You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 780

PLAYS: 462

(Rep. John McCormack (D-Mass) - Rep. Hugh Scott (R. Penn.) - lots of love in that room . . .of a kind.)

In case you were wondering if the cantankerous nature of Capitol Hill was some phenomenon of recent years, let me put you at ease by saying no, it's always been that way.

This broadcast, part of the American Forum Of The Air series from July 25, 1954, features Representative John McCormack (D-Mass.) and Representative Hugh Scott (R.Penn.) discussing what the 83rd Congress has accomplished, just as the House and Senate go on their August recess. The subjects range from taxes to the end of the Korean conflict and the bubbling unrest in Southeast Asia - Vietnam in particular.

McCormick: “ There’s a truce made that could’ve been made far better a year, year and a half prior to the time the truce was made. As the result of it, the Chinese Reds were relieved of their commitments in North Korea and they were able to drive down into Indochina and they were able to help the Communist forces in Indochina. Now coming to the Indochina truce . . . .

Scanlon (interviewer): “Do you think the war should have continued Congressman?” –

Moderator: “Hold it . . . .”

McCormick: “None of us . . .we’re not agreed to . . .we’re not satisfied with that. I’m satisfied that England and France have some kind of deals on that are not for our best interest. I’m suspicious of England and France in connection with what’s going on. I think you and I probably would agree pretty much in that respect. I’m very suspicious about this increase in trade which Mr. Stassen has permitted to go on with the Communist bloc as a peace gesture

Hugh Scott: “ Before you change the subject is there any shooting war going on anywhere in the world today, was my statement . . .

McCormick: “Do you think there’s peace in the world today? There’s certainly not peace in the world today. All I know is, that there’s a couple of million more unfortunate people in Vietnam who are now under the Communists, about a million of them happen to be communicants of the Catholic Church of which you and I are also communicants and I can imagine what kind of rough living they’re going to have under the Communists when they consolidate, the liquidation process they’re going to go through, and I hope there’ll be a good pact established down there that will be able to stop the Communists. But I am fearful there will be extreme difficulty in that respect. I’m hopeful and I will join in a bi-partisan way that will bring any efforts to bring about a pact in Southeast Asia that will stop the Communist on-rush.”

Well . . .more prophetic words weren't spoken much that year. But it did signal what would become our endless Vietnam odyssey soon enough.

McCormack and Scott spar and agree on very little, but they hold their ground. In the end it provides an interesting insight as to the historic nature of government and how discourse can work.

At least they were upfront about it.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (848)

PLAYS: (1802)

It's possible that Brit Hume's statements on Fox News Sunday show he's getting forgetful in his later years. How else to explain it when he so solemnly says Obama can't engage with Iran because of the unrest over the election? After all, he was saying the same thing last year! Via Media Matters:

WALLACE: So, a fiercely fought campaign in Iran; results that show that Ahmadinejad won in a landslide. And now we have people in the streets, supporters of the more moderate challenger, Mousavi, saying that the election was stolen. Brit, where does this leave things inside Iran?

HUME: Well, it looks as if Ahmadinejad will cling to power. He is supported by the key elements of the theocracy that runs that country. Whether these protests will grow or spread is in doubt. They seem to have subsided today after all of the trouble they had yesterday.

I think it leaves Iran about where it was, but showing the world an even clearer picture, as if any were needed, this is basically a police state. And it is difficult, therefore, to see how President Obama's dreams of a more constructive relationship with the powers that be there can go forward, given the fact that this election appears to have been defective if not utterly fraudulent. I mean, after all, Mousavi -- Ahmadinejad is, according to the results, was supposed to have carried Mousavi's hometown by a large margin.

See, Brit's kind of a broken record. Here's what he said in May 2008:

WALLACE: Brit, you made it clear that you think that, on substance, that Obama's wrong. The idea of holding these meetings without preconditions is a bad idea.

Obama goes back and says, "Look -- look at the Bush policy over the last seven years. Has that made Iran weaker or stronger?" Isn't that a fair point on his --

HUME: It's a fair point, but who says it isn't -- who can seriously argue that if President Bush had had some kind of meeting and direct negotiation with [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad that that would have -- would have weakened Iran's aggressive posture in some way?

That makes no sense. In fact, what it would have done would be to elevate this slightly crazy guy who says these unbelievably nutty things to the level of a world statesman, which his present situation does not suggest he is.

Now, some people on the Obama side will say, "Well, you wouldn't really meet with him. You might meet with one of the mullahs." Oh, that would be -- that's a great idea.

I mean, you just stop and think about it. When you sit down at a table with somebody, you expect them to offer you something, but you have to offer them something in return. It's not for the point -- it's not for the purpose of just having a nice chat and getting to know one another.

Why doesn't he just come out and say it? He's against diplomacy, especially when a Democrat does it!