RELATED: Joe Scarborough Slams Birth Control Mandate: The Catholic Church Is Being Attacked By Far Left

Former RNC chairman Michael Steele agreed, adding that the White House made “a political calculation” in creating a discussion that is “more about the health of women and more about those broader subjects as opposed to the very difficult angle on the relationship between the government and church.” Steele framed the words “health of women” as a sort of parenthetical, which fellow panelist Sam Stein did not appreciate.

“Let’s not put the health of women in boxes or quotes like that,” said Stein. “That’s not an insignificant consideration.”

Scarbrough was not having it.

“Don’t suggest you’re the only one who gives a damn about the health of women around this table,” he told Stein.

Check it out, via MSNBC:

The conversation addressed the incongruity of the Republican party embracing a certain level of liberty and of keeping the government out of people’s private lives, yet at the same time declaring that love between same-sex couples is somehow “not real” and must be declared as such by the government. Former RNC chairman Michael Steele, for one, believes laws concerning gay marriage should be discussed and decided at a local level.

Panelist John Heilemann then asked Steele what he thought about the fact that, at one point, local standards held that it was unacceptable for black men to marry white women. Steele rejected the comparison:

RELATED: Lt. Dan Choi Weighs In On Consequences For Soldier Who Spoke Out At Ron Paul Rally

First off, let’s just be very clear about a couple of things. There are a significant number of African Americans — myself included — who do not appreciate that particular equation. Ok? Because, when you walk into a room, I don’t know if you’re gay or not. But when I walk into a room, you know I’m black. And whatever racial feelings you have about African Americans, about black people, that is something that, it viscerally comes out. I don’t know until later on, maybe you tell me or some other way, so don’t sit there and make that comparison. It’s not the same.

Heilemann stuck by his comparison, noting that being gay — just like being black or being white or straight — is an immutable characteristic. “You can’t change who you love, you can’t change what color you are,” he said.

Have a look at their discussion, via MSNBC:

Host Mika Brzezinski asked Steele to weigh in on a Washington Post op-ed piece that characterized the nation’s super-rich as “political props.” “For starters,” reads the article, “don’t pretend, as Obama does, that taxing the ultra-rich would solve the deficit problem.” It goes on to ask readers to recognize that “anti-wealthy populist rhetoric” distracts from serious issues.

Joe Scarborough, for one, absolutely believes this sort of rhetoric is a form of pandering.

RELATED: George Will On Gingrich: ‘Time Is Not [His] Friend,’ He Is Acting ‘Horrid’

“Michael Steele,” said Brzezinski, turning things over, “just like a Republican, Joe is saying that the President is saying that’s the only way to solve the problem. And it’s not. It’s one of the things he wants’ to do.”

“The problem is,” said Steele, “and this goes to the point that Joe and a lot of others have been making, and myself included over the last six or seven months, this is the cornerstone of the President’s argument, this is the class warfare argument emerging in the numbers.” He later characterized the focus on taxing the wealthiest Americans to solve economic problems as a “straw dog argument.”

Have a look, via MSNBC:

Watch a young woman in a Yankees jersey editorialize on Michael Steele‘s repeated “class warfare” comments below, courtesy of MSNBC:

UPDATE: She yawns a second time an hour later!

UPDATE #2: And a third… During Dan Rather’s panel turn:

UPDATE #3: And fourth!

(Ed Note: The original headline in this post was changed from ‘Girl In Morning Joe Audience Lets Out Massive Yawn During Mitt Romney Panel’ after we discovered more yawns)

RELATED: Political Bombshell? Slate Reports That Jon Huntsman Doesn’t Really Know Mandarin

A visibly perturbed Mika Brzezinski immediately intervened. “Oh, stop it!” she pleaded.

Politico’s Tim Mak notes that Huntsman himself made a similar Chinese food joke on the Colbert Report.

Joe Scarborough had earlier compared Huntsman’s use of Mandarin to Mitt Romney’s gaffe saying he liked to fire people. “You don’t speak Mandarin during a Republican debate!”

Watch Michael Steele’s Chinese Food joke below via MSNBC:

(h/t Politico)

“Where is it?” Steele asked. “Twenty-five percent does not momentum make.”

RELATED: Morning Joe Crew: Does GOP Have No Alternative But Mitt Romney?

Wagner persisted, asking if Republicans were starting to step into line in supporting Romney.

WAGNER: But there is some thinking that, at some point, conservatives have to rally around this guy. We know that Politico –

STEELE: Why? Why?

WAGNER: Because–

STEELE: Why can’t conservatives just make up their own mind? Why do they have to sit and wait for you or me or Karl Rove or anybody to tell them who they should want?

We saw in this process that the base of the party said we will do this our way in our time. We’re, they’re in no rush to do this. They want to vet these guys. There’s a serious discussion undergoing in the RNC, in the party right now.

It didn’t begin in this cycle. This goes back to 2005. It goes back to the second term of the Bush administration, about the difference between foundational principles versus Big Government Republicanism.

And their concern is that Mitt Romney is just a facade for what will be a next generation of Big Government Republicanism, so you have to appreciate that in the first instance.

Watch via MSNBC below:

(h/t Newsbusters)

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:

In the last few days, Cain been getting the sort of increased attention and scrutiny that comes with being a frontrunner: mostly negative. On the heels of the sexual harassment story (and his campaign’s mishandling of the story), the latest example for Cain’s detractors to tout was his apparent misunderstanding of China’s nuclear capability.

“Is it a bad sign if somebody who is running for President of the United States doesn’t know that China’s had nuclear weapons for almost 50 years?,” Scarborough asked, to which co-host Willie Geist cleverly replied, “A red flag for some voters, yes.”

Geist also noted, as we have, that Cain’s ignorance of foreign policy seems to be a “point of pride” for Cain, while Scarborough marveled at how nothing seems to slow down Cain’s runaway train momentum.

Former RNC chair Michael Steele, though, said “Everything has a shelf life,” and advised Cain to “step off the media stage” for awhile and brush up on these policy issues while he still has a large base of support.

What Steele says certainly sounds reasonable, but after so much of Cain’s success has defied reason, it’s hard to make the case that Cain ought to listen to him.

“It was incredible, he did really good,” co-host Mika Brzezinski enthused.

Scarborough said he wouldn’t go that far, but still complemented the former Massachusetts governor. “I wouldn’t say it was incredible, but I will say he showed some focus.”

“I think it showed competency and most of the people on that stage are not confident debaters,” explained Scarborough.

“I think he proved that,” Brzezinski added.

Former RNC chief Michael Steele also agreed with Scarborough’s glowing assessment of Romney’s debate performance.

‘”I think he showed why he has been the frontrunner for sometime,” said Steele. “He understands how this debate process works and he managed it very well. You know, I guess he figured at some point they’re going to gang up on me and he figured right last night and batted it back every time. And that’s something that will begin to resonate with folks. His numbers may not move a whole lot, but for Mitt Romney right now, that’s not the key ingredient. The key ingredient is to stay slow and steady until January 3rd.”

Watch the segment below:

As Howard Dean sees it, anyone gunning for a win in the 2012 presidential election will face the same problem: the Tea Party. “They are not playing with a full deck,” he said earlier today on Morning Joe, arguing that they make for an unpredictable voter base. “I’ve never seen this on the Republican side,” he continued. “They are usually much more disciplined.”

Mitt Romney, a likely but not loved candidate for Republican nominee, will most of all have to grapple with the Tea Party’s unreliable “Republican-ness.” Citing his “not so good” poll numbers, he argues that, despite being the best known candidate in the race and most likely to win the nomination, Romney has yet to earn considerable Republican and Democratic confidence. He calls this Romney’s “big base problem:”

If he gets the nomination, and I think the odds now are very heavily that he will, he’s got a big base problem. And usually that’s not a problem. Republicans are very disciplined, they’ll pull behind him. Actually, even the Democrats pull in behind after a fight like this. This year you’ve got the Tea Party. They are not playing with a full deck. I mean, they could go off the rails here. This is going to be really interesting. They might sit home, or vote for somebody else, or find a Libertarian, or Ron Paul might do something. Who knows.

Michael Steele, joining Dean this morning, argues that President Obama‘s economy problem (water to his fire, as he puts it) far outweighs Romney’s base problem, and that “with the base, and in terms of his positions, people are coming to settle.” Steele and Dean, however, seem to be agreeing to some extent: earlier in the show, Steele suggested that, “This is beyond who the nominee should be, this is also a lot about where the party is going to go.” Dean’s characterizations of an “off the rails” Tea Party, aside, both men seem to be acknowledging that the Tea Party will hold sway in the coming election and will need to be accounted for by prospective nominees.

Watch the full conversation below, courtesy Morning Joe:

h/t Newsbusters

While Pery’s loss is definitely Mitt Romney’s gain, he’s still the GOP’s “safety school” nominee, which, as Scarborough points out, is arguably a better thing for social conservative Rick Santorum, who polled within a few napkin-lengths of Perry, and who could make some noise in Iowa. Hell, he even beat Ron Paul, the King of the Straw Polls.

The zingers abounded, as Scarborough alternately characterized Perry’s debate performance (referencing Brit Hume’s review) as “throw(ing) up on himself,” and as “speaking about as well as a white horse.”

The net effect of Perry’s immolation is that, with or without the Chris Christie factor, large conservative donors will hesitate.

Steele also made the observation that the misgivings that many politicos had over Perry entering the race so late have come to pass, which is an excellent point. How much better would Perry have performed if he’d had a few more debates under his belt already, a more refined message in place, and a better organization?

In other years, Perry’s woes might not seem so dire, but with the ever-increasing role of the media in shaping public opinion, and even the conservative media against him, Perry faces an uphill climb. Once that fork is stuck in you, it’s hell to get out.

Here’s the clip, from MSNBC:

The reason for the segment specifically was a post by a Tea Party chairwoman on Facebook, where she made a joke about throwing the President and First Lady out of an airplane. The internet, Perry contended, “provides a certain shield of anonymity” that allows for a nastiness that was previously not indulged. Harris Perry introduced the segment with an example of how to behave with members of the opposite ideology, noting how well she has gotten along with Steele despite their differences (and showing an adorable photo of her daughter and friend with the former RNC chair).

Steele agreed with her premise, though added that “it has been going on for a while” and that, in 2006, he experienced being called a “slave” by Democratic opponents during his Senate campaign by “some how are current members of Congress.” “This has been pretty much standard fare for those of us who are black Republicans,” he argued, and condemned it as “bringing down the dialogue.” Steele also encouraged internet commenters to attack those who are bringing it down: “the more we push back against the stupidity, the better off we will be in the long term.”

Perry compared those attacks to some from the right claiming African Americans were “on a plantation” with the Democrats, and expressed her frustration once more. “It feels like we’re trying to have a conversation about standing up for community interests,” she noted, but it seems impossible to “without degrading Uncle Tom by calling him a Republican.” Steele shared in that frustration, noting that in his tenure he had often been told not to bother with people who disagreed with him, but resisted the instinct: “how do you get them to agree with you if you don’t talk to them?”

The segment via MSNBC below:

“The president is looking really good as Commander in Chief,” said Dean, pointing to the drawing down of the war in Afghanistan, the death of Osama Bin Laden and the prospective fall of Muammar Gadhafi. “Nobody’s had a foreign policy record like that” since Harry Truman he said.

“The White House feels very confident in terms of the Presidents reputation,” agreed Katty Kay, adding that “he’s been very tough on the war on terror.”

“That’s the irony,” says Steele, kicking off the debate by noting that it was exactly this sort of toughness that Bush played with. He continued:

“The interesting thing for a lot of us is to see the President take the Bush Doctrine, take a large measure of the Bush foriegn policy, even down to the personnel in many cases, and to continue to push that, given how hard he pushed against it as a candidate…. The of engagement by the candidate, by the candidate versus the president, to me, is very stark and has not been lost on a lot of folks.”

“You see, I think this is the Obama Doctorine,” Dean contended. ”When Obama was running for president, he talked about doing things in real concert with others. Being a member of the family of nations instead of being, if you will, the Texas cowboy out in front of everybody else.” Then, in step with Katty Kay, he pointed to Obama’s willingness to let the British and the French take the lead in Libya. To which Steele contends that, perhaps, you might call that “one little sliver” a doctrine, but “I would call it happenstance,” he says.

“There has been a consistency there that has yielded benefits for him,” concludes Steele, who seems to believe that Obama’s foreign policy successes have, for the most part, piggy-backed on Bush policies. Dean, meanwhile, sees success in Obama’s policy where Bush’s failed, and assumes change.

What they do agree on is that, ultimately, and so long as the campaign continues to hinge of the economy, this is a debate that won’t come up often in the next year of campaigning. “This is on the way out,” says Kay, who gets the last word. “Jobs is not on the way out.” It’s too bad they left it at that, because we can’t imagine concern over foreign policy could ever be “on the way out.”

Perry’s latest controversy are claims in his book, Fed Up, where he talks about some entitlement programs as being unconstitutional. “His campaign is saying nothing in this book about entitlements has anything to do with his real positions,” Maddow noted, asking Steele whether this is “how we should expect the Perry campaign to operate.” Steele responded that the book was nine months old, and “nine months ago in politics is a long time” in which to remember positions, which means the Perry campaign was finding a way to “finesse the answer in a way that he doesn’t come out as anti-entitlement programs.” As for the unconstitutional claims, Steele argued that he didn’t call them “unconstitutional”– “he said something about the question of its constitutionality.” Maddow didn’t buy it.

Maddow then asked Steele to evaluate the chances of various candidates, to which Steele replied generally that he believed the “field is pretty much set” and that he expected Jon Huntsman to “resonate with a significant number of Republican voters,” his test being the next debate where he must attack the candidates to their faces and not “pull a Pawlenty, where confronted with the very people he is talking about, saying ‘my bad.’” He even gave Pataki a chance, but implored to the party to wrap up letting people in the race. “Whoever is in is in, go do you thing, run,” he argued, “stop all this dog and pony nonsense about getting in the race.”

The segment via MSNBC below:

Sharpton began the discussion by asking whether Perry had “crossed the line,” which Steele immediately dismissed as “part of the dog days of summer” and “a little bit disingenuous” on the part of those on the left to be offended. He also claimed that similar things had been said about almost any candidate running for national office, which Sharpton immediately challenged, as someone who had run for national office. Steele responded with a very audible sigh, stating, “excuse me, Al, there’s a difference between being a candidate and running against a president and having an open primary or situation where there is no president to talk about. He added that calling the economy a “black cloud” was “a reasonable statement” and concluded, “you’re taking it too far, as usual.” This was all said amid loud protests from the host, until fellow panelist Shrum jumped in to decry calling “the guy who got Osama bin Laden… somehow not patriotic” and telling Steele “it’s not a joke!”

Sharpton, of course, didn’t take this sitting down, and questioned why Steele got “insulted” “when someone just questions you on whether it’s over the line,” and challenged him to explain why a former Bush-affiliated Republican had called Perry out on the remarks. After some more unintelligible shouting, Steele replied that said Republican was one of many “in a political pissing match” with the Perry camp, as the Bushes and Perry have had a longstanding feud. “There’s nothing enlightening about any of this discussion!” Steele yelled at Shrum and Sharpton, both trying to get through to him simultaneously.

Sharpton finally got the floor for a bit and reminded the audience about the Jeremiah Wright affair, arguing that Perry’s comments were “silly” but that “anything anyone that went over to [the Obamas'] house” was up for grabs. “This is a revolution to you!” Steele shouted back. The crosstalk went on straight through to Sharpton shouting over everyone that the segment had ended– we’ll leave it up to you who won the debate.

The segment via MSNBC below:

*”good” defined as memorable and entertaining, not as in “benefits humanity in any sweeping way”
**Perry’s “big black cloud” quote caused quite a stir as initially presented by MSNBC and ABC News, but as our own Tommy Christopher and others have noted, the quote appears to have been selectively edited.

Matthews discussed the tour with guests Michael Steele and Dee Dee Myers, of which only the latter seemed to think the tour was a good idea. Matthews argued that the bus tour was a good idea for a presidential candidate– or even someone of the political position of Sarah Palin, but “someone who has been President of the United States for three years? To go listen to people?” Steele agreed that “this doesn’t get him where he needs to be,” particularly because he is not presenting a plan for the economy.

“I think it would be better if he had a proposal he had to sell,” Myers countered, but added that getting out and talking to people was never bad for approval ratings as it made him approachable. Steele argued it was symptomatic of a bigger problem– “he thinks he can still convince you with a good speech… with someone like Perry getting into this race, he’s going to have to get him game on.” Both Myers and Matthews agreed on that point, particularly because the Republicans were campaigning in a way in which they didn’t quite battle each other, but were all chipping away at President Obama.

The segment via MSNBC below:

Axelrod called the Politico story “garbage,” and agreed with Steele that any Obama campaign staffer who used such an attack against Romney would be fired. For now, at least, we’re still talking about how “weird” Romney is.

Host Joe Scarborough prodded Axelrod, summarizing the piece (and joking that he thought the “skinny jeans” referenced therein were “sexy), and asked if the story was garbage. “Yes,” Axelrod replied, “I think all of it is garbage…I’m still trying to get my mind around your fascination with his jeans, but beyond that, all of it is garbage.”

In case you missed it, Politico published a piece on Tuesday that mapped out a Team Obama campaign strategy that involved painting Mitt Romney as “weird,” and lacking in character. The Romney campaign seized on a non-campaign staffer’s anonymous quote to release a response ad that showcased a sudden concern for civility. The Politico story quoted a “prominent Democratic strategist aligned with the White House” as saying that the campaign would have to “kill Romney” with attacks on his character and business record.

While that “kill Romney” quote cannot reasonably be hung on the Obama campaign, the “weirdness” quotes, while anonymously sourced, all have very strong attribution. Axelrod didn’t use the word himself, but made the observation that “When he makes jokes about being unemployed or a waitress pinching him on the butt, it does snap your head back, and you say, ‘What’s he talking about?’”

To me, this appears to be an example of good, insightful reporting on Politico’s part. It is quite possible that Team Obama didn’t intend to put such a fine point on the “weirdness” thing, as evidenced by the fact that the on-the-record quotes deal more with the contradictions in Romney’s record and rhetoric. But by interviewing “about a dozen” Obama advisers, Jonathan Martin and Ben Smith were able to distill something that broke through the spoon-feeding.

This is a prime example of the tension between messaging and truth. The Obama campaign wants you to know that Romney is weird, but they don’t necessarily want you to know that they want you to know that Romney is weird.

But I’ll let you in on a little secret: We The Media™ revel in pointing fingers while the other hand is giving a thumbs up. We delight in bread and circuses while casting judgment over your enjoyment of these things. And this is how things will continue until we return to sleep for another hundred billion years in the darkest, dankest, innermost recesses of the sunken city of R’lye (nerding out today)… or in our too-bright office cubicles.

In any case: If you step outside the lines we’ve created for you, Politician, we will rake you over the proverbial coals until you issue an apology or clarification that’s about as heartfelt as the unholy union between these two. In that vein, let’s stumble together down memory lane, reminiscing about instances where a politician — rightfully or otherwise — was made to grovel under three inches of television makeup and hairspray for the entertainment of the quietly gurgling masses. (Like us! *Gurgle.*)

1. In the wake of his remarks about the Tea Party, McCain paid a visit to Fox News’ Sean Hannity saying that he “appreciates” the Tea Party movement and wants to have its babies, basically.

2. After all the hubbub surrounding her decision to sign the now-infamous marriage pledge issued by The Family Leader, Michele Bachmann appeared on (What else?) Hannity’s show to announce that, contrary to some of the rhetoric in the pledge’s original preamble, she definitely “abhor(s) slavery.” Other things Michele Bachmann hates: Famine, genocide, child trafficking, people who harm puppies, and that feeling you get when your thighs stick to subway seats in the summertime.

3. Michael Steele, who was at the time Chairman of the Republican National Committee, went off-script in early 2009, telling CNN’s D.L. Hughley (2009, you guys!) that conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh is “an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh — his whole thing is entertainment. He has this incendiary — yes, it’s ugly.” Steele then called Limbaugh to apologize, because goodness knows the public isn’t entertained by incendiary media figures.

4. This might be stretching the definition of a “politician,” but most of you stopped reading after the headline anyway. Back in May, the Secret Service’s official Twitter account (2011, you guys!) published thishighly critical Tweet: “Had to monitor Fox for a story. Can’t. Deal. With. The. Blathering.” Kill. That intern. And eat it. The Secret Service later apologized for the offending Tweet, noting that a government employee had, surprisingly, done something stupid.

5. I saved the best for last. Take a deep breath, collect yourself, and make sure you’re not currently noshing any delicious cured meats.

After Carl Paladino publicly apologized for anti-gay remarks he’d made during a speech at an Orthodox Jewish gathering, “Tea Party Rabbi ” Yehuda Levin — who had helped write Paladino’s speech — announced that he would be withdrawing his support for the politician. And then this happened:

“Which part of the speech that you gave in Brooklyn to the Orthodox Jewish community are you apologizing for?” Rabbi Levin asked at a news conference in front of St. Patrick’s Cathedral, on Fifth Avenue. “Will we see you next year with your daughter at that gay pride march?”
[...]
“I was in the middle of eating a kosher pastrami sandwich,” Rabbi Levin said. “While I was eating it, they come running and they say, ‘Paladino became gay!*’ I said, ‘What?’ And then they showed me the statement. I almost choked on the kosher salami.”

Oh my God, right? Politicians and The Media make such strange bedfellows, literally and figuratively. And we hope that never, ever changes.

*Carl Paladino is not gay.

The establishment of Current TV as a destination for liberal news programming doesn’t necessarily have to be a bad thing for MSNBC. There are, apparently, millions of liberals who aren’t watching cable news, and this represents an opportunity for both channels to attract a new audience.

Given the details of their split, it’s not surprising that Olbermann would express some (relatively mild) bitterness in the aftermath of his exit, but in recent weeks, his shots have been more directly aimed at some of his former colleagues, plus more intent on poaching the network’s audience…and their talent?

At first, Olbermann confined his disapproval of his former network to sporadic, mildly passive-aggressive tweets about not watching the network anymore, and grammar-copping former colleagues. About a month ago, though, Olbermann ripped MSNBC host Ed Schultz for daring to disagree with (Current TV/Countdown contributor) Michael Moore, calling Schultz a “supposedly liberal commentator, on a supposedly liberal network.”

Just last night, he suggested that his former election coverage partner, Chris Matthews, is a serial credit thief.

He later sought to draw a none-too-subtle contrast between his upcoming Current regime, and MSNBC, tweeting with characteristic passive-aggressiveness, “Presented without comment: Michael Moore named contributor to @Current Michael Steele named contributor to MSNBC.”

In later comments to The Hollywood Reporter, however, Olbermann removed any doubt that this shot was aimed squarely at former colleague Rachel Maddow, whose obvious respect and admiration for Steele must have played a role in his hiring. “There were lots of people who were forced to choose sides,” he told The Hollywood Reporter, “And particularly in Rachel’s case, I didn’t want to add to the pressure on her already. The last thing I need to do is be calling her up and saying, ‘How’s that Michael Steele working out for you?’”

For a guy who doesn’t want to add to the pressure on Rachel Maddow, Olbermann sure has a funny way of showing it. In a recent interview with the Associated Press‘ Frazier Moore, Olbermann openly suggested that he would poach Maddow away from MSNBC at the first opportunity (a suggestion that also turned up in a recent Rolling Stone article):

Maybe Olbermann will find himself another Rachel Maddow, the liberal host who clicked with viewers on MSNBC after Olbermann brought her aboard for a companion show to his at that network.

Sure, nods Olbermann. “Or conceivably,” he says suggestively, “I might just find the SAME Rachel Maddow. You never know.”

While I’m sure there’s a passage in The Art of War dedicated to just this sort of mind game, such a statement is surely not designed to make things more comfortable for Maddow at MSNBC.

There has been pop-psych speculation about an All About Eve dynamic between Olbermann and Maddow, as the student rapidly eclipsed the master. While this doesn’t quite equal a shove down the staircase, Maddow might not appreciate being made a pawn in this game. True to gracious form, she hasn’t commented about this, but Olbermann’s revelation that they haven’t spoken since his exit speaks volumes. “Send to voicemail” goes both ways.

The contrast between Olbermann and Rachel Maddow seems to be at the heart of the two networks’ branding efforts. While Olbermann clearly sees himself as the curmudgeonly mentor here, Maddow’s star has risen on the strength of her willingness to engage the other side, a trait for which Olbermann slams her, but one which has earned her the respect and admiration of centrists on both sides of the political spectrum. That sensibility runs through most of MSNBC’s opinion programming.

Joe Scarborough, host of the influential Morning Joe, usually stakes out center-right territory, while engaging a variety of panelists and guests from across the ideological spectrum. The Last Word‘s Lawrence O’Donnell has a decidedly farther-left point of view, and a more confrontational style, but he also frequently features guests and panelists from the right (O’Donnell’s warm sentiments for Olbermann, alas, have only garnered him a chilly mention as “my replacement” in that Rolling Stone interview). Even liberal firebreather Cenk Uygur engages the right on his 6pm show, and while Ed Schultz‘s The Ed Show has the vibe of a Drinking Liberally meeting, his sensibility is more rooted in an affinity with working-class liberals than in a smug contempt for “the enemy.”

Olbermann, on the other hand, disdains engagement with conservatives, or anyone with whom he strongly disagrees. While he claims such engagement isn’t “illuminating,” his critics paint this refusal as an acknowledgement that the result would be Olbermann’s transformation into a Swiffer Wet Jet™.

As Patrick Gavin‘s review of Olbermann’s Twitter feed indicates, those critics might be on to something. While Olbermann is an undeniably gifted writer, his sub-playground exchanges with Twitter critics display a weakness for real-time debate, and a skin so thin it makes Sarah Palin look like an armadillo.

There’s nothing wrong with knowing your own strengths (Countdown never suffered from its lack of divergent viewpoints) and weaknesses, but attacking a group of people who still profess respect and admiration for you is a risky strategy that could alienate viewers, and industry allies. Countdown will surely improve upon Current TV‘s 50,000 or so average prime-time viewers, but if the linchpin in Olbermann’s strategy is to vanquish an MSNBC lineup that has barely skipped a beat since his departure, Current‘s prospects look to be severely limited. Essentially, the strategy seems to be “the friends of my enemy will become my friends.”

MSNBC, on the other hand, seems well-positioned to weather the challenge. The network is no stranger to negative attacks by competitors. Their “Lean Forward” ad campaign prompted responses (from both Fox News and CNN) that only served to underscore the campaign’s impact. They played hardball with Current TV new-hire David Shuster when they got wind he might be looking to greener pastures at CNN. As far as Olbermann’s impending debut goes, the network has remained tight-lipped. When asked about possible audience defection, MSNBC’s Vice President of Prime Time Programming Bill Wolff would say only, “Our goal remains the same – focus on being awesome at what we’re doing.”

There is a clear path to success for Current, but it doesn’t figure to involve trading body blows with MSNBC. With Countdown as its anchor, there is plenty of camera-ready liberal talent out there (Thom Hartmann, Sam Seder, Bill Press, and for late-late nights, Mike Malloy) who would fit in well with Olbermann’s leftier-than-thou ethos, and an opportunity to build an audience that’s currently not swimming in the cable news waters. I think most liberals would agree that two healthy liberal networks are better than one.

Former Republican National Committee chair Michael Steele says he won’t be a “conservative punching bag” in his new role as a political commentator on MSNBC. Or, put more bluntly, he has no intention of being the next Alan Colmes. “I think people kind of look at it and they go, ‘Oh, gee, you know, yeah, he’s the Alan Colmes,’” Steele tells The Baltimore Sun. “But I don’t think it’s that at all. I think I bring a very different style… I’m not a wallflower. I don’t hold back my views… I want to engage people.”

Steele says he’s been assured by MSNBC boss Phil Griffin that he won’t be limited, toned down or softened up:

“I have every confidence that MSNBC will treat me with the level of respect they have obviously shown by hiring me. I mean, why would you bring me on board just to say, ‘OK, this is now our conservative punching bag for the next year.’?”

“That’s not going to achieve the goals that I know Phil Griffin and the Comcast team have in mind for expanding the reach and the depth of the discussion on the network,” he explained. “It certainly doesn’t achieve my goals, to be a punching bag, because, Lord knows, after two punches, you get the joke. ‘Like I’m done. Enough already.’”

“What basically Phil has said to me is, ‘Be the Michael Steele that we have seen the last few years who has emerged with a voice in politics, who has stood atop a national committee, and has seen the politics up close and personal, but has the success of winning elections, losing elections, and knows the dynamics of what this [election] cycle will mean not just in this moment, but in future moments.’”

Not that the current Republican field needs any more color– take a look, for example, at Dave Weigel‘s handy guide to Republican “Why the hell not?” candidates– but when Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Texan secessionist Rick Perry are fair game for speculation, the below compendium of tragically flawed politicos should at least mention a whisper each.

Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) (1 of 9)

Next ►

Who?: Senator David Vitter of Louisiana has been in office since 2005 and was a Congressman since 1999.
Why He Could Run: Sen. Vitter is a vocal supporter of offshore drilling (as well as drilling in ANWR) and could probably do quite well on the fundraising front. And a Senator who can remain in office after several suspected sex scandals can survive anything.
Why We Want Him To Run: The prostitutes. His unsuccessful challenger in the last election cycle, Rep. Charlie Melancon, actually produced a series of ads solely about the scandal. The only ads that didn't talk about his prostitution scandal highlighted one of his staffers, namely the one with the history of domestic abuse. And somehow, magically, mysteriously, Sen. Vitter is still in office. We'd like to see if he could take the record all the way to the White House, since it obviously isn't enough to keep him out of Congress.

Says Steele of the move:

It’s an honor to contribute and engage in the dialogue on MSNBC. I look forward to engaging a diverse audience to share insights and analysis about the people, issues, and events shaping America’s future. I’m sure our discussions will be both informative and a bit spirited!

He’s now one step closer to making all my evening cable news dreams come true by becoming Ed Schultz‘s official co-host.

The Hill explains that Steele’s talks aren’t complete, but if accepted, Steele would become an official MSNBC political analyst:

Former Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Michael Steele is in negotiations with MSNBC to be a political analyst, according to sources.

Steele would be a prominent Republican voice on a network known for its liberal television hosts. If the deal goes through, he would join the cable network in time to offer commentary on the 2012 elections.

Hot Air is calling this an unmistakable sign of the apocalypse, but Steele in many ways is a perfect fit for MSNBC, in the same way Juan Williams and Alan Colmes make for good television over on Fox. He can passionately defend his points without exhibiting any bitterness, and, in fact, it seems he relishes being persistently challenged in his ideology by everyone around him. In his previous appearances with Maddow, the two were as friendly as they were fierce in debate, and Steele is exactly what MSNBC is routinely accused of lacking: a strong Republican voice (the most prominent voice on the right, kind of, on the network is arguably Slate reporter Dave Weigel, a pro-life libertarian who landed on MSNBC after the far-right made a scandal of his anti-Tea Party comments on a private email list). The deal isn’t set in stone, however,  and may take a few more appearances for him to settle in.

On his program, Schultz kept that discussion going. He noted recent poll statistics showing that 45 percent of Republicans believe President Barack Obama was born in another country, with 22 percent claiming they “don’t know” where on earth the man was born. Schultz then pointed to Obama’s certificate of live birth, driving home that the document has been verified, continuously… despite what some people, like ohhh Mr. Donald Trump, might be preaching. How is it, wondered Schultz, that people like Trump can distract from “what’s real” by relentlessly focusing on the “birther issue”? The thought of Schultz and Karl Rove – who has said pretty much the exact same thing – discussing this very matter over endless salad and breadsticks at Olive Garden amuses us greatly. But, just as fun for us, really, Schultz brought on Steele.

“You’re a good sport for coming on, and I appreciate it,” said Schultz. “We had a fun time the other night on Bill Maher’s show.” Steele heartily agreed:

We did, we really did. It was a good exchange; I love the back-and-forth, you know. What I loved about it was two guys showing their real passion for the issues of the day and to me was exciting.

Yay, you guys! But what does Steele think about the fact that a majority of Republicans apparently don’t believe Obama is a citizen? Well, it’s not really an issue for Steele, who thinks Americans would do well to focus on other issues – like the economy. And it was like Schultz wanted to reach across the split screen and give Steele a hug, or a coupon for free hugs.

Steele then brought up that he knows of some conservative Democrats who also aren’t sure about Obama’s place of birth. “Not 67 percent!” responded Schultz, before asking what (we think) is an extremely important question for all Republicans to think about right now: Is this issue hurting the Republican party? Steele gave an extremely adamant “yes.” For one, he notes, it “puts a drag” on other discussions, such as that on the budget.

Now, enough with all this “agreeing on things”… thing. Back to the proposed Medicare voucher system! Asked Schultz:

Mr. Steele, do you agree or disagree with the American people? Because the Republicans have voted on exactly the opposite of where the American people are.

When Steele mentioned seeing polling going the other way, Schultz asked if he thought the American people want a voucher for Medicare. The two then argued over… that. And job creation. But it was civil – if heated! And not so loud that it was all completely unintelligible!

Gonna say it: These two have amazing chemistry, and we’d listen to them discuss microwaving Peeps.

Take a look at the segment for yourselves, courtesy MSNBC:

Schultz cited several sites that identified the debate between Steele and himself as loud, not particularly annoyed but not particularly pleased, either. “How can you not get cranked up if you believe in the institutions that make this country great?” he asked, before showing the clip he claimed most websites missed– that of Steele admitting he was not sure how the current health care system would take care of a certain portion of the elderly without the policies implemented by last year’s universal health care bill. “What do you say we just wing it with this health care thing?” Schultz mocked. He added, “I don’t care what any website has to say,” and advised his viewers that, as liberals, they should be unafraid of the “shouty” characterization. He also teased that Steele had scheduled an appearance on the program on Thursday, and concluded an extensive assessment of the health care system as it stands in anticipation of the debate with a message: “We as liberals in this country have to realize that it’s not hard to stand up to the Michael Steeles of the world.”

The segment via MSNBC below:

It started with a mention of the already-infamous Jon Kyl/Planned Parenthood controversy, which Maher called “American lying at its finest.” Faced with the unenviable task of rationalizing Kyl’s handiwork, Steele noted there are “hyperbolic statements on both sides,” specifically about Republicans’ supposed desire to watch old people “get sick and die.”

This, though, prompted a retort from Maher – if Republicans don’t want that, what to make of Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) proposed Medicare voucher. At this point, things really started getting loud. There was Schultz yelling at Steele for mentioning President Barack Obama in the same breath as Kyl. There was Steele begging Schultz to “bring it down a notch.”

And there was Steele, when asked about what would happen to seniors who run out of Medicare voucher money:

“We don’t know yet.”

That one got quite the audience reaction, and Schultz clearly relished the chance to make an incredulous face. There was even a hint of a fistfight at one point, but Maher wasn’t too keen on the idea. Oh, and Amy Walter, political director for ABC News, was there also. Unfortunately for her, during the segment you’ll see below, she mostly functioned as Steele-Schultz buffer. (Which, come to think of it, was probably a key role.) Watch – and listen – via HBO.

Maddow and Steele predictably interpreted President Obama’s speech on health care reform in completely different ways, with Steele calling it a “45 minute campaign speech” and Maddow arguing that she was “surprised to see that much policy from the President.” “I thought that he was going to be campaign, campaign, campaign,” Maddow confessed. That said, while Maddow was unhappy with the current health care plan, she also viewed it as “the only federal effort we’ve had to lower health costs,” with Republicans instead offering “to make old people pay.”

Steele, of course, disagreed with that assessment, though he agreed that “insurance companies are something you’ve got to watch.” “But at the end of the day,” Steele warned, “the government can be just as bad as that bad old insurance company.” Steele argued that, rather than let the government take care of it, Republicans are talking “about looking at the market forces that can help drive those costs down.” He also added that he didn’t believe Democrats had to “upend the entire system to create an avenue for portability.” “I don’t think we need to rejigger the entire system,” he concluded.

Maddow was happy to hear the news: “I think that rejiggering the entire system enough to privatize health care is the type of rejiggering that I am delighted to hear you say reps are going to run on.”

The segment via MSNBC below:

Maddow and Steele had plenty of territory to cover– the union battles involving governors Scott Walker, John Kasich, Mitch Daniels, and the newly trending judicial election between Sarah Palin favorite David Prosser and his liberally-backed opponent Joanne Kroppenberg. But rather than specifics, the two quickly ended up falling along ideological lines over how much to spend and cut over what issues and programs.

For Steele, the union issue was not, as Maddow initially argued, taking down unions for the sake of taking down unions. “The driving force is the contracts,” Steele noted, suggesting that the GOP had not done an efficient enough job of pointing out the major budget considerations that were at stake. Making the issue about the budget and not unions, Maddow responded, made her “very excited.” “If this is a budget issue… how to they [Republicans] explain having responded to a budget problem by giving away hundreds of millions of dollars in state revenue… to business?”

“Well,” Steele countered, that highlighted “the philosophical difference between where you sit and I sit.” To Steele, “the wealthy that is created by the small businesses is not giving away [money],” but, rather, stimulating the fragile private sector. But Maddow returned to her belief that “you can’t be a deficit hawk who wants to give away the revenue to the businesses, even if you have a beautiful Ayn Randian conception of what those businesses will do with all that money.” Steele responded with a laugh, and a denial that Maddow’s characterization of tax breaks as gifts was accurate.

O the judicial point, both Maddow and Steele agreed that less political involvement in the judiciary was better for the country, which put Steele once again at odds with Sarah Palin, who recently endorsed Prosser on Twitter. “The national yin and yang is going to come baring down,” Steele noted, with a hint of dismay about it. “I generally have a problem with getting our judges and having them submitted to the political process.” Maddow agreed.

One surprise to come from Steele’s post-RNC career is just how well he seems to get along with Maddow, and just how much the pair make for great TV. They clearly disagree on nearly every point, they bicker over their core philosophies knowing that neither will convince the other, but the debate comes off as all in good spirits and with no tension over it whatsoever, almost a feel-good relief moment in a cable news world defined by mutual stress and distrust.

The segment via MSNBC below:

But I was irritated by it, because, whether you agree with what the Wisconsin 14 did, or not, leaving the state to deny Republicans a quorum was clearly an act of principled obstruction, and not cowardice or shirkdom. (Shirkification?)

That such characterizations by opponents are disingenuous is obvious, so when former RNC Chairman Michael Steele calls them “wimpy,” he’s just doing his job. Maddow’s response, though, is a thing of beauty:

I really could not have said it better myself, although I would add that the filibuster comparison only holds up if it is used in circumstances as extreme as the Wisconsin situation, the seriousness of which has been borne out by the overwhelming public outcry at Walker’s overreach. Principled obstruction and obstruction as SOP are not the same thing.