Barnicle's first lob bemoaned the difficulties of governing in this hyper-partisan, cable-TV age. His second softball chastised Republicans for their announced intention to oppose Pres. Obama's Supreme Court nominee. Which raises the question: do the names Robert Bork—or Clarence Thomas—mean anything to Mike Barnicle?
MIKE BARNICLE: In this age of the constant campaign, in an era of just hyper-partisanship, where everything is magnified out of proportion by this echo-box called cable TV, 24-hour cable news, how do you govern?
DAVID AXELROD: You know, it's obviously difficult.
. . . .
BARNICLE: Even like, you know, the stories in the paper today when we were talking about it earlier: potential Supreme Court nominees. I think, you know, back at the deli in Chicago or wherever, at Mullins [sp?] in South Boston. The story's in the paper: one Justice has resigned, the president has an appointment to make, and then you read in the sidebar story, Republicans are opposed to whoever is nominated. I mean, how do you dot his?
Axelrod had earlier complimented Joe Scarborough on being a student of history. Clearly the same can't be said of Barnicle. Does Barnicle not remember that his late lamented friend Ted Kennedy was so savage in his attack on Robert Bork that the nominee's name became a verb? Does Barnicle not recall the frontal assault to which Clarence Thomas was subjected, epitomized in the photo of the finger-jabbing attack by a certain senator from Delaware? For that matter, can Barnicle reach back as recently as 2007 and remember that then Sen. Barack Obama voted against the superbly-qualified John Roberts?
Mike, come down and receive your Obama Parrot of the Week: you've earned it.