IT’S ABOUT TIME

So former Lt. Dan Choi, an Iraqi war veteran, Arabic linguist and West Point Graduate, has been discharged from the Army National Guard for being openly gay and not honoring “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. How sad.

Sad because this DADT should have been repealed already. Sad because I remember vividly the African-American civil rights marches of the 1960s, the feminist movement of the 60s and 70s and the gains these protests made. And here we are going over the same ground in regard to gay rights. Isn’t it time we recognize that DADT is anachronistic and unnecessary in this day and age?

13,500 service members (more than 800 of them specialists) have been discharged under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. This is undermining our military capabilities and is hurting our national security. How many more Lt. Chois do we have to lose?

Americans realize that on the battlefield it does not matter whether a soldier is lesbian, gay or straight. What matters is doing your job. Military leaders such as Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Gen. Colin Powell and Gen. David Petraeus are in support of the repeal. So, according to a recent Quinnipiac poll, are 57 percent of Americans.

If it wasn’t for those who went before me marching for racial and gender equality, I would not be living in the diverse country that I am. Shouldn’t we all be able to live in a world where no one has to hide who they are? Especially those who are laying down their life for our country? And shouldn’t this be the legacy we hand down to future generations?

I don't know about everyone else but... I'm FIRED UP and ready to go!

Excellent post Ron - nothing like setting the right wing nuts hair on FIRE first thing on a Monday morning! ;0)

The NewsHour (It's a REAL news program on PBS) had a great segment on the president and his REAL liberal base) I am sure that you missed it so here it is...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec10/disillusioned_07-23.html

and Shields and Brooks...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec10/shieldsbrooks_07-23.html

I dare you to watch the piece and offer your assessment...

Out in the larger world, the issues are real and so is the disappointment. You should change the channel sometimes...

Ron, I think that says it all. Ever since the Reagan years the Democratic party has had a yellow streak a mile wide when it comes to playing hardball with the opposition. My fear from the beginning has been that too many Liberals would just sit back and let Barack Obama do all the work. Getting someone in the WH who wasn't hell-bent on a radically Conservative agenda was only the beginning. Insisting that he follow through is the rest.

And an impressive list of accomplishments in spite of that.

Spot on Julie Indiana as well.

Good morning, Ron ... here I am, back from a few days on the lake. With all due respect, my friend, this is way too easy. If I grant you all of that, and I do, then you have to grant me the five great wedge issues that republicans have employed to their advantage for the past 30 or 40 years. In no particular order they are:

1. Fear.

2. Fear of taxes.

3. Fear of people not like themselves (xenophobia) (as manifested in the immigration fight).

4. Fear of people whose sexual orientation is not like their own (homophobia) (as manifested in the DADT debate and the marriage debate).

5. Fear of women (as manifested for political purposes in the abortion issue).

To paraphrase Tolkien ... fear, fire, foes. From all around me, I already hear the alarms going off.

This is, of course, highly predictable. If one of these issues doesn't work in your particular jurisdiction, move on to the next one, until you find the one that works. What is especially disappointing to me is the democrats' perennial ability to fall right into these traps. THIS is why they're in trouble again, despite having a President with a record they should be able to rally behind.

What's that old saying ... those who don't learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them?

Well, here we go again.

Paging Howard Dean.

Well, said. Quite a list of successes. The democrats in Congress need to stop complaining about the Pres not speaking up enough and instead start using their own voices to speak up. He is the leader of the party but he cannot be the only voice of it.

Pres Obama has done more in less than half of his first term than other recent presidents in four or eight years.

Good Morning Anna Molly: Rule number one: Don't argue with a judge. Rule number two. Agree with your attorney. So I agree. I did note in all five cases the word "Fear" was mentioned. Ain't it the truth. I trust you enjoyed your time on the Lake.

Dangerfield:

The NewsHour (It's a REAL news program on PBS) had a great segment on the president and his REAL liberal base) I am sure that you missed it so here it is...

Everyone here knows that some liberals are disappointed that President Obama is proving to be a center-left president, just as his campaign positions showed he was. They do have some good reasons for their disappointment that are better than the obsessive hatred that Dangerfield has for Obama.

And, BTW: I watch PBS frequently. Does that make me as intellectual as Dangerfield wants people to think he is?

Julie, good post.

DADT will be eliminated. I know many think the Pres Obama should have done this first but I believe he understands what a divisive political ball it is. I do wish he would sign an E.O. stopping further discharge processes but I also think he has a good grasp of what that might do--stop the legislative process to end it completely. As for the Gates review and the survey--it is to take us past the 2010 elections.

LoL Ron ~ The bill's in the mail. By the way, as I'm sure you see, it's no accident that the word "fear" appeared in all five cases. They're all variations on the same thing, sometimes just better disguised than others.

And thank you, yes, I enjoyed my time on the lake tremendously. Nothing beats the call of loons in the middle of the night. But it's good to be home again.

Houston: Of course there is reason for disappointment. There is always reason for disappointment. We can go right down the line of every single Democratic President and find things we as Democrats didn't like. But there comes a time when we must unify don't you think?

Speaking of disappointments, I sure hated to read that President John F. Kennedy had to jump a wall the night of his inaugeration to get away from the press after partying with Hollywood actresses into the wee hours of the morning. lol

Yet he is LOVED to this day.

The list is endless of course. But no way should Nancy Pelosi lose and John Beohner and Michelle Bachmann win. They GOP want to undo everything, including trying to impeach President Obama.

The GOP are all nuts and have no business being in leadership positions.

Great posts Ron and Julie. We have to stay positive from here on out.

Julie, I think (hope) DADT will be a thing of the past. I just hope it is soon. Great post. (I wrote this earlier but for some reason it's not here).

Ron - President Obama and the Democrats are so afraid of losing power that they are going to just that because they forgot to fight for us Liberals. Barack and the Dems forgot that the best defense is a good offense and everytime the dopes of nope screamed about something Barack and the Dems caved in instead of fighting back. They threw ACORN, Van Jones, Shirley Sherrod and the NAACP under the bus whenever the Fox Noose channel ran endless loops of rightwing racist lies against them. We find out later that Fox Noose's accusations were a pack of racist lies, too late to save them.

I can only shake my head in disappointment that Obama thinks we Liberals should not give up the fight when he did the whole time he has been president. I for one am sick and tired of fighting for someone who doesn't fight for me and I'm finished coming here to First Read and NewsWhine to fight for self serving cowards who are more interested in preserving their own jobs than in fighting for what's right for our country or for us Liberals who did so much to get them elected!

Pat, Boston:

Of course there is reason for disappointment. There is always reason for disappointment.

Anyone with a passing acquaintance with American history should know that ALL presidents are big disappointments to both their contemporary and future admirers. The great liberal icon, FDR caved to conservatives and tightened budgets, sending the economy into a new tailspin just as his New Deal programs were pulling it out of the Great Depression. The great conservative icon, Ronald Reagan, raised taxes and signed an "amnesty" bill for illegal aliens.

Even if historians judge Obama's presidency to be a great success, there's no way that he'll still be viewed as having made serious mistakes, just like all the other important presidents starting with George Washington.

Houston, you have a problem...and "issues" it would seem

"And, BTW: I watch PBS frequently. Does that make me as intellectual as Dangerfield wants people to think he is?"

What does your desperate need to disparage others who have done nothing to you, while hiding behind a keyboard, say about you?

It is obvious that some in this "forum" need to attack the source of information that do not like...so be it.

Correction: I meant there's no way Obama will be judged as NOT having made serious mistakes just like other important presidents. That's what I get when I start rearranging sentences too much.

PAT,BOSTON,MA===You have to be one of the largest idiots that this country has or among them==your head can't be screwed on straight proposing what you did about OBAMA AND HIS CREW OF WRECKERS.

Ron, powerful post. Do we liberals have what it takes to stand up to "the orcs that are coming for us," to quote Van Jones? Are we so disillusioned that we can't rally behind the President we worked so hard to elect? Where is our steel, our spine? We sure need to get our collective rear ends in gear or we will have wasted our efforts.

We can all flood our newspapers with Letters to the Editor and our congresspersons' inboxes with praise or condemnation for their actions. We have incredible power if we only use it!

Julie, your post really says it all. The days of DADT are far behind us...the fear of the "other," in this case based on sexual orientation, is just one more hurdle we are crossing in the expansion of our nation's collective consciousness.

It is a crying shame that Daniel Choi, a soldier's soldier, was caught in the crossfire. It just goes to show how fear and hate can take down our best and brightest as effectively as any bullet. Godspeed to him and all those who have been forced out of the service because of who they love.

ALL OF YOU THAT WANT obama to stay are fools and idiots and loosers.

I see it the same way, how do dems measure success. Considering the train wreck he inherited I think he's done an amazing job.

Ron,

Another great post. I saw an article this week end that started out like this.

Imagine if, one year ago, Congress had passed a stimulus bill that really worked.

Let’s say this bill had started spending money within a matter of weeks and had rapidly helped the economy. Let’s also imagine it was large enough to have had a huge impact on jobs — employing something like two million people who would otherwise be unemployed right now.

If that had happened, what would the economy look like today?

Well, it would look almost exactly as it does now. Because those nice descriptions of the stimulus that I just gave aren’t hypothetical. They are descriptions of the actual bill.

Just look at the outside evaluations of the stimulus. Perhaps the best-known economic research firms are IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers and Moody’s Economy.com. They all estimate that the bill has added 1.6 million to 1.8 million jobs so far and that its ultimate impact will be roughly 2.5 million jobs. The Congressional Budget Office, an independent agency, considers these estimates to be conservative.

The complete article is on the NYT website posted over this weekend. Leon Hardt was the author I think.

ellie, grow up. Have you not seen the damage the GOP did to this country?! When is enough enough for you? You want them back in power? To do what?

Ellie, how would this country have to be run for you to be comfortable living in it?

Dangerfield:

It is obvious that some in this "forum" need to attack the source of information that do not like...so be it.

Dangerfield, I hate to tell you this, but you are NOT the source of any information that nobody doesn't already know. What you are is an obvious victim of Obama Derangement Syndrome.

And you also are the sort that can dish it out but can't take it, with your snarky condescending comment implying that nobody gets information from a "real" news show if they don't watch PBS.

Well, here's some information YOU obviously are ignorant of, Dangerfield: Everyone who watches Maddow and Olbermann are quite familiar with liberal criticism of Obama because Maddow, Olbermann, and their guests are often the ones doing the criticizing.

ellie: Thank you for your insightful post. It really added a lot to the discussion. Now go get your tea bagger hat and take a shower to cool off. If your hat gets wet, it's because you turned on the shower too soon.

Don't ever watch such drivel, as I am far too busy reading and watching PBS, trying to impress everyone with my intellect, as you so helpfully and unsolicitedly pointed out in your last post. and btw"Nobody doesn't like Sara Lee" either...

"Dangerfield, I hate to tell you this, but you are NOT the source of any information that nobody doesn't already know."

Oh, and PBS IS a real news outlet as opposed to MSNBC, no snark at all, just FACT...:)

I said do not LIKE, not do not KNOW...and you obviously don't.

ellie's just an idiot Pat. You can tell from her hateful posts.

I am watching the pundits that pass for journalists on MSNBC right now. Talking about how some Democrats support keeping the Tax Cuts for everybody instead of letting the expire for the 5% in the top 2 brackets and keep the Tax Cuts for the 95% of Americans that need them. The answer the Nov elections. Why are those Dem's afraid of Nov if 95% are on their side? Why cater to those 5% (I bet a lot of them do not vote Democratic any way). I just fail to see the logic other than one of them is Ben Nelson which figures.

Keeping the Tax Cuts will drive the deficit through the roof and you can bet that down the road the increase in the deficit do to keeping the Tax Cuts that Bush pushed through will be Obama's fault.

Our elected officals better start waking up and do what we elected them to do. Hey White House, you watching these posts today? If so take note, your people are speaking here. Wake UP!!!!!

I am watching the pundits that pass for journalists on MSNBC right now. Talking about how some Democrats support keeping the Tax Cuts for everybody instead of letting the expire for the 5% in the top 2 brackets and keep the Tax Cuts for the 95% of Americans that need them. The answer the Nov elections. Why are those Dem's afraid of Nov if 95% are on their side? Why cater to those 5% (I bet a lot of them do not vote Democratic any way). I just fail to see the logic other than one of them is Ben Nelson which figures.

Keeping the Tax Cuts will drive the deficit through the roof and you can bet that down the road the increase in the deficit do to keeping the Tax Cuts that Bush pushed through will be Obama's fault.

Our elected officals better start waking up and do what we elected them to do. Hey White House, you watching these posts today? If so take note, your people are speaking here. Wake UP!!!!!

Ellie's tried to leave the country but nobody would take it.

Dangerfield:

Oh, and PBS IS a real news outlet as opposed to MSNBC, no snark at all, just FACT...:)

MSNBC is a source of FACTS that Dangerfield doesn't like. Rachel Maddow's reporting has been impressive, as when she gave Rand Paul the air time to make a fool out of himself.

What's wrong with us?

He's continuing the Bush "Patriot Act" policies - not even trying to get them repealed.

He wimped out on the stimulus bill. Nobel prize winning economists were telling him to go BIG. He compromised with the uncompromising.

He allowed the right to control the debate around HCR to the point that we got such a watered down bill that we won't be seeing real results for years. he refused to accept - until the damage was done - that the obsrtructionists were not going to work with him.

Guantanamo is still open.

Every step he takes has been a pander to the right. Just take a look at what happened with Ms Sherrod.

Yes, he has done alot. Considering what he has been able to do, he may even still go down as one of the good presidents. And I will vote for him in 2012. But, so far, I won't be knocking on doors and making phone calls like I did in 08. Not until I see something that tells me I'm getting something other that an alternative to the obstructionists.

"If a senator or member of Congress isn’t supposed to bring home the bacon, then what is his/her job?"

How about doing what's right for the Country?

John McCain refuses to take any "pork" for Arizona, and he's respected for it.

Why should corruption be "part of a Senator's job"?

BTW - PBS is nothing but a liberal, taxpayer subsidized outlet for the Democrats - preaching to the choir.

Thank you SO much for that. A lot of the country is so busy blaming the president for what's wrong in their lives, it doesn't matter to them that this president has not been sitting around idly doing stupid things as Rush and Glenn would have you think. I think it's a disgrace the way this president is attacked. And I agree, when the supposedly liberal media starts attacking the president, he has absolutely no support. Huffington Post complains about FOX, but they're just as bad. Instead of fighting against the president, you would think that the liberal media would be putting out more positives than negatvies. But it's the negatives that sell. We all know that Barack Obama has no support - not from the Dems - goes without saying about the right - not from the Independents. And I think that's just down right sad. This isn't over. Just because we got Obama elected, does not mean our jobs are finished. You knew the racism he was going to face when he took office. I think that the liberal, progressive media needs to speak FOR the president - not AGAINST him. Makes me wonder if the only TRUE liberals and progressives are in the netroots, and the grassroots. We certainly can't depend on the media to be fair and unbiased.

Houston! continues to have a problem with the "frequency"...and that we are here for different reasons...

"MSNBC is a source of FACTS that Dangerfield doesn't like."

...and Doesn't watch...I am too busy getting my "facts" at PBS, NPR, NYT, the Economist, National Journal, WSJ, and other less biased sources than the entertainers at MSNBC.

and nobody doesn't like Sara Lee...You really do have a problem with this attacking the person rather than their "facts"...luckilly for you, that seems to be the norm here.

If you didn't like what Shields and Brooks had to say, or disagreed with the piece on the news hour, focusing on the person who simply posted the info doesn't exactly bolster your case. What other liberal site could someone get attacked on for posting a link to PBS, or "Mediaite"?

On what other liberal media site would WOMEN defend a sexist pig?

Talk about a narrow lens...

Right on Ron. It sometimes feels like liberals never step outside of Boulder, San Fransisco, Greenwich Village, or the their other enclaves and realize that the country is mostly made up of people that fall somewhere in the center of the political spectrum. If Obama and the Dems in Congress had done everything the liberals wanted over the past year and a half the Democratic party would be become a minority party quickly and stay that way for many years.

Democrats are wimpy. That has been proven by so many of the posters and pundits. Complain complain he's not doing enough, he's not doing it fast enough, he is caving to the republicans. We need to grow up and start supporting this president. He can't do it by himself.

Lets get Fired up and Ready to GO!!

Those who feel they gather their data from a comprehensive list of sources should add the following website... http://english.aljazeera.net/

I wrote:

"MSNBC is a source of FACTS that Dangerfield doesn't like."

And Dangerfield says:

...and Doesn't watch..

Of course, because of those darned facts that you don't want to hear about.

I am too busy getting my "facts" at PBS, NPR, NYT, the Economist, National Journal, WSJ, and other less biased sources than the entertainers at MSNBC.

We all know how intellectual you think you are.

You really do have a problem with this attacking the person rather than their "facts"...luckilly for you, that seems to be the norm here

Dangerfield, you are one of the worst offenders with ad hominem attacks, which makes you a hypocrite on top of your other appealing traits like whining and pretentiousness. And I don't have a problem with any facts, including the negative ones you keep regurgitating in your obsessive hatred for Obama. I was aware that some progressives were criticizing him long before you posted a link to what is common knowledge. Those criticisms deserve a hearing and rational discussion. But nothing you post does.

BTW: I watch Shields and Brooks every now and then. They are boring. Two corporate media insiders shoveling the conventional wisdom at each other and generally playing it safe. Brooks can be pretty amusing, though, like the time he said Obama was an elitist because he wouldn't be seen at the salad bar at Appleby's, unaware that there IS no salad bar at Appleby's, a fact Brooks apparently didn't know because he only dines at the finest elitist restaurants in town.

I believe 9.5% unemployment and the biggest deficit in US history will squash any so called achievements.

"Dangerfield, you are one of the worst offenders with ad hominem attacks, which makes you a hypocrite on top of your other appealing traits like whining and pretentiousness."

Houston!,

I would like to address you directly and challenge your honor and honesty for all to see.

Please embarrass me by showing everyone some (one or two?) evidence of how I am "one of the worst offenders", or admit that you are , as usual just in attack mode. I treat just about everyone here with respect. I even do my best to respond to your unsolicited attacks with civility. I dare you to back up your smear, or admit that it is just that, a smear.

Like is said, you have issues that cause you to react with anger and disparagement against those who don't share your views, and this forum allows you to do just that.

This kind of personal "feud" is a waste of time and space as far as I'm concerned, but when someone out and out lies to justify their own unprovoked and unjustified anti-social behavior, it becomes necessary to descend to their level and call them out.

I don't attack people here HOUSTON! with an angry exclamation point, and frankly I am sure that whatever criticism I engender here, that is not a biggie. When you stoop to attack the individual rather than their argument, you have lost the argument.

You must know that. It's a shame that you can't disagree with me without being so disagreeable...:)

Dangerfield:

I don't attack people here HOUSTON! with an angry exclamation point, and frankly I am sure that whatever criticism I engender here, that is not a biggie. When you stoop to attack the individual rather than their argument, you have lost the argument."

Dangerfield started out with a sneering attack on those he disagrees with for not getting their news from sources he deems worthy of his great intellect. And then he pretends he doesn't know that's an attack on people he disagrees with rather on than attacking their positions. What a fraud you are.

And BTW: the exclamation point was not an expression of anger; I used it because someone had already snatched up my old screen name when they changed to the new message format and I wanted something as similar as possible. Few people think of using non-alphanumerics in their sreen names. So Dangerfield, you make another stupid assumption. What does make me angry is pretense, hypocrisy, and dishonesty. You win a prize on all three counts.

"Dangerfield started out with a sneering attack on those he disagrees with for not getting their news from sources he deems worthy of his great intellect."

Here is the "sneering attack" in full, no wonder why you didn't reprint it to embarrass me. Based on my "sneering attack" it is obvious that Houston! is correct in that I am "one of the worst offenders" here.

The NewsHour (It's a REAL news program on PBS) had a great segment on the president and his REAL liberal base) I am sure that you missed it so here it is...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec10/disillusioned_07-23.html

and Shields and Brooks...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec10/shieldsbrooks_07-23.html

I dare you to watch the piece and offer your assessment...

Out in the larger world, the issues are real and so is the disappointment. You should change the channel sometimes...

• 5

• !

#1.3 - Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:33 AM EDT

Look, you really do have a problem, as even you can't believe the things you use to justify the little time wasting "feuds" you initiate here. I don't want or expect any of the denizens of this blog to agree with me, but posting links to PBS and suggesting folks "change the channel every now and then, hardly merits the amount of vitriol dispensed.
You are a poor soul, and I pity you in your anger and apparent intellectual insecurity, as I never said that the periodicals I mentioned were superior to the countless others I did not name nor have time to read, the disparaging characterizations are all yours, and you are welcome to them.

Again, I posted the above "sneering attack" proving Houston!'s point that I am "one of the worst offenders" here.
Yes I did promise to ignore you, and I am guilty of not adhering to that reasonable and correct deduction on how to deal with those whose primary interest is to attack and disparage not the opinions or contentions made here, but the PERSON making them.
I will do my best not to fall into that trap by attempting to engage you again.

I stand by my initial post, and my assessments of both your behavior and apparent need for confrontation. There is a lack of respect and civility that is the norm here and that I have tried to let common courtesy be my guide and credo, even in this "exchange"
If you descend to the level of your detractors, they win...
You lose Houston! I will ignore you and your posts in the future, which means that you can feel free to stalk and attack with as much venom and as little civility as you can muster, so maybe you win. Either way this is just a waste of time...

Dangerfield and Houston,

Looks like I'm a day late and a dollar short on this one. Don't expect a response about this one, but regarding Dangerfield's first post.

I did watch the PBS video about progressive dissullusionment. Rep. Grijalva, the SEIU labor leader and the Advocate rep spoke about their desire to "hold Obama accountable for his promises and Push him." Grijalva said that the whitehouse seems to take "Progressives for granted."

That is exactly the way I see it. Does that mean I won't support the Dems and the President in the fall. No but they better learn not to take their base for granted. Hopefully the blood letting in November won't be so bad and they can take it as a 'Teachable lesson'.

I don't see why there was a need for personal attacks against Dangerfield when he was just sourcing a post. While I'm not speaking for him or where his viewpoint is coming from, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Besides everyone has the right to complain about the way things are going whatever part of the spectrum you place yourself.

I beg to differ IR... it's time for someone to STEP on the scorpion once and for all!!!

IR, thanks for reminding us of that. The next time someone complains about regulation of private enterprise keep in mind that while our regulatory system isn't perfect, every one of those regulations is there for a reason. Somewhere, someone tried to right a wrong. Mostly we've gotten it right because our society is so much better off thanks to the imperfect past of the Grange Movement, Upton Sinclair, Triangle Shirtwaist, the Homestead strike, the Pullman strike, Glass Steagall (RIP), the auto safety movement, the EPA, the Civil Rights Movement...

These are the things that made us America instead of the poor relative of Dickensian dystopia. Please Sir, I'd like some more.

Good morning, IR. REALLY great post. Love your folksy analogies. When you think about it, all politics is allegory.

Enjoyed your post. Hard to imagine that people like Blankenship have so little regard for the workers. That attitude is exactly why unions were created.

One thing that I've only seen mentioned by Rachel Maddow is that Blankenship has been a speaker at Tea Party events in West Virginia.

Red At this point I'd be happy if they'd just quit asking for rides across the pond knowing that our collective memory is so poor that we're going to forget why we wouldn't take 'em in the first place......John B thank you for an expansion that goes a long way to clarifiing the southernisms.........Anna Molly good to see you back and glad you had a good time. Really like your Thoughts up there with Ron's. At least I didn't screw up and knock both of us off the board this morning.

Houston where does every body think the Tea Party's money is coming from if it isn't from somebody like Blankenship? The big problem is that the part of the tea partiers that are trying to get a somewhat legitimate message out don't hear what these guys say about them behind closed doors when they don't think any body can hear them.

IR: Not to mention the mountains that have been decimated by mountaintop removal, the streams that have been fouled by poisoned run-off, the wildlife that have been killed or run out of their habitat, the Appalachian communities that have been ruined, along with their unique culture, and their inhabitants who have suffered and died from cancers caused by pollutants.

All for our love of coal-fired electricity and the greed of King Coal.

IR:

Houston where does every body think the Tea Party's money is coming from if it isn't from somebody like Blankenship?

I wonder how many Tea Partiers know that the people behind this Astroturf movement want to repeal the constitutional amendment that gave the power to elect US Senators to the people. Originally, state legislatures elected US Senators, not the people of the state. A lot of the TPers think they're protesting taxation without representation. I'll bet they'd be surprised if their movement unwittingly leads to them having a lot LESS representation than they do now.

Sure Joe. Will you acknowledge that the Bush Administration screwed it up almost beyond comprehension by starving the Afghan war in order to take down Saddam Hussein, wasting lives, dollars, and precious time in the process?

Yeah, yeah, It's all Bush's fault, it always is. Happy now?

This is now Barry's war. He chose to fight it with a troop surge, and as CIC, it's now his responsibility. Will YOU acknowledge that?

You see John, as soon as Obama was elected, it relieved Bush and Co. of any and all responsibility, regardless of the truth of the situation. The only way people like Joe from Albany can function in this world is if they can blame everyone else but them and their party. Happy now, Joe?

Yes Joe, I'll acknowledge that President Obama made a choice to take over a war that was in desperate straights and that he made the final decision to try a troop surge in an attempt to salvage the quagmire that had somehow developed without it being George Bush's fault. I'll also point out that his decision includes a timetable to actually get something done instead of just committing us to a "long war" that was estimated to be a multigenerational affair.

Do you give him credit for not committing us to permanent warfare, with the ongoing, multigenerational loss of life and the steady bleeding of the treasury that the previous strategy would entail?

Oh, how "accountability" sucks when the "blame Bush" excuse stops working and people wise up:

OUCH!!!!

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama, who rocketed to the White House promising "change you can believe in," is now telling voters they shouldn't change a thing.

His message for the fall elections, which are looking ominous for his Democrats, is that Republicans caused the nation's economic troubles, but he and the Democrats are starting to fix them. So stick with the Democrats and don't go back to the GOP.

"This is a choice between the policies that led us into the mess or the policies that are leading out of the mess," Obama said recently in Las Vegas.

Trouble is, it's a tough sell to voters who've seen little progress.

Unemployment is stuck near double digits and polls show many voters have decided Obama's policies are to blame, not his predecessor's.

Obama often frames the argument by saying that Republicans had their chance to drive, then drove the car into a ditch and shouldn't get the keys back. But voters may be concluding that Democrats, who control the White House and both chambers of Congress, have had their chance at the wheel, too, and haven't gotten very far.

"From the American public's point of view, the people in charge at this point are the people who own the problem," said Andrew Kohut, head of the nonpartisan Pew Research Center.

Joe in Albany:

Be honest about the report!

This nightmare began in 2004 so don't start carping about "Barry this and Barry That". I can just imagine the look of horror on President -elect Obama's face when confronted with this BS.He knew immediately the former regime under President Bush were wackos and he was going to need a miracle to clean up all the messes in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan and still find a way out of the looming Depresssion!

President Obama is not perfect but that former administration was off the chain!

OK Joe, I get it--you don't care who caused the problems as long as Democrats get blamed for them. There's that Party of Personal Responsibility thing at its finest.

Yeah, yeah, It's all Bush's fault, it always is.

yes, joey, it is Bush's fault. Just because President Obama has had to take ownership does not absolve the Bush admin. of responsibility for their near criminal neglect of Afghanistan whilehe frittered away American lives in Iraq.

It is Bush's fault. Never forget it!!

Those that absolve Bush of any blame are themselves to blame for the messes that he created because they voted for him. They desperately want the fault to be someone elses because they know this. Those, like Joe, realize that the programs of the Repubs were wrong and actually criminal, but to acknowledge it would mean admitting that they were wrong in the first place, something that they constitutionally cannot do.

Bush created a mountain of problems for whoever inherited the Office of the President with heavy Repub rubber stamping help. Nobody could have done a better job of bringing this Nation back from the brink of a depression disaster like President Obama, nor could they have found ways to wind down the ward in Iraq and Afghanistan like he has. McCain would have been so clueless as to push us more firmly into the ditch with regards to the depression unless his Corporate bosses actually let loose with the money tap and did the hiring that they refuse to do now, even though it is well within their power to hire tens of millions of people nearly instantly.

The Repubs continuing to refuse any sort of blame for the problems that Pres. Obama has on his plate just shows America what lying, conniving, backstabbing thieves they are, and by working with Breitbart for funding just puts that into the spotlight. If America votes for these jokers then the Nation will go down in a flaming tailspin as the Repubs continue to work to destroy us. The Corporations and Banks, sitting on hundreds of trillions of dollars, are complicit with the Repubs and America is watching them very, very closely but they (the Repubs and Corps) are too clueless to see that. They continue to spread their poison and lies about the Obama Admin. and more and more people are seeing it for what it is, especially since the doctored tapes by Breitbart and how that story was played out. By linking themselves to Breitbart the Repubs have shot themselves squarely in the feet and it shows every time they shoot their mouth off that they are lying to the public about their aims.

America may be divided presently, but more people can see what is going on more clearly than ever before because of the internet and the way that information can be found by anyone. Yes, the right keeps tossing out their lies, but those lies keep being debunked for the lies that they are and the Repubs keep being shown to be the ones who started them, no matter who they try to pass the blame onto.

Fear is a big motivator, however, the truth prevails more often than not, which is why the Repubs are in the minority right now to begin with, and there they should stay. If they keep lying and being caught doing so then they are going to keep losing the support of anyone even near the middle, whether they like the Dems or not, they will refuse to vote for the liars, crooks, thieves and false scandal creators (that keep being debunked) on the right.

Bush drove us into the ditch and banged the car up badly, Pres. Obama has the tow truck there and has the car almost out of the ditch. The car is still banged up yet the Repubs keep screaming No No No all the time that the tow truck pulled us out and are refusing to allow Pres. Obama to get the car fixed...and people want to give the keys back to the Repubs?? The Repubs were drunk on power, believing that they could do anything they want without being held responsible, and smashed many things and thousands of lives on their way to the ditch, the death and damage is clearly still there, yet they are arguing with the policeman about the blame even though the cop can smell the reek of power on their breath. They need to be locked up in the drunk tank for a while until they can get back to governing responsibly. Give them the keys back? I Don't Think So! Just say NO to power drunk governing!

Friends don't let friends govern drunkenly, and neither should we!!

B Honest:

OK everybody is off of their azzez clapping and waving their hands like they just don't care in response to your drivel........clap, clap, clap.

R U through?.......now what did that solve? You are one of the reasons the country will continue to be divided because of sh!t like that. The longer liberals continue to disrespect republicans, the more hardened everyone will get.

ITM,

As long as the Repubs keep lying, cheating, race-baiting and using false controversies as their basis to divide the public they will continue to lose support, pretty simple really, but that may be too complicated for you to understand. The longer you continue to drink that Kool-Aid of Death the longer you are going to take to recover...if you ever decide to quit drinking it that is...

As long as the Repubs keep disrespecting the intelligence of the entire Nation they will continue to sink deeper and deeper into despair and hatred because they will have dug themselves a hole that they will never get out of, no matter HOW much money they spend.

Pat: Looks like we are on the same wavelength. It's time for people to start singing from the same song book and get ready for November.

That "wavelength" is a frequency that is growing fainter and less intelligible every day...A dose of reality and a clear channel (and clear heads) is needed if there is to be any hope at all in November...

32 right track

62 wrong track

Generic cong ballot;

44.8 republican

41.7 democrat

These numbers are not trending upwards...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

You can't fix a problem you can't see...

Enjoyed your comment. So true, the democrats need to stop whining about what the President didn't do and instead celebrate what he has done. It's only been 18 months and a lot happened from the beginning of Obama's campaign to election day that altered the priority. Good for Van Jones and cheers to Pres Obama for showing up via video.

Pat, I read some of Jones' speech and he is right on. A few more prescient quotes from that speech:

"He said progressives 'did not lay down' during the 8 years of the Bush administration and shouldn't 'expect other people to lay down for you' just because Obama's election was celebrated as a breakthrough."

"We really believed we'd gotten to some sort of finish line. In fact all we'd done was gotten to a starting line," he said.

AMEN to that. And...

"Jones said the netroots need to realize they are up against an 'epic' force with the conservative media movement, which is trying to 'bury everything you fought for, everything you believe in,' and comparing it to the Lord of the Rings. 'These are orcs, they are here, and they are coming for you,' he said."

He urged us not to "blow out our own candles."

Because the Democratic Party is a coalition of many interests that converge under a "big tent," we tend to have many voices. The blessing of this is its diversity, but it can be a curse if we don't band together and speak up when it counts. And, as President Obama is telling us and Vann Jones is reiterating, the time to speak up is NOW!

Gail, I agree it's a big tent. I'm all for it. But the media will only pick up on the "negative" and this being close to the midterms, it's suicide for this country if John Boehner becomes Speaker of the House. At some time there has to be unity. If not, well then we're cooked.

Jody, I agree wholeheartedly! So much has happened. Everything is moving so fast!

"And, as President Obama is telling us and Vann Jones is reiterating, the time to speak up is NOW"

Somehow I don't think it's a good idea to quote this guy unless you want the republicans to win...

Dangerfield, I'll acknowledge that the right track/wrong track number isn't good, but it bears mentioning that it's been a lot worse. http://www.gallup.com/poll/118204/Americans-Satisfaction-Doubles-January.aspx

Dangerfield: Van Jones may not be to your or the Republicans' liking, but he has important things to say. Just because some have labeled him doesn't mean he doesn't speak truth. We all really should take the time to look more closely at Jones, before dismissing him out of hand.

Good point Gail, and I think there's a lesson to be learned here on the Democratic side. Conservatives are very good at recognizing the sources of their discomfort and immediately going into attack mode. The Democratic party has a tendency to quickly step out of the way and let someone else take a hit. It ultimately only works to the advantage of the bullies and abusers.

"Just because some have labeled him doesn't mean he doesn't speak truth"

Yup, he's a "Truther" all right...that's the point, and I don't know a single democrat in New York who doesn't disdain "Truthers". I don't know many republicans.

...and it would be in the democrat's best interest to ignore him, and I believe that they are.

Shouldnt the fact that you stand on the same side as Van Jones tell liberals anything? The man is a self claimed Marxist and an 9/11 "truter" but yet he has ANY credibility?

Dangerfield,

Having Van Jones speaking for the Dems is a LOT better than having Breitbart speaking for the Repubs. The "scandal" that derailed Van Jones was shown to be engineered by Breitbart and Faux Neuz just like the ACORN, New Black Panthers, and Sherrod fake scandals and they have all been debunked. Van Jones was a victim of a malicious smear campaign, Breitbart is the smear campaign organizer who has been proven to be wrong and who has manufactured those fake scandals out of whole cloth.

I would believe Van Jones long, long before I would even START to listen to Breitbart about ANYTHING! The Repubs using Breitbart as a figure to help their funding is only going to get the racist crazies, Kool-Aid of Death drinkers and their Corporate Bosses to give them money or vote for them. The Repubs keep narrowing their voting base and have the Used Teabaggers splitting their vote. Things are not really looking good for the Repubs no matter what the slanted polls say!

His problems and views are his own, and the administration did not defend him because the accusations were true. The world isn't divided into fox vs msnbc, and facts are facts, whatever their source...

If you are reduced to choosing between a "truther" and a "liar" for your champion...ugh!

This is from the Washington Post (hardly a bastion of right-wing propaganda) and you are encouraged to read the entire article...

Jones, who joined the administration in March as special adviser for green jobs at the CEQ, had issued two public apologies in recent days, one for signing a petition in 2004 from the group 911Truth.org that questioned whether Bush administration officials "may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war" and the other for using a crude term to describe Republicans in a speech he gave before joining the administration.

His one-time involvement with the Bay Area radical group Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), which had Marxist roots, had also become an issue. And on Saturday his advocacy on behalf of death-row inmate Mumia Abu-Jamal, who was convicted of shooting a Philadelphia police officer in 1981, threatened to develop into a fresh point of controversy.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/09/06/van_jones_resigns.html

“Democratic leaders, including Mr. Obama, say they are intent on letting the tax cuts for the wealthy expire as scheduled at the end of this year,” the New York Times front-pages yesterday. “But they have pledged to continue the lower tax rates for individuals earning less than $200,000 and families earning less than $250,000 -- what Democrats call the middle class. Most Republicans want to extend the tax cuts for everyone, and some Democrats agree, saying it would be unwise to raise taxes on anyone while the economy remains weak. If no action is taken, taxes on income, dividends, capital gains and estates would all rise.”

Eric I mentioned this last week. its not smart to raise taxes with the economy still not responding to the (liberal) way of doing things so far. Bush did the wrong this by not resending the cut when we went to war, Obama would be making as big a mistake by raising taxes when its not clear where the economy is going. i said last week he should extend the cuts for the middle class or make those perminate, and delay expiring the cuts for the wealthy. i said 1 years but i have heard some that have said 3 years. we can deal with deficets after the economy starts to really pick up, in addition i think Gates is looking to make major cuts in defense spending.

U.S. Navy:

Someone asked what is wrong with the Dems. Another question (related) is why Obama is not getting credit among more voters for a very active, hard working and successful 18 months he has had as President? Your post answers those questions, and to put it more simply - it's the economy folks. I won't put stupid. Not calling anyone stupid so early on a Monday morning.

Well said US Navy Disabled Veteran Retired! Guess some of us disabled vets know the score far better than the rest of the cowards who shrank from serving their country. A real shame that the rich and greedy keep getting all the advantages while the poor and needy and the middle class keep getting the big shaft from the rightwing Useful Idiots who are too stupid to see they're being played by the rich and greedy

Beverly

Unfortunately that is the mind set of the media today. Nobody fact checks any more, they go for stories that play on the fears and anger of Americans. Their sole purpose? To divide Americans and push their agenda with lies, partial truths and misinformation. When caught they just say we misunderstood them. Until the American people stand up and say we will not condone that behavior anymore and hold them responsible this will continue to be the plan of the day. Too bad because it really shortchanges the American people.

Um, dangerfield, many of us women felt Hilary did, in fact, pimp out her daughter - Pimping doesn't ALWAYS mean sex,...it can mean free press - or a sweet car, as MTV would tell it.

dangerfield,

Good morning.

Read the article . . . I really don't see much there to support a charge of misogyny.

Because you make critical comments about specific women is specific situations does not mean you hate all women.

I think that the entire post is just a little over the top . . . just like Keith Olbermann ironically.

Keith's show has an "oddball" segment for goodness sakes . . . he is not taking himself too seriously and I would suggest you follow his lead.

Self-hating women in denial...and for the lady (Actually defending Schuster! What if he had used the term PIMP about candidate OBAMA?) who said that "many women agreed..."..and to any and all defenders of "Keith" and "david", sexism is the same as racism...

as to "lightening up" You can't have it both ways. Do you get your marching orders (As this group is obviously far removed from the "mainstream") from a news program or an entertainment program?

Is "Keith" a newsman, or is he like "Entertainer, Rush Limbaugh"? Either way, he's a sexist creep and "many women" have agreed that his apologists are self-hating women.

dangerfield,

The article you linked had jokes about Carrie Prejean at its center. If there is something more to this than that, please make it known. All criticism of Hillary Clinton is not automatically misogynist just as all criticism of President Obama isn't automatically racist.

Otherwise, I'll leave you to pick a fight with someone else . . . you seem to be gulity of the very thing you are accusing Keith of . . . I mean to read what I wrote and come up with the phrase "self hating woman" is pretty ridiculous.

You need to chill.

Life has nuance dangerfield. Apparently everything is black and white for you. . . you miss alot looking at the world through such a narrow lense.

(And for the record, I don't get "marching orders" from anyone . . . I make up my own mind. You should try it . . . very liberating.)

dangerfield:

Schuster's comments were very inappropriate (the pimp comment). He should have been canned permanently.

Although liking some things about Olbermann I do sense that Olbermann has issues with women. Can't put my finger on it, but there seems to be a tendancy by Olbermann to belittle women.

But alas, who cares. Olbermann as other television pundits (left and right) should be given no more consideration or attention than the punditry that they expouse, and that inludes Schultz, Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Ingram, Coulter, etc. I do think that Rachel Maddow is a step above the others when it comes to researching and reporting the facts as best she can.

Life has nuance dangerfield. Apparently everything is black and white for you. . . you miss alot looking at the world through such a narrow lense.

Yes, and there is so much nuance to; Republicans bad, democrats good? That is the "theme" of this little amusement park, where "Eric" is a charter member.

It is this little band of synchophants who view the world through a narrow lens, and desperately attempt to shout-down any opinion or information that deviates from that narrow "frequency"

Ms. Nash, what opinions have you expressed in the month or so I have been here that would indicate that you don't get your opinions from the entertainers at MSNBC? None that I have seen.

Some of you guys will fall on the sword for Olbermann. For what I have no idea.

You women especially should just tell your daughters that Olbermann is the epitome of a real man...lol.....

This man has disrespected women constantly on his show and all you women do is give him permission to continue.

Couldn't agree with you more CA. I've stopped watching MSNBC after 5 now. Never watched Fox.

Kudos to Jake Trapper from ABC who I thought did an excellent job with This Week - the only Sunday show worth watching. He should have been kept on although I have great respect for Christiana Amapour. I think ABC jumped the gun on this one to get a big name when they have a rising star on their hands.

You mean like the 'lady' on fox news referred to Obama as Michelle's 'baby daddy'? Whatever, you are trying to create a nontroversy. When someone shelters their child from the limelight for 20 years and then rolls her out for public consumption during a highly publicized and visual campaign OR when someone trots their 'family values' prop children across stage and pulls them out of school to assist in the 'wholesome family values' virtue - well YES many of us found that to be quite pimp like. I don't care if you perceive it to be misogynous,...Women aren't STUPID and we can recognize pandering when we see it - no matter WHO is doing it. Spare me your righteous indignation on my behalf, it isn't necessary, full moon. (sorry, this didn't post here originally as I wasn't logged into the site - I am guessing).

Alan, NJ & InTheMiddle:

I will say however that Olbermann does have it correct when speaking of two women, Palin and Bachmann. They are idiots. Neither should be given any quarter. In these two cases I hope Olbermann continues to rip the two of them.

dangerfield,

Every opinion that I have I can back up with facts that I found on my own. I don't have to create faux opinions to create faux "objectivity" for you benefit.

I use my life experiences and facts to form my opinion. If someone else's life experiences lead them to a different conclusion, I am more than happy discusss that.

But I am a little weary of your "holier than though" civility act one week, and then having you call me a "self hating woman" the next.

A friendly reminder - you don't know me and I am not trying to convince you of anything.

If you can back up your opinions with persuasive facts, I am more than happy to consider your point of view.

The article you posted was a bunch of folks saying they didn't like Keith Olbermann telling jokes or making what they felt were over the top comments about various women.

I do not share their feelings. If that is "defending" Keith Olbermann, so be it.

Love him or hate him, Keith Olbermann is man enough to admit when he is wrong.

Yet another lesson you could learn from Mr. Olbermann.

I will say however that Olbermann does have it correct when speaking of two women, Palin and Bachmann. They are idiots. Neither should be given any quarter. In these two cases I hope Olbermann continues to rip the two of them.

Wouldn't know as I don't watch him. Stopped after he and Richard Wolfe did a hit job on Hillary Clinton. This was made worse when it came out that Richard Wolfe was a sycophantic supporter of Barak Obama. I didn't know that at the time. KO was always in the Obama camp.

CA:

I do think that Rachel Maddow is a step above the others when it comes to researching and reporting the facts as best she can.

That's my impression as well. I like Olbermann's special comments and get a kick out of his "Worst Persons in the World" sometimes, but he's often a little more bombastic that I care for. And I can't stand some of his guests. Especially Michael Mustow.

Nash, There are more than enough "high horses" to go around here...:)

This is the definition of self-hating that refers to defense of a sexist misogynist like "keith"

Types of self-hatred

"The term self-hatred can refer to either a strong dislike for oneself, one's actions, or a strong dislike or hatred of one's own race, gender, nationality, sexual orientation, species or any other corporate group of which one may be a member. When used in the latter context it is generally defined as hatred of one's identity based on the demographic in question, as well as a desire to distance oneself from this identity."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-hatred

If "keith" was on that other network that is as much a touchstone for those here as the one that is the genesis of this blog, his transgressions would be seen for what they are, and he for who he really is.A sexist PIG!

"Salon’s Rebecca Traister agreed Olbermann regularly displayed his contempt for women. “Olbermann has a terrible record of going out of his way to talk about young, attractive women he believes to be stupid in grotesquely dismissive and oversexualized terms.”

Traister had written the same thing in her columns for Salon, for instance calling Olbermann out when he “felt free to call [Paris] Hilton a slut on air and speculate about whether anyone had ever ejaculated in her face.”

What a great guy!

dangerfield:

Um, I did know what self hatred meant.

Mercy.

I said that the "evidence" you presented did not persuade me that Keith Olbermann was a misogynist.

That assessment still stands.

P.S. If you are going to post some "he said/she said" stuff about "ejaculation" no less, I think it would be great if you provided a transcript of when this happend, and the CONTEXT in which it happened, as opposed to you telling us that some reporter lady told someone else that this is true.

Do you think they would have run with the stories that you have shared here on your much beloved PBS Newshour, a show that I watch often and once was the only news I had because I couldn't afford cable?

I saw some of Olbermann's segments about Carrie Prejean. I thought they were in very bad taste. And Michael Musto is one of the guests he has that I cannot stand. I usually change the channel when he comes on. I don't really consider Olbermann a misogynist, though. He just gets too raunchy for my tastes sometimes.

Olbermann should have some balls and for once have someone on his show who disagrees with him. Ann Coulter would be perfect. It would be hilarious to watch KeithO get chewed up and spit out by his intellectual superior. A girl, no less. Maybe that would be what finally leads to an on-air crack up or even better, the idea of KeithO having to be talked down from a ledge high above Manhattan.

P.S. If you are going to post some "he said/she said" stuff about "ejaculation" no less, I think it would be great if you provided a transcript of when this happend, and the CONTEXT in which it happened, as opposed to you telling us that some reporter lady told someone else that this is true.

Ok. I have now what?

Nash, it isn't he said she said, it is a liberal blogger criticising "Keith" for an entire segment of his show...I have posted many links that you have said that you said you haven't had the time to read in the recent past, but here' s the article in the HUFFINGTON POST, the quote, the link and my best wishes...

Last night in his Paris Hilton reporting, Keith Olbermann reported that Hilton claimed to have been punched in the face at a nightclub by former Miss U.S.A.-cum-"Dancing With The Stars" castoff Shanna Moakler ). Underneath footage of Paris going to the police station to file a report was the tagline "A Slut and Battery," which stayed on the screen for a full 20 seconds (of a 32-second clip), including during footage of Moakler.

Even more shocking is what Olbermann alluded to with this comment:

Paris Hilton claims she was punched in the face yesterday morning at a nightclub in Hollywood [pause] 'Course she's had worse things happen to her face...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eat-the-press/2006/10/10/todays-worst-person-in-t_e_31430.html

You know very well that I don't post anything without attribution. He's a sexist. Period.

Give me a break Alan in NJ! Keith was for Hilary right from the start - he changed because he did not like where Hilary stood on some issues and a few other reasons (please try to remember he was friends of the Clintons). I have been watching for years.

Also - the women that he is picking on are IDIOTS - just like a lot of the MEN he picks on.

This is a NON-ISSUE.

Thank for providing some links and context on this dangerfield.

I asked for them not because I did not believe you had them, but rather I feel that when we are making points, it saves alot of time and adds alot of validity if we are all looking at the same information.

I do not think the screen caption described is appropriate or even funny . . . same for the line about worse things happening to her face.

But here's the thing . . .

As a frequent viewer of Keith Olbermann's show, and I know for a fact that the point of the show is not to put down women.

I also do not feel that life and work of Keith Olbermann can be fairly represented by the statement that he is a "sexist" and "hates women".

So yes, I agree, that Keith Olbermann has said and done things that I don't agree with.

But I reject the attempt to label him as something that he is not.

Of course, you are free to believe whatever you like.

In The Middle, TX:

You disrespected me personally on this board last week, and it had nothing to do with politics. You have no right to call Keith Olbermann out for disrespecting women. Believe it or not, some people take to heart what is said about them on this board.

Think about that the next time you want to denigrate a fellow poster's character on First Read. Remember, as a member of the military you are fighting for my right to speak my mind, too.

Gail, TN

Gail,

I fought and I'm retired. I really can see some of the clowns for what they truly are in this nation. I ask myself sometimes did I really put my life on the line time and time again for some of these idiots.

BTW:

If I dissed you it is probably because you came at me incorrectly. I am the same way in here as I am on the street.

Advice: You need to stop taking all of this blog BS to heart. 90% of the people in here are full of shiznit. There are about 10% of the people in here the same way in real life.

Brilliant Jody! Thanks for pointing out what ridiculous drivel passes as journalism these days!

Historic Financial Reform was passed last week and only mentioned in 'passing' by the MSM!

Yes Gotcha Gregory... I'm l@@king at YOU!

Much easier to pile on the Sherrod story like a bunch of hyenas vying for a zebra carcass!

Jody,

Right on. May I add that it is ridiculous for the Republicans to try and sell this as a 3.8 Billion Dollar tax hike. The Republicans controlled congress and the white house when Bush pushed through the Tax Cuts (by reconciliation) and set the expiration date. Reality the Democrats are NOT calling for a massive Tax Hike - The Republicans are calling for the largest increase in the deficit in modern memory. PERIOD.

Jody - i would agree with your assessment about the 'classified' leaks. It is also interesting that these leaks are coming to light NOW - right before the midterms, as to 'remind' the electorate about the situation in Afghanistan and how the President is bungling the situation there. Frankly, I thnik that whomever did this did it too early. The electorate has not really gotten into who is doing what and will not be doing so until the middle of September at the earliest, so the impact of the revelation will not play as much as expected. Nevertheless, the fact that so MUCH classified information was divulged makes me wonder if there is a DIRECT political angle in all of this and WHO is behind it.

Pietro,

I think you may be on to something here. Now that I see it in text it does appear to be a little fishy. President Obama will now spend the week with this instead of concentrating 100% on Jobs etc. Anything to interfere with his agenda seems to be a pattern lately.

Nash: Hope you've recovered from the Birthday party! ;0)

Beautiful post!

Thanks Feisty . . . I have recovered . . . but my checking account has not! lol

Nashville_fan - can't blame the media solely for letting the rich and greedy Marie Antionette crowd get their cake and eat it too while getting massive tax cut welfare. We have to blame the worthless self serving politicians since they are the craven cabal who passes this kind of garbage legislation, especially the corrupt conservative christians.

It's your Daughters and my Granddaughters who will end up paying for all this tax cut welfare that has done nothing but run up our Reagan Bush Bush National Debt, I feel sorry for their generation because our generations were to selfish to do the right thing for our future generations. Too many Americans ask not what they can do for our country, they only want to know what their country can do for them while getting tax cut welfare!

Good points Eric . . . the politicians in this country play a major role in keeping folks confused and dispirited . . . so they can remain in power and continue getting, in the words of the wise men in the band Dire Straits, "money for nothing and their chicks for free." (lol)

That ain't workin'.

Indeed.

Nashville_fan,

With us having a 9 almost 10 yr old, I see the same things, the kids do not care about race, they care about the world and their friends. Yes, they like the great gifties etc. but if the friends are not there then it does not matter as much. It pleases me to no end that our 9 yr old is becoming a responsible young Lady and cares for more than just things. It is too bad that the Repubs are trying their d@mndest to destroy any chance that these kids have to become successful adults.

I am glad that you have recovered, we are anticipating a recovery time ourselves, yet looking forward to it!

If only the Repubs showed the same respect and levels of responsibility of today's kids we would be in a lot better shape, but instead they scream NO NO NO like a spoiled 2 yr old and, just like the 2 yr old, they need to be taught that they do NOT get everything that they want, no matter how loud they scream!

Thanks for sharing your insights B.Honest . . . your daughter sounds like an impressive young lady.

Thank You Nashville_fan, She really works at it. It sounds like yours does as well, is good to hear about other's kids doing well!!

B.Honest,

Sounds like a smart little girl, and I think a lot of parents should follow their children's leads. Things like hate, prejudice and racism are learned traits not genetic. Children have this unique ability to get along (takes some longer than others but they do figure it out quickly) with each other and accept each other pretty openly.

Thanks for sharing that with us.

Okay, we look forward to it! I was looking for your legal opinion from last week. Was any part of Breitbart's hatchet job libel or slanderous? I mean his own statements certainly gave rise to his motive and intent - which seems to be half the battle of proof. Did you have a good vaca? ttyl

FirstRead is essentially the same thing as Newsvine, now. Your user name and password for FR will also work on Newsvine. If you're logged into FR, your also logged into Newsvine, so you don't have to do it twice.

PS. Houston! I invited you to Libs R Us, too - did you get the message? I can resend if you have interest,...no pressure if you don't!

Clara ~ I wish I had studied it more. But that's the beauty of vacation. To the extent that Breitbart misrepresented or misportrayed facts, then yes, there would be a possible action for defamation. The chief defenses to defamation are substantial truth and privilege. Not sure what the privilege would be, but anything is possible. Maybe she is a public figure, which makes a person more fair game, but defamation cases can still be brought under those circumstances. I would have to know more about it before I could tell you whether there Breitbart has a likely substantial truth defense. If he just used Sherrod's own words against her, then her case might be pretty tough to make.

Had a good vacation, and thank you.

Eric: I think you missed my point entirely.

Eric I believe it would be about the last straw for the Dem's if they balk on allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire on people making over $250,000, that being said what are the alternatives? If you look at what's happened to Obama's agenda it is clear we need more Dem's in Congress not less, I have been very disappointed in the watered down legislation that has been signed into law since Obama has taken office, time after time what starts out as a fair meaningful bill has been turned into lobbyist written garbage after the Senate gets done with it, it has been sad indeed, but if the Dem's throw up their hands and say to hell with it this election cycle what do they think the legislation is going to look like with Republican majorities? A very scary thought in my opinion, Social Security and Medicare will be dismantled, the U.S. will have to engage in some new military adventure to keep the Neo-cons happy and to make sure there is no money for any domestic programs, any way I will go vote for every Dem on the ballot, I won't be smiling or all giddy about it, but I will do it because to let the Republicans walk back in and finish making this country a place where the wealthy top 2% prosper at the expense of the other 98% is not something I can live with.

I voted for President Obama for many of the reasons posted here. I also am disappointed to some extent that he does not fight the fight all the way to the end. Too many concessions just to get a no vote anyway from the republicans. I would rather he push his agenda, force the republicans to stand up and vote soall Americans can see what the republicans really are.

Sometimes you can make a better point by loosing a battle as long as you stay committed to winning the battle. This has been a pet peeve of mind against the democrats for a long time. Just stand up and fight. Call them out and make them (the republicans) stand up and vote. Then let them go out on their campaign trail and try to defend why they did not support the 95% of the people representing main street but supported the 5% representing wall street. We are becoming an Oligarchy were the power and wealth will be controlled by 2-3% of the people / corporations.

why don't you tell it to your damn Dems??? They've been in charge since '06. I suggest if you have a bitch you talk to them

The Republicans went to war doing tax cuts and still advocate for tax cuts and spending went through the roof. Since you decided to use strong words, How about your @!$%#ing ass go and fight then we will have something to talk about you pile of @!$%#. Want to cut taxes on the backs of people fighting your @!$%#ing wars. Piss off!!

The bottom line is that tax policy has far-reaching effects, and for decades, liberals have refused to acknowledge them. The dire consequences of higher tax burdens in times of economic weakness were made most clear when FDR raised taxes in 1937, causing a double-dip in GDP that prolonged the Great Depression. If the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, recovery from the current crisis will likely be prolonged, and we will have no one to blame but ourselves for not observing the lessons of history. And I'm going to repeat myself.....................GO TALK TO THE DAMN DEMS!!! Why aren't they ending the war?????? You know as well as I do this enemy of an administration is here for one reason and that is to kill our country from within. No doubt about it!! So if you want the war stopped..........call Obenemy!

Touche' Terry my DAV friend. Keep telling it like it is. Drives the righties crazy.

Annie, maybe you should brush up on your Constitutional knowledge - the President from '06 to '08 was still GWB, and he still had the power to veto. And he only vetoed ONE item before Democrats took power in Congress, then he vetoed 11 times.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/electionissues/tp/Bush-Vetos.htm

Nice language by the way. I can tell you've really got some great arguments to make.

Also, regarding this:

The dire consequences of higher tax burdens in times of economic weakness were made most clear when FDR raised taxes in 1937

Yes, but that happened AT THE INSISTENCE of Republicans!!

And what exactly would she sue Fox for? As has been shown by Howard Kurtz she was fired by the Agriculture Dept before Fox showed the tape.

JoAnne: I don't have a clue what Bush 41 or Bush 43 are doing. In fact, I didn't have a clue what they were doing when they lived in the WH. Perhaps they did nothing and just watched the country slide down hill.

Good morning JoAnne,

I think ex-President Bush is doing exactly what every ex-President should do, stay on the sidelines, and let the new quarterback call the game. I'm sure that it's been difficult for him after eight years of public scrutiny, but I'd like to believe that he's made the right choice, for both he and his family, and to be honest, for President Obama. I'm sure that if President Obama asked for assistance, as he did with the Haiti relief effort, President Bush would step up and give his best effort. Unsolicited advice/assistance, would probably not be either welcome or appropriate.

Bush is enjoying the good life here in Texas without all of the BS he had to put up with in DC.

The man is on his ranch and living just like everyone else.

Obama is the POTUS and Bush has done his time. He is not out there trying to stay relevant like Clinton and Carter.

GW is busy making money, a lot of money off the corporate interests he represented so well. I know of a Dallas conference that asked him to give a keynote address. His price to drive across town and talk for an hour was $25,000.

ITM, TX: I agree with you on this. I think President Bush has been pretty gracious and gentlemanly to, for the most part, stay out of the public eye since he left office. I appreciate that he hasn't taken pot shots at President Obama, and that when asked, he stepped up to help out during the crisis in Haiti. My take is that he and Mrs. Bush are more than happy to be out of the spotlight.

Bush is living the life of "let's not ever refer to Bush".......

The lie of omission.....if we don't talk about it, it never happened. Republicans NEVER point to anything Bush did as a reference for good stewardship. It's always Reagan, Reagan, Reagan..... Not that Reagan was that great......only, let's not talk about Bush or Nixon!

Can't mention anything good about W!.....Amazing I tell 'ya, absolutely amazing!

Chilled: Perhaps you are right. Imagine how it would feel to a former president, to be erased from his party's memory after giving 8 years of his life as president. That's cold, no matter what your politics.

John B. - $25,000 may sound like a lot of money to you and me, but I fear it's probably about standard on the speech circuit. A lot of people out there make a comfortable living doing nothing but. Former politicians, former athletes and coaches, phony doctors of psycho-babble, self-proclaimed financial geniuses, former governors of Alaska.....and hey, why not? If I thought anyone would pay a dime to hear my opinions, I'd hire an agent and start working on my delivery too!

Gail, TN - Looks like we both hit the "post" button at the same time. Good thoughts, as are some of the others you've put up here today. Regarding the one about coal - are you familiar with the story of Centralia, PA? I was just reading up on it again recently - my Dad and I used to drive through there bringing me home from college back in the 70's - the pictures today give new meaning to the words "ghost town". And it's still burning.....

Thanks, JoAnne in PA. No, I didn't know the story of Centralia, PA. I just googled it and it's unbelievable. Well, not really. Nothing is too far out as far as the coal and oil industries are concerned. When will we finally leave the technology of the 19th and 20th centuries behind? When will we move beyond the engine of the Industrial Revolution? Clinging to this dirty past is dragging down America's economy and killing us, too!

The Repubs are specifically keeping Bush out of the picture considering he was the poster boy for How To Kill A Country...multiple counties at that. They know that if they wheeled Bush out that their popularity rating would immediately bottom out since everyone KNOWS that he was a major failure in office, after all, he was just a puppet: Blow money up his @zz and his lips moved! Cheney was the extreme Corporate warmonger, and he has the sense to keep mostly out of the fray even though he should be on trial for his many crimes against humanity in fabricating reasons to go to war with Iraq and letting Bin Laden go in Tora Bora. As long as those two stay under cover then it gives the Dems less ammunition, at least that is their thinking. Too bad for them though, we KNOW what they did, how they did it and most of all, why: Pure Greed!

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 broadly lowered income, capital gains, dividends, and estate taxes. Fanning the lie that only the rich benefited, liberal economists Peter Orszag and William Gale described the Bush tax cuts as reverse-government redistribution of wealth, "[shifting] the burden of taxation away from upper-income, capital-owning households and toward the wage-earning households of the lower and middle classes." This criticism stuck so well that it is difficult to find a liberal today who doesn't believe that these tax relief measures were anything more than "tax cuts for the rich."

But the data does not support this conclusion. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Bush tax cuts actually shifted the total tax burden farther toward the rich so that in 2000-2004, total income tax paid by the top 40% of income-earners grew by 4.6% to 99.1% of the total.

Ah, nice sleight of hand there, Annie. That little doozy neglects a few things:

1) The taxes paid by most rich people come from CAPITAL GAINS, which is currently 15% - lower than most EVERY middle class person's tax rate. The top 1% also own 43% of the wealth in the U.S. - they see the most gain, why SHOULDN'T they pay the most?

2) The "total income tax paid" thing neatly disguises a couple things: One, the above point, and two, that rich people STOP paying tax on FICA somewhere around 120,000, so they actually pay LESS tax as a total on this particular point.

3) You missed the problem of less revenue. Republicans do this little dance of "HAVE TO CUT THE DEFICIT!" along with "CAN'T RAISE ANY TAXES!" - oh yes, and they started TWO expensive WARS while they cut taxes. So they INCREASED spending while decreasing income. Then they want to whine and complain that the deficit is high and that we should cut taxes further?

THEY want to "destroy this country from within" with that tactic. Problem is, people like you are too stupid to realize it.

One more thing - taxes are lower on the rich now than they have been in 6 decades. Why aren't they creating jobs NOW, given that they already have such a low tax burden?

JVH,

Great come back. Funny how she does not let facts stand in the way of her posts. Currently the richest people in America has a effective Income tax rate of less than 17%. I think it was Warren Buffett that said his secretary has a higher tax rate than him. 50% of the power and wealth in this country controlled by 5% of its people, with the top 2-3% controlling over 40% of the power and wealth. We are becoming a nation of those that have (and want more) and those that have not (and will not).

Journalism.............hmm..........used to be an honorable profession. Not now "MSM got him elected"..........I wonder if Chris Mattew's leg is still "tingling". And you people crack on Fox, Beck or any of them. Thank gosh we have BOTH SIDES to listen to. If you just listen to MSM, first of all they never tell you anything and second of all, "MSM GOT HIM ELECTED"..........whatever happened to "just report the facts"?????

AnnieRich:

Saying "both sides do it" simply does not cut it.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

And I note that the "both sides do it" crowd are really short on examples.

Fox News is on 24 hours a day 7 days a week saying things that the KNOW are not true.

Somebody show me where any other news channel is spreading left wing lies even after the lie has been debunked.

I'd love to see it.

No dangerfield:

Obama got himself elected. Not saying that MSM didn't help with their apparent support of the man, as did Fox Noise with their constant irrational attacks against the man which people grew tired of, but in the end, and regardless of MSM and Fox, people wanted to elect Obama. In addition, there were some individual players who had a hand in helping Obama become President, Hillary who took the man too lightly and thought she was a shoe-in and McCain & Palin who were just plain disgusting.

dangerfield:

Obviously, we were not watching the same campaign.

Just the "flag pin" controversy alone is enough to debunk everything you wrote.

Dangerfield:

At what point did the MSM become the enemy of Obama supporters here? The MSM got him elected..

And your evidence for this is what? Next time Dangerfield rants against the president, he'll probably claim ACORN got Obama elected. To those with Obama Derangement Syndrome, Obama's election couldn't POSSIBLY have been due to the fact that he was a far better candidate than John McCain, didn't have a crazy running mate named Sarah, and the fact the chickens of Bush's disastrous economic policies just happened to come home to roost a few months prior to the election.

CA, Tuscaloosa, AL

No dangerfield:

Obama got himself elected. Not saying that MSM didn't help with their apparent support of the man, as did Fox Noise with their constant irrational attacks against the man which people grew tired of, but in the end, and regardless of MSM and Fox, people wanted to elect Obama.

Disagree. The man most responsible for getting Barack Obama elected was George W Bush. If the country was not in such a bad state how else would a junior senator with less than one term get elected?

Alan, NJ:

So GW Bush was the reason why Obama beat Hillary in the Dem primary? I don't think so. Sure, GW was a factor with helping Obama beat McCain, but Hillary beat herself in the primary against Obama.

Clinton lost due to a disregard for the smaller primaries, David Poulfe's excellent analysis the democratic caucuses (how they could be used to offset losses in the larger state primaries), the fact that blacks voted for Obama as a block and the dislike of the Clintons by the party establishment particularly the congressional members.

However, all this would have counted for nothing if it wasn't for the fact that the country was a mess caused by George W Bush.

If the country was not in such a bad state how else would a junior senator with less than one term get elected?

But Alan, you neglect the fact that we had a choice between that "junior Senator" and a Senator who was a decorated war veteran with DECADES of experience. Why didn't the "guy with all the experience" get elected instead?

Simplicity doesn't cut it.

Jose Von Hussein

I just gave my opinion that George W Bush left the country in such a mess was the reason that Barack Obama was elected. You reply that

"But Alan, you neglect the fact that we had a choice between that "junior Senator" and a Senator who was a decorated war veteran with DECADES of experience. Why didn't the "guy with all the experience" get elected instead?

Simplicity doesn't cut it."

Are you illiterate?

Where do I get these crazy ideas?...HuffPo, NEWSVINE...WaPo

Your request is being processed...

Study: Media Coverage Has Favored Obama Campaign

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/31/study-media-coverage-has_n_139916.html

Study: Media coverage has favored Obama campaign

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2008/10/29/2053986-study-media-coverage-has-favored-obama-campaign

An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage

By Deborah Howell, Ombudsman
Sunday, November 9, 2008

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR2008110702895.html

"And your evidence for this is what? Next time Dangerfield rants against the president, he'll probably claim ACORN got Obama elected. To those with Obama Derangement Syndrome..."

No amount of evidence can sway a zealot, I know. And many a reasonable person has been attacked by a mob...

...that ODS thing seems to cut both ways...I VOTED for the PRESIDENT silly, angry Houston with an exclamation point.

You seem to live is a scary place that doesn't allow for dissent or disagreement with your narrow and biased point of view. This forces you to attack anyone who disagrees with you, using the only limited blunt instruments you have at your disposal; Accusing them of hating the president, or being a right-winger...

Your attacking me as a right-winger is hysterical and hysterically funny/sad at the same time. The desperate need to flail about attacking anyone who doesn't share your views and the extremely limited bandwidth of your frequency is fine and entirely appropriate for a site like this, but it's a severe handicap in the real world of political THOUGHT.

I support the president, but I think he's doing a mediocre job. That actually seems to place me in the center.

You seem to live is a scary place that doesn't allow for dissent or disagreement with your narrow and biased point of view

__________________

Hmmm.... now where have I heard the dissent & disagreement line before?

WAIT!

I know... the other basement dweller in OH - Mixed Nuts!

Houston! - Ignore him... it's not too obvious he's here only to instigate!

PS: Did you give selfish redhead the day off?

dangerfield,

I just went to the first link you posted, and this is what I found:

"Comments made by sources, voters, reporters and anchors that aired on ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts over the past two months reflected positively on Obama in 65 percent of cases, compared to 31 percent of cases with regards to McCain, according to the Center for Media and Public Affairs."

and this

"The center analyzed 979 separate news stories shown between Aug. 23 and Oct. 24, and excluded evaluations based on the campaign horse race, including mention of how the candidates were doing in polls. For instance, when a voter was interviewed on CBS Oct. 14 saying he thought Obama brought a freshness to Washington, that was chalked up as a pro-Obama comment.

When NBC's Andrea Mitchell reported Oct. 1 that some conservatives say that Sarah Palin is not ready for prime-time, that's marked in the negative column for McCain."

This really doesn't strike me as a great way to "prove" that the media favored Barack Obama.

If one candidate is running a better campaign than another candidate, and folks comment on what is happening, then wouldn't it be reporting THE TRUTH and not promoting one candidate or the other?

I mean seriously dangerfield.

These links basically prove how pervasive the need to create fake "balance" has become in our news media.

I don't need "balance", I need the truth. . . not twisting everything around in an effort to be "fair" to "both sides".

John McCain selected an inexperienced and poorly informed running mate. Folks commented on it. That's called REALITY.

Sorry if that isn't "fair" enough for you.

Houston! - Ignore him... it's not too obvious he's here only to instigate!

Struck a nerve with the person who most "resembles that remark"..lol...lol...lol

and doesn't even realize that the only way to ignore someone is to...wait for it...ignore them!

Sorry if that isn't "fair" enough for you.

No, it isn't, nor is basing a rebuttal on incomplete scholarship I'm afraid. try this link if you get the time...

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/presspol/

Where they also studied and reported on the bias during the democratic primaries...

Nash, thanks for looking at one link...and basing your spirited defense on that and that only...as to your belief that your "beliefs" stated here are the "truth"...

Some look for evidence that will lead them to a conclusion

Some begin with a conclusion and only look for evidence that supports their preconceived beliefs...

You seem to (mostly) be a nice person, but you are not at all unbiased when it comes to the president and the administration.

Alan said:

I just gave my opinion that George W Bush left the country in such a mess was the reason that Barack Obama was elected.

Right. And I asked the question (which you failed to answer) that stated the obvious: There was a CHOICE between that "junior" Senator and one with decades of experience. Your overall point was that GWB leaving the country "a mess" was why this "junior Senator" got elected, but rather than taking the whole context into view (i.e. - McCain was on the ballot too), you chose to take a cheap shot at the current President and his prior position and make it seem like Americans only voted for Obama since GWB screwed things up, except that that doesnt explain the many, MANY differing reasons why tens of millions of Americans voted for him (he's smart, he's educated, he can think, he inspired people, he had better ideas than the other guy, etc.).

Again, simplicity doesn't cut it, and despite your best efforts, you've still not made a convincing case. Try looking deeper - oh, and also answering the question I asked.

"Illiterate"? No. Better at comprehending than you? Absolutely.

dangerfield,

I did not look at all the links because from time to time, I actually have to do my job!

lol

You did not really address the point that I made, that sometimes in life, one "side" screws up more than the other "side".

How do propose folks report that "fairly"?

Whenever you have asked me why I believe as I do, I have always been happy to tell you. I don't have an "agenda", other than to move this country forward. I call 'em like I see 'em.

P.S. You seem to be a likeable enough as well! :o)

Jose Von Hussein

"Right. And I asked the question (which you failed to answer) that stated the obvious: There was a CHOICE between that "junior" Senator and one with decades of experience. Your overall point was that GWB leaving the country "a mess" was why this "junior Senator" got elected,"

... Yes, that is my opinion.

"but rather than taking the whole context into view (i.e. - McCain was on the ballot too), you chose to take a cheap shot at the current President and his prior position and make it seem like Americans only voted for Obama since GWB screwed things up, except that that doesnt explain the many, MANY differing reasons why tens of millions of Americans voted for him (he's smart, he's educated, he can think, he inspired people, he had better ideas than the other guy, etc.)."

.... that is your opinion

"Again, simplicity doesn't cut it, and despite your best efforts, you've still not made a convincing case. Try looking deeper - oh, and also answering the question I asked."

....again your opinion, although I was not attempting to make a case, I was stating an opinion.

""Illiterate"? No. Better at comprehending than you? Absolutely."

...again this is your opinion.

You did not really address the point that I made, that sometimes in life, one "side" screws up more than the other "side".

But the sad reality is that there are actually more than just two (black and white, no gray areas? didn't you accuse me of that?) sides and that the truth often lies somewhere in the middle of the absolutes...

And with all due respect; If you have time constraints, reading and information gathering should take precedence over posting opinions and or rebuttals.

PS;(Irony Dept.) The guy famous for that line about "likability" is now way behind the person he damned with that faint praise...:)

Dangerfield

I support the president, but I think he's doing a mediocre job. That actually seems to place me in the center.

That statement makes Dangerfield an obvious liar as well as a hypocritical name-caller. No supporter of the president would start a thread falsely claiming that the MSM got him elected.

dangerfield:

I have more than enough "research" already if the first link is an example of the type of thing that persuades you.

I am well aware that there are more than two sides, but I use that framework because the article I read did - McCain versus Obama.

I am taking your non-answer as acceptance that President Obama ran a better campaign than John McCain, had better positions than John McCain, and had less baggage than John McCain.

Thus if the media covered reality, it would inevitably look better for the better candidate.

In my biased opinion! :o)

I mean, John McCain could not remember how many houses he has . . . not many ways to make a "positive" story out of that . . . and why should you have to?

Dangerfield:

and doesn't even realize that the only way to ignore someone is to...wait for it...ignore them!

Now THAT is too funny to pass up: Just a couple of weeks ago, Dangerfield pompously proclaimed that he was going to ignore me because I was such a bad fellow. Looks like his actions don't exactly live up to his words. He hasn't done a very good job of ignoring me lately.

Didn't you hear Houston?

dangerfield sets the tone and makes the rules around here! lmao!

At least in his and the rest of the 'gangs' own 'widdle 'minds!

dangerfield wins the MOST arrogant & self-important poster on FR! Hands down!

Not to say there isn't some stiff competition from the righties around here...

And to engage him ONLY gives him some type of integrity which he is craving...

This article does a pretty good job of debunking the sore-loser claim that Obama won because of media bias:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3612\

McCain made his OWN bad press: His desperate "Hail Mary" selection of know-nothing Sarah Palin, and the bad press she generated with her incendiary "palling around with terrorists" comment and her disastrous performance on a totally impartial Katie Couric interview, even flubbing a softball question about what newspapers she read. The "biased liberal" media even ignored McCain's glowing tribute to the rightwing terrorist G. Gordon Liddy.

Dan Abrams (who was replaced by Maddow), dubbed McCain "Teflon John" because he got away with so many flip-flops while Obama was attacked for every minor refinement of a position like when Chuck Todd attacked Obam for saying he would take his military commanders views into account on withdrawing troops from Iraq. Todd and the other Village residents pounced on that rational statement as a flip-flop, while they ignored McCain's radical changes in position on immigration and other issues. Some liberal bias.

.. Yes, that is my opinion.

.... that is your opinion

...again this is your opinion.

....again your opinion, although I was not attempting to make a case, I was stating an opinion.

Awesome, you comprehend the word "opinion." Congratulations! Now, since YOU asked a question originally (one that I responded to), I was wondering if you have the guts to actually respond to my original question, or if you'll keep being a smart-ass and avoiding the question entirely. I'm guessing the latter...

Beverly,

You are on a roll. Great posts keep them coming. If there is a hell I am sure Glenn will be there and Rush will be waiting for him. Have a great day. Thanks

Like that ol Repub song:

Throw another lie on the fire, Boil me up some scandals from the seams,

Go out to the car and make some flats out of the tires, just vote NO and hope nobody sees......

Patrick

The answer is simple. I don't want to reelect socialists. I guess you must be a fan of Karl Marks if you actually believe the current economic policies are what we should be happy with.

afloatinasea, do you know what a socialist is? Who is Karl Marks? You mean this guy http://www.carlmarks.com/homepage.aspx ? I get tired of trying to educate people whose idea of education is Glenn Beck University, so I'll just post the links. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism If you can't tell the difference between real socialism and what they're telling you on talk radio and Fox News you're beyond help.

Now we are getting our political definitions from wikipedia the simplest of sources. Socialism and Communism are not completely different paths. Socialism is one stop on a continuum with the end result being Totalitarianism. Both Socialism and Communism are stops on that path. If the country choose to stop and stay at socialism the end result is usually bankruptcy (ie. Greece and Spain). Too many socialistic policies result in huge taxes. Then the wealthy and corporations either leave the country or find shelters. The resulting taxes on the middle class become oppressive

On the other end of the scale come totalinarianism as Capitalism becomes a fascist dictatorship which leads to an upper class owning almost all of the money and the rest of the populace as slave-like serfs working for the Uber Rich with no say in the matter. A mix of capitalism (properly regulated) and socialism is the middle road and the one which has served us the best here in the US. for many decades, and, if properly restored from the damage that it has taken from the last 30 years of Corporate takeover and Republican assistance to the Corps, then we will be back on a safe, sane and balanced approach to governing...like President Obama is doing!

Yes Ray, they're points on a continuum...a continuum that doesn't include the Democratic Party.