Ron;

Well said. The spinners on MSM are working overtime pulling out all the stops this week. The Main Street Media seems to want to report only those pieces that further their agenda while ignoring the bigger picture that has an impact on Middle America.

Good post Ron. But you left one thing out. There's no need to hold an election in November, all the pundits have already given all the elections to the teabagger republicans. I'm going to vote, but the pundits tell me it's just a symbolic vote.

Hey Ron, already made my plans to attend the party here in Louisville. Some real nice folks involved. I think the press and the right are underestimating Democrats this season. Locally, we are very fired up.

As a Democrat over on DKos wrote - This election is about Boehner v. Pelosi.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Little history lesson-every single time the democrats try to take over health care, they lose.

1946

1994

Those years, they lost because they tried. This year, Obama 'won'.

The losses for his party will be staggering.

Looks like, when he told his party members that, the difference between now and 1994 is 'you've got me', they should have run, screaming, in the other direction.

Here's a clue, dems, when sombody's ego is that big, he's not thinking about you. It's all about him.

The BP disaster and the problem of Greece both impacted our economy negatively. Most people were likely not focused on Europe but corporations were, they started pulling back and I think it halted the progress. A bit of a domino affect with the end result that the public became skeptical again. The media also played a huge role in public perception--they focused on the negatives rather than the positives. I believe the media and journalists again failed the people just as they did in the lead up to the Iraq War.

The whole thing is odd though because private industry grew including hiring. The financial expert who reports on the local morning news says the opposite of what we hear from the national media and provides proof of positive growth, not just growth locally but nationwide. In my opinion, the negativity and concern of the public is directly impacted by the negativity coming from GOP legislators and the media. I realize it is politics but it is not healthy for the country to be preached doom and gloom daily from the party that refuses to do anything to help fix it. Party First is not the solution for America, it is the solution for America to fail. Don't tell me that republicans are simply listening to their constituents and doing what they want, they are listening to their base and not the rest of people they represent--I know because Grassley hasn't listened to me and the thousands of other Iowans who demanded he get to work and compromise instead of obstructing. If they were listening to ALL their constituents, they would be working and compromising with democrats to create jobs or provide an environment to encourage it.

Every voter should ask: what have republicans done to help? The answer is clear: Nothing. Why should voters give NOTHING the opportunity to do even less.

Election years tend to have economic pull back by business, Wall Street, investors and people--elections always put people and companies in "hesitate" mode. Most years, the pull back or status quo is a blip on the radar and goes unnoticed but with the Great Recession the impact is more pronounced.

All politics is local in a non-presidential election year. It remains to be seen whether the Tea Party candidates end up costing seats that repubs should or could win. This is indeed the silly season of politics; it will get serious after Labor Day. Since spring, the polls have shown the public switching general election party preferences six times. Republicans should not be measuring the drapes in Congress yet. Two months until November, a lot can happen. It will be a bumpy ride.

Fellow Travelers:

As always, this election will turn on blame. There are the stalwarts of course; the "I always vote (D)" or "I always vote (R)" crowd. Ah yes, the glory of identity politics. But blame is where it's at and that is where the ridiculously labeled "independents" bring their "me, me, me" chant to the voting booth, as in "What's he done for ME lately?"

As part of my goal to bring a nugget to my friends, I offer this poem about these American patriots.

All my kids have failing grades.

It's those dumb teachers at the school.

They don't teach them any morals,

and they don't teach the golden rule.

My legislators pass stupid laws.

They really get my goat.

I know they never listen to me,

that's why I never vote.

My insurance rates have gone sky high.

My company doesn't care.

My mechanic is really screwing me,

my car's so expensive to repair.

Of course, it wouldn't have those dents,

drivers think they're steering a drone.

The guy who hit me should have swerved

while I texted on my phone.

The papers have only bad news,

there's too much violence on TV.

Why don't they do something about it,

so it won't have such an affect on me?

Criminals get off too easy,

they hardly spend time in jail.

That's why I cheat the I.R.S.,

'cause I'm seeing the system fail.

Drug abusers have no fear.

There's no punishment for their crime.

But a couple of my wife's Xanax

round off the edges, almost all the time.

No one wants to get involved,

to set the country straight.

I can see that through my barred-up windows,

and my locked-up iron gate.

If I could, I'd make humans disappear.

There'd be a whole new game.

The downside? If ever anything went wrong,

I'd have no one else to blame.

It is, and yet I don't believe the average voter has more than a vague idea of who Boehner and Pelosi ARE. All politics is still local and there isn't one generic ballot, only a whole bunch of individual races. Yes, all the "environmental factors" favor Republicans, but that's been the case for many months. There are also a few cries of "throw them ALL out", but that has never happened before so there's no reason to think it will this time. So we're left with a district by district slugfest that will play out over "has my rep served his district?", "is my rep part of the Washington culture that can't get it right?", and "is this candidate too crazy to risk electing?" It'll be about getting out the vote and the thrust and parry of the advertising game. Truth told it's anyone's guess because so many voters don't really pay attention until after Labor Day. We'll have a lot better idea with the polls that start coming out after 10/1.

Ron:

All that is written above is media hype, something to fill the 24/7 news cycle.

You forgot one big pile of filler the media is using to fill dead air time: the "Ground Zero Mosque" nontroversy.

And this is a choice? The problem is that as much as the Dems themselves hated TARP and the bailouts, what was the alternative? The GOP offered none and the point should be driven home that the GOP would have let the Titanic go down rather than lower the life boats to save some. It was the federal government guaranteeing that the major banks would not be allowed to fail that reversed the stock market in March 2009. The fact that the banks are apparently ungrateful is a slap in the face. And with GM/Chrysler? - shouldn't the GOP be asked how many auto jobs they were willing to sacrifice for principle? The State of Indiana and Evan Bayh (a DINO) especially gall me. But for the feds, Elkhart, IN and the rest of that region of the state would still be suffering. Mitch the governor and his GOP congressional allies want to claim that Indiana produced more private industry jobs than any other state, but it had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with them - it was the feds bailing out the auto industry.

Liberals term it as progress. Conservatives view it as regressive. The same thing that liberals have been pushing since Wilson 1912. They are just the same old ideas which have a 21st century package with a 1910 structure. So keep thinking the cavalry is coming to the rescue and the Democrats will actually gain seats. In a two year political cycle these days, 60 days is like a blink of an eye. The Democrats need something big and major to happen which will turn things. A single Republican can screw up his race. But I don't foresee anything happening to turn the whole race. As James Carville said "it is the economy stupid" There is nothing on the horizon which will turn the economy even minor bit let alone dramatically.

Well said, Ron. Quite a list of weird politics. It does make one wonder how historians will write about this era of political craziness.

You are right about the media driving the story. They've been driving the GOP story for 20 months. Most media does a good job with fair and balanced but tends to focus on the trivial. The minority party has an easier sales job--they just have to be anti-whoever or whichever party is the majority.

Houston: You are right. I forgot the ground zero news filler. Thanks for including that on the list.

John B: You are 100% right on. It really will be a slugfest, hand-to-hand combat, district by district. Probably the two best indicators of who will win in any given district is the quality of the candidate, and the political philosophy of that district. Some districts will be very, very close.

The ground zero Nontroversy has somehow made it's way onto every talk show on the radio. They keep it out there relentlessly. It is bound to have a negative effect as intended.

What people seem to never question is- just how could ALL the talk show hosts be putting out the SAME garbage, ALL THE TIME? It's a concerted effort being orchestrated by somone. Is it Dick Armey? Karl Rove? It's SOMEBODY, and they need to be made to account for it. Not silenced, mind you- just brought out into the open so others can evaluate the validity of it all- i.e. is it the truth, or is it just political flack designed to detract from real issues and answers the country so desperately needs to examine and focus on right now?

You are like all the others. Get one fact which you think nails Beck so you forget everything else. Chris Matthews thought he had Beck when Beck said he handled Washington's first inaugural speech. Matthews said on Beck's guided tour of the Library of Congress, he never got near the speech which was confirmed by the Library of Congress. So he had Beck in a lie. According to Matthews, records show no other guided tour. But as usual the research wasn't that good. Beck was in the Library of Congress other times with certain Congressmen. He official visit was under the Congressman. One of these visits, he saw the speech. If you would take the time to read Ms King letter, she opposed Corretta Scott King on Biblical principles which she spelled out clearly on multiple occasions. As she said, the Bible does not support Coretta's position. From what I see, Alvida was correct. She a minister of the Bible, she had to oppose the senior Mrs. King's position as one which does not agree with the Bible. If Alvida King is wrong, then spell out how she is wrong.

Re: Glenn Beck- all I want to know is:

What's he going to pass himself off as next month?

A fireman? A train engineer? A 'big rig' driver? An astronaut? What?

Hell, he's already tried Drunk, Recovered Drunk, School Teacher (complete with his own chalk board and chalk), a University Proffesor. A University Founder. A radio guy. A tele-evangelist. A historian.

Crimminy- you name it.

And people take the fuzzy-headded, blubbering, dude serious. Must be the same people that voted for Palin and twice for Bush.

@drive-by-observer: I was always under the impression that no media outlet worth it's salt would dare do a story that differed from the issue of the day. If one network hits on a major hot-button issue, they all go after it in order not to appear as though they're lagging behind.

I doubt it's anything as complicated as an orchestrated conspiracy. Sensationalism sells in the marketplace of ideas and one can't push a product inferior to one's competitors.

Oh, if it were only 1 or 2 things that Glenn lied about. It's not even "only" 1 or 2 things that Glenn lies about every day!

Exodite, I think you're correct about the dynamics. There's a real herd mentality to today's media. That's why it's so important to Fox News, Breitbart, Drudge, the talk show hosts, and the rest of the Conservative media empire to be "first to market."

no joe, no bo, nj

Funny you should mention history. Last night I borrowed a book about the Roosevelt administration from the library and I was struck by the parallels between our times and then. The same issues: fiscal conservatism vs deficit spending (when Roosevelt cut spending on federal programs the recovery briefly halted), healthcare, poverty, private charity vs public assistance, etc. Our recession is nothing like the Depression of the 1930's, of course, ironically, in part because of the regulations and social programs put in place by the Roosevelt administration.

FDR's whole administration brought sweeping changes. Frances Perkins was the first woman cabinet member and she made history in the policies she implemented. Basically, if you get overtime pay for working more than 40 hours in a week, thank Frances Perkins. If there is a fire escape outside your workplace, thank Frances Perkins, if you've ever had to draw unemployment insurance, thank Frances Perkins. She also helped write the Social Security Act of 1935. And all these changes, from child labor laws to workplace safety regulations, that we take for granted today, were opposed by Republicans. There is a reason FDR was beloved during his time: he put people to work on infrastructure projects (my grandfather built roads during the Depression), and built Americans a safety net. It wasn't easy, and he faced fierce opposition and personal attacks, but the country is a better place today because of his innovations. I think we will look back on the Obama administration with the same feeling.

I should think the right wing would be FURIOUS with Beck. How anti-American can anyone be? For him to go around apologizing to everyone for America's sins and saying that he is going to "restore honor." I guess that means that we lost honor sometime and gee isn't that less than patriotic? Come on "tea baggers" where is the outrage?

Ron, I find myself sitting here trying to figure out exactly what was wrong with the America of the 1950s. I'll give you civil rights and equal opportunity for women in the work place but I have yet to hear anyone say we should reverse those accomplishments. Beyond that, I'm not sure where we are so much better off today. In the 1950s teen pregnancy, while not necessarily uncommon, was not accepted as a societal norm. I believe the stigma that went with it helped keep numbers down. No one wanted to be "that girl". Welfare was a distasteful last resort, not a career option. Communities rallied together to help their own when times were tough, they didn't look to the government to bail them out. Children were taught to respect their elders, to work hard in school in order to succeed in life and that competition means there will be winners and losers but hard work and dedication can turn the later into winners. How were any of these things so much worse for us as a society that we shouldn't want to see a return to this as our moral compass?

Hey, Ron, Can I add my .02 worth?

It's a good thing there are so many Christians and they are prepared for the rapture; because if my tea leaf reading is accurate (and it doesn't fail me often), the Headline on November 3rd will be, "Hell Just Froze Over!"

I mean, think about it, a Republican holds the Kennedy seat in Massachusetts AND they are about to get hit by a hurricane.

And, Buzz, this one's for you: How many times do you think the woman upstairs will have to send the boat? I am sure she will 'save' us, we just have to line up for some LemmingAide.

Suzy: That was also the McCarthy era. If you remember people lost their careers over rumor and innuendo. The idea that women had very few choices is not something that I would care to go back to. The lack of choices for minorities was more than a minor inconvenience. The stigma of teen pregnancy was so severe that young girls were shunned, removed from their communities, by and large made to give these children up for adoption, and their lives were changed forever. I grew up in that time, and I am always surprised at how people bath it in a golden light when it wasn't that way. Parents still had to worry about diseases like polio, those vaccinations were still in the future. Would you really go back to that? I wouldn't.

Well, sure John - but I pretty much meant that for all media outlets on all topics. Remember the endless coverage on Michael Jackson's death?

@Amy B. Portland, ME: I'd agree with you if only those shovel-ready jobs Obama talked about never materialized. Perhaps it was unfounded fantasy, but I and a lot of people at the time were hoping to witness the rebirth of the WPA and CCC under the new administration, something that quite obviously didn't take place.

I do wish there were a federal work program dedicated to repairing, enhancing or creating public spaces in the present day - somehow I feel it'd be a better option than putting people on unemployment pay for months at a time.

Clara: You can always add your two cents. And I would not be surprised the being upstairs is a she and not a he.

Suzy, I grew up in the 50's and my memories are a little different from yours. Perhaps it's the rose-colored glasses.

People smoked like Chimneys and heart disease and cancer were the leading causes of death. Gays and Lesbians were CRIMINALS and could be prosecuted for their sexual orientation. Abortion was illegal and countless thousands died thanks to back-room abortionists. Segregation was the law of the day. Women were expected to be "nice little housewives" and stay out of business, which was "mans work". Our schools taught the three "r's" and we fell woefully behind in science. Religious intolerance was at it's highest point in our history. Organized crime made their greatest advances and gained control of many of the major cities in the US. We lived in absolute terror of Nuclear War and the Russians. BETTER DEAD THAN RED, remember those wonderful years?

The 50's was a time of fiscal prosperity but culturally it was the dark ages. We cannot go back to the darkness. We must move forward toward the light.

'What explains the Democrats' summer slide and where did it begin?'

That's an easy one.

It is explained by their arrogance and it began the day Obama was elected.

Leave aside any philosophically driven political positions and look at the facts. On issue after issue they have flown in the face of the public will. They have overspent way more than Republicans ever did. And the economy has gotten much worse.

Now you loony libs can continue to backpat each other all you want, but that can't change these things. The Dems still have time. They could immediately stop spending our money. They could extend the Bush tax cuts for 6 years (thru what would be Obama's 2nd term). And they could repeal their 'Healthcare' debacle, shelve their proposed energy tax, and return unspent 'Stimulus' LOL money to the treasury. But don't count on their arrogance allowing them to even consider such. So expect an arse kicking in November.

Ray W. - It is not the place for someone to prove you are wrong, it is your place to prove you are right. If you say something, you must be prepared to back up what you say with facts and proof. Beverly backed up what she said with links and sources, now you need to do the same for what you said.

Ray, prove it.

For those talking to Suzy, I do not think she is old enough to remember the 50s. That is not necessarily a bad thing nor is it intended as an attack on Suzy, her opinion is as valuable and welcome as anyone else's. My point is that Suzy has a view of the 50s based on TV and the right wing talking points. Shows like Happy Days, and others in that vein, have provided a skewed portrait that is the main source of younger Americans ideas of what the 50s were like.

Joe-738652,

Prove it.

Perhaps I didn't make myself entirely clear- I don't want to undo the advances in civil rights, opportunities for women in the workplace, advances in technology, any of that. But I do believe when the nation followed a moral compass pointing in the direction of self-improvement over government bailout we were overall better as a society. Are we really better off with a 50% divorce rate? With so many single parent households? With millions on welfare who make zero effort to get off of it? With a failing education system because parents aren't actively engaged in their children's success? As we've become more nomadic we've lost the sense of community that used to unite us. No era in history is without it's faults but I do believe the current "it's all about me" mindset is not beneficial to society as a whole.

Great post Ron . . . and I loved the poem posted by David Walker.

I'm on a "listening tour" . . . lol . . . also know as shutting up for a bit! :oP

My political thought for the day:

Everything is going to be okay, no matter who wins what office.

If we learned nothing else from the Bush Presidency, lets always remember that America and Americans are quite resilient . . . we can survive all types of foolishness and come out better for it.

Peace.

Matthew, per #1.29

The proof is this article. Read it and weep. It is from NBC News, which is part of the liberal media (as opposed to FOX News, which is part of the conservative media). Their words, not mine...'Mayday, mayday.'

The manifestation will be the election.

The most frightening part of Beck's speech was when he said God is speaking to him and he is telling us what God is saying. How could anyone possibly believe that?

Suzy: you are missing the point entirely. I don't know what the divorce rate was in the 50's I would guess it was lower, but the reason is that women did not have the economic security to leave bad marriages. They had little access to birth control that actually worked, they were pretty much at home, raising the kids. And they were not happy. You cannot separate out the things that were bad about the 50's and say, " I didn't mean I wanted to go back to those things" because those things WERE the 50's. I realize that the movies about that time are all about soda shops and sox hops and Ricky Nelson and Elvis Presley. But it was also the time of the Red Terror, people worried about Communism so much that they turned on their neighbors. I can still remember families building bomb shelters in their backyards. And part of a 50's child school day was doing "duck and cover" under our desks in case THE BOMB was dropped. That time simply isn't what you thought it is, and trust me when I say the moral compass did not point true north.

Joe, there's nothing in the article that goes to the point of your post. Therefore;

Please name an example of arrogance from the day President Obama was inaugurated.

Please point us to a place where political philosophy triumphed over facts.

Please name some new law that was passed when people were happy with the status quo.

I request some specific examples to show how Democrats have wildly outspent the previous Administration.

What would you like to eliminate from the budget to pay for the $700,000,000,000 that it will cost to keep the Bush tax cuts in place for the top 2%?

Can you explain how a return of preexisting conditions clauses, recission of coverage, the prescription drug donut hole for seniors, and eliminating the ability of parents to cover children up to the age of 26 who can't cover themselves will help the healthcare consumer?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38973757/ns/us_news-life/

Can we stop pretending it's a given that all Gulf oil platforms other than Deepwater Horizon are run responsibly, and we should just assume that they're safe?

John,

You are one of the economic idiots. The Bush tax cuts led to doubling of Treasury Revenues. That doesn't have to be paid for. What has to happen is drastic spending reductions. I would start by simply eliminating EVERYTHING from the budget which is not Constitutional; all Foreign Aid, Dept of Educ., Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid, Healthcare, Stimulus, bailouts, etc. Those alone would reduce the budget by 2/3rds. I would further reduce ALL spending-INCLUDING MILITARY-(we shouldn't be defending the rest of the world) however much was required to balance the budget. Is that straightforward enough for you? Or are you going to boohoo about my lack of compassion for axing wasteful social programs that are unconstitutional and just don't work??

To your former points, I won't spend an hour rehashing all of the things polls show that Obama is on the wrong side of issues (healthcare, cap/trade, AZ/illegal aliens, etc.) And to point, political philosphy of he and his lib buddies, i.e., tax and SPEND in 'unprecedented' amounts has been an utter failure. The economic facts point that out.

Here's a perfect example for you from a poll released yesterday. People in Ohio- a state that went Dem in '08-by a margin of 50%-42%, would rather have Bush as president today than Obama. C'mon John, just be honest with yourself, me, and everyone else. Obama's job approval rating has dropped almost 30 points. That loss is not from conservatives; we didn't support him from the get go. No, the loss has come overwhelmingly from moderates who think he's way too liberal, and even slightly from ultra liberals who don't think he's Marxist enough.

Bottom line, 2 months.

Still no sources or links to back up you claims.

Once again, Joe, prove it.

Beverly:

The Washington Monument construction started in 1848.

From Wikipedia:

"It was designed by Robert Mills, an architect of the 1840s. The actual construction of the monument began in 1848 but was not completed until 1884, almost 30 years after the architect's death. This hiatus in construction happened because of co-option by the Know Nothing party, a lack of funds, and the intervention of the American Civil War. A difference in shading of the marble, visible approximately 150 feet (46 m or 27%) up, shows where construction was halted for a number of years."

And personally, because I can't rely on your version of anything, I simply believe that Glen Beck said that he "beheld" the inauguration speech.

Let's see, Glenn Beck vs. Beverly, Chicago

Yup, Glenn Beck all the way.

maybe it started here! You know it would be a lot easier to over look his mistakes if he had not lied to us so often. We are the greatest nation in the world and our citizens deserve to have universal health care. He promised us on at least a dozen occasions that the entire health care debate would be televised live on C-Span so every American would know there were no back room deals and no corruption in creating our new health care system. Well he lied to us all and look what we have a watered down 400 page piece of pork. The majority of Americans both left and right don't want what he forced on us! You would think once he could put aside pandering to specail interest groups and do the right thing, instead we had a great opportunity as a nation and he wasted it for all of us. Contempt is to weak a word for the "man"

"Yet the more significant event might have been what took place on May 6, when the economic instability in Greece and Europe took center stage and when the Dow tumbled nearly 1,000 points before partially recovering."

Greece is an example of how uncontrolled government spending can effectively bankrupt a country. Greece's problems came to light after their national debt got over 100% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). For Clinton's 8 years, it averaged only 63.76%, and for G W Bush, it averaged even lower for his 8 years, at 62.49%.

For Obama, it has now mushroomed to about 95% of GDP, and will be over 100% in 2011, and still the Democrats want to keep on spending money that our children and grandchildren will have to pay back - with interest.

You voted for "Change we can believe in", and boy did you get it.

"The Bush tax cuts led to doubling of Treasury Revenues."

No it didn't. http://greenewable.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/federal-government-revenue-in-billions-by-major-source-1965e280932008.jpg?w=450&h=347

You've refused to provide back up for your assertions and the only one I checked on my own was wrong. If facts don't matter just say so. We can all move on.

"Greece's problems came to light after their national debt got over 100% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). For Clinton's 8 years, it averaged only 63.76%, and for G W Bush, it averaged even lower for his 8 years, at 62.49%."

Then Presidents Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43 shouldn't have been so careless with unfunded tax custs. http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Notice the trend line was almost vertical when Barack Obama was inaugurated.

Suzy - re: going back to the 50's (the good old days). Do you know what the top income tax rate was in the 50's? 90%! Nobody talks about that.

Heartlight, you got me. I hadn't considered that one.

My argument is this, it's not so much a decade as a mindset that has been lost over time. There was a day in this country when marriage was "till death do us part" not "till it becomes work and I don't feel like it anymore". Communities rallied together in tough times- aid was given in the form of charity, not government bailouts. Neighbors helped neighbors. Children were raised by 2 parents and those parents taught their children that success came through hard work, that showing up wasn't by itself enough to succeed. People had roots and those roots meant something to them. There was pride in doing for yourself and your family These are paradigm shifts that have altered the make up of our society. Yes, we have made many advances as a society that are huge- civil rights, equality in the work place, technology, medicine, all great things, but we have also become self-centric. It's no longer what's good for the whole, it's what's good for me.

Democrats started to slide with backroom meetings, bills passed at 3:00 a.m., no one reading the bills and a very unpopular health care mandate!

Why is everyone worried about Glen Beck? I'm not. He isn't running for office so why get all emotional about him throwing a big event in Washington D.C.?

It amazes me how Democrats and mostly blacks get angered by Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity yet these guys are not representing our government in anyway. All the while the Democratic leadership and Congressional Black Caucus are doing very little to help the African American population in this country.

This is all because of politics...period. There are some fools in DC but the biggest fools are the American People.

Obama and Democrats needed NOT ONE vote from the Republicans. They could have passed ANY law. Their laws were so slimy that they had to bribe members of their own party to get enough of their own votes. I really wanted Hope and Change. However... WE GOT THE SHAFT!

duncancl, people are worried about Glenn Beck and the other talkers because they're an integral part of the Conservative agenda. It's an effort to control the language, define the boundaries of what's acceptable and unacceptable, and do so in such a way that the only acceptable solutions are Conservative solutions. Causing the failure of that is essential for winning any other issue.

Doesn't it seem kind of odd that the things that the GOP want to do now they didn't do during 2000-2006?

There are democratic senators in red states. Those senators are democrats but they have to behave like republicans to survive.

The democrats cannot pass any bills without those conservative democrats.

Hey Alex, dems that have to act like repubs are............wait for it...........REPUBS!

The decline of the democrat party began when, en masse, swing voters sobered up from the Obama punch bowl and realized that somebody now has to pay for the party.

Watching the left is similar to watching a dog trying to eat its own tail, and it's getting even better as the backbiting begins within the democrat implosion. Damn, if it weren't for the likes of Obama, Pelosi and Reid, you might have been able to grasp that golden ring. American liberalism is now being set back decades thanks to inept leadership.

Suzy,

I understand where you are coming from, I really do. And perhaps it's just a matter of perception. You are looking for the good and I am remembering the bad. You've been watching re-runs of Happy Days, Ozzie and Harriet and Father Knows Best.

I remember those programs for the angst they caused me as a child. My family was nothing like the Nelson's. I came from the lower middles class and we struggled every month to make ends meet. Mom didn't run around the house in pearls and Dad didn't wear a suit to work, in fact Dad didn't own a suit. Watching those programs always made me thing there was something wrong with my family because we weren't like those folks and that has probably affected my whole perception of that era.

That said, I still think it was more a time of repression than one guided by a moral compass. I clearly remember the stigma attached to the single mother who was raising her two young daughters on our street. She was DIVORCED (gasp) and the children were being raised without a father (DOUBLE GASP). I remember the overt racism of my mother and father, the "N" word was common usage in my home. People with mental problems were institutionalized automatically and the mental hospitals were little better than Bedlam. I know, they sent my Aunt to the facility in Vinita, Oklahoma. When we visited (rarely) it was a horror.

That's what life was like on the lower reaches of the economic scale. The 1950's you remember never really existed.

It's like the American West as depicted in Television and Movies. It never existed. Men didn't strut around town with shootin' irons on their hips and gunfights were extremely rare and there was NEVER a showdown on mainstreet, not one. All that was created by Louis L'Amour and Hollywood building on the fable created by the dime novels of the time. It never happened.

I didn't live in a big city, I was born and raised in Tulsa, Oklahoma. We didn't have the youth crime that the bigger citys had. We didn't have street gangs or the highly organized criminal families like in the East. But even so, we had out issues.

Not a good time to be a minority. If you were black, hispanic, asian or native american you had a very different view of the 50's. Your people NEVER appeared on television or the movies except as servants. You had NO POSITIVE vision of your race.

And let's not forget the red scare. It pervaded everything! The classic sci-fi film INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS is an allegory about communism. No, really, that's what the movie is a about. The pod people are really communist infiltrators taking over the minds of good, god-fearing Americans.

So, my experiences of the 50's and early 60's are very different from your memories. I understand your desire to return to what you see as a better time. But in truth, it wasn't a better time and the moral compass you refer to didn't really work, the "immoral" were just staying out of sight, weren't discussed and were not portrayed on TV or in the movies except as negative examples of socieity.

I wish your vision of the 50's were accurate. Then I too would want to go back to that time. But sadly, that's not the 50's I remember.

Amen, Skip you have summed it up nicely!

x

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

Bottom line is that Social Security and Medicare are going to be with us for the foreseeable future regardless of the spin the right wants to put on it. Do not let them play the fear card on you.

Thanks for informing the righties. Now, they need to get a dictionary to understand what solvency means.

Investopedia explains Solvency
The better a company's solvency, the better it is financially. When a company is insolvent, it means that it can no longer operate and is undergoing bankruptcy.

Beverly;

I could not say it better, thank you. The right is really doubling down on the fear card against our senior citizens and those who are about to be. This is nothing more than a well designed plan to gut more of the middle class.

This does not mean that we ignore SS and Medicare. There are problems there that will need to be addressed but neither program is going to be insolvent in the near future.

Very true Vet. Have you seen some of the Democratic ads up attacking those that claim SS is a welfare program? Appears to be effective.

But US Navy, what about no joe all blow? She says we're all wrong about SS, and how can you doubt someone who claims she's an economist, a teacher, an astronaut, a sky diver, a scuba diver, and has fought in every war since the civil war, if it's ever been done she's done it. Chances are she'll set you straight before the day is over.

US Navy,

I also agree that Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are here to stay. However, we need to do some major overhauls. You are absolutely right that Social Security was never intended to be a persons main source of income during retirement. The problem is is that no one seems to be reminding people of this. I know of too many people (young and old) who do not contribute any money into a 401(k) or similar pension account. They seem to have two arguments (depending on age). The older people argue that they've paid Social Security taxes all they're life, and that was their contribution to retirement. The younger crowd argues that they need all the money they can get (even though contributing to a tax deferred retirement account will generally keep their net pay the same due to lower taxable income). The younger crowd eventually says they'll contribute when their better off (which we all know will never happen). People have come to rely on Social Security too much. This is what happens when entitlement programs do not come with disclaimers. People get too dependent on these.

The problem with medicaid and medicare is all the fraud! Not so much with medicare but with medicaid. Again lower income people depend on medicaid and cover almost everything. They tell people to go to the hospital if something is wrong (never mind picking up the phone and calling a doctor for advice. It's usually way cheaper. Even free if the doctor doesn't recommend them visit his office ). I've seen emergency rooms crowded with low income families because someone has the sniffles.

Socialized medicine isn't the answer. Japan is constantly ranked as one of the highest countries in terms of health care. Yet they don't have socialized medicine. Canada, Britain, and others that do have universal health care are usually average in rank. Why? Because while everybody has access to health care, getting health care is a long wait. Non life-threatning procedures can take up to three years to schedule. People with private insurance are generally given preferential treatment because they tend to compensate doctors better and quicker. I think we're going to start seeing this in the U.S. Those that do have private insurance will start getting pushed to the front of the line, and we are going to see an even bigger gap in health coverage between the rich and poor. The democrats will have no one to blame but themselves. What needed to happen was to fix the fraud and educate people on medicaid to go to doctors offices and not hospitals. Do what private insurance does and if someone has the sniffles and goes to the hospital, refuse to pay, and have collectors keep calling these people and ruin their credit score. Maybe then, they will get the point that the best treatment for a cold is fluids and plenty of rest!

Cult;

Agreed. There is so much fraud and mismanagement in many cases that needs to be addressed, sooner rather than later. There is redundancy that needs to go, the administration needs to be streamlined, big fines and jail time for fraud, etc. All these can be done saving us tons of money with no impact onthe benefits side at all. If we have laws on the books (??) they need to be inforced.

People trying to scam Medicare and/or SS need to know that the price of getting caught is so severe that they will not even attempt it.

Look at Wall Street. There are people there that caused the melt down that should have lost everything and gone to jail, same with BP and the list goes on.

If we clean up our own act and we can get out of the hole a lot faster but it takes both parties to work together. We need to get the money and greed out of politics, and the only way I see that happening is from we te people. We elect these clowns and we need to hold them responsible. Makes no difference if Dem or Rep. If not doing the work of the people then fire them, put them on the unemployment line and see how they like it. Wil wake them up pretty quick.

What you think??

BTW: Nice post.

The only flaw in your argument is that those "Medicare cuts" envisioned in the CBO report are not going to happen.

Congress is already committed to the 'doctor fix', so that 30% cut in their payments will not happen. There go some of the savings.

The Medicare cram down is not going to happen, either, because it will force hospitals to either turn away Medicare patients, or inflate the bills of those privately insured by astronomical amounts. Not going to happen.

It's interesting: when Bill Clinton lifted the income cap on Medicare taxes, we were told that the extra funds would make Medicare solvent forever. Anyone ask what happened to that money?

Simple answer: congress spent it.

As to Social Security: keep telling yourself the fairy tale that it is, indeed, solvent. Facts don't impress you.

You guys are a riot, over here on FR patting each other on the back for doing the SAME exact thing you try to excoriate the Republicans for doing - fear mongering.

NavyVet, Obama was fibbing and now you're fibbing. Want some proof?

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-08-22/story/fact-check-no-gop-coup-social-security

In fact, only one House member who could be called a "leader" is currently supporting anything even close to privatization. A plan by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., the senior Republican on the House Budget Committee, would allow people under 55 to put a portion of their payroll taxes in an individual retirement account overseen by the Social Security Administration, according to The Washington Post.

Obama further distorted the Republican position, FactCheck.org states, when he said that the GOP plan would "[tie] your benefits to the whims of Wall Street traders."

Yes, private accounts would be subject to the same vagaries of the stock market that all such accounts are. But under Bush's plan (and Ryan's), it would be an individual's option to take that risk.

In summary, the Republicans are NOT pushing to privatize Social Security, ONE Republican has as ONE part of his overall budget plan an OPTION to privatize PART of Social Security contributions - IF the person wants to, in a government supervised plan. What part of CHOICE bothers you so much?

The plans Ryan has suggested for Medicare are more drastic, but they are NOT dismantling Medicare and in fact would not change Medicare AT ALL for anyone over 55 IF and that's a HUGE IF, the plan was ever put in place. Once again, you're trying to play the fear card, by accusing Republicans of playing the fear card. Restructuring and dismantling are two entirely different things.

I know your heads will explode with a Weekly Standard article, but deal with it - it's Ryan's owns words on his plan, not someone else's spin on it.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/paul-ryan-medicare-and-gop-no-hypocrisy-here

Now before you launch into the typical "attack the apparent conservative" diatribes so prevalent on this board, just know that I'm anticipating it and NOWHERE did I endorse any of Ryan's ideas although I generally agree with the idea of more FREEDOM to make my own choices, versus having them made for me by the government.

Have fun with your character assassination.

Cult of Personality:

Socialized medicine isn't the answer. Japan is constantly ranked as one of the highest countries in terms of health care. Yet they don't have socialized medicine. Canada, Britain, and others that do have universal health care are usually average in rank.

And exactly where did you get this choice bit of information about the Japanese health care system. It happens to be completely bogus. No, Japan doesn't have socialized medicine. What it's got is basically "Obamacare" on steroids:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_system_in_Japan

The Health care system in Japan provides healthcare services, including screening examinations for particular diseases where the patient pays 30% of the cost of, prenatal care, and infectious disease control while the government pays the remaining 70%. Payment for personal medical services is offered through a universal health care insurance system that provides relative equality of access, with fees set by a government committee.

Here is Paul Ryans Plan:

FOLLOWING Barack Obama's visit with the Republicans last week, some members of the opposition were deeply upset. They bristled at the idea that they have not proposed any serious ideas and are simply the "Party of No". In fact, the accusation is not true: Republicans have proposed some serious ideas recently. I'm going to post on two of them. The first, put forward by Paul Ryan, the ranking Republican member of the budget committee, is the "Roadmap for America's Future" budget proposal and it credibly claims to put America's federal budget in surplus by 2080. THAT RIGHT, 70 YEARS FROM NOW, YOUR GRAND KIDS KIDS KIDS MAY SEE IT. The CBO agrees. But How does it do that?

Simple, it slashes Medicare. It slashes Medicare so deeply that the Democrats' proposal for $500 billion in savings over ten years, which Republicans demonised, looks like child's play. Under Mr Ryan's proposal, starting in 2021, Medicare would be gradually eliminated. Instead, seniors would be issued vouchers to buy private health insurance. The voucher for a 65-year-old would be worth $5,900, in 2010 dollars. (Mr Ryan's site says the vouchers would be worth "an average of $11,000" in 2010 dollars, but that's the average for the entire 65+ population. Individual health-insurance premiums for a 90-year-old are obviously going to be astronomical.) The voucher would then grow at the average of the annual medical inflation rate (CPI-M) and the general urban inflation rate (CPI-U). In other words, since medical-cost inflation is higher than general CPI inflation, the voucher would deliberately fail to keep pace with medical costs.

What would such a voucher buy? According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the average individual premium for workers under 65 (ie, a median worker in his early 40s) was $4,824 in 2009. But here's the thing: the voucher is supposed to cover insurance for 65-year-olds, who are much more expensive to insure than younger workers. Kaiser doesn't break down average premiums by age. But according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, mean health-insurance premiums and health-care expenditures for people aged 55 to 64 in 2008 were a good 50% higher than those for mean individuals between the ages of 35 and 44. (The exact dollar figures in the Census Expenditures Survey can't be used for this purpose because they don't include employer contributions to premiums. And costs for 65-year-olds aren't comparable because they're covered by Medicare; let's assume they're about the same as costs for 64-year-olds.) Assuming a 65-year-old is at least 50% more expensive than the median, the average individual premium could easily be $7,200 (1.5 x $4,800). This jibes with the fact that average medical costs for those 65 and up were over $9,800 annually in 2008.

By 2021, if medical costs continue at their current rate of growth, premiums could nearly double in constant dollars. But to his credit, Mr Ryan does something else that would bend down the cost curve on health-care inflation: he eliminates the employer health insurance tax exclusion. Instead, individuals would be issued $2,300 refundable tax credits to purchase insurance. This will mean severe cuts in the health-insurance benefits of all Americans who now get employer-based health insurance, much more severe cuts than those that would take place under the bill the Senate approved in December, which would only drop the exclusion on plans costing more than $21,000 a year. But it will slow medical cost inflation. How much? The CBO assumes it will slow the nominal growth of health-care costs from its baseline estimate of 5% per year to the same rate as the nominal growth of GDP, which it assumes to be 3.4% over the long term. Overall CPI-U inflation, meanwhile, is guesstimated at 2%. This CBO guesstimate starts off from a shaky assumption: medical costs have actually been growing at 8% per year, not 5%, for the past ten years. But let's stick with CBO's optimistic assumptions. What will Mr Ryan's voucher buy in 2021?

Mr Ryan's plan doesn't kick in until 2011, so let's assume individual premiums rise in 2010 at the same rate they rose in 2009: 3.6% over inflation. (PriceWaterhouseCoopers actually forecasts medical-expenses inflation of 9% in 2010, but we'll be optimistic.) We'll also be optimistic (pessimistic, actually, but optimistic for Mr Ryan's plan's purposes) and assume CPI-U is 0% in 2010, so that means the average individual premium will cost $4,997 (1.036 x $4,824) in 2010. Again, we'll figure the cost for a 65-year-old is at least 50% higher than the median cost for all workers; let's call it $7,500. Then Mr Ryan sets his voucher at $5,900, and lets it grow by the average of CPI-U and CPI-M for 11 years. Using the CBO's assumed rates of 2% CPI-U and 3.4% for CPI-M, that means that in 2021, the voucher will be worth $7,906 (nominal), while the average individual insurance premium for a 65-year-old will cost at least $10,800 (nominal).So Mr Ryan wants to give 65-year-olds a $7,900 voucher to buy insurance that will, under optimistic assumptions, cost $10,800. What every senior citizen currently gets for free, under Medicare, will instead cost them an extra $2,900 a year, if they have it. For most, that will mean giving up benefits and getting less medical care, or going without insurance entirely. And every year, by design, Mr Ryan's proposal will widen the gap between the voucher and the cost of medical care by 0.7%, even after accounting for the effect his proposal will have on holding down medical costs. Every year, seniors will get worse and worse care. This is what the CBO means when it says:

Under the Roadmap, the value of the voucher would be less than expected Medicare spending per enrollee in 2021, when the voucher program would begin. In addition, Medicare’s current payment rates for providers are lower than those paid by commercial insurers, and the program’s administrative costs are lower than those for individually purchased insurance. Beneficiaries would therefore face higher premiums in the private market for a package of benefits similar to that currently provided by Medicare. Moreover, the value of the voucher would grow significantly more slowly than CBO expects that Medicare spending per enrollee would grow under current law. Beneficiaries would therefore be likely to purchase less comprehensive health plans or plans more heavily managed than traditional Medicare, resulting in some combination of less use of health care services and less use of technologically advanced treatments than under current law. Beneficiaries would also bear the financial risk for the cost of buying insurance policies or the cost of obtaining health care services beyond what would be covered by their insurance.

There are two other really interesting things about Mr Ryan's proposal. First of all, if you hit 65 before 2021, you still get Medicare, with all of its current perks. You're grandfathered in. So if you're 54 or over right now, his bill is a great deal for you: you get caviar, and everybody younger than you has to pay for it. Second, Mr Ryan's proposal necessarily sets a flat nationwide amount for each voucher. Medicare, on the other hand, pays variable reimbursement rates in different parts of the country, based on the fact that medical costs can vary by two times or more between, say, Nassau, New Hampshire and Lincoln, Nebraska. According to the Commonwealth Fund, the average individual premium in Nebraska in 2008 cost $4,392; in New Hampshire, it was $5,247. So if you live in Nebraska, under Mr Ryan's plan, you luck out. If you live in New Hampshire, not so much. One could imagine an interesting conversation between Ben Nelson and Judd Gregg regarding Mr Ryan's Roadmap, if there were ever any chance of it actually being voted on.

Mr Ryan has put forward a serious proposal for shrinking medical-cost inflation and hence shrinking the long-term federal budget deficit. It does so by ending America's provision of first-rate health care to all seniors. Rich seniors will still be able to afford high-quality medical care. Poor seniors won't. They will suffer more and die younger. A different approach to solving America's health-care cost problem might involve letting Medicare use its vast bargaining power to negotiate lower rates with the providers of pharmaceuticals; establishing a commission of experts (MedPAC) to rate the effectiveness of medical procedures, to avoid wasteful incentives in the current fee-for-services medical model; and establishing bundled payments for disease management, to achieve Mayo-Clinic-like efficiencies in care while improving quality. Those are the models proposed in the Democratic bills currently in Congress. But they're really complicated and hard to understand—they make for a bill that's 2,000 pages long. And everybody knows the American people hate that. Mr Ryan proposes to simply slash Medicare spending and balance the budget on the backs of poor seniors. That'll work too.

US Navy,

Thank you for your comments. We have found common ground!

I agree with your final paragraph that it is the job of our elected officials to stop ignoring and start doing. The problem is lighting the proverbial fire under their butts to get them started. The problem with our system right now is that being a congressman is a career these days. I don't think our founding fathers envisioned that our representatives would be receiving outrageous salaries and benefits be the voice of thousands of people. I think they envisioned this position as noble and honorable, and always figured someone would be willing to do this (if only for one term) without any compensation. A sort of philanthropist position, a nice resume builder. Unfortunately our representatives are just campaigning their whole term, to try to be re-elected the next term.

To combat this, I think we need term limits or to increase terms from 4 to 6. Maybe set up our representatives with a modest house (with an office inside), food and car allowances (with a reasonable limit....no hundred dollar bottles of wine with dinner) and a small personal allowance. I think by then, we can weed out these so-called career politicians and start narrowing our field to people who truly want to be the voice of their people they are representing.

Terrific and informative post, US Navy. Facts are facts; I have seen newspaper articles reporting on this yet people seem to ignore the truth. The republicans use this fear card along with the others in their bag of tricks.

Houston,

Because everything on Wikipedia is the truth right? Well the government in Japan only finances 31.7%. The rest come from employers, out of pocket costs, and compulsory premiums (premiums paid by individuals for minimum insurance coverage). This is why I'm glad there was no government option in Obamacare. That would have destroyed private insurers (which are still used in Japan)

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/rodwin/lessons.html#II

Health care financing

Health insurance expenditures in Japan are financed by payroll taxes paid by employers and employees and by income-based premiums paid by the self-employed. In contrast to the United States, where the federal, state and local governments finance roughly 42.9 percent of all health care expenditures and out-of-pocket payments contribute another 22 percent, in Japan, only 31.7 percent of national health care expenditures derive from national and local public funds and 12.2 percent from out-of-pocket payments. The largest share of health care financing in Japan is raised by means of compulsory premiums levied on individual subscribers (34.6 percent) and employers (21.7 percent).³ This employment-based share of health care financing in Japan (56.4 percent) raised by means of voluntary employer, employee and individual subscriber premiums in the United States

Pragmatic:

I know your heads will explode with a Weekly Standard article, but deal with it - it's Ryan's owns words on his plan, not someone else's spin on it.

Is this the same Mr. Ryan who ordered the Congressional Budget Office not to take into account all the costs for one of his schemes so that he could trick readers into thinking his plan would save money? That kind of trickery doesn't make my head explode, but it sure isn't good for the ol' blood pressure.

As for Social Security, it's true that the Repubs only want to privatize some of it, not all of it, at least not right away. Basically what allowing people to put some of their money into private accounts means that some of their money will go to the corporations that manage investments. And since private industry must make the most exhorbitant profit that the market will bear it means more money will be syphoned off from the savings of people gullible enough to fall for this scheme.

I generally agree with the idea of more FREEDOM to make my own choices, versus having them made for me by the government.

Republicans just love giving people the "freedom to choose" about things that most people don't have enough knowledge about to make wise choices, like investments. What Republicans really love is that freedom of choice means that the business interests they serve can step in to "help" people make those choices and rake in a nice percentage for all their "help."

no joe -- facts don't impress these people unless they fit their narrative. If they don't, they just ignore them.

Fact: the Social Security program as currently structured is insolvent over the standard 75 year projection period used by actuarials. So says the latest Social Security trustees report as well as CBO.

Fact: beginning in 2015 the annual costs of providing Social Security benefits will exceed revenues from taxes, and continue to exceed revenues over the 75 year projection period. Unless the program is "fixed" future beneficiaries are looking at a 22% reduction in their benefits.

Fact: there is no cash in the Social Security trust fund. As both OMB and CRS have explained, government trust funds do not consist of economic assets that can be drawn done in the same way as private pension funds. Instead these trust funds are "funded" by IOUs in the form of bonds or other securities. IOUs that the Treasury will be obliged to convert into cold hard cash once they are redeemed.

Fact: the Treasury has no cash available to redeem the bonds in the Social Security trust fund. The only way the Treasury gets that cash is if the government raises taxes, issues new debt or cuts other government programs and allocates the savings to Social Security.

Fact: there are ways to fix the Social Security financing problem without the need to resort to onerous tax increase. Paul Ryan's plan is just one approach, and an approach that both CBO and SSA acknowledge could do the trick.

I've previously posted links to impartial government sources documenting all of these facts. I've yet to see the left include any links in their counterarguments from similarly impartial sources that document their point of view. All I see from the left is ideological opinions, not facts. Until you people can provide objective documentation that supports your case, why should anyone with a brain believe a word you say?

The fear mongering demagogues on this issue reside on the left, not the right. The right is presenting the inconvenient facts. The left is doing it's very best to distort those facts and scare people into thinking evil reformers want to take away their Social Security benefits and force them to work until they're 70. Not true, and shame on every one you who says so.

Navy,

It is apparent that only YOU and your usual peanut gallery believe that BS you just spewed. There are Democrats out there saying that SS is in trouble and Medicare is the biggest drag on the federal government.

You call anything that does not fit your narrative a LIE. I say you LIE quite a bit on here daily. Maybe you are receiving your SS right now but the rest of the 40 and under crowd may not.

Do you not realize that the babyboomers (your generation) is retiring and living longer now? SS was not created to sustain someone for an additional 20 yrs after retirement. When it was created people were only living to be 70.

As for Medicare.....nothing more to be said....with everyone and their momma on this benefit, it can't be soluable with this terrible economy.

To add to the fraud remarks. Rick Scott, the republican who won the FL primary recently was guilty of fraud against medicare and private insurance. His firm, Columbia Health Care, paid $1.7 billion to the government, the highest settlement to date. Now that's someone Florida and national republicans should be happy to have represent their party--a fraud and scam artist.

::sigh:::

Navy, which left-wing website was that cut and paste from?

Isn't it a Newsvine TOS violation to cut and paste with no attribution?

Houston, why do you think it's okay to deny the freedom of choice to people who CAN choose responsibly to cater to the lowest common denominator of people who can't? The people who can't - wouldn't have to. Reread the link, only a PORTION could be privatized and the government would oversee the whole shooting match. Don't you think, common sense wise, that the government would also control profit taking on same? I certainly do.

You'll also need to prove your claim regarding Ryan directing the CBO to "withhold" costs - and while you're looking for it, keep an eye out for these items that were intentionally "withheld" from legislation that's already passed Congress.

Dr. Fix for Medicare/caid. It's been passed piece-meal ever since.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/October/20/stabenow-and-doc-fix.aspx

Adminstrative and entitlement costs totaling $115 billion.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37081.html

Cult:

Because everything on Wikipedia is the truth right?

Not always, but the article has extensive references to authoritative sources. The article you quoted says nothing that contradicts the Wiki article. And notice the word "compulsory" is used in your article to describe how Japanese have to pay for insurance? It sounds a whole lot like the mandatory insurance aspect of "Obamacare" that Repubs are screeching about (despite the fact that mandatory insurance was orginally proposed by Republicans).

Cult;

I agree we have a common ground, probably more than we think.

There has to be a way that we the American People, can put us back on the track of government by the people and for the people. We have to move away from where we are today. Nothing is getting done (I sugest we build a very big fire under their butts).

One of the problems we have is there are some really good people out there that would run for office and for the right reasons, like making America strongr, better education, creating good paying jobs, etc., all the things all of us want. They just do not want to get into the BS that dominates the political spectrum today and they do not have personal fortunes to buy elections like some are trying to do, not to help America, but for the power they perceive the position to hold for them.

I agree that we need to do something that changes politics as usual to politcs for the people. I am not smart enough to figure out how to do that, but I think it is possible.

I told you she'd set you straight US Navy. Now don't you feel better knowing no joe all blows truth. She's the queen of cherry picking cut and paste.

Thanks USN, that's great stuff. As with nearly all Conservative schemes this is really a plan to divert public money into private profit and allow further tax reductions for the wealthy by putting new burdens on those less well off.

God why do you people have such a stiffie over "rich" people. Every problem in the world from your accounts stem from people with too much money or by people trying to make too much money. I have 3 homes (paid for) 5 cars (paid for) MY OWN retirement money (paid for) and a disabled wife and a blind son (all paid for) by me. Im 57 joined the military when I was 17 with a GED. I make a little over 100k a year because I worked my ass off for years. Sometimes 2 or 3 jobs. I LIKE MY STUFF and I do NOT want to redistribute it to anyone. I live in Detroit, you must be aware that I see many many people downtown that do nothing all day, but look for hand outs. A great amount of them are generational welfare recipients who wouldn't work if they wanted to. I actually had a conversation with a mother last week that thought the fact that her son was in jail was good, because he had a bed and 3 meals a day. How do you counter that mind set.

Mo;

You called it, right on as usual. I guess I should feel enlightened by our resident PhD been there done that person.

NOT

Pragmatic:

Houston, why do you think it's okay to deny the freedom of choice to people who CAN choose responsibly to cater to the lowest common denominator of people who can't?

Caerful, your contempt for ordinary Americans is showing. Not everyone can be a stock market sharpy like I'm sure you are. Privatization is going to take money from the pockets of most people and put i in the pockets of corporations that private investments. And when the stock market crashes again, much of the invested wealth will simply evaporate into thin air, just like what happened to most people's 401K.

As for freedom, I have to pay taxes to pay for a bloated Pentagon budget and for a war started on lies. I have NO freedom to determine what programs the taxes I pay go to. But at least I'm not whining about being oppressed because of it. If everyone could dictate where their tax dollars went, the federal goverment would collapse in chaos, so we all have to put up with it for the (gasp!) collective good of the nation. Gee, maybe I shouldn't have mentioned it. Letting taxpayers dictate what programs their money goes to sounds like something the Republicans might try to sell people.

I have nothing against wealth, Puckie. In fact I like wealth enough to resent a system that's deliberately designed to funnel massive amounts of wealth to the top 20% http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html while people of ordinary means lag behind. http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/09/gdp-per-capita.html

I'm just tired of being told by an entire generation of Republicans that Robin Hood stole from the poor and gave to the rich, but it's all good because the rich gave it back.

Nice ASSumptions, Houston.

Actually, I would probably opt AGAINST privatizing the small portion of MY SS payments, simply because I don't think the government would allow enought flexibility in the program to make it worth the effort, and no, I don't know all that much about investing. That said, should I choose to LEARN about investing, maybe I would change my mind. Again, what is wrong with choice?

There are other people in the USA besides me - and you, for that matter - who ARE savvy enough and would appreciate the ability to control they're own destiny in this to some extent.

And again with the sweeping, bleeding heart collectivism twang. It would be OPTIONAL, on a PORTION of the contributions. Why do you think other people are entitled to YOUR money, and you're not?

But nice assumptions, they're really popular with you people, aren't they.

It all sounds so simple and obvious to let people who want to do so withdraw there money from Social Security.

Until you realize that doing so takes a manageable long term balance issue and throws gasoline on it. Once we start letting people opt out of Social Security we'll have no choice but to sunset the program because the deficit grows uncontrollably.

Facts are ever so much less convenient than messages.

Wow, so essentially your saying the Republicans are rubbing their hands toghether, just trying to figure out a way to get my middle class dollar and hand it over to the very wealiest. As an Independant, that is so rediculous it's stunning. Yeah, that's the way to politcal security, let's cater to 2% of the population. That'll help us gain power. Geez, can you be anymore disingenous? or stupid? I generally support Democrats, but it's these type of conspiratory comments and the following posts that make me wonder why? Are you people for real?

U. S. Navy:

Re: Paul Ryan's plan

I don't trust your source, or his/her opinion.

Whoever he/she is.

Darryn, the results speak for themselves. 70% of all new wealth created over the last 30 years going to the top 20%. Bush tax cuts that gave 52% of all benefits to the top 20%. Paul Ryan's plan to cut taxes for top earners by half while increasing costs for everyone else. The current Republican caucus willing to let tax breaks for 98% of tax payers to protect a $700,000,000,000 break for the top 2%.

Richard, that's all information from the CBO analysis. They analyzed it at Rep. Ryan's request, using parameters that he set.

Republicans might as well say "who are you going to trust, me or your own lying eyes?"

John B:

Navy's post is the editorial comments of someone (still don't know who) giving their self-serving opinion. It's pretty obvious it's not the CBO report.

I'm sure there is an editorial or self-interested column/analysis out there from the Ryan point of view, too.

It's like my view that 20% of the country produced 70% of the wealth, it didn't just "go" to them, and in turn provided over 70% of federal tax revenues, regardless of what rates were in effect.

Then there is my editorial take on the concept of "unfunded tax cuts". Said concept is pure, unmitigated, Orwellian bullsh**.

As the Eagle might say to the Democrat: "You can't hide your lying eyes."

"I have to pay taxes to pay for a bloated Pentagon budget and for a war started on lies. I have NO freedom to determine what programs the taxes I pay go to. But at least I'm not whining about being oppressed because of it." - Houston!

rflmao...well THAT wasn't contradictory!

Pragmatic, better watch it with that whole documentation concept. You know you could make the libs heads explode.

It's OK Richard, I understand that you subscribe to a heirarchical vision of society in which some people are important and most people aren't. You're entitled to that view. I have a democratic view that says all of us have important contributions we make to society and the heirarchical society constrains us from achieving all we can. I also believe that society is moving in a direction that is more rigid, more heirarchical. I believe that direction robs society (and the individual) of being all he can be.

When I was a child wealth was less biased toward the top of the scale. Anyone above a janitor took vacations most every year, traded cars every 3-5 years, and had some side diversion that they enjoyed, a boat, a cabin, a camper, something. All of that is going away if you aren't in the top 20%. Meanwhile people who drove Buicks drive Mercedes, people who traveled by airliner travel by private jet, people who had cabins in "nicer" areas have multiple homes. Why is this transformation of American culture a good thing?

Gee John, thanks for explaining me to me. It's all bullsh**, but typical of the condescending arrogance exhibited so often here toward people you have no clue about.

In short, I don't seen anything different about now and when I was a child, except that I'm better off than my parents were and my kids are better off than I was. I didn't realize it at the time but my life was the approximate equivalent of today's federal poverty level, except that we only had one TV and no cell phone.

Personally, and it's only an opinion, but I see individuals today as far more diverse and self-expressive, far less rigid. It's exemplified by tattoos, piercings, hair style, personal behavior, all of which for better or worse would have never been accepted when I was a child.

It's all relative, my friend, and I choose to believe that it's a better world today than when I was a child. Less war, more material wealth, cleaner water and air (yes, I believe that) better education (maybe stupider people, though), more information, more travel and sophistication, more conveniences, far better technology that is more available to more people everywhere and more of what used to be luxury and convenience available to more people than ever at all socioeconomic levels.

You seem to be far more concerned with differences in material possessions than I am.

I'm not so worried about the "transformation" of American culture as I am about surrendering it.

Jody from Iowa, get your facts straight - Rick Scott was not convicted of fraud. It must be tough to see that the majorities in the Congress are crashing down before your very eyes. The reality is that democrats must rely upon the independent voters - who are turning in droves from this administration and the democrat majorities in the Congress. Keep up the distortions though if they help you sleep at night.

You're looking at your house, good for you. I'm talking about the society, which has seen stagnant incomes for the last 30 years and increasing differential between the top and everyone else. The numbers don't lie.

I notice you don't try to disprove my contentions though, you just deny that my opinion has value.

Good Morning Navy: Great Posts!! Both of them. You have a lot say this morning and it is all good.

Yes, quite a lot to say. It's a direct copy-and-paste from an article in http://journals.democraticunderground.com/cal04/3023. If you're going to do that, the least you should do is reference where you copied it from. Or, just save the space and post a bunch of links.

Ron;

Thank you for the kind words. I had a day off yesterday and was able to catch up on some of the misinformation running around out there. As we get closer to November, MSM and the right are going to be putting out more misinformation. It is politics and has nothing to do with what is right for this country. Both sides are doing it, and we, Middle America pay the price.

People do not yet understand that if you are in the 98% of the people, you are going to foot the bill for the other 2%. It makes no difference if Dem or Rep. The powers to be do not give brownie points for FR posts. They do give big brownie points if you are in the top 2%, are Wall Street, Big Business or Big Oil.

Thanks again for your excellent post this AM.

Your totally right US Navy, but until the MSN starts reporting on their hypocrisy it isn't going to make any difference. And I don't see that ever happening, because their benefiting from all this misinformation also.

Nicely done as always USN. Koch Industries application for the money is especially egregious because the owners AND their company are prime movers in the effort to destroy our bipartisan democracy and install a Conservative order that answers only to those like themselves at the very top of society http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=1 . If they need money for pensions perhaps they could use some of the hundred million dollars or so that they shovel to the Conservative movement every year. Money that goes to limit the ability of government to support regular citizens. Money that funds everything from the Cato Institute to talk radio and TV personalities.

As for Mississippi, they're already last in the nation in most things including education, now the state is eliminating support for that institution. I don't know if it's true that you can't cure stupid (though I strongly suspect it) but you certainly can't cure ignorance without schools. I also don't know if it's true that businesses are deliberately sitting on money to affect the economy and thereby the election, but clearly Haley Barbour is willing to do exactly that. We can debate the effectivenes of spending on economic health all we want, but putting money that could be spent now to stimulate the economy into the bank is certain to hurt.

Navy Vet, come on. Out of one side of your mouth, you bash the right and cut/paste from from a clearly left wing, axe-to-grind website and then out of the other side say both parties are screwing us? I agree, both parties are screwing us.

So lets examine a recent item. Teachers unions across the country ripped their bodices and gnashed their teeth about having to deal with the realities the private sector has faced for three years of layoffs and paycuts/freezes. So Congress passes another $26 billion bailout, $10 for education and what happens? The school districts pocket the money. Apparently they didn't need it that bad? Now all Federal tax payers, of which only 53% of the workforce actually IS a Federal taxpayer, foots the bill for badly run school districts like LA to line their budgets? Did that actually save jobs?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/18/business/economy/18teachers.html?pagewanted=all

Now, consider that in light of this recent news item. $100 million in spending to save Dem seats - by unions, whose employees received a huge chunk of that $26 billion "stimulus".

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/99103-unions-100m-to-save-the-dems

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) plans to spend in excess of $50 million during the 2010 campaign, part of which will fund “a massive incumbent protection program,” according to Gerry McEntee, president of the union.
The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) plans to spend $44 million in total on its 2010 election program. The union spent $85 million on its 2008 campaign, according to union officials.

Regarding the companies in your cut and pasted "analysis", what exactly would you have them do?

They didn't write the rules, they disagree with the rules and are fighting the rules, but ultimately if the rules stand - they have to play by them. They should, are you suggesting, stand on principle and not accept cost offsets they are eligible for if they are forced to abide by the rules that result in increased costs? How much budgetary sense does that make? Do you own stock in any of those companies? Millions of Americans do.

But, okay, then lets say I agree with you that they should stand on principle - which in some respects, I do agree with you. Which principle, exactly, are the Democrats standing on when they claim to be all for cleaning up Wall Street but willingly accept millions in campaign contributions from same, which effectively de-fanged and made useless the fin reg bill?

http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/industries.php

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/29/how-obama-got-rolled-by-wall-street.html

I'm just very curious, Navy Vet, if you're willing to see and more importantly POST ABOUT the fault lines on BOTH sides of the aisle, because they're certainly there.

US Navy, another terrific and informative post. Seven of the states suing the Government over the health care legislation have applied and been approved to receive the benefits you mentioned regarding monetary aid for early retirees not old enough for medicare. Hypocrisy, thy name is republican.

Of course in order for the Conservative public relations campaign to work it's important for their version of the story to be the only one that has any validity. This works in a variety of ways. You can attack someone's source just because it's associated with the opposition, even though the facts speak for themselves. You create bogeymen who are painted as evil and destructive. Unions for example, who somehow through vote of the workers are assumed to be less democratic (small d) than the captains of industry who fund the Conservative Movement through massive infusions of personal wealth. You try to knock your opponent off message by bringing in issues that don't relate to the discussion.

All of this is to confuse the difference between "facts" and "messages".

Hey, John?

Prove my sources wrong. Conversely, what exactly is Navy Vets sourcing and where did THAT source get their information from? No one knows.

I used the NY Times, The Hill, Newsweek and Open Secrets. I clearly linked and credited all of them, and none of them are "right wing". If anything, they're are "left wing", except Open Secrets which is non-partisan.

And once again, you backhanded and wrongly assume I'm a "conservative" in order to attempt to denigrate and marginalize the points I made - without actually responding to the points.

This is such a blantant progressive/liberal tactic, and yes, I'm calling you a progressive/liberal because you have said as much in various posts.

Did, or did not, Congress pass a $26 billion "stimulus" that was targeted primarily to state and education union workers? Are, or are not, the unions planning on spending $100 million in advertising on behalf of Democrats, arguably as a quid pro quo?

Did, or did not, the Congressional Democrats intentionally strip the Dr. Fix out of the health care bill and require piecemeal funding for same since? Did, or did not, they withhold funding for the administrative potions as well as various entitlements from the bill? Both to bring the bill in closer to Obama's budget goal of $900 billion?

Those are the points I made. You are welcome to prove me wrong, and ASSUMING you can do so without using the Daily Kos, Huffington Post, moveon.org, etc etc etc., I would actually appreciate correction so I don't post outdated or false information unintentionally.

But please stop thinking your convincing anyone but other progressives that attacking the messenger actually works to refute the points made.

Lets try this one more time, its kinda like the Jones act myth, from moveon.org
Top 5 Social Security Myths
Rumors of Social Security's demise are greatly exaggerated. But some powerful people keep spreading lies about the program to scare people into accepting benefit cuts. Can you check out this list of Social Security myths and share it with your friends, family and coworkers?

Facebook

http://bit.ly/bET5PO">Twitter

http://pol.moveon.org/ssmyths/index.html%0A%0ASources:%0A%0A1.%22To%20Deficit%20Hawks%3A%20We%20the%20People%20Know%20Best%20on%20Social%20Security%22%20New%20Deal%202.0%2C%20June%2014%2C%202010%0A%20http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newdeal20.org%2F2010%2F06%2F14%2Fto-defict-hawks-we-the-people-know-best-on-social-security-12290" title="Email this page to your friends">Email

Myth: Social Security is going broke.

Reality: There is no Social Security crisis. By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.3 trillion surplus (yes, trillion with a 'T'). It can pay out all scheduled benefits for the next quarter-century with no changes whatsoever.¹ After 2037, it'll still be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits--and again, that's without any changes. The program started preparing for the Baby Boomers retirement decades ago.² Anyone who insists Social Security is broke probably wants to break it themselves.

Myth: We have to raise the retirement age because people are living longer.

Reality: This is a red-herring to trick you into agreeing to benefit cuts. Retirees are living about the same amount of time as they were in the 1930s. The reason average life expectancy is higher is mostly because many fewer people die as children than did 70 years ago.³ What's more, what gains there have been are distributed very unevenly--since 1972, life expectancy increased by 6.5 years for workers in the top half of the income brackets, but by less than 2 years for those in the bottom half.⁴ But those intent on cutting Social Security love this argument because raising the retirement age is the same as an across-the-board benefit cut.

Myth: Benefit cuts are the only way to fix Social Security.

Reality: Social Security doesn't need to be fixed. But if we want to strengthen it, here's a better way: Make the rich pay their fair share. If the very rich paid taxes on all of their income, Social Security would be sustainable for decades to come.⁵ Right now, high earners only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,000 of their income.⁶ But conservatives insist benefit cuts are the only way because they want to protect the super-rich from paying their fair share.

Myth: The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided and is full of IOUs

Reality: Not even close to true. The Social Security Trust Fund isn't full of IOUs, it's full of U.S. Treasury Bonds. And those bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.⁷ The reason Social Security holds only treasury bonds is the same reason many Americans do: The federal government has never missed a single interest payment on its debts. President Bush wanted to put Social Security funds in the stock market--which would have been disastrous--but luckily, he failed. So the trillions of dollars in the Social Security Trust Fund, which are separate from the regular budget, are as safe as can be.

Myth: Social Security adds to the deficit

Reality: It's not just wrong -- it's impossible! By law, Social Security funds are separate from the budget, and it must pay its own way. That means that Social Security can't add one penny to the deficit.¹

Sources:

1."To Deficit Hawks: We the People Know Best on Social Security" New Deal 2.0, June 14, 2010
http://www.newdeal20.org/2010/06/14/to-defict-hawks-we-the-people-know-best-on-social-security-12290/

2. "The Straight Facts on Social Security" Economic Opportunity Institute, September 2009
http://www.eoionline.org/retirement_security/fact_sheets/StraightFactsSocialSecurity-Sep09.pdf

3. "Social Security and the Age of Retirement"Center for Economic and Policy Research, June 2010
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/social-security-and-the-age-of-retirement/

4. "More on raising the retirement age" Ezra Klein, Washington Post, July 8, 2010
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/more_on_raising_the_retirement.html

5. "Social Security is sustainable" Economic and Policy Institute, May 27, 2010
http://www.epi.org/analysis_and_opinion/entry/social_security_is_sustainable/

6. "Maximum wage contribution and the amount for a credit in 2010." Social Security Administration, April 23, 2010
http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/240

7. "Trust Fund FAQs" Social Security Administration, February 18, 2010
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html

8. "To Deficit Hawks: We the People Know Best on Social Security" New Deal 2.0, June 14, 2010
http://www.newdeal20.org/2010/06/14/to-defict-hawks-we-the-people-know-best-on-social-security-12290/

Sure PTAF, no problem.

I said another place on this thread that it's wrong to take stimulus money and put it in the bank. I'll stand by that whether it's Haley Barbour or a local school board.

The Hill says unions are spending money on Democratic candidates. Not exactly man bites dog. It's your assertion that they're doing it as a quid pro quo for routing massive amounts of stimulus money to the unions. Nothing in the article makes that point.

Sure, lobbying made the finreg bill less aggressive than it should have been, no doubt about it. Which party didn't want a bill at all? Would it solve the problem for Democrats to not take campaign contributions at all, thus ensuring they wouldn't have money to campaign? How about we work to get Elizabeth Warren appointed as head of the new regulatory agency, which could heal a lot of what lobbyists worked to maim.

Btw, your Op Ed from Michael Hirsch forgets to mention that TARP was a Bush Administration creation.

JoMamma:

Thank you for your post. No matter how many times I try to clear up SS lies, they just refuse to believe in the facts even though the sources are in the text of the document. Thanks again for a much clearer post than mine. The information is accurate and they can claim otherwise all they want it does not change the facts (that they know by the way).

So, why exactly did the Democrats/Obama pass a bill that would allow these corporations to take advantage of these provisions?

Didn't they read it?

I remember when Bush passed all those bad tax cuts, too. Most Democrats I know actually took the money. I remember feeling shocked and ashamed of every one of them.

Because it's what we could get at this time, Richard. Conservatives don't need all or nothing. They're content to destroy abortion rights a little at a time. They're content to attack the credibility of public schools, then starve the funding before moving to their ultimate goal of eliminating public education. They're willing to compromise Social Security if it's a useful step on the way to dismantling it.

Conservatives have learned these lessons well. Liberals aren't as good at it which explains the carping from the left about President Obama, but we should learn. It works, witness the rightward motion of public policy over the last 30 years.

Two paragraphs of complete and utter balderdash, John. You can't actually back up a single contention in your first paragraph and the second one is standard liberal excuse making.

Geez, what an animal farm mentality.

First you describe how evil conservatives are, then you describe how stupid the left apparently is and finally you seem proud of adopting our "tactics".

No wonder.

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

The trail of Hypocrisy

Another homerun!!! excellent, awesome!!!

'smatter Richard, can't do better than just attacking my statement? No way to disprove it?

Really CU is this your twisted way to make a point?

Not amusing and certainly adds nothing to the discourse,

Had you been serious, Chuck, I'd have simply pointed out something I pointed out the other day...

If he really were an "Enviro-Whacko" that would make him a "Lefty Libtard" who hates the Second Amendment so he wouldn't believe in guns.

Nothing about this is amusing. But there was a rising whine from the Left wingers last week when the Muslim cab driver was slashed. In fact, one of the "journalists" heros of the Left, Rachel Maddow, had this to say about that incident: "Rachel Maddow said that the opposition to the proposed Islamic center near Ground Zero could be the reason behind a wave of anti-Muslim incidents around the country."

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/31/maddow-islamic-center-opp_n_700684.html

Maybe some of you on the Left can tell us if Ms. Maddow was as eager to talk about the environmentalist wacko Mr. James Lee shooting up the Discovery offices in Silver Spring.

CU

I can see by your post that you were watching Fox news last nite. Almost word for word what O'Riley and Hannity said. I guess you really don't need a brain of your own.

Actually, BS spouter....I did NOT watch them last night. All that shows is that they have the same common sense that I do.

Chuck watches FOX News?

But, that means that he's...*GASP*...helping to fund "Ground Zero Mosque"!!!

And their 'common' sense is something you should emulate?

Please pay attention. I was not emulating them. I can't help it if they have common sense and I do to. Just like many of you can't seem to help it that you have none.

Then why do you cite them? Can't you stand by yourself?

Da Noid- WRONG. The far-left has always loved guns, bombs etc... (Black Panthers, Weathermen etc...). They just don't want the general public to own any. And preferably not the police either...

Rachel Maddow also strongly implied that the hanging death of a rural Kentucky letter-carrier last year was a lynching by violent, anti-government, right-wing militia types.

Of course, when the death was ruled by authorities to be the suicide of a deeply troubled individual...Ms Maddow really didn't have any further use for the story.

Despicable.

CU please tell me where the Democrats were railing against The Discovery Channel, like you and Fox railed against the Community Center, or Abortion Clinics. Yes teabagger republicans and Fox do incite violence whether you like it or not. And I don't think what you and Fox have is common sense it's hate and lies. But do keep patting yourself on the back.

Mixed Bag: Rachel Maddow also strongly implied that the hanging death of a rural Kentucky letter last year was a lynching by violent, anti-government, right-wing militia types.

Of course, when the death was ruled by authorities to be the suicide of a deeply troubled individual...Ms Maddow really didn't have any further use for the story.

That is all the Left has left, propaganda and lies. They do it everyday with regard to the Tea Party. It's a constant drum beat of them calling the Tea Party "racists", "intolerant", and the best one "dangerous", with no facts to back up any of them. It was interesting after the Beck rally when the MSM called it a "Conservative" rally, while at the same time not describing Al Sharpton's rally as a "Liberal" rally. The MSM also found the time to note the people at the Beck rally were "mostly white", while totally ignoring the skin pigment of the people that attended the Sharpton get together.

People though have caught on to this nonsense, and they no longer buy what the MSM is trying to feed them.

"Maybe some of you on the Left can tell us if Ms. Maddow was as eager to talk about the environmentalist wacko Mr. James Lee shooting up the Discovery offices in Silver Spring."

Don't know, JoAnna- Why don't you ask HER instead of US? -your pal Drive Thru.

Hi JoAnnaSmith1

Mixed Bag: Rachel Maddow also strongly implied that the hanging death of a rural Kentucky letter last year was a lynching by violent, anti-government, right-wing militia types.

Criticize James Lee all you want, Miss Jo Anna because he was a lefty and was a loon.

James Lee took hostages for a few mintues in suburban Washington too. But, the fact remains unlike James J. Lee, Glenn Beck and Tea Baggers are taken hostages daily; especially those in the Washington Mall on the day of Beck's " Restoring Honor "rally. The difference between these hostages and the hostages of James Lee is--they knew they were being held hostage.

Tea baggers and people like you don't know you are being held hostage to Glenn Beck and Big global corporations every day.

______________________________________________________________

Yes, quite a lot to say. It's a direct copy-and-paste from an article inhttp://journals.democraticunderground.com/cal04/3023. If you're going to do that, the least you should do is reference where you copied it from. Or, just save the space and post a bunch of links.

Did you expect one to type all that out?

Joanna-mistrust for the media is at an all time high for one very good reason: President Obama.

People were sold a bill of goods-that he was a pragmatic centrist, when nothing could have been further from the truth. After the inauguration, the mask came off, the far left radical was exposed, and voters blamed the media for not giving them the correct information.

Now, I believe that these folks need to share a little blame themselves. His record as the most liberal Senator in the Senate was there for anyone who cared to look-but, perhaps, his blink-of-an-eye tenure was taken into account. After all, the media described him as more moderate than Hillary Clinton, did they not? Surely, they would know?

I wouldn't worry too much about media spin. Nobody seems to be buying it these days.

Have you heard of "copy" and "paste", Beverly? There's no need to type it.

It's really very easy, and the only reason NOT to do it is to:

A. try to obfuscate the source, or

B. try to claim the material is original by omission.

Which is why I'm fairly certain it's a TOS violation to not provide sourcing.

MixedBag:

Rachel Maddow also strongly implied that the hanging death of a rural Kentucky letter-carrier last year was a lynching by violent, anti-government, right-wing militia types.

She didn't "imply" anything. She reported the facts, which by themselves certainly did suggest some sort of foul play by anti-government types. (Attacks on census workers are fairly common place). When authorities determined that the man's death was suicide, Maddow reported that, too.

It's true that Maddow does make mistakes or jump to conclusions now and then, just like most human beings. But she learns that she's made a mistake, she reports the correction, too. Corretcions are something you'll seldom see on Faux News, except when something big blows up in their face, like Andrew Breitbart smearing that black woman.

Beverly in Chicago: Did you expect one to type all that out?

Umm, from your browser you can copy and paste the http address to your post entry.

More important, posters that do copy material produced by others should have the decency to source it properly rather imply that they are the ones that produced the material.

CU please tell me where the Democrats were railing against The Discovery Channel, like you and Fox railed against the Community Center, or Abortion Clinics. Yes teabagger republicans and Fox do incite violence whether you like it or not. And I don't think what you and Fox have is common sense it's hate and lies. But do keep patting yourself on the back.

Here is a typical tactic of the left, with a derogatory name thrown in for added emphasis. According to the Left, what ever bad thing the Left does has been done worse by the Right. The Left can never be critical of their own behavior, but they can always say the Right has done worst. Using that tactic allows the Left to do anything they d*mn well please and always excuse their behavior.

Trouble is, no one is buying that bull from the Left anymore.

This guy Lee was also ranting about "anchor baby filth." That doesn't exactly sound like something progressives put into his head. It sounds like something that would get posted by one of the conservatives on this web site. Face it, the guy was simply deranged and became obsessed with things from all over the pollitical spectrum.

BTW: I notice that JoAnnaSmith ducked, dodged, and weaved when asked the simple question of when progressives ever attacked the Discovery Channel the way Faux News attacks Muslims.

Houston!-

Maddow spent at least a couple of weeks pounding the "anti-government, violent right-wing militia angle" in the tragic suicide death of the rural letter-carrier in Kentucky.

Just for the record...how much time, exactly, did Rachel devote to admitting that she had it wrong all along?

And Houston!...can you post a link to video of Maddow's capitulation to reality with regard to the passing of this poor soul?

In any event...I'm certain that Rachel was both solicitous and sincere.

Hey Mo- Nyuk nyuk nyuk! Sorry. Couldn't resist. I never said that the Dems were "railing against" the Discovery Channel. The enviromental movement is based on the idea that humans are srewing up the planet, the weather, the stars, the moon or whatever else. The more extreme of these idiots (like the guy yesterday) believe that humans (mainly Americans) don't really belong here and need to be exterminated. He somehow tied that in with the Discovery Channel because I guess they don't run Algore's movie enough.

Don't try that old trick of changing what I supposedly said to make an invalid point. The DOUBLE STANDARD here is glaring. Where is the big story about yesterday's incident? Will Maddow and Olbermann tonight discuss whether or not leftwing talk shows and books inspired this kook? I would say NO, but let's watch. IF IT WEREN'T FOR DOUBLE STANDARDS, LIBERALS WOULD HAVE NO STANDARDS AT ALL.

Hi CU, I'm still waiting for you to explain why you cite O'Reilly and Hannity as being stellar examples of 'common sense'.

To me they their names together suggest they may have been a vaudeville team, you know a couple of jackasses.

Wow, Gingerbread gets stale fast , doesnt it. CU keep it up. I think your getting to them.

Frank;

Welcome back, have not seen much of you lately. Very well said. It should be interesting, to say the least, come November and 2012. I just hope that sooner, rather than later, people can start to pull together and take the best ideas from both side of the aisle and move this great country forward. I too am getting tired of the infighting, people manipulating the facts merely for political gain while we are left blowing in the wind. Something has to happen to wake up America and just stop all the crap and rhetoric and start working for the common good of all. Tough choices will have to be made, but hiding our collective heads in the sand is not the answer.

It's not a perception problem for the Democrats, it's a performance problem. How many times can Obama and Biden walk in front of the mics and tell us all it's all good with the economy, only to have the facts come out showing the economy is heading to another recession? Everyday that goes by shows that Obama and his administration are clueless about what concerns Americans, and rather then addressing those concerns, Obama choses to try to spin his way out of the problem. And that's the reason the "Great Communicator" Obama's poll numbers are tanking.

Frank: Welcome back. Excellent analysis: Missed your reasonable perceptions of the world of politics...and being a bit of a political junkie is something to be proud of.

Great post, Grimey. One of my favorite movies is "The American President" (yes, a chick flick)--especially the part where the President calls out the opposition and says "I've been too busy trying to keep my job to do my job." I think that is what is going on with the White House--they are following an agenda and addressing a lot of issues but are losing the message war. I think they believe that what they are doing for the economy will have positive impacts over time but they need to do a better job of telling their side of the story.

Hiya Grimey!

Good to see you back... was wondering where you've been... wasn't sure if my tattoo 'scenario' scared you off or WHAT? ;0)

Anyway - hope you & the family are well and escaped any remnants of 'Earl'!

USNDV and Ron: Thanks guys. Been really busy lately. Plus, admittedly, I'm a bit more of a tropical weather junkie than a political junkie. (Kinda a necessity living in coastal South Florida). And it's hurricane season.

Joanna...I agree that yes, there have been performance problems, but I think that when they really started seeing their standing with the American public drop was when the Health Care Reform was wrapping up and the economy continued to sputter. They did not make the case that HCR would help the economy in a convincing manner. Just my thoughts and you are certainly welcome to disagree.

Grimey- with all due respect, I think you miss the point.

Yes, Obama and the Dems tried to tie the HCR to improving the economy. It was not that people did not know that they tried it-it was that they saw through it, and rejected it as ridiculous.Same with cap and trade.

I agree that McCullom was a better candidate than Scott-but do not agree that it is true of all candidates.

America wants fiscal consevatism and social liberalism. The president is just the opposite, despite a clever campaign strategy to hide that fact.

His entire party will pay for that subterfuge.

Good post Grimey, and I agree 100%. When the Democrats quit trying to save their jobs and start working for the citizens they can turn things around.

Leave it to JoAnnSmith to turn a good discussion into a hate post about President Obama.

JoAnnaSmith1

It's not a perception problem for the Democrats, it's a performance problem. How many times can Obama and Biden walk in front of the mics and tell us all it's all good with the economy, only to have the facts come out showing the economy is heading to another recession? Everyday that goes by shows that Obama and his administration are clueless about what concerns Americans, and rather then addressing those concerns, Obama choses to try to spin his way out of the problem. And that's the reason the "Great Communicator" Obama's poll numbers are tanking.

Welcome back JoAnna,

If the democrats have a performance problem, then the republican leadership during the bush years could not perform at all.

But you Joanna, will ignore that, to you and other, the bush years were the greatest time in American history. to you the banks did not almost fail, there was over site in the banking industry, we went to iraq and found WMD, the tax cuts did not add to the deficits, and we won in afgan.

so considering all this i mentioned is the opposite of what really happened, and considering the president has finished what Bush could not do or did not know who to do (what alot of military experts are saying Now, that he went to iraq with NO EXIT strategy) please, now your allowed back on this blog, lets start fresh Joanna and admit that we are still screwed from the bush years, yes Obama has made mistakes.

so NOW when you leave a post and your saying the dems have a performance problem please be fair(something you may have to learn how to do) and acknolege the bush years were a distastor.

thanks and welcome back.

Feisty...nah...takes more than that to scare me off!! ;-)

No Joe...I understand what you are saying and agree with it to an extent. I think my point is more the view of the average person, not the political junkie. I talk to my neighbors, all of whom vote, but none of whom are political junkies. I'd say 40% voted Obama...but most of them are voting GOP in 2010. They view the Dems as not focusing on the economy at all. Several mentioned HCR specifically.

As for the candidates...I don't think it's all of them either. But it seems like we are taking some chances with some of the candidates across the country. I don't view Angle as the best general election candidate nor do I view Rand Paul that way. Those were races that with the right candidate coulda been slam dunks. Heck, look at the Alaska situation...latest polls show the GOP candidate with a 5 point lead. Murkowski had a massive poll lead in the general.

Good points, Frank.

I do believe that the rising health care costs is a huge economic factor. Serious illness accounts for a large percentage of bankruptcies. Our economic house is being undermined by outrageous health care costs.

I also think that republicans have done a good job of keeping the HCR issue up front. Republicans and conservative issues generally can be broken down into bumper-sticker size issues--tax cuts, small government. You can't put a complicated issue like health care into a few words that stick in voters minds. Progressive ideas are simply harder to condense because often their impact is on the future not the present.

Jeff - please find a post from me, any post, that defends Bush.

Now, as our President says, it's time to "turn the page", it's time to reduce government spending at both federal and state levels. It's time to believe that individual American ingenuity, and not the government, will produce jobs and improve the economy, and it's time to have a fair tax rate that sustains a limited government while at the same time promoting a robust economy. Those are the things that Republicans must focus on as they return to majority status, at least the House, and maybe in the Senate.

This guy Lee was also ranting about "anchor baby filth." That doesn't exactly sound like something tha progressives put into his head. It sounds like something that would get posted by one of the conservatives on this web site. Face it, the guy was simply deranged and became obsessed with things from all over the pollitical spectrum.

You have any ideas on how the republicans are going to accomplish all this JoAnnSmith? I haven't heard anything and I bet you haven't either. All they want to say is we'll do it, we don't know how yet but believe us we will. Good luck with that one JoAnn.

Sorry for that last post about the hostage taker. It ended up in the wrong thread.

Frank.

It's not perception it's a lousy bill. When President Obama talked about HCR he meant expanding coverage. What people heard was control of costs. When the final bill went through at a cost of 1T all we saw was more government spending.

Now, there is a continuous set of stories on how our health care will change in spite of the promise "If you like your current plan you can keep it". All I hear is how current plans will have to change to meet the yet undefined standards that are written by HHS. Add to this that no one I know likes the individual mandate for a number of different reasons most related to a dislike of a government specifically telling that that I must do what they want even if its good for me.

I don't deny there good parts to the bill, preexisting conditions and the ending of dropping of people who thought they were covered, but overall the bill is a negative in my opinion and from the polls most others.

JoAnnaSmith1

Jeff - please find a post from me, any post, that defends Bush.

Now, as our President says, it's time to "turn the page", it's time to reduce government spending at both federal and state levels. It's time to believe that individual American ingenuity, and not the government, will produce jobs and improve the economy, and it's time to have a fair tax rate that sustains a limited government while at the same time promoting a robust economy. Those are the things that Republicans must focus on as they return to majority status, at least the House, and maybe in the Senate.

So he is OUR president NOW!!! you may have never defended bush but you never said that Obama was given a mess for the ages.

your right we must turn the page from this moment now. from this moment now we must work together and fix this mess, Now JoAnna i need for you to get this message to the republicans. turn the page on all this obstruction that the republican are waging against OUR president.

Now in all your post Joanna you have never given a complete view of what our republican leaders have done, not done and could have done. lets face it Joanna, its like NO Jo said 2 days ago, that during the bush years they spent like drunken sailors, and that spending started the slide we are on now, OUR president has contunied the same spending and that has every pissed, but at least his spending is known. during the bush years, who knows where that spending went to, the war was off the books(johnson did the same thing during vietman so i will give him a pass on that) he passed medicade part D but after that what was there to spend on, i know tax cuts that were not paid for by reducing spending.

JoAnna like i told No Jo, obama will reduce our military spending. according to Gates our military is not cost effective and there is alot of fat to cut. in my opinion he will extend the tax cuts for 2 more years, untill he see where this non existant recovery is going.

Alan...I hear ya and perhaps I'm being misunderstood. I was against the HCR bill in the form that passed and many of the other forms that were proposed. I believe that simply by putting HCR front and center to begin with, the Dems lost the approval of a lot of average voters out there because to them, regardless of what was in the bill, HCR <> Economy. So in that respect, it was a perception issue the second that they made HCR the top priority. Now, certainly how they handled it...I don't think many people approved of that either.

Feisty...missed this earlier, but Earl passed well to our East. Nothing but some high surf and unfortunately rip currents. No beach for a few days for my kids. Got our eyes on Gaston which would still be 10 days away. Thanks for asking!

Jeff: your right we must turn the page from this moment now. from this moment now we must work together and fix this mess, Now JoAnna i need for you to get this message to the republicans. turn the page on all this obstruction that the republican are waging against OUR president.

Jeff, please, Obama has had super majorities in both houses of Congress, he got much of what he wanted passed into law, and as for the economy and the recovery, he has totally failed. Please stop with the nonsense that the Republicans obstructed something, they didn't have the votes to do so. Obama got more of what he wanted then most any other president ever got, and he still failed. So maybe it's not the smoke-and-mirrors "obstruction" that Obama and the Liberals point towards to blame others for their failures. Maybe it's Obama's and the Democrats polices that are causing the failures - Yeah, that might be it.

November can't get here fast enough.

JoAnnaSmith1

Please stop with the nonsense that the Republicans obstructed something,

Joanna, i have two things that i can mention right now,

Fund for first responders on 911

Small business Bill that has been help up for months.

the money for first responders was the most gutless thing that have done so far, on 911 they were hailed as hero, but in 2010 the republican labled them as a special interest group.

See there you go again, ignoring the facts.

i can't wait for november either, when the tea party hijacks the republican party.

i have a bottle of 12years old scotch for that night!!!! want to have a drink.

Jeff - Joanna, i have two things that i can mention right now,

Fund for first responders on 911

Small business Bill that has been help up for months.

The first has nothing to do with the macro-economy.

The second is the lastest in a line of "stimulus" money the Democrats seem to come up with every two weeks. First the Democrats wanted $800 billion to stimulate the economy. They wasted it on bailing out bloated state governments, and nothing was stimulated. Then the Democrats kept extending unemployment benefits because according to Pelosi, "That's the best kind of stimulus", and that money stimulated nothing. Then the Democrats wanted another $26 billion to again bail out the states again, and again that failed to stimulate anything.

And now, two weeks after the $26 billion of wasted money, Obama and the Democrats want to spend another $30 billion, this time to stimulate "Small businesses". Call us on the Right skeptical, but at some point what the Obama and the Democrats say about "stimulating the economy" has to come true before we allow even more spending.

JoAnnaSmith1

The first has nothing to do with the macro-economy.

the first has to do with how heartless your republican leadership is.

said that the republicans have not obstructed any thing, i give you 2 examples and once again you ignore what is oviois to everybody.

lets be straight on this Joanna, if the republicans president had not screwed the pooch, president Obama would not have to stumulate the economey. george did not have to stimulate the economey, that becaue the previous president handed him a operating surplus as well as 23 million jobs.

How many did Bush leave Obama.

i was wrong for responding to you, you were thrown off this blog because of you nact of ignoring things and pissing off people, well Joanna you are at it again.

never again will i respond to your post.

with No Jo you can have a good debate, with you its the opposite.

say what you want, its not worth reading. its toilet tissue!!!!

Jeff - the first has to do with how heartless your republican leadership is

Heartless? What is more heartless Jeff? A liberal government that is only interested in continued borrowing money to give more and more benefits to more and more people (1 in 6 people now receive government assistance)? Or a conservative government that is interested in improving the economy to the point where everyone that wants a job can get a job and not depend on government assistance?

i was wrong for responding to you, you were thrown off this blog because of you nact of ignoring things and pissing off people, well Joanna you are at it again.

I'm not the keeper of your, or anyone elses, emotions Jeff. You are. I have not personally attacked you in any way, shape, or form. Like I tell others, if you don't like to what I say, then don't read it.

But JoAnnaSmith, the small business bill contains tax breaks. I thought tax breaks created economic activity and didn't have to be paid for. Is that wrong?

John B, Des Moines, IA: But JoAnnaSmith, the small business bill contains tax breaks. I thought tax breaks created economic activity and didn't have to be paid for. Is that wrong?

To be honest John, I have no idea what's in the latest "stimulus" bill Obama and the Democrats have cooked up. But aren't you getting a little bit tired of the Democrats parading out yet another $20-$30 billion dollar (deficit) spending bill every two weeks or so? Besides, the problem isn't the taxes being paid by small business, the problem is that there is no demand for their products/services. All the tax breaks in the world won't help that situation.

One of the most telling statements on the value of JS1's posts:

To be honest John, I have no idea what's in the latest "stimulus" bill Obama and the Democrats have cooked up.

Thank you, JS1, for admitting that you have no idea what you are talking about nor what you are supporting. To paraphrase: "I don't know what it's about but I know I'm against it!" This just proves that it isn't the policies you are against, it is that it is from this President and the Democrats.

Matt Houston;

Nice catch, Proof for all the read.

Yep, we have know that for awhile about our resident PhD hatred for our President. They bill she knows nothing about has only been talked about for the last couple months, in the last week I think President Obama commented on it a few times and even called the republicans out on it in most of the major news sources, like MSNBC, NYT, WP, Think Progress, Politico etc., etc.

Go figure.

Matty: Thank you, JS1, for admitting that you have no idea what you are talking about nor what you are supporting.

Which puts me miles ahead of most, if not all, of the Democrats in Congress.

This is too funny. Matthew is upset because I haven't read some half-baked slapped together at the last minute Democratic bill winding it's way somewhere through the catacombs of Congress, but he has nothing to say when massive legislation like ObamaCare and the Financial reform bills aren't even read by the members of Congress that voted for them.

You are quite the entertainer Matt.

Matthew, Houston, TX

One of the most telling statements on the value of JS1's posts:

To be honest John, I have no idea what's in the latest "stimulus" bill Obama and the Democrats have cooked up.

Thank you, JS1, for admitting that you have no idea what you are talking about nor what you are supporting. To paraphrase: "I don't know what it's about but I know I'm against it!" This just proves that it isn't the policies you are against, it is that it is from this President and the Democrats.

See matthew, this is why i have stopped posting in response to what she says, its worthless.

Navy: Yep, we have know that for awhile about our resident PhD hatred for our President. They bill she knows nothing about has only been talked about for the last couple months

So what's in the bill Navy? No fair peeking either. Seeing your so much for it and you know what's in it, lets see you rattle off the major points of it. How about the $26 million bill for money going to the states the other day? What do you know about that bill? Other then the fact that if Obama and the Democrats came up with it, therefore you are automatically for it. We're just now finding out the little, and expensive, gems that were inserted in the ObamaCare and Financial Reform bills. But you knew all about those gems already, didn't you. Sure you did.

And did you ever get that copy-and-paste post from early today properly sourced? You sure had Ron Indiana going, he thought you wrote all that. Not properly sourcing it is plagiarism you know. Or don't you care?

I know, Jeff. Did you see the response she gave to my post? She doesn't even realize I used her own words to point out the lack of credibility her posts have.

I still haven't figured out how my post indicates I'm upset. Any idea about that?

So Jeff, is it better to be against a huge deficit spending bill and not know what's in it? Or is better to be like you liberals and be for a bill and not know what's in it? I guess you won't have much trouble with being for the latter case, seeing most if not all Democrats in Congress think the same way. I mean, why should you be any better then them, right?

Matt, Jeff, Navy, any answers as to why you don't have a clue about what is in any of these bills Obama and the Democrats are putting out, but you are still all for them? None? Are these questions too hard for you? I'm not surprised. Knowing that information would take some effort and thought, and might even include a little bit of criticism of your heros Obama/Pelosi/Reid. What flavor is the Obama kool-aide you're drinking today boys?

"Besides, the problem isn't the taxes being paid by small business, the problem is that there is no demand for their products/services. All the tax breaks in the world won't help that situation."

That after WEEKS of being told that it's not demand, it's the "uncertainty" of not knowing if businesses will have to face confiscatory taxation.

It isn't consistency of thought or principle that matters in the Conservative narrative, it's the ability to put together a rational sounding talking point on any given subject.

Matthew, Houston, TX

I know, Jeff. Did you see the response she gave to my post? She doesn't even realize I used her own words to point out the lack of credibility her posts have.

I know matthew, its not just you who thinks this, its everybody!!!!

she just asked me a question about the hugh defiects, could you tell her that the days she was off this blog were quite and alot of good comments and exchanges.

could you also ask here to answer my question, how many jobs did Bush leave Obama. clinton left bush 23 million, but matthew she want to ignore that, i told her that Bush did not have to stumulate the economy, she ignored that, i told her that Bush came to office with a operating surplus, but guess what!! she ignored that as well. she told me that the republicans have NOT been obstructionst, but when i mention the bill for 911 first responders, she ignored that saying ,That has nothing to do with the macro-economy. she completely ignored the fact that the republicans blocked that saying it needed to be paid for and that they were a special interest group. i told her the republicans were guttless for doing that, once again she ignored that.

No Jo admitted that during the bush years, he spent life a drunken sailor and left a hugh mess. i respect no jo because we may not agree with her but she will answer question as asked and will give her views based upon her experince, having a PHD in ecnomics and she was a educator like my mother. she was not a fan of the bush years and made it known, and is really not a fan of Obama's spending, and gave alot of good facts behind that.

could you do a brother a favor, and tell her that untill she is willing to have a good exchange with will though comments. she is wasting her time here on FR!!!!

JoAnnaSmith1

What flavor is the Obama kool-aide you're drinking today boys?

sweety, there are no boys here, we are MEN!!!!!

JS1,

I'm not the one spouting off about the bill so no, I do not have to answer any of your questions. Besides, when a person puts out a statement, it is their responsibility to defend it and prove it's veracity. I proved my point that you are arguing about something you have no knowledge of by using your very words saying that you have no knowledge of the subject. I never said I knew what was in the bill. In fact, the only references I have made to the bill is the quote of your words and in this post.

Jeff, sorry, brother, she has been told all of that often and repeatedly but she just doesn't listen. I'll talk to a wall but I won't bang my head against it.

Matthew, Houston, TX

Jeff, sorry, brother, she has been told all of that often and repeatedly but she just doesn't listen. I'll talk to a wall but I won't bang my head against it.

thats ok, i just though it was just me that she was Ignoring the facts.

Pat...I'm an Orioles fan, so I don't know what this "penant race" you speak of is. Is that where we fight the Pirates and Royals for the first draft pick? ;-)

(Seriously...just beat the Yankees will ya...that's the mark of a successful season in my book!!)

Frank, I'm feeling bad about the Red Sox, but I'll feel even worse for you.

Frank, no pennant race for us either. But I still love to watch these players in late September trying for that one open spot. It breaks your heart sometimes watching some of these teams as they see their season slip away. The New York Mets a few years ago I will never forget. It was brutal watching them lose. And speaking of baseball and September, Ken Burns is having an updated version of his Baseball series, which was such a joy to watch. Keith Olbermann, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Joe Torre and my favorite - Pedro - will be on this program. I am so so so looking forward to it.

I'm not rooting for any team right now. Tampa Bay is hard to root for when you see all those empty seats in their park. Nor is there going to be much drama this September before the season ends. Not too many close races going on. Even the Wild Card in the NL which is usually up for grabs isn't looking too exciting. But October is great. Playoffs and World Series. I love this time of year.

Grimey---you are probably too young to remember, but at one time the Orioles and Pirates had an exciting World Series, which the Pirates won. This year we set the record for most consecutive losing seasons in ALL North American sports. And in a town with the Steelers and Penguins having won world championships within the last few years, the Pirates get one line during the 11 o'clock news!

Steeler Fan, I didn't know that about that record. I work with a Pirates fan so I think I'll take a walk over to his office to give them this news. He's a wonderful person and will have quite a laugh when I bring him this little bit of info. Cheers!

Pat--if you work with a Pirates fan, he must have a lot of patience! And the Pirates have a gem of a ballpark--modeled after Camden Yards, sits on the river with a view of downtown and of course attendance isn't the best. Our goal isn't to get to the World Series, it is to get to 500. Total payroll of approx. $43 million sums it up.

Steeler fan...I feel your pain my friend. As for the World Series, I'm assuming you are talking about the 79 series. Too young to remember it, but my mom would never talk about it. Too painful she said!! You guys do have one beautiful park there by the way.

Pat...No doubt...regardless of rooting interest, October is an exciting month!

I just went to visit my Pirates co-worker and mentioned this record. His reaction?

I know, I know, I know - I'll well aware of it. LOL. (btw, he's a great person who lives and dies Pirates/Steelers). And being stuck in this evil den of Red Sox/Patriots fans I'm sure it has not always been easy for him. But I have always bought him a Championship Cup or Glass whenever one of his teams in Pittsburgh wins. He's much more pleasant than the Yankees fan who is close by. He is a fan who panics easily and I have to constantly remind him how good the New York Yankees are. Can you imagine? It kills me but I try to keep it classy, especially in October.

SI's Peter King just picked the Steelers to win the Super Bowl over the Packers---start saving up for that Cup, Pat!!! Sorry, Ron in Indiana--I guess your Colts won't get another trophy.

Pat--you are always classy.

Steelers?!?!?! The Steelers??????????

Say it isn't so Steeler Fan!!!!! Or should I say - say it isn't so Peter King!!!

No Pats? No Colts? No Giants? No Cowboys? OMG! No Brett?

To be honest, I never mind it when the city of Pittsburgh wins a Championship (so long as they don't beat us in the NFL playoffs to get there). Nor would I mind if Cleveland wins a championship. Just like baseball fans all over want to see the Cubs win the World Series, I would love to see the Browns win a Super Bowl.

Wiki:

Cleveland has waited longer than any other city with three major sports franchises to win a title. The last time a Cleveland professional sports team won a championship was in 1964 when the Cleveland Browns won the NFL Championship (pre-Super Bowl era). The Cleveland Indians last won the World Series in 1948 (the second-longest drought in MLB, after the Cubs) and the Cleveland Cavaliers have also never won an NBA championship. The city even had a short-lived NHL hockey team called The Barons, which never won a championship either. In 2007, the Cavaliers advanced to the NBA Finals in the city's first championship game since the 1997 World Series, but were swept by the San Antonio Spurs. In 2004, ESPN named Cleveland the most tortured sports city in America.^[1]

Baseball Almanac

The surprising Cleveland Indians won their second pennant in 1948 after beating the Boston Red Sox in an 8-3 playoff for the American League championship. The win prevented what would have been another classic rematch between the Sox and their hometown rivals, the Boston Braves, who had captured the National League flag by 6½ games. While the Braves had a good-hitting ballclub, much of the National Leaguers' hopes rested on the arms of Johnny Sain and Warren Spahn. In fact, a formula penned in the papers as "Spahn and Sain and two days of rain" seemed to capture not only the depth of the team's starting pitching, but also the essence of the Braves' strength. Cleveland's big winners in '48 were rookie lefthander Gene Bearden, Bob Feller and Bob Lemon and many felt that this Series would be decided on the mound.

Bob Feller, who had won twenty-five or more games three times in the majors (and twenty-four on another occasion), was a nineteen-game winner in '48.

Well, Pat--I guess we'll beat Brett in the Super Bowl, break his heart and finally force him into retirement.

My mother was from Boston so I always root for the Red Sox & the Celtics but could never root for the Pats. Don't get me started on how they cheated in our playoff game!

Sadly, we can't root for Cleveland here in Pittsburgh.

I guess it's up to me to bring up the Seattle Mariners?

Go Tigers! I don't know or care what place they are in. Go Tigers!

The lame-duck session will have to be watched carefully. A wounded and crazed outgoing Reid and a spited Nancy Pelosi that will be losing her Speakership are likely to try anything during that time.

JoAnna,

You are correct.. the funny thing about Wounded Animals is that is when they are the most Dangerous, Whats even worse is they are self inflicted wounds, that they are trying to blame on someone else,

The lame-duck session will have to be watched carefully. A wounded and crazed outgoing Reid and a spited Nancy Pelosi that will be losing her Speakership are likely to try anything during that time.

Yes, they might try to...*GASP*...pass legislation!

How DARE they!

Da Noid,

I think the word you were looking for was Impose,

Da Noid: Yes, they might try to...*GASP*...pass legislation!

Think what ever they might pass/impose will be as popular as ObamaCare and the (non)Stimulus bill? The Democrats passed those bills when they knew there would be consequences. Without consequences, who knows what Nancy and Harry might cook up.

We may lose the majority - probably not. But, if so, we'll get it right back in 2012 when the public sees that the repubs haven't a clue other than cutting taxes and the deficit at the same time. Once that cognitive dissonance is removed you will almost hear the exclaims of 'what the heck did we just do'. Kinda like what the righties think Americans are doing now over the president they overwhelmingly elected. Only this time it won't be ginned up by an entertainment network posing as news. It'll be real.

Rick,

The american people are Fickle .. That may happen and hopefully we will continue to kick the career politican out of Washington, If the politican dont perform as the American people want then they need to go. After all they work for us, we dont work for them, The Money that they spend is not the Govts Money. nor the politicans.. its the peoples.. some think the Govt should spend all they can then demand more from the people they work for.. Some think the Govt should only Spend that which they actually have or less ..

Rick in savannah: We may lose the majority - probably not. But, if so, we'll get it right back in 2012 when the public sees that the repubs haven't a clue other than cutting taxes and the deficit at the same time.

Outgoing Obama economic team member Christina Romer said she believed that the government should "spend even more money and tax less". Gee, sounds a lot like what the liberals say Bush did.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-01/rohmer-urges-congress-to-help-boost-economy-amid-talks-on-additional-steps.html

JoAnna,

You are correct.. the funny thing about Wounded Animals is that is when they are the most Dangerous, Whats even worse is they are self inflicted wounds, that they are trying to blame on someone else,

Steve-505729 writes in response to Joannasmith1.

Steve, you must be talking about them RABBID Republicans from 2006 & 2008 Elections!

You Betcha!

Yawn Rick......... just Yawn.

Hmm. Steve-505729, I have noticed that every time you get bested in a debate or you get called out on unsupportable or unsupported statements, you revert to telling that person they are boring you. Interesting tactic but it doesn't take away from the fact that you were bested or caught stating factual mistakes.

Wasn't it Aesop that told the story about sour grapes? Steve illustrates it every day, at least once a day, if not more, here on FR.

Matthew..

You bore me too. just because you say it doens't make it so..

I get more joy out you liberals defending this adminsitration and the Democrats that Have disrespected the American people so much. that the American people are gonna hand at MINIMUM the house of Representatives back to the Republicans.

That is the Bitterness you have. You are on a Sinking Ship.. and i am just Trying to provide you with a life jacket.

To use your words (with better spelling, I might add), Steve, just because you say it doesn't make it so.

1) I'm not bitter

and

2) You have no clue what is going to happen this November. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

I remember 2006 when everyone said the Democrats wouldn't take the Senate, how did that work out for you guys? The voters gave them a majority but a DINO took it away.

Did Reagan fall from grace, too? His poll numbers were worse for the same time frame.

Jody:

Did Reagan fall from grace, too? His poll numbers were worse for the same time frame.

To paraphrase the Great Communicator, himself: There you go again, Jody, trying to confuse conservatives with facts. You know they just hate that.

Obama's polls would be significantly lower if it wasn't for the race based support of African-Americans who continue to support him because they don't want the first African-American President to be a failure.

Houston1: To paraphrase the Great Communicator, himself: There you go again, Jody, trying to confuse conservatives with facts. You know they just hate that.

Liberals favorably comparing Obama to Reagan. No one saw that coming 20 months ago.

JoAnnaSmith1:

Liberals favorably comparing Obama to Reagan. No one saw that coming 20 months ago.

Wingnuts hate it when Obama's performance is compared to anything based in reality. It's much easier to bash him when you decree that he not be judged by any objective standards, isn't it, JoAnna?

Houston!: Wingnuts hate it when Obama's performance is compared to anything based in reality. It's much easier to bash him when you decree that he not be judged by any objective standards, isn't it, JoAnna?

Oh, now you want to talk about reality. That is progress. Here's some reality. The things Reagan was doing were improving the economy, reducing unemployment, increasing the economic growth rate, and allowing people to have more of the money they earned to do what they wanted. The things Obama is doing are killing the economy, increasing unemployment, decreasing the economic growth rate, and increasing taxes.

You can see that Obama and Reagan are similar from a polling point of view at the same time of their Presidencies, but one was going up in the polls, and the other is going down.

That objective enough for you?

That's not objective, it's a value judgement that's based in your stated belief that stimulus spending can't work because you reject Keynesian Economics but you believe tax breaks always create a more vibrant economy.

John B and your point! I personally think Ken Kesey had a great mind......oh wait Keynesian. Soooooorry.

Actually, John, I have to agree with JS1 on this but only to a point. The conditions when Reagan took office actually did call for supply side economic policies. Where Reagan screwed up was that he took them too far and applied them for too long (note that both he and GHWB raised some taxes after an initial drop, remember "Read my lips . . ."?). It really got bad when GHWB decided to continue the very policies he called voodoo economics (despite his token tax raise).

Where JS1's argument falls apart is that the condition that led to our current mess were not the same as those Reagan had to deal with. This means that different policies than Reagan used are appropriate in this situation. What most honest economists, both conservative and liberal, agree on is that Keynesian economic policies are called for and that we have not gone far enough.

The danger of any economic policy is the misuse and abuse of it. Apply it in the wrong situation or for too long and you will have problems.

Agreed, Matthew. Every economic tool has its place. The real danger is when you start throwing tools out of your box because you disagree with them, or you're idealogically constrained against things that have been proven to work. At that point all you have is a hammer, and everything looks like a nail.

That's a fact, Jack . . . err, John . . . oh wait, that does work . . . but I never understood why someone named John would go by Jack. Anyway, I voted.

*Stands & Applauds*

Keep in mind Michael that the right wing nuts mistake PASSION with 'anger' & 'bitterness'!

Yes, what are you talking about?

Touche', Double Touche'

The people mention just keep on showing everybody what hypocrites the lot. Say one thing and do another, pretend they did not or justify it by claiming we are picking on them.

Well said Michael, and I gladly stand in support. You've described the evolution of a Conservative talking point quite well. 1) Attack the legitimacy of stands that are based in your conscience. 2) Cloud the argument so that reason leaves the field. 3) Take over the language so that the only terms of debate are theirs. 4) Project their own anger onto you, pretending that YOU are the one who was unreasonable from the beginning. 5) Dehumanize you completely, so that you cannot be seen as a sympathetic character, let alone a man of reason.

I love it gang, their all including JoAnnSmith, no joe all blow, Cu, Joe buying into the pundits predictions. They were wrong in 2008 and they'll be wrong this time. If it was up to the pundits we wouldn't even need to hold an election. It's going to be fun to watch them blame each other for all their wrong predictions. But as usual they'll all blame the pollsters.

What touching, heartfelt sentiment! Now everybody go get their torches, pitchforks and treat, No joe, Mixed bag, Joanna Smith etc., to the very "method" you despise when you see it done to someone whose politics you agree with. Civility is a two-way street. Common courtesy is in short supply on both sides here, but the majority sets the tone.

I see Mo is ignoring the obvious. Polls don't matter. Deficits don't matter. High-unemployment doesn't matter. Illegal immigration doesn't matter. Heading towards another recession doesn't matter. Nothing matters to the Left, except that the Democrats keep power.

I don't have any further questions for Michael.

I would like to ask Feisty, US Navy, John B, and Mo a question, though...

Are all of you worried about the possibility of a civil war in the United States, based on political ideology? Are you nearing the point of taking up arms to battle those you disagree with politically?

Is this notion really a common thread among the folks that post regularly here at First Read?

Michael-go back and read your own posts. You were raving the other day-accusing people of 'punching you in the jaw as you tried to speak', decrying the lack of unanimous support for Obama's policies, (as if he were entitled somehow, to something no president of this country ever even expected), predicting armed civil war.

I get that you are disheartened by the polls and prospects for your party; I get that it can lead to some highly emotional posts.

However, when you go off the way you did, you can expect some blowback. Yours is not the first histrionic post to receive such; CA in Tuscaloosa responded to Boehner's call to raise the Social Security retirement age for younger workers by 3 years by saying that those younger workers would turn to selling drugs as a result. When called on it, he/she began posting ever crazier things, before disappearing altogether.

You put out a couple of hysterical rants the other day. You have two options-keep lobbing ever more emotional rants at those who called you on it,or deal with it and move on.

That's impressive. I'm in awe.

Mixed, maybe your question of Civil War could best be explained by Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin or Sharon Angle!

They seem to be Front & Center of the Civil War battlefield.

You Betcha!

Oh, and John B? those points you made-you know full well that those are the area of specialty of the left.

You got them from the Rules for Radicals-your uncle sol Alinsky was the author. You used them quite well during the last campaign. Sadly, for your side, they no longer work-so why would the right employ them?

You should go back and read Michael's posts. He was having a breakdown on the boards, and was called on some of his more histrionic points. He will now have to deal with the blowback.

**stands and applauds** Bravo, Michael, that says it all!

Cheers for Michael Thompson!

NJ:

None of my posts decried the lack of unanimous support for the president's policies. My posts specifically spoke the treatment of private citizens by other private citizens. I have stated this over and over again. The possibility of civil war doesn't exist when citizens disagree with government. Citizens have disagreed with government as long as there has been government.

The possibility for civil war primarily exists because of the dehumanizing effects of citizens allowing their politics to become the sole prism through which they view their fellow citizens and allowing that prism to govern their treatment of them. You still don't seem to understand that all of this - my stance, my viewpoint, and my posts - have nothing to do with my support for the president and your lack of support for the president.

They have to do with the fact that the only thing that I have called any of you out on is the neverending deluge of abuse that you heap upon your fellow citizens and the way in which you respond to that is by delivering a deluge of abuse upon me, even going so far as to imply that you believe that my recognition that an atmosphere of hatred might lead to violence somehow equates to me being a violent man. In short I criticized the fact that you constantly engage in personal attacks, so your reaction was to personally attack me?

Seriously?

And in that equation, I am the one who is mentally ill?

Recognizing the atmosphere of the world in which you live does not make you crazy. It means that you can see. We live in a nation that is entrenched and divided by two recalcitrant sides that both deeply believe in the philosophies they espouse to the point of completely dehumanizing the other side. The last chance there was for that atmosphere to be reduced was brutally squashed by one of the side. Consider the historical parallels to society that meet those criteria. All of them have generally resulted in armed conflict of some scale.

In my posts, I allowed for both the possibility that armed conflict might occur AND the possibility that the current anger might burn itself out, but you construe that to mean that I am somehow advocating for the result that will lead to death? No. I advocated, pleaded, and nearly begged your side for the last two years to voice your discontent in a way that would not lead to nothing but more hatred, but you and yours absolutely refused to pay any attention to it, because winning was more important to you.

Can you seriously look at those series of posts above and call the characterization of me as a bitter, self-pitying, potentially suicidal, potentially homicidal, radical advocating for war between the citizens of this nation as anything other than abuse? And if so, can you not allow for the chance that all of this - this exact same chain of events - has occurred in other forms and other ways, perhaps using other language, but resulting in exactly the same - you choosing to dehumanize not just the policies with which you disagree and not just the leaders who advocate those policies, but the private citizens who support them?

Probably not. I have no idea. I have no idea who you are and I don't make any judgments about who I suspect you might be, because the ultimate truth is that you, MB, and Chuck have no idea who I am and I have no idea who you are.

I DO think, however, that the implied expectation in your post after being called a bitter, angry, self-pitying, suicidal, homicidal radical that I just settle down and smile at you and 'deal with it' is just a little bit ridiculous. Is that how you would react? Is that how any rational person would react?

Get serious.

dangerfield:

We get it. You think the left is as guilty as the right, but constantly pointing that out at the expense of ever taking any sort of stand on whether the behavior right in front of your face is appropriate or not does not make you an independent. It just makes you paralyzed. Do you think those things said above were at all in proportion to anything I've ever said or done on these boards? If not, then do you think they were at all appropriate?

I personally don't care what the left wing ever did to you because you seem to be, for someone who is supposedly liberal, one hell of a lot more angry at your fellow left wingers than you've ever displayed toward anyone on the right. And that's fine, I suppose, but don't make the mistake of thinking that it 'proves' anything when people react to negative things you say in negative ways. That doesn't prove how 'right' you were about left wingers. It just proves that you said something nasty to someone that they didn't like.

"Are all of you worried about the possibility of a civil war in the United States, based on political ideology? Are you nearing the point of taking up arms to battle those you disagree with politically?"

I would not, but then again it's the Tea Party crowd crying about "Second Amendment solutions", "Reloading", and "Watering the tree of Liberty with the blood of Patriots." Artful use of projection, however, accusing the Left of doing exactly what the Right can be shown to be doing.

Mo-

The civil war reference in this thread was initially made by Michael Thompson...I responded to it.

Frankly, I don't believe for a minute that a ideology-based civil war among Americans is likely, or even possible.

I suggest you address any questions about another American civil war to Michael...or, you could take the time to actually read what he posts, as I do.

John B-

Thanks, John...I'm relieved to know that.

MB, Michael's original reference was fear of how far the "Second Amendment solution" folks would go to get their way and you know it. Stop misrepresenting his position and trying to make him look like some sort of threat.

Mo:

MB did not make that up out of whole cloth. During the discussion thread a couple of days ago, I indicated that I believed the possibility of a civil war between the people of this nation to be a real one. They have opted to construe that to mean that I am actively advocating for that result. My stance is and has been and will remain that if a.) it comes and b.) we have no choice but to fight it that we do not fight it to lose from the beginning and that we admit to the possibility that the actual, real hatred between the sides in today's nation is far closer to the antebellum period, pre-civil war United States than we would like to admit.

No, we do not have a modern equivalent of Harper's Ferry yet, but we do have incidents like Waco and Ruby Ridge and Oklahoma City. We also have a far greater capacity to vocalize our intense hatred for those with whom we disagree on a greater scale than ever before. And we have at our disposal greater means to inflict massive casualties than we have had at any point in the past. All of these things in concert mean that it would not take very many sparks for it to escalate.

Combine that with the fact that right wing governers talk openly about secession in today's political climate and the intense distrust that the entire right wing holds for the federal government - meaning that our trust in the institutions that bind are are at-best frayed - and the possibility that all of this escalates into a civil war becomes even more possible. I am not saying that I believe it is inevitable or even probable.

I am saying that it is possible. If you'd asked me in 1999 whether I believed my nation to be capable of a completely offensive war based on no inherent causus belli, I would have also said I rated it as possible, but neither inevitable or probable. And one you admit the possibility, then you have to look at which side you are probably going to be on and whether that side is prepared. The right wing is prepare - they actively talk about it and have armed themselves for it.

Again, I do not particularly want to fight it, but if it comes, it would be stupid of us not to be prepared and to fight it to win.

However none of this insinuates that I am actively advocating for civil war after the midterms after the elections as both MB and NJ have chosen to construe my earlier words to mean.

You know what, Michael? I finally get it.

Let me just explain to you that the poeple who told you that you didn't have any friends because the kids were jealous of you because you were so much 'smarter'than they were wrong.

It is your words, your attitude, and your actions that bring you negative attention.

Since I am presuming that you are an adult, you will have more work to do to change your actions and outlook than a child would. It can be done, but it will take hard work.

If people in your life are treating you badly because of your political views, I would suggest that you STOP PONTIFICATING. There is a time and place for everything; the workplace and many social gatherings are the wrong arenas to impose your views on people. That is why this site is valuable.

Learn to accept blame when you are wrong. Your posts the other day are a great example; you then took the day off, nursed your grievances, and sought more 'proof' that you are being victimized because of your political views. Again, it was the overwhelming hysteria that colored the entire treatise that brought you the ill attention. You could have stated your disappointment in other, more acceptable terms. Instead, you chose to use violent, histrionic phrasing.

I tell you this because, to tell you the truth, I feel sorry for you. You have obviously never learned valuable social skills; now that the Obama euphoria is gone, you are once again on the outside of the 'popular' group. If you can't do it on your own, you should seek some help. I mean that in all sincerity-you are obviously in a lot of pain, and in need of help and direction to heal. Good luck and godspeed.

dangerfield:

"We get it. You think the left is as guilty as the right, but constantly pointing that out at the expense of ever taking any sort of stand on whether the behavior right in front of your face is appropriate or not does not make you an independent. It just makes you paralyzed. Do you think those things said above were at all in proportion to anything I've ever said or done on these boards? If not, then do you think they were at all appropriate?"

Whom should I "take a stand" against, if my point is that there is little if any difference between the rhetoric and tactics of both sides? here are some of today's gems;

_________________________________________________________________________________

John B, Des Moines, IA

Of course in order for the Conservative public relations campaign to work it's important for their version of the story to be the only one that has any validity. This works in a variety of ways. You can attack someone's source just because it's associated with the opposition, even though the facts speak for themselves. You create bogeymen who are painted as evil and destructive. Unions for example, who somehow through vote of the workers are assumed to be less democratic (small d) than the captains of industry who fund the Conservative Movement through massive infusions of personal wealth. You try to knock your opponent off message by bringing in issues that don't relate to the discussion.

All of this is to confuse the difference between "facts" and "messages".

JoAnnaSmith1
Here is a typical tactic of the left, with a derogatory name thrown in for added emphasis. According to the Left, what ever bad thing the Left does has been done worse by the Right. The Left can never be critical of their own behavior, but they can always say the Right has done worst. Using that tactic allows the Left to do anything they d*mn well please and always excuse their behavior.

Trouble is, no one is buying that bull from the Left anymore.

no joe, no bo, nj

Oh, and John B? those points you made-you know full well that those are the area of specialty of the left.

You got them from the Rules for Radicals-your uncle sol Alinsky was the author. You used them quite well during the last campaign. Sadly, for your side, they no longer work-so why would the right employ them?

________________________________________________________________________________

You are all talking over one another, everyone sure that they KNOW the heart and mind of their opposition. The first thing necessary to a civil exchange of opposing views and what I have hoped for in this forum is CIVILITY. That means a code of common courtesy from BOTH sides.

Stop insulting each other personally. Debate the point, not the person making the point. End the name-calling by simply using the titles or names of those you are writing about.

I don't know you and I can't speak for anyone but myself here, but countless others have been "wronged" in their own estimation in similar fashion on the board, on both sides of the on going debate, so make this a "teachable moment" instead of an excuse for yet another rant about how "they" are so much worse than "us"

Hey, if the Palestinians and Israelis can sit down and negotiate at the same table....

Wait, I'm dreaming right? No Jo, are you seriously accusing someone else of pontificating and learning to accept blame when you are wrong? Did you do that when Mark pointed out how incorrect you were? I think we could easily switch your name for Michael's and the whole thing would work better. But, I am sure that you will reach across the line and start to work with the Democrats so that we can move this country forward. I know, deep in your heart, you want President Obama to succeed, because than all of American prospers. To wish for less would be, well, kind of sad.

Ah, so now in addition to a bitter, angry, potentially suicidal, potentially homicidal radical, I am now also a friendless, socially inept community outcast who never learned to integrate into society. I assume then, that in your mind, because I decided to point out how poorly the right wing citizens of the nation treat the left wing citizens of the nation, at some point I will completely fit the profile of a serial killer?

At what point do your attacks on what you presume my personality and life cease and you understand that I am not talking about me? I am not going to defend my entire life, because that is ultimately what you want. The entire method is devoted to the conversation spiraling down to one about the life of the person delivering the message rather than the message itself.

Again, for about the 20th time, it is not about me. It is about how we as a society treat each other. It is about the fact that we had the opportunity to change all of that when the public sentiment of the nation was in favor of that, but how your side instead chose to crush that moment in time. That is not going to change, no matter what new personal attacks you choose to levy at me and whether I choose to ever respond to any of them.

You know, newday, I don't really know why I'm responding to you, but here goes:

go back to the archives-I told Mark that I had missed Palin, (my fault, I don't read anything about her, nor will I watch her on television), or Gingrich,(don't know how about that one).

So, yes, I admit when I'm wrong.

As to Obama, again, there is a world of difference between HOPING someone fails, and KNOWING they will fail.

Given the state of the economy, it would have been wonderful to have been wrong.

As to Michael, I realized from his posts today that he is a step removed from the rest of the posters on this board. There is jousting, ribbing, and verbal sparring here, but Michael is, in my estimation, someone in serious emotional pain who needs intervention so that he can have a better, more fulfilling life.

He is not talking about his interactions just on this board, but in his everyday life. From the posts I read here, that is not true of the overwhelming majority of us. This is not a 'partisian' issue. If you read his posts as a human being, rather than as a democrat or a republican, you will see a person in serious psychic pain.

How can you ignore that for the purpose of scoring political points?

Actually, No Jo, an objective observer would say that you were pretty defensive when Mark pointed out your error, just as you are now. But, my question remains, and is germane to this discussion...why do you accuse another poster of that which you are guilty of? And how does making this personal contribute to the discussion of bettering America. I have enough belief in the goodness of people that even YOU can come up with some ways to get each party cooperating with the other. So, what say you, Jo, you ready to join into problem solving? And, my friends, since I know what you are thinking....yes sts.

newdayDAWNING10
Wait, I'm dreaming right? No Jo, are you seriously accusing someone else of pontificating and learning to accept blame when you are wrong?

Thanks for putting that out there NDD!

I almost fell off my chair when I read her response to Michael! lmao!!!

Good LORD! Just when I thought I had heard it all...

Now she's calling for an intervention for Michael's deep emotional pain what ever the he!! that means... as if being a bogus PHD in economics wasn't enough...

I'm gonna grab my some popcorn cause the right wing circus has rode into town... ;0)

Michael Thompson!!!! Jeezy Peezy George n Weezy...are YOU on here whining again? Glad you're still with us. No Joe had you pegged exactly right. You must be the type that starts ranting politically out in public or at parties, your job (if you have one). Probably doesn't make you very popular.

Take a tip from me, Mikey. Leave the political diatribes to little-used internet message boards like this one. I have liberals in my immeidiate family and among my close friends. Granted, none of them are as hateful, confused and hypocritical as those on this board, but we get along. How? We don't talk about this stuff. There's a time and a place for everything but you seem to be the kind of person that, because you are so much smarter than nearly everyone else on the planet, you can't understand why everyone refuses to go along. This causes you to spew your far left ideas and ideals to anyone who will listen and , unfortnately for you, those that do not want to hear it.

Relax slick. Yeah right.

Feisty: No kidding, right? Though I do so love irony.

Fiesty-I know from personal experience that you are not a cold-hearted person-you have shown me much warmth and compassion - we both know what I mean. It is true of many posters on this board.

Yes, I started out responding to Michael as I would anyone else, but then, I went back and re-read some of his posts. I would ask you to do so, as well.

I don't claim to be an expert, but there is something different there. I am being entirely sincere, Fiesty.

Maybe, (I hope so, really), I am wrong-but his posts are pretty heart-wrenching when you read them with an unbiased eye.

But, Jo: Having worked many years in the Mental Health field, I can say this with some certainty. No one diagnoses someone they haven't met. Since there is NO evidence to suggest that you have a clue what you are speaking about, I really think you owe Michael an apology.

Don't worry about it, Newday, this is pretty typical of the method I've described. Basically it takes a few steps, but eventually once you've seen it on enough forums in enough places done to enough people, breaking it down it pretty simple:

1.) The right wing poster disagrees with something someone has posted. Initially, the disagreement is fairly civil in nature up to the point that the right wing poster has no response to what is being said. It's also usually done as a retaliation for the poster-in-question negatively commenting on the personal behavior of the right winger(s) in question.

2.) At that point, the right winger will make some initial comments about the personality of the left winger - generally sort of vague and accusatory in a general sense, (ie calling the left winger 'angry' in a general sense).

3.) If the situation continues to escalate, the right winger will begin to assume knowledge of the left winger's life that he or she has no real way of knowing. They, and those who choose to back the play, will gradually escalate these assumptions more and more until they find something that causes the left winger to really react negatively. At that point, they will know that their shots in the dark have hit home and they've found something to be essentially true.

4.) Sometimes, as NJ does here, they will use a generalized criteria of assumptions about the person in order to find the mark. People who frequent message boards tend to be introverts. People who are introverts tend to be socially awkward. People who are socially awkward have a tendency to display many of the other characteristics that NJ has attempted to apply to me. Farley has tried another tack - people who frequent message boards, for whatever reason, tend to have a lot of time on their hands, so there is a possibility that I am unemployed, so he dropped that into his last post.

Both assume the 'friendless' narrative because they know, (possibly from using this method in the past), that if the 'friendless' narrative hits home, they win the argument by default because the truth that someone is 'friendless' is usually such a devastating accusation that the person in question will quickly disappear in humiliation.

5.) Whether anything hits home or not, the narrative must be repeated over and over again. Because the more often that something is repeated, the more 'true' the narrative will become in the minds of those in the surrounding community who have only witnessed the exchange in a passing manner.

I am not particularly upset with any of it, because, as I said, I've seen it play out in numerous forums in the past. Them opting so quickly to use it here does reveal something to me about their characters that I really only suspected about one of them though. I already suspected Farley was actively evil and would do this sort of thing without reservation. I suspected, however, that NJ was simply passionate in her beliefs, even if she was sort of clumsy and off-putting in how she presented them. I suppose, though, that we can assume since she is the one who is most actively pushing the narrative despite all current evidence to the contrary, that she is probably actively evil as well.

The others involved? MB? Probably not. He was probably more shocked that I'd considered the schism of the nation to the extent that I've considered it at all. And he certainly hasn't piled onto the 'there's something seriously wrong with Mike' narrative beyond the initial seeming belief that I perhaps WAS advocating armed conflict. If he initially believed that, then hopefully the way I have explained it since has alleviated that concern.

The other right wing passers by? Probably not so much of anything because they have yet to really become participants. But the next part of the method is really the part that makes it a powerful one. You will notice other right wingers start to pick up the narrative in the near future. Once that happens and it starts to get repeated more often, then the narrative will begin to 'set,' to use the term for cement, in the minds of all of the readers here.

In about 2 weeks, the specifics of this discussion and what the conversation is about will have long since been forgotten and the quasi-fact that 'there is something seriously mentally wrong with Mike Thompson' will be the only thing that is remembered.

At least that is the intended outcome of the method.

dangerfield: Hey, if the Palestinians and Israelis can sit down and negotiate at the same table....

On this one, I won't be the one to blame Obama when he fails. Everyone else has failed, and just like the fact that Obama is nothing special on domestic issues, he's also not the brightest bulb on dealing foreign issues either.

Michael, I think your last post sums it up nicely. You are, of course, exactly right, but I have never seen it put in such cogent terms before. Perhaps the righties are envious of your ability to write like you do? Could be part of it. So, I will let it go, with another observation of how irony is one of the best things in life.

But, I still think you are owed an apology.

Michael Thompson, Charlotte, NC

Don't worry about it, Newday, this is pretty typical of the method I've described. Basically it takes a few steps, but eventually once you've seen it on enough forums in enough places done to enough people, breaking it down it pretty simple:

1.) The right wing poster disagrees with something someone has posted . . . .

<blah-blah-blah>

And of course the Leftwing poster dispenses with the entire process by starting the conversation off by calling the Rightwing poster a "tea bagger" that watches too much Fox, and then finishes things off by blaming Bush.

Dangerfield:

"Whom should I "take a stand" against, if my point is that there is little if any difference between the rhetoric and tactics of both sides?"

******************************************************************************

Would you not agree that there is a categorical difference between the generalized accusations and stereotyping of 'lefties' and 'righties' that typify both of the posts you cited and accustions directed in a very personal at an individual poster painting him to be an angry, bitter, possibly suicidal, potentially homicidal radical, who also happens to be friendless and completely socially inept? Especially considering that none of those insinuations are based in any way on any real, direct knowledge of that person's life?

There is a huge difference in the method that I've described and the usual rancor between left and right. The rancor simply increases the amount of generalized discontent between members of the citizenry and is bad on its own terms because of that. The method is used to marginalize one person to the extent of effectively destroying him or her in the minds of the observers.

I will leave it to you to decide which of these particular types of actions is categorically worse.

Okay, you win.

I'm sorry that Michael's seeming internalizing and personalizing Obama's and the Democrats' falling fortunes stirred compassion in me. It was obviously misplaced.

Happy now?

JSmith:

Being called a 'teabagger' is certainly a perjorative, which is why I never use the term. However, despite the double entendre inherent in its meaning, the connotation that someone currently has when they hear the term is nearly entirely political in its basis. It is a dismissal, but it is a dismissal that is rooted in political philosophy.

Like I said to Dangerfield, there is something categorically on a different scale about assuming aspects of another person's personal life and attempting to project those assumptions into the minds of the surrounding people in the community. The is nothing philosophically rooted about assuming that someone is angry, nor is there anything that is politically connotative or explanatory about assuming someone is suicidal or homicidal or a potential threat to the others around him, and finally there is absolutely nothing inherent to a political philosophy that defines anyone as 'friendless' or 'socially inept' or describing someone as 'needing help.'

When the right wing is doing these things to a person, they are moving beyond the usual arguments of right and left. They are moving into the realm of pure character assassination designed to completely 'unvoice' someone who has made them feel uncomfortable.

Hopefully you can appreciate the difference in degree here.

Only if you believe in non- apology apologies. Let's try this again: something like this. No Jo: " Michael, in my zeal to make a point, I went too far. I do apologize for that, and hope that you will accept it as heartfelt. "

There, see how easy it is...let's see you give it the old college try..

-shrugs-

I gather that what she said pretty accurately summed up her feelings about the topic. Evil people, by and large, don't regard themselves as being evil. She probably, in some way, DOES believe that it was 'compassion' that spurred her to categorize me as a proto-serial killer, who has no friends and essentially lives a hopeless and empty life.

Of course, doing all of it in a public setting and doing it in such a way as to inflict as much public humiliation as she could possibly deliver in this particular sort of belies the whole 'compassionate' angle, especially also considering that if anyone with a lick of sense, if they were really concerned at all about someone's frame of mind, could easily contact that person privately and state their concerns there.

That also might, if I DID happen to be the hopeless basket case she implies, make it less likely that I engage in some desperate, hopeless final act due to the devastating psychic injury cause by the crushing humiliation suffered in so public a setting.

Assuming, of course, that she or Farley actually cared one way or the other about that sort of thing.

I know Michael, but I still believe that everyone can take responsibility when they are wrong. It just doesn't contribute to the dialog when these things happen. I have had to apologize for misreading things before, and I always have, I think it is incumbent upon all of us to do that. No big deal, just say you were wrong and move on.

Ah, the other poet laureate of First Read is heard from. What kept you? This type of thread seems just your speed.

Don't be silly, Michael...

You, of course, are the "poet laureate" of First Read.

As such, surely you realize that the term "teabagger" is not merely "pejorative".

It is an obscenity...is it not?

Isn't that a far better reason for you not to use it?

Depends. Does it matter more to you that a word has a vulgar origin or that it's used to hurt another person? Both are inherently bad, but to me, the intent to actively hurt another person matters more than the obscenity of the phrase.

I don't use the term because right wingers take offense to it and it shows disrespect for their belief in their philosophies. If their objection to it is simply that the word is obscene rather that the word is used in an insulting way, then me refraining from using it seems a little silly, because I tend to swear a great deal when I speak anyway.

But the core of the matter is respect. I respect all of you, even if I am in the midst of criticizing your behavior. By respect, it means that I assume that if I vocalize something to you that I disapprove of, I believe you have the capacity to change it. Whether you excercise that capacity or not is completely up to you.

The only people here who I do not respect are those who have demonstrated to me through their consistent behavior on the board that they are completely unworthy of respect - Farley, ITM, etc. I suppose at this point, since her behavior was clearly on display today that I should add NJ to that list.

However, all of that being said, to answer your question something being pejorative is worse to me than it simply being obscene.

But, Michael-

Isn't the word pejorative in nature...

Exactly because it's an obscenity?

You aren't making making sense, Michael.

No, there are plenty of words that have been adopted or used as attacks against specific groups of people that do not have obscene origins. The one commonly used in a derogatory way against black did not have an original meaning that was obscene. The word commonly used as a pejorative against hispanics, the ones used as pejoratives against white people, etc, all originate from words that were not originally obscene.

That this phrase happens to be obscene is secondary, although it was the nature of the word that cause people to originally adopt it because of the inherent double entendre. However, since it HAS become a pejorative, it has become more than merely a word that describes a relatively disgusting activity.

It has become a word used in a derogatory manner to denigrate the belief system of an entire group of people who adhere to a philosophy that isn't, in and of itself, a bad thing. I don't dislike right wingers in general because of the philosophy, MB, and despite the rhetoric of the day, you have probably read the majority of my posts more thoroughly than most around here, so you understand already that my belief system is not extreme in either direction.

The reason I dislike right wingers in general starts and stop with their collective behavior. I would be guilty of the exact same behavior if I started deeming them 'tea baggers,' because it would be at that moment that I stopped extending them any respect.

Recognizing that someone behaves remarkably like an ass and not being shy about pointing it out doesn't say anything, one way or the other, about how extreme my political views are.

Michael, you are giving way too much credit to and paying way too much attention to MB. You are trying to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. All he knows how to do is to take someone else's words, twist them around and then challenge that person with his own twisted and flawed definition of those words. I have yet to read a post where he has given an original thought or cogent argument. STS.

Still not getting it, Michael.

Patience, please.

Absent the obscene connotation...

What is pejorative about the word?

Humorous...? Maybe.

Pejorative...?

I don't think so.

Michael Michael MIchael. really now. You're beginning to resemble the guy at the party who, while everyone else is having fun, is in the corner crying into his beer because he's bummed about the world. "It's SO UNFAIR!!" sniff sniff.

Seriously. You have WAAAAYYY too much time on your hands. Go outside, ride a bike, hug a muslim, write a letter to Noam Chomsky. Hell. Write a letter to Eric from Salinas! There you go! He's got nothing to do the next few days except sit around, pick his nose and wonder why he's banned from FR for a while.

By the way. Speaking of hugging a muslim. A great American, AnnCoulter had a column recently where she remarked that, if it weren't for that pesky little terrorism issue and the fact that they are non-white, liberals would HATE muslims. The're anti-gay, anti-semitic, anti-Christian, treat women like crap. But when they act up and we fight back against them, they shoot to the top of you people's "victim" list. Why? Because they are being picked on by white/male/ christians.

Anyway. I digress. Really, I'm now pretty sure of whom you remind me. Ready? Keith Olbermann! Are you proud? You selectively pull quotes that everyone knows are either jokes and/or usual offhand comments, and turn them into dramatic"evedence" of malice. Remember what that tool said about Scott Brown on election night? He's a porn star and supporter of abusing women or some crap? I loved your lists, by the way. So I am "actively evil"? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!! Wait til my wife hears that one!

C'mon Mike. I always get the feeling that Olbermann is gonna SNAP on air one night. He's too angry, intense, self important and thinks he's the smartest in the world. This is why virtually no one watches his sorry azz. relax Mike. Have fun this weekend.

Actively evil..................LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Michael, I have read this ENTIRE thread and I have to give BIG kudos for you for figuring out what is making right and left wing politicos tick. You broke down the 'modus operandus' of right-wing arguments in your initial post; we see that a few of the right-wing posters have actually proven your point more than once in this thread.

This read was FASCINATING.

For the record, all of us have been wrong about posts that we have SINCERELY believed were true. I know I am guilty of that, and I have also made it a point to acknowledge that fact if someone has proven THEIR point over mine - even if they are from the right wing. I have also been known to agree with someone from the right-wing where we DO have common ground, even if I have disagreed on other points previously.

My takeaway of Michael's point is that it seems that some on the right-wing on this board - as he has named them - are following the 'playbook'. I think that this post - warts and all - should be a wakeup call for ALL of us as to what CIVILITY really is. It is pretty obvious that CIVILITY to a right-winger is a LOT different from a liberal, and we forget that we are ALL AMERICANS. I sincerely believe that this 'playbook' that a lot of the right-wing use when trying to debate their points may SEEM like it is working, but is really is not. I think that the 'talking points' are given by those who share their ideaology and are not concerned about the ACCURACY of those points, and are only concerned about indoctrinating as many people to ascribe to those points for the simple goal of getting as many people on the 'winning team'.

I mean, who wouldn't want to be on the WINNING team?

Can we not learn from our differences? It seems that some do NOT WANT TO; they are COMFORTABLE in their own little world. When someone challenges that world, then people get defensive. They don't want to 'change' that world. The 'Hopey, changey' thing is NOT working for them, and this fosters an entrenched position that will be defended, at all costs, no matter if the point being defended is correct or not.

I can safely say that pretty much explains the Tea Party and their veracity, even though the things that they are protesting against will actually HELP them in the long run. Can the Tea Party not see that these varied, well monied interests are USING the Tea Party - and their participants - for their own selfish gain? Can they NOT see that by getting rid of the Social Safety Net that they are setting themselves up for a fall?

Maybe they don't WANT to see what I see.

Unfortunately for ALL of us, CHANGE is inevitable. If you think that it is not, then ask the Kinfe sharpening vendor and why he has trouble finding work. Ask the elevator operator about their opportunities. Ask the television repairman how much business he is getting lately. And if you DON'T live in New Jersey, then ask the guy whose living it was to pump gas. Ask the Medical Doctor who makes house calls. Ask the bank who has decided that your mortgage is a chit to be used in a floating crap match, and if the bank loses, YOU end up having to pay for it.

This type of change SCARES people. They cannot embrace the future because their whole world - the world that they know intimately - is based on lies and innuendoes. Since when should we NOT trust a bank? A credit rating means something, correct? Working hard to maintain that credit SHOULD provide some benefit. should it not? Why is it so hard to find a DECENT job these days?

Michael, I thank you for your insight. I thank you for your DEEP thought and conclusions that you have made. This whole debate has given me food for thought as to how I will conduct myself in the heat of a debate in the future. I am now more sensitive to WHY my opponent is responding the way they do in respect to the SUBJECT of the debate.

For those of you that disagree with Michael, remember this - we may be Republicans or Democrats or Tea Party members, but we are AMERICANS first and AMERICANS help one another.

But of course you knew that, correct?

If we have a civil war, can I be on the blue side? Gray is just not my color.

Michael, you forgot the part where the Conservatives make fun of the Liberals because their thoughts and concerns are so silly they aren't even worthy of consideration.

Every page in the play book, all on this one thread.

By Pietro:

"Maybe they don't WANT to see what I see."

Possibly the most arrogant statement I've ever read here. And that's saying something.

CU Farley - before I respond to your post, I want to give everyone the FULL context of what I said.

Posted by Pietro:

I can safely say that pretty much explains the Tea Party and their veracity, even though the things that they are protesting against will actually HELP them in the long run. Can the Tea Party not see that these varied, well monied interests are USING the Tea Party - and their participants - for their own selfish gain? Can they NOT see that by getting rid of the Social Safety Net that they are setting themselves up for a fall?

Maybe they don't WANT to see what I see.

I was making the point that I see something that is obvious to me but the Tea Party participants don't. I was making the point that maybe the Tea Party people don't WANT TO see what I see about their platforms.

What is so ARROGANT about that?

I was actually being a bit introspective and was trying to understand the mentality of the Tea Party participants WITHOUT being condescending or partisan.

So what is so ARROGANT about what I posted?

CU, if you have an argument, BRING IT. Out of that whole post, you zero on ONE sentence and do so out of context.

Unbelievable.

Sounds like your afraid the Democrats are going to keep their majorities and President Obama is going to serve a 2nd term CU.

If and that's a big if the teabagging republicans just happen to gain control, they've already said they plan to issue subpoenas, and I'd bet you'll be right at the top urging them to issue subpoenas.

Mo - I guess that to the GOP, investigating Conyers and Rangel and now Bernice Johnson from Dallas on tax charges or other improper conduct is way more important then investigating impeachable civil rights offenses by Bush while he was POTUS. His use of subterfuge and reliance on cherry picked intelligence in the build up to War in Iraq wasn't important. Notwithstanding that hundreds of thousands of people died as a result.

I agree that there is no way that we could convict Bush, but his crimes were still serious.

Here is a nice list of impeachable offenses which Bush did during his Reign/War of/on Terror

http://www.rense.com/general69/impeach.htm

Even republican constitutional scholar Bruce Fein said this about Bush impeachement.

QUESTION: Is spying on the American people as impeachable an offense as lying about having sex with an intern?

BRUCE FEIN, constitutional scholar and former deputy attorney general in the Reagan Administration: I think the answer requires at least in part considering what the occupant of the presidency says in the aftermath of wrongdoing or rectification. On its face, if President Bush is totally unapologetic and says I continue to maintain that as a war-time President I can do anything I want — I don’t need to consult any other branches — that is an impeachable offense.

Bush set a bad precedent when he refused to do his oath of office pledge.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Yellowdog: Mo - I guess that to the GOP, investigating Conyers and Rangel and now Bernice Johnson from Dallas on tax charges or other improper conduct is way more important then investigating impeachable civil rights offenses by Bush while he was POTUS. His use of subterfuge and reliance on cherry picked intelligence in the build up to War in Iraq wasn't important. Notwithstanding that hundreds of thousands of people died as a result.

The criminal investigation of Bush and Cheney has certainly been a rant the far Leftwing of the country has been persuing for years. And yet, no Democratic politician has taken the matter up either in Congress, or in the Obama administrations Justice department. Why do you think that is?

Hello JoAnna

I think that serious impeachment talk wasn't put forth because when Obama won the presidency"he turned the page". He didn't want to go back and prosecute the many impeachable offenses that Bush and his administration did. Instead he pushed forward, as a centrist. He would not do what Bush did on Torture and wiretapping etc. But he wouldn't urge investigations or prosecutions either.

Obama really tried to go forward and put partisanship aside. He didn't investigate.

Much like Michael Thompson noted in his posts, I think Obama felt like all of us that if we brought that up it would be detrimental to getting problems solved. BUT even despite him passing on doing in my opinion the right thing the GOP still tried to crush everything he supported.

It was much like his speech the other night about turning the page on the Iraq war. He discussed the end of combat but didn't bring up who caused it and executed it so horribly. You know he could have done that but he is a better man than me.

Yellowdog: What you write is interesting, and Obama does appear to be most magnanimous and benevolent in 'turning the page' to not prosecute the felons Bush and Cheney, at least not through the Department of Justice. But what of Congress? Certainly there are Leftist elements on both sides of Congress that are certainly interested in justice, if not in the incarceration of Bush and Cheney. What of them?

Or maybe the reason there have been no investigations is that the Democrats just don't want to look foolish.

CU - So Nuremburg should not have been held, prosecuting the Nazi commanders for "defending the country?" (Oh my. I brought up the "Nazi" thing. But I'm not calling anyone a Nazi -- I'm just saying that history is written by the victors, and any despot can defend himself by saying he was "defending the country.")

What the right-wingers are so wrong about is in calling the President a radical left-winger. He is so moderate that the far left feels betrayed, from the public option being taken "off the table" before negotiations even started -- thanks for nothing, Max Baucus -- to refusing to consider charges against the cabal that took us to war over their oil connections, killed thousands and maimed hundreds of thousands of OUR OWN SOLDIERS, and then cut funding for the VA (restored by Obama, by the way) -- and have seeded the Middle East with home-grown terrorists who have every right to hate us for the choas we've brought to their homes. And the President goes on TV and gives Bush the benefit of the doubt -- and you still all hate, loathe, screech hatred of the man.

You don't even give him the time to see how his policies are actually working -- that jobs ARE being created, unlike the avalanche of job loss the last 2 years of Bush's term -- that the stimulus money that even those greedy GOP reps are admitting are bringing thousands of jobs to their constituents -- not that they will admit where the money CAME from -- IS helping, and that saving the auto industry saved hundreds of thousands of American jobs. The public option would have paid for itself and dissolved that deficit you all scream about in two decades but thanks to the compromisers and oppositionists, there's no chance of anything real being accomplished.

When did Obama's numbers start slipping? When the base of his own party realized how non-partisan he was attempting to be in the face of overwhelming contempt from every GOP in office. When he kept on trying to compromise by giving away our children's health and well-being by fudging on climate change legislation. When he didn't lead the Dem leadership in supporting real health care until after a summer where every bombastic pundit and idiotic tea-partier screamed their say.

And you still hate him.

Go figure.

Ornery-Maybe you have forgotten (or never knew) two crucial facts: a) In WW II, we were the good guys. b) we won.

In the current war, a) we are the good guys. b) we will win.

Do you recall Roosevelt or Truman being prosecuted for kicking the living crap out of the Japs or the Germans?

What kind of American calls for the prosecution of his own country's leaders if/when they make a few mistakes during wartime? Unless of course, you think WE are the bad guys in the War On Islamic Terror. Do you, Ornery? In that case, wait until we lose and then you can prosecute all the Bush's and Cheneys you want. Then you can move on to prosecuting the soldiers. But it will never get to that point, Orney. Because by then, you and your ilk will have to deal with me and millions of others who believe that America is good and is right to fight Islamofacism, even if you don't.

What kind of American calls for the prosecution of his own country's leaders if/when they make a few mistakes during wartime? Unless of course, you think WE are the bad guys in the War On Islamic Terror. Do you, Ornery? In that case, wait until we lose and then you can prosecute all the Bush's and Cheneys you want. Then you can move on to prosecuting the soldiers. But it will never get to that point, Orney. Because by then, you and your ilk will have to deal with me and millions of others who believe that America is good and is right to fight Islamofacism, even if you don't.

This sounds like a threat to me.

And if it's Labor Day, it means the 2 year anniversary of Rachel's program is soon upon us. How fortunate we are to have her every night. Congratulations Rachel and job well done to you and your staff.

"Nothing worthwhile comes easily. Work, continuous work and hard work, is the only way to accomplish results that last."

Wow, a direct admission that the Brewer Administration will reward those who toe the line and punish those who fulfill the duties of a free press. This is a common thread in Conservative politics. Witness the "embedded reporter" program in which all of the reporters work was vetted by the Administration, and reporters who didn't send in glowing praise for the war effort were yanked out of their positions. Thanks for bringing that to our attention, Pat.

Your welcome John. Although I don't think the voters will care about this in Arizona. As Howard Fineman said last night, some of these people in the GOP are souless. And he was correct.

Pat, also Jan Brewer in the debate yesterday said of replacing Janet Napolitano,about Arizona losing 128,000 jobs since she took over,"I was left a mess"!

No Responsiblity taking Republican!

You Betcha!

Rick, you betcha back. (wink)

I agree, Pat. MSNBC's prime time line up cannot be beat. What a relief it was to find Countdown quite a few years ago--finally, a place where facts were provided, sane discussion even if I do not always agree, and humorous poking fun at the fact-less and sometimes weird. Rachel's program has evolved into serious investigative journalism which is missing in the MSM mostly because of time constraints. I'm looking forward to Lawrence O'Donnell's show later this month.

Hi Jody. They are the best. No question about it. We don't always have to agree with them, but there is no one on this planet who I agree with 100%. When I first started watching Keith, I didn't know he was such a sports fan. I remember how he went after John McCain in a Special Comment and I couldn't believe what I was hearing. Finally, I thought, we're getting to some truth. But then his sense of humor came through and it was unlike anyone on cable. It was sort of Jonathan Winters and Ted Baxter type comedy that I just found so damn funny.

Rachel is similar. They have "it".

Oh, I dont' see Brewer's seat being in jeopardy over this, but the more examples of actual Conservative tactics of deception in service of those at the top the better.

You're right Jody! MSNBC's prime time lineup can't be beat. Except by evry other network on the air. Bwahahahahaha. Even the Animal Channel, I bet. ( I better chill with the gloating- I might make Michael Charlotte more bitter and depressed).

I know what you mean though. You really like the lineup. You and the other 342 people who watch it. Do me a favor and tell me tomorrow if Keith The Unstable or Maddow mention the lefty enviro-mental-wacko who took hostages yesterday. By The Way...isn't that something? America's first bomb vest-strapped suicide bomber was a lefty!!!

Still waiting Farley, explain to me about the 'comman sense' of O'Reilly and Hannity.

I saw Rachel's program that aired this issue last night. As most of you know, I have been posting that the whole SB 1070 issue was a political smokescreen.

I really hate it when I am right.

Unless Arizona changes its mind, Gov. Brewer will be elected. I do NOT see Arizona kicking this woman to the curb anytime soon. I will tell you this - as soon as Gov Brewer is elected, illegal immigration will NOT be a priority.

You heard it here first.

Obviously this doesn't pertain to the ever demeaning and intolerant Left - as evidenced below.

Dan G.-461155

Obviously this doesn't pertain to the ever demeaning and intolerant Left - as evidenced below."

It is intended for all, so attempting to turn it into a "he hit me first" is just silly. Examples of "intolerance" on both sides abound here daily...

Good point, Dangerfield. If only we could have an exception for Boehner, but then I suppose in fairness we would have to give an exception to the conservatives. I do hope we can all be civil, refer to all public figures in a respectful manner, even when we don't agree with them.

Just stating the facts which were quickly proven by the following remarks.

"facts" and "truth" are the two most abused words on this board...

What and take all the fun out talking politcs? No way! Besides Agent Orange is just way to cool of a moniker to pass up!

jomama, that's a very important point. For the Conservative machine it's never about facts, it's about narrative. Leaders of the movement see it as nothing than a massive PR campaign, as if they were selling soap or (as with Conservative Barons the Koch brothers) oilfield services, chemicals, and building materials.

Obamas approval Rating 1/21/09 68 percent

Obamas approval Rating 9/01/10 47 percent

"just the facts maam"

I can't post the chart that goes with this from Gallup website, it's also a week old.

What do we find? Obama’s “drop” from his first approval rating to his latest weekly average here in late August has been 21 points. That’s high, but actually not quite as high as Jimmy Carter's, who ended August of his second year in office (1978) at exactly the same level where Obama is today, but who started out two points higher than Obama.

Bill Clinton's comparable drop was almost as high as Obama's and Carter's. That's even though Clinton began his first term (in 1993) at a lower 58% approval rating. Ronald Reagan had the luxury of a very modest starting point -- with his initial approval rating in late January/early February of 1981 of just 51%. Thus, although Reagan's August 1982 rating is similar to Obama’s comparable time period rating today, the former movie actor and governor of California fell much less. (Both Bushes saw their ratings go up, not down between their first rating and late August of their second year).

Obama’s ratings don’t appear to be sliding further, after reaching his all-time low of 41% in two of Gallup Daily tracking's three-day averages (Aug. 15-17 and Aug. 16-18) early last week. As of this writing (Friday, Aug. 27) Obama’s three-day average is 44%.

Both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton had similar paths through their first year in office. Mediocre approval ratings in their second year, losses in the midterm election, a rebound in approval ratings, and then re-election victories. We will see if Barack Obama follows the same path.

Reagan burst through the 50% job approval barrier in November 1983 and remained there through his victorious trouncing of Walter Mondale in the 1984 election.

Clinton burst through the 50% barrier briefly in April and May 1995, fell back, and then came above again in November 1995 through his November 1996 victory over Bob Dole (and Ross Perot).

If Obama follows these historical scenarios, he won’t see the upside of 50% again until sometime next year.

Of course, history gives us other examples of what can happen in a president's first term. Both Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush descended into the approval cellar in their fourth years. Carter reached 28% in June and July of his third year in office (1979). Bush Sr.'s ratings fell like a stone, including a remarkable 40-point drop from 72% in July of his third year (1991) to 32% by the time he reached July of his fourth year. Of course, Carter was ousted from office by Reagan in 1980, and Bush by Clinton in 1992.

President Obama is out of the news in general this week as he concludes his Martha’s Vineyard vacation -- although certain websites continue to feature paparazzi type pictures of him golfing or going to the store. He’s back in action next week with a major speech on Iraq on Tuesday night (Aug. 31), as he re-enters the political grind. A lot of attention this week has been diverted by the spate of primaries held last Tuesday, although Obama’s presence and impact on these races is never far beneath the surface.

jomama72

But it's it's always useful to address the facts. And the facts according to Gallup's daily tracking poll are that in the last 12 months Obama's approval rating has declined four points. That, in a poll that has margin of error of 3 points.

Good pionts, jomama72,

It kinda like a Foxmussen push poll where Foxmusen shapes the opinions.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/toplines/pt_survey_toplines/august_2010/toplines_taxes_and_gov_t_spending_august_30_september_1_2010

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 62% of Likely Voters believe Congressional Democrats want to increase government spending. Only 16% believe the party wants to cut spending.

On the tax front, 59% believe that most Democrats in Congress want to increase taxes. Only 17% hold the opposite view.

As for Republicans, 51% say that most Republicans want to cut government spending and 50% say they want to cut taxes. Twenty-seven percent (27%) believe GOP legislators want to increase spending and 25% believe they want to increase taxes.

Sixty percent (60%) believe that tax cuts are good for the economy while 56% say tax hikes will hurt the economy.

Fifty-six percent (56%) believe that additional government spending will hurt the economy and 50% believe that spending cuts will help

Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence

These polls are designed for Teabaggers.

Great points. Considering the mess Pres Obama inherited and the extent of the damage to the economy, throw in natural and man-made disasters, crises overseas, a 4-point drop is just a drop in the bucket.

Just as important to interpretation of the numbers, if you look here http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx and compare President Obama's numbers to Reagan, Clinton, and GW Bush (you're limited to 3) you'll see that Barack's numbers are tracking right with Reagan and Clinton, as well as GW until such time as 9/11 changed the game for him.

True that, Shawn. It was the biggest fear our founding fathers saw happening to our political system.

"Have they no decency at all?"

None whatsoever Pat, none whatsoever. Much of the Washington media has become part of the problem. They are so bought into the trade for information, the cocktail circuit, the hierarchy of DC that they are no better than courtesans, bowing and scraping before the powerful and hoping for attention from the powerful.

John, that's exactly what they've become. It's truly pathetic.

Great post, Pat. The fools who led us into this war dare to criticize Pres Obama's speech ending it. History will not be kind to the Bush administration and its cast of neoconserative war mongers.