monster in their world – he’s now gone. The war on terror feels more effectively fought under Obama than it may have to them under President Bush.”

Energizing the youth vote is what Obama did so well in 2008. Therefore if Garrett is right, and this is the start of getting them excited again, then Republican contenders for the presidency might have a tougher time than they may have originally thought.

Watch the clip from MSNBC below:

Garrett’s comments came in the context of the infamous “wall” that separates Fox News opinion media personalities and the hard news team, the latter of which he was a respected member, but Imus heard his comments as a dig, saying “that’s hurtful” in the midst of Garrett’s comments. Imus has been a big fan of Beck’s and muttered something about “not the way he wanted to see this end,” before Garrett reminded his host that Beck’s “transitioning” out of TV is about as good as it gets.

Watch the clip, courtesy of Fox Business Network (H/T Johnny Dollar):

To that end, I asked Garrett to offer his thoughts on the Tea Party, which has been flexing its muscles in the new Congress:

Given the see-saw between the grim specter of gridlock that attended the midterm elections, followed by the burst of activity in the lame duck session, the legislative prospects of the next two years are uncertain, at best. Given that political climate, I asked Major to identify some areas where he thought the President might have a decent shot at success:

For those of you who don’t yet follow Major on Twitter (and even for those who do), I thought I’d finish our interview by asking him for an illuminating personal tidbit. While he hunted around for an answer, I took advantage by thinking up more questions, like what he would have said to Robert Gibbs on his last day in the White House, and the charming story behind Major’s militaristic moniker:

So, what makes a guy say to himself, “Yeah, I wanna work much harder, for less money?” While some might be tempted to call in a team of cranial inspectors, the answer is really quite simple. He cares about journalism, and he loves what he’s doing. That should be evident form this portion of our exclusive interview, wherein he discusses his new role, and contrasts it with his old one:

For example, even though the Republican Party still lags on gay rights, there’s been a consensus among influential conservatives, for years, that marriage equality and the repeal of DADT are/were inevitable, and no big deal. Turn off the cameras, and they’ll tell you that the only obstacle to sensible gun control laws is the NRA-concocted specter of a slippery slope.

This year, the big surprise was the degree to which conservatives support Obama’s handling of terrorism. I’m not talking about grudging respect here, but actual, full-throated praise, made all the more surprising by the movement’s consistent effort to portray the President as weak.

In this section of our exclusive interview, I shared my observation with Major Garrett, and asked him how the issue of terrorism might play out in the 2012 campaign:

Early in the interview, I asked Major about the current fight over the budget, and to assess the playing field for the 2012 Presidential election. He avoided the expansive tundra that is the Republican field, instead delivering the Wonk’s Guide to 2012. This is consistent with his status as a longtime DC journalist, where people know that the chess pieces change all the time, but you gotta pay attention to the board:

While the entire Republican field is probably too large and unfocused at this point, I had to ask Major about the 800lb Mama Grizzly in the 2012 room, Sarah Palin. True to form, Major hit on a point that eludes many other Palin-watchers, pro and con:

In this section of our interview, I asked Major to share his insights regarding one of the bigger media stories of the year, the departure of Keith Olbermann from MSNBC, his arrival at Current TV, and chances of success there:

So, before you try to shake off that Cold Duck and Four Loko hangover, and blearily search for a gym membership you can get out of when you get tired of it after 3 sessions, why not check out our list of New Year’s Resolutions for Everyone Else?

Chris Christie: Cancel the living shit out of my vacation.

Corey Booker: Buy the rights to “Mr. Plow” jingle from Homer Simpson.

Time Magazine: Check into this “MySpace” phenomenon. Person of the Year=Tom?

Barack Obama: F**k it, I’m getting a Birth Certificate tattoo.

Andrew Breitbart: Launch “BigBig.com,” website devoted entirely to fave Tom Hanks movie. Launch with James O’Keefe hidden-cam investigation of FAO Schwarz.

Katy Perry: Finally introduce Elmo to my parents.

Michael Vick: Ask Tucker Carlson why he’s doggin’ me. What, too soon?

Conan O’Brien: Find out what channel my show is on.

Major Garrett: Leave National Journal to become a “Newsie.”

Major Garrett: Change first name to “Private,” and last name to “Dancer.”

Bill Clinton: Make sure I block the exits to the White house briefing room.

Hillary Clinton: Save it for 2012, Hill, save it for 2012!

Michelle Obama: Get Lady Gaga to make her next dress from the White House vegetable patch.

Michelle Obama: Stop sending Sarah Palin the Vegan Cookbook of the Month. It just seems to piss her off.

Sarah Palin: Pretend I knew all along that “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” didn’t literally mean that I owned Alaska.

Sarah Palin: Double-check with lawyers that I don’t actually own Alaska.

Dave Weigel: Finally make enough money to quit side-job as Charlie Sheen paparazzi decoy.

Christine O’Donnell: Pitch Gingrich campaign on “Aye of Newt” bumper stickers.

Carl Palladino: Let people see the tears.

Jake Tapper: See if I can get people to start calling me “Jake Twitter.” Because I’m on Twitter a lot.

Robert Gibbs: Will pay special attention to the 4th and 5th rows this year.

John Boehner: This year, I will…oh look, that ball (sniff), it fell so far…so (voice cracks) fast…I’m ok. Wow, Kathy Griffin‘s hair looks like my face.

Rick Sanchez: Ad-lib a New Year’s Resolution.

Kanye West: Sue the direction “West.” Because I can.

David Shuster: Bring back obscure Goldmember tagline “Let the Shusting begin!”

John McCain: Welcome any and all comers to my lawn.

John McCain: Teach Learning Annex course on how to “Dag-Nab” a variety of things.

Joe Scarborough: Change my first name to “Wood.” Cialis sponsorship, here I come!

Demon Sheep: Finish the “I am not a demon, I am you” ad. Eat only high-fiber, low carb souls.

Sharron Angle: Form exploratory committee to run for President of Asia.

Glenn Beck: Continue preparations for arrival of the Mothership.

Keith Olbermann: Figure out how I can trademark the word “Sir.” Also, write Special Comment about people with honorary knighthoods. Lol.

Rachel Maddow: Have my producer bleep me when I say “bull-pucky.” Too cute by half.

Tony Hayward: Make spec ad for “Life” cereal. “I want my Life back!” Lol.

Tommy Christopher: Fall off of something tall, and live-tweet it. Survive.

Gibbs’ answer, while reasonable, didn’t address a central issue: will the President switch from carrot to stick at some point, and when? I took another run at this at Wednesday’s off-camera press gaggle.

Transcript:

MR. GIBBS:  Tommy, do you have one follow-up from yesterday?  And then I’ll –

Tommy Christopher: Yes, I hate to follow that, but I wanted to ask you about Leader McConnell’s comments.  I understand the necessity or the desire to allow the Republicans a window of time in which to realize that they have to roll up their sleeves and work together.  I think what I wanted to ask you yesterday is how long a window is that going to be?  And what’s the plan, what’s the strategy, if that window expires and they’re still not working –

MR. GIBBS:  Well, look, Tommy, I don’t know how long that window is.  I don’t know –

Tommy Christopher:  Shorter than it was the last two years?

MR. GIBBS:  Look, I will reiterate what I said yesterday and what I’ve said even before Senator McConnell made what I thought was his unfortunate comment, and that is, regardless of the outcome of Tuesday’s election, the American people are going to want Congress and the White House and the two political parties to be able to sit down in the same room, talk coherently about the issues that face the American people, and work constructively to solve them.

Look, if anybody takes a different message from this election, I think they will find themselves on the wrong end of voters two years from now, as well as when they take actions that are different than working together on these issues.  I know it’s the President’s hope — you heard him enunciate in that interview — that we can work together to solve our problems; that we can work together to put our economy on an even stronger footing; and that we can work together to improve our educational system and to improve our foreign policy.  All of those things the President wanted to do in running for President and hopes to do even — hoped to do here and certainly hopes to do after the election.

Gibbs is right about the message of this election, but only partially. There’s also a message in that enthusiasm gap that everyone’s talking about. All those voters who are staying home aren’t doing so because they’ve loved waiting two years for Republicans to work with the President.

McConnell’s statement, that the “single most important thing” is not jobs, or even tax cuts, but defeating President Obama, indicates that no such realization is forthcoming. As they have demonstrated these past two years, the Republicans are even willing to obstruct their own ideas in order to deny the President any political victory, so what hope is there that an even more powerful Republican minority (or majority?) will deign to do anything for the next two years?

David Corn, Bill Press, and I pressed Gibbs about this, and his responses only made sense as an opening bid to shame McConnell and company into “rolling up their sleeves.”

Gibbs isn’t naive enough to think that, after making gains in both houses of congress, Republicans will simply drop the politics. He telegraphs as much when he tells Bill Press that he “simply took Mitch McConnell at his word.” He’s giving the Republicans a chance to fold their bluff, even if he knows they won’t.

Hoping that the Republicans will come around is all well and good, but if they won’t put down the Slurpee and roll up their sleeves, will President Obama roll up a newspaper? Or will we spend the next two years stuck in the political mud?

Of course, Garrett on Morning Joe is the headline – and he spent the first eight minutes talking about Fox News’ Juan Williams, offering a unique perspective.

The former Fox Newser Garrett was introduced by Joe Scarborough, who said “for a lot of leftists, you’re going to always be the guy that worked at Fox.”

Garrett described the ways he used to work to combat that, and also spoke about conversations he had with Williams. “NPR was increasingly unhappy with it because it was getting blowback with some of its listeners,” he said of Williams’ role on FNC.

Then, there was this insight, which will be a Nikki Finke “Toldja” moment for left-wing blogs:

For a certain amount of marketing points of view, Fox actually wants to keep that polarization. They can say look, we’re different. We’re dramatically different, you can see how we’re different. And if you like that difference you better come over here and you better stay here. That is an embedded part of the marketing that surrounds what happens in the news division at Fox.

It’s a surprising statement, but not necessarily as damning as it sounds. It’s no secret that Fox News sees itself as different – an alternative. Only they see it as being “fair and balanced.” Even Garrett’s argument was in the context of NPR being part of the very same polarization.

Mark Halperin asked Garrett how much FNC is going to use this to its advantage. “I don’t think it’s any coincidence that the day it happened, he got a huge contract at Fox,” said Garrett. “Fox planted a flag in the ground saying, ‘he’s ours.’” Also: “That is an embedded part of Roger Ailes‘ DNA.”

Garrett teased his appearance on Twitter last night. Since his FNC exit a couple months ago, he has appeared on several networks, including Fox News and MSNBC. But this appearance feels like a departure from his original plan, which he told us was not “to be a reporter who goes on cable to talk about anything that I haven’t reported on specifically.”

Here’s Garrett’s segment, including the discussion about the new National Journal (and a joke about Bill O’Reilly):

—–
» Follow Steve Krakauer on Twitter

Tonight on Hardball, Garrett and host Chris Matthews chatted about a new poll out from Pew Research and National Journal where the former FNCer now calls home. Lest anyone reads too much into this potentially “scandalous” appearance, just earlier this week Garrett also appeared with Don Imus on Fox Business Network.

Megyn Kelly

Garrett announced a few weeks ago that he was leaving the network to work in for the National Journal, returning him to the print world where he began his career. Today, he and Kelly went down memory lane for a segment to talk about the time they shared an office and, Kelly, blushing, discovered a mess of gym clothes and Maxim magazines sprawled around the desk. On her first day! But Garrett later won her over with phrases like “rapacious plutocrat,” and fast forwarding to Garrett’s last day, Kelly seemed genuinely upset to have to say goodbye. As for Garrett, he said his thank yous and addressed his audience directly about his future:

“It’s been a privilege and an honor to serve you, and what I’ve tried to do every day at this job and on every other assignment I’ve had for Fox is serve this audience as best I can and as aggressively as I can. And that’s my only task in this business: to serve the audience that wants to know what’s happening in the world around them, and allow you to figure it out for yourself. I’m paid to do that, it’s the greatest job anyone can have. I’ll do it differently now, but I’ll never, ever forget– and I’ll always fondly remember– my days here.”

Garrett’s goodbye with Megyn Kelly via Fox News:

In an exit interview of sorts on Twitter last night, Garrett addressed many outstanding issues that have been raised by his followers.

Armed with only 140 characters, the Q&A stayed brief. But there were a couple topics that Garrett hadn’t yet addressed. One of the major points of interest is the seat Garrett is giving up – the front row briefing room chair Fox News just landed. Someone asked why he’s leaving the new seat. “Coincidental opportunity,” he wrote. “Timing just fell this way. At WH, it’s what you ask, not where you sit…I’m happy Fox has new seat. I never personalized it. It is the network’s seat, not mine. Reflects dedication to beat over the years.”

Also, while FNC announced Wendell Goler and Mike Emanuel will split the White House duties in Garrett’s absence, it sounds like it is just a temporary solution. Garrett wrote, “My replacement hasn’t been named.”

Other notes: Garrett won’t be writing any opinion pieces for National Journal, he’ll miss the “intensity of TV deadlines, immediacy of medium” and he will not be writing a book about his time at Fox News (although, he writes he would “love to” write another book. “Hear that PUBLISHERS?!?!”).

Garrett also did his final “Ask Major” video for FoxNews.com last week. Here it is:

—–
» Follow Steve Krakauer on Twitter

Ron Fournier, Editor-in-Chief of National Journal Group (formerly of AP)

Josh Kraushaar, Executive Editor of The Hotline (formerly of Politico)

Jeremy Jacobs, Editor of Hotline On Call (formerly of Campaigns & Elections)

Coral Davenport, Energy & Environment Correspondent (formerly of Politico)

Yochi Dreazen, Sr. Correspondent for Military Affairs & National Security (formerly of WSJ)

Matt Dobias, Health Care Correspondent (formerly of Modern Health Care)

Susan Davis, Congressional Correspondent (formerly of WSJ)

Fawn Johnson, General Assignment Correspondent (formerly of Dow Jones Newswire/WSJ)

Marc Ambinder, White House Correspondent (formerly of The Atlantic)

Aamer Madhani, White House Correspondent (formerly of USA Today)

Matthew Dowd, Columnist & Strategic Advisor (joining as a contributor)

Tim Alberta, Editor of Hotline Last Call (formerly of Politico)

Jim Tankersley, Economic Correspondent (formerly of the Tribune Washington Bureau)

Major Garrett, Congressional Correspondent (formerly of Fox News Channel)

Matthew Cooper, Managing Editor (formerly a senior adviser to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, who has worked for Newsweek, US News & World Report, TIME, and The Atlantic)

The hires of Cooper and Garrett were just announced this week, an impressive culmination to the past two weeks of star-studded hires. The rapid hiring — and poaching — spree of some of Washington’s best journalist talent has caught many by surprise over the past couple of weeks.  The hires of Fournier, Cooper, and Garrett in particular have turned many heads in Washington, as they are some of DC’s most experienced reporters, and their acquisition by National Journal has certainly shaken up the political media landscape. Garrett had recently acquired, amidst much controversy, a front row seat in the White House briefing room, so his departure from Fox came as a particular surprise.

National Journal is slated for a re-launch in October, but few details have been divulged about the actual changes the three publications will undergo. Official releases simply say that NJG is “undergoing a transformation that will build upon its reputation for intelligence and depth, infusing it with currency and speed.”

National Journal spokesperson Taylor West told Mediaite that at least two of the major changes planned for the relaunch include unifying the staff of the three publications in one newsroom, and a relaunch of the National Journal website with the three publications united and branded together under one main website. Currently National Journal, Congress Daily, and The Hotline operate three separate websites, and the re-launch plans include unifying the three under one main website.

At present, National Journal and its sister publications are heavily read by Beltway audiences but historically have not focused on audiences beyond DC. Much of the NJ site’s online content is accessible only to subscribers behind a paywall. West confirmed that among the plans for the re-launch includes efforts to increase free content, and also to diversify content offerings behind the paywall.  West also confirmed that National Journal will be targeting a broader, more national audience with their new website, and that they will increase free, non-subscriber content options will in order to capture this audience.

In May, National Journal Group owner David Bradley told the New York Observer that he was aiming to compete with Politico, and that he planned to increase the amount of content available in front of the paywall. “For the first time, we’re going to compete in front of the wall,” said Bradley in May. And when explaining how the new National Journal would differ from Politico, he said: “They are going to be at the more racy, tabloid end of the spectrum,” said Mr. Bradley. “That seems to be the position they have chosen. I think we’ll be more of the authoritative end.”

However, West stressed that National Journal Group is not necessarily striving to compete with Politico. “We’re in a slightly different space: they’re good at what they do, and we plan on continuing to be very good at what we do. Our re-launch is less about direct contrast with them and more about changing with the way that people are consuming their news and… With the team we’re putting together, we’re going to have the ability to provide better analysis and insight for those who want to see what’s coming around the corner and what’s next in Washington,” West told us in a phone call.

National Journal, The Hotline, and Congress Daily have been some of Washington’s most reliable publications for years. The acquisition of so much new talent and the upcoming relaunch certainly has many of their competitors wondering: what else does National Journal have planned? It seems that with its brand new team and brand new planned website, National Journal is clearly aiming to shake up the political media field — and appear to be positioning themselves to become a new leader in national political news.

We talked to Garrett today about the reason for his decision, what impact the White House vs. Fox News battle had, what his new Twitter handle will be and more.

Mediaite: National Journal has been going through some major revamping with new hires coming in. What was it that appealed to you specifically with this opportunity?

Garrett: Anyone who has worked nearby or competed against Ron Fournier knows he is one of the most tenacious, intelligent reporters in Washington. I’ve been a huge fan of Ron Brownstein since he was at U.S. News And World Report. You put those two Rons together, you already have a phenomenal team. The team they’re building there is just, for me personally, almost too good to be true. That they would want to find a place for me, a TV guy, to come back to print after eight years, that’s a big thing. It’s a happy coincidence that things converged, and I’m very much looking forward to the next thing.

Mediaite: You’ll be leaving the White House briefing room as well, to cover Congress. How do you feel about switching beats?

Garrett: Great. I started in Washington covering Congress first, and learned the ins and outs of the legislative process, how Congress interacts with Presidents. I’ll maintain all my contacts at the Obama White House, which makes me a more effective congressional reporter.

Mediaite: You tweeted you’ll be writing about national politics as well. What does that mean? Is that different than reporting, or am I reading too much into it?

Garrett: There’s a lot of bandwidth at National Journal. They have, and will continue to burnish, a reputation as a place where long form writing exists and is important. I have every reason to believe that they want a lot of reporters chasing interesting stories in a long form nature. I’ll have a chance once in awhile to be the lead writer, or one of the writers, on pieces. I expect to travel during the midterms, and tell stories not just on individual races but the arc of American politics. I’m not the only one who will do it, but I may sometimes be a small voice and it will be something I’ll have the chance to do.

>>> NEXT PAGE: The WH vs. Fox News drama, coming back to TV, changing his Twitter handle.