Louis,

I agree with your analysis. We are seeing the erosion of journalism to be replaced by sensationaism to push a specific agenda or plotical point of view. Nobody fact checks any more, they (the media) basically have the ability to say anything they want, even if it is a down and out lie. This will continue until people start taking responsibility for this crap. Just look at the daily lies from Fox, Rush and others. It has been said that if you tell a lie long enoigh some people will believe it to be true. If that is the case then we need to be telling the truth with the same emotion and as many times we can and maybe the American people will get it.

LouisJ

In spite of all the accomplishments and successes the president has made; the spin doctors, media pundits, the media jokes and the media crows have labeled him a failure.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Louis,

Why aren't the candidates running on the accomplishments and successes the president has made?

HCR, Financial reform and whatever else you would like to include.

Why are the candidates shunning the president's endorsement?

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=35F20519-18FE-70B2-A8CE4CF428B7BCF2

Is it the media?

LouisJ

While the media, yet again, blindly supports print (Woodward's book) that has not been read, much less verified nor validated, they treat any controversy like catnip, all the while emboldening the Right to issue out unchallenged messages of HATE andDEMAGOGUERY.

Upon thinking about your post I'm sorta of regretting that I may have bought into the spin. I do remember reading "Plan of Attack". The book turned out to be pretty accurate in my estimation. If it true the President didn't want to commit to being in endless wars; then that is an admirable quality the media should tout.

At least the President is thinking of using our resources here and our future; unlike the weakling the right is portraying.

dangerfield:

Louis,

Why aren't the candidates running on the accomplishments and successes the president has made?

If you don't mind let me give my answer to this question. It is because they are SPINELESS plain and simple. The accomplishments have been good for the middle class and the candidates have let the republicans take over the thought processes of the average voter to make them believe that these accomplishments are not in their best interest.

The candidates should stand with the President regardless of what the Republicans say and shout it from the top of mountains. If they do this they will be looked upon more favorably as standing for what they believe in. As it stands right now they look like a bunch of rabbits surrounded by a den of rattlesnakes and afraid to take a running jump over the vipers to continue on with their agenda.

What candidates are running from the president other than what the media gives to you and you blindly follow? Instead of trying to paint a picture with conjecture, then you need to support your statements with accuracy. I see people running to the president due to the fact that he can generate the capital needed to run effective campaigns.

I have no doubt that the book has accurate info. However the media uses it to expose the inner circle as broken and disfunctional when there is nothing that proves such things. It's not about the book, but moreso about how the media will use it to shape the mid term election and put a spin on the future with ambiguous inaccuracies.

Louis,

In what world are you living in?

In spite of all the accomplishments and successes the president has made; the spin doctors, media pundits, the media jokes and the media crows have labeled him a failure

There was just a report from the Fed that the recession ended in June of 2009. Which means it was the policies of the last administration that ended the recession. The current administration has not been able to build upon that as of yet. We could be headed for a double dip and the blame would be on the current administration. No more blaming Bush.

While the media, yet again, blindly supports print (Woodward's book) that has not been read, much less verified nor validated

The White House as not (as of yet) challenged the books credibility.

I am convinced that the media will dictate this election season with unscrupulous articles. From CNN to FOX to NBC to MSNBC, they will always publish something that attracts attention to confusion instead of fact

How is that different from any other election cycle?

Louis--I think the media is sometimes driven by ideology--Fox comes to mind--but I think it is more likely they are driven by money and ratings and the need to fill up television hours all day and evening. Plus I think they are lazy--it is easier to repeat what everyone else is saying rather than work to get a story themselves.

Steeler Fan,

Since you seem to want to jump on the demonize FOX bandwagon; will you put the same label on MSNBC?

Louis:

You are spot on with your analysis, and it is disheartening.

I watched Velma Hart (CNBC Town Hall Participant) on Hardball last night and was impressed by her apparent sincerity but it is clear to me she has already been used as a pawn by the media to stick it to the President. The MSM is all about ratings; they don't care about the truth anymore.

President Obama has shown that he is a man of integrity and while he would like a second term, he is more interested in fulfilling his campaign promises to the American people even if he is limited to one term!

Woodward wants to sell books and that is a good thing but Woodward will not dictate foreign policy for President Obama. The President had already made up his mind about Iraq and Afghanistan before January 20, 2009. He hates both wars even though he understood the necessity for Afghanistan and will bring them to a close whether or not the Pentagon or the neo-cons think it is the right thing to do.

"Since you seem to want to jump on the demonize FOX bandwagon; will you put the same label on MSNBC?"

IntheMiddle- how many time do you need to be reminded: Fox bills itself as "fair and Balanced" wheras MSNBC bills itself as 'the place for politics". PLEASE try to keep that in mind.

To Dangerfield's point about democrats running away from the accomplishments of this President and Congress, I think it is pretty simple. The economy still sucks, and the public blames those that are in power (justified or not it doesn't matter, and is subject to a different debate anyways). So anything that ties anyone to the current administration's policies can be seen as a negative to the average person, right or wrong. How can a democrat promote a policy as being good for the American people when obviously things are not good right now? This is the same reason the Democrats are in so much trouble this November, not because the American people are so against their policies (although some definitely are), but because the current economic and political environment sucks, so they will vote against the party in power. These are my opinions, anyways.

ITM--I am not aware of a liberal/left leaning person on Fox-let me know if there is.

MSNBC does have its liberal voices but it also has some neutral newspeople--Chuck Todd, Andrea Mitchell and Alex Witt come to mind, as well as the conservative Joe Scarborough. So I wouldn't characterize it as ideologically driven--I think it is ratings and money driven.

Cult of Personality said:

There was just a report from the Fed that the recession ended in June of 2009. Which means it was the policies of the last administration that ended the recession. The current administration has not been able to build upon that as of yet. We could be headed for a double dip and the blame would be on the current administration. No more blaming Bush.

AHAHAHAHAHA!!! Really dude?!?!? Are you ACTUALLY suggesting that the 700,000 jobs we were LOSING when Bush left office weren't HIS fault? Are you suggesting the downward fall of the Dow from December 2007 to January 2009 from 14,000 to about 7,000 (losing HALF it's value) weren't Bush's fault? And that the present track we're on - only losing 40,000 jobs a month now (about 5% of what we were losing under Bush) and the Dow now being back up around 10,500 (regaining 30% of it's value) since Obama took office "magically" don't count?

Conservatives really ARE cons if they think that. I mean, you are completely, 100% totally FACT FREE in your "analysis" bub. What you wrote that "it was the policies of the last adminstration that ended the recession" is absolutely HYSTERICAL!!!

HAHAHAH!!

Thanks for the laugh dude. And we're not "blaming Bush." We're asking "cons" like you to to ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY - what's that that conservatives are always yammering about? "Personal responsibility"? Yeah - where's yours in this case? Gone MIA?

HA! Nice try. Thanks again for the laugh.

The Republican HIVE mind allows no one to think outside the BORG Box. Anyone that expresses disapproval of Republican (non)policy is a malfunctioning unit that will be exposed of in the deep recesses of the space time continuum known as United States 2010.

See Mrkwski the Miss Speller.

BTW, I should clarify that the report also said that the recession ended right around the time that the STIMULUS money started to really kick in which was (drum roll please)... right around June 2009!!

Now let me think - was the stimulus a George W Bush "policy"? Hmmm... no, I think Republicans have been trying to take money from it while simultaneously "blaming" Obama for it, so therefore, the recession ended precisely BECAUSE of Obama's well-timed stimulus, and we have HIM and the DEMOCRATS to thank for it, and George W. Bush to BLAME for it.

I agree. The media is driving the narrative. Just read the first paragraph of this story.....Chuck Todd's abject glee about raising money. What the Republicans won't tell you is where they are getting the money.

Also - Quinnipiac has called me before and will never call again. I refused to answer their questions because they were slanted in a way that would only allow them to get the answer to fit what they wanted their polls to read.

Here's my question: Where was all the media's scrutiny when the last administration was conjuring up mushroom clouds, and WMD's, and imminent attacks? They cowered under the umbrella of not having to be called unpatriotic. Yet they were and are unpatriotic.

Anyone who thinks we have a free press is kidding themselves. They, too, are owned by corporate masters who use whatever network to push their own agenda.

Here's the real question:

How can the media be overwhelmingly liberally biased (according to conservatives) - yet according to all of you people, it's been overwhelmingly making the president look like a failure?

The two realities cannot coexist together. How can both sides be so delusionally partisan that they are seeing what they want, not what's actually happening? Simple: this is a sporting match, this isnt about peoples lives and the future of the united states. This is simply about winning: TODAY. Neither side cares much about tomorrow, everything is talking points - considering very few elected politicans ACTUALLY deliver on their promisses, and since neither side every truly cares to work towards compromise. Look in the mirror if you want to know whats wrong with the state of our union today, because we are all part of the problem...since none of us really is working to be part of the solution.

The Tea Party professes to be an angry grassroots movement, that isnt about either party - it's about fixing this nation, but if thats the case...why'd they run as GOP, not a 3rd party? Why are all of their positions, GOP positions? It would be like me proposing to start a 3rd party that represents all the fed up people...but then only saying "well we only are fighting for gay marriage rights and DADT repeal"

Im a liberal, til the day I die...but ultimately, I want to find compromise on the things we all agree on so that this nation can move forward. I thought I elected a president who wanted that too - and what I saw was he tried, but the GOP decided they would say NO to whatever he wanted to do. What ended up happening was the Dem's made lots of compromises on Health Care Reform - and in the end, the GOP that demanded those compromises still refused to support it. At the end of the day, any rational person will conclude "why even bother trying to work together"?

Seriously people, is this the govt we want - one so dysfunctional that we never get ANYTHING acomplished? On what planet does that even remotely make sense? YOu want to eliminate govt waste - then you need to vote for politicians willing to do more than demonize the opposition, otherwise...expect more of the same abysmal failure from both sides...and expect the media to continue to rightfully monitor this as the sports match it only is.

Jessica, thank you. A very well written and thought provoking post. I must admit, I agree with everything you said. I too am liberal and will be I guess for the rest of my life. I believe in the principles that the democrats stand for. I believe in compromise, to a point, to get things done. There is no compromise on the part of the GOP or the TP. You were correct in all the statements that you made.

I don't blame the republican's for everything but a lot of the stalemate has come from them and they should have to pay a penalty for their lack of action, afterall, they get paid to get things done and they have failed to do so.

Sheila, MD says: "I watched Velma Hart (CNBC Town Hall Participant) on Hardball last night and was impressed by her apparent sincerity but it is clear to me she has already been used as a pawn by the media to stick it to the President. The MSM is all about ratings; they don't care about the truth anymore."

I agree with Louis's statements about the media, because I think that the media has become nothing more than a joke. They are no longer truth-seekers; they are only interested in pushing their opinions, whether those opinions are conservative or liberal, down people's throats.

However, Sheila, you must have your blinders on pretty tightly if you believe that the media's coverage of a woman exasperated with Obama's so-called leadership and performance nothing more than a conspiracy to discredit the President. That is ludicrous. Ms. Hart's sentiments are shared among a great many of his 2008 supporters. The trouble with some is that they only want to believe the good or bad about Obama, respectively, and absolutely refuse to see the other side. You seem to be one of those people.

As far as candidates who are running far away from Obama and Pelosi, there is good reason for it and it is not about cowardice. It is because those candidates who are part of the Democratic party know that Obama has gone against the wishes of the American people, i. e., their constituents, i.e., the people they are supposed to represent, and they don't want to be associated with some of the things that the administration has done (namely, health care reform). People are sick of the "we know what's best for you" attitude that is so pervasive in Washington...

After seeing that I read on MSNBC that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) now wants to Bomb Iran to initiate a regime change. What planet are these republicans living on?

Good Morning Retired - good to see ya!

It's astounding isn't it... these right wing chicken hawk neo-cons who just CAN NOT get enough DEATH & DESTRUCTION!

Makes me sick to my stomach... how willing they are to send our men & woman off to the slaughter!

That is ONLY if they're NOT GAY!

Good morning Feisty,

After seeing that I read on MSNBC that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) now wants to Bomb Iran to initiate a regime change. What planet are these republicans living on?

I thought you knew Republicans live in an alternative universe.

Feisty,

Good morning. Agreed. I just do not get it, what are these people thinking (or not)? So Graham wants another war and we have no Defense Budget. There is a huge disconnect here at best.

I cannot wait to see what these 20 points the republicans are going to come up with to help fix what they broke to begin with. I bet we see no real facts and numbers, just open rhetoric that they promise to do this and that just like Newt did years ago, and that went nowhere.

Sould be interesting.

Navy: Outstanding post: Actually I was so annoyed with the senate vote, I had not planned to write today. It's great that you can clearly see the issue and say what needed to be said.

It's a bit out of character, but I thought I would look at what FT had to say and express my First Thoughts regarding their First Thoughts.

So I guess we can't blame all the NO votes on Republicans can we? If all the democrats (ESPECIALLY REED) had voted yes DADT would have passed because Susan Collins was a Vote. Ms. Collins voted no because of REED's exploits. Had Reid not decided to play political games in order to get reeectedlwhat would the world look like today?

Defense Act would have passed with no problems at all

DADT probably would have passed

The Dream Act is questionable, but at least we would have two bills going before the Senate for a full vote. Thanks to Harry there are ZERO bills going before the Senate for a full vote. Sounds to me like the dems are the party of NO on this issue

Why do Conservative Republicans hate our brave soldiers and sailors who are willing to give their lives for the United States of America? Is this how they're to be repaid for their sacrifice?

Janet: Reid's vote was a procedural vote. A no vote can bring the topic back to the floor. Surely you knew that.

Let's see. There's no Defense Budget. so actually the Military is out of business. No money to pay our troops right? So as in any other business (and in fact the American Military is the largest business company in the World) all of the employees (Soldiers etc.) can quite. Right? If you don't pay me why should I work for you?

If these stupid Repugs don't get their heads out of their you know what, their not only going to bring this Administration down, but are whole Country. Do they care? I think not. That's what's so sad. They would destroy our (and their)whole Country just to satisfy their own greed and hate. God help us if they get in power again.

Did Cindy McCain get a chill down her spine when John blocked the vote on the bill?

Once again, the double speak abounds. Health care passed despite 70% of the American public being against it and this we must celebrate because surely the democratic leadership knows what we want better than we do. Shutting republicans out of the process was fine because their votes weren't needed anyway. DADT stands because the republicans were shut out of the process yet again and this is an affront to all who favor it's repeal and the republicans should be ashamed of hostaging our soldiers. Lets ignore the fact that DADT had no business what so ever being attached to the budget but that the democrats have been trying to insert it into critical legislation for years without success, shouldn't this tell them something? Of course it's a win win for them- either they pass the legislation or they can blame the big bad republicans for it's failure.

Its time we demand better of our elected officials. Both sides need to be invited to the table when it's time to write these bills. If the ultimate goal is improving our nation's overall standing, all ideas need to be equally considered. One party having the majority should not mean the minority is left out of the process entirely. Bills should stand on their own merits. If DADT can't stand on it's own, it needs to go back to the table for discussion, not attached to something else to try and force it through. We wouldn't allow children on a playground to behave this badly, why do we accept it of our elected officials?

Two thoughts re: filibusters. One is that neither party is willing to change the rules because each figures it will need the filibuster when inevitably it returns to power. The fact that the real work that needs to be done isn't completed doesn't enter their thinking.

Secondly--it occurred to me yesterday that it would make a great campaign ad for the Democrats to actually force the Republicans to have one filibuster and then take the footage of it from C-Span and turn it into a campaign ad--asking is this the leadership and ideas you want to elect?

Steeler Fan: I completely agree. There have been a number of issues the Democrats should have proceeded with a filibuster. Allowed the American people to see the obstruction of the Republicans. But, alas, "no guts, no glory".

Get off of the "Republicans hate our soldiers" BS. I was a soldier for 24 yrs and everything decent ever done for soldiers was done during a Republican administration. I was there from Reagan - Bush 43.

If a DADT repeal is so important to the civilian corps of America, then set it out there alone without attaching it to any other bills.

I think THE MILITARY should handle this issue; they are the ones that will be affected by it.

ITM: Perhaps you forgot. THE MILITARY is under civilian control. And that would be the Commander in Chief. It's been that way since the Constitution was written and approved.

... and everything decent ever done for soldiers was done during a Republican administration. I was there from Reagan - Bush 43.

This is false.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/10/military_vets_congress_reportcard_100708/

The nation’s most prestigious group for Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans released a congressional scorecard on Tuesday that ranks Republican presidential candidate John McCain as having one of the worst voting records when it comes to supporting troops and veterans.

The grade is due to his absence on several key votes on military and veterans’ issues over the last two years.

McCain, ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee and a decorated Navy fighter pilot who spent 5½ years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, received a D on the report card from Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. He is one of nine lawmakers — four senators and five members of the House of Representatives — who received a D or F from the nonprofit, nonpartisan group.

Two people — both Republicans — received an F: Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas.

For senators, scores were based on 10 votes involving increased funding for veterans’ programs, expansions of benefits, a vote to purchase Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles and four separate votes at various stages of consideration of the Post-9/11 GI Bill of Rights and co-sponsorship of the bill.

McCain’s Democratic challenger, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, received a B on the report card, the same grade received by Obama’s vice presidential running mate, Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del. Obama and Biden also missed key votes; Obama missed four and Biden three.

Fifty-five senators received an A on the report card. Check out who received the "A".

Check out John McCain's miserable record on support for our military:

http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1973

Pat,

First of all that group and VoteVets.org are Liberal groups. They are not neutral. This is why you will only see them appear on MSNBC. They have been infiltrated by outside Liberal groups and they do not represent all soldiers. Most on their Boards of Directors are all disgruntled minions that didn't get that promotion or command they felt destined for. I know military people and I know how they think; I doubt if you could have distinguished the motives.

I did not speak of individual Senators. I said "ADMINISTRATIONS"....There is a difference......

You can take a vote from any Congressman and twist it to fit your narrative. Don't be so naive.

IntheMiddle, TX

Get off of the "Republicans hate our soldiers" BS. I was a soldier for 24 yrs and everything decent ever done for soldiers was done during a Republican administration. I was there from Reagan - Bush 43.

I guess you never had to go to walter reed and see just how the returning wounded troops were treated or see the vehicles with out armor or even worse, not making sure the troops had enough smokes to get through a day of hell. in chicago about 4 years ago a radio station had a smokes for the troops day, where people dropped off cartons of smokes for the troops that the military stopped making sure they had. its like on guy there said, and this is true, being in a war zone if not the place to run out of smokes.

Under Bush 43 i must say that he used those troops for personal reasons by going to Iraq and forgetting about afgan. as a former soldier how can you say that.

Jeff,

I happen to be disabled and came through the system a couple of times from the box.

There were no vehicles w/o armor. The issue was to bring everything up to date and be able to deflect all of the new and improved explosives.

BTW: The military does not PROMOTE smoking.

How old are you????

If the democrats were so worried about our troops they wouldn't have added DADT and the other amendments to the funding bill. Take off the party blinders for a minute and you'll see both sides are playing politics with our future.

Ron-1861300

If the democrats were so worried about our troops they wouldn't have added DADT and the other amendments to the funding bill. Take off the party blinders for a minute and you'll see both sides are playing politics with our future.

For every soldier that falls victim to a DADT witch hunt and is thrown out of th military, another soldier takes his or her place -- or nobody does. Either way, DADT weakens national security by either subjecting the remaining soldiers to more combat stress or by depleting available man power.

As for InTheMiddle, he says that the military ought to decide. ITM also says he's African American. If Truman had let the military decide on desegration, ITM would have served in a segregated unit because the military command in 1947 was overwhelmingly opposed.

InTheMiddle - I suspect that you prefer republicans over dems when it comes to military, simply because they are the ones who go to war. After all, as you note, you were in the armed forces for quite some time...this was your JOB. No one likes having their job taken away, or having nothing to literally do for their job. It's logical why you would prefer them - they gave you a purpose, albeit...it didnt benefit our nation in anyway, it simply benefitted people like you who are career warriors...and the people who make warrior products, like guns, airplanes, bombs ect. At the end of the day, the biggest threat to your job is PEACE. I can see why its not in your best interest as an employee to actually want to bring that about.

It's like McDonalds...they know they are making people obese, but they have money to make. The death of their fortunes would be the american public eating healthy and waking up...but ya know, why would they want that to happen? Because it's whats best for the nation? Who cares abotu that when profits are to be made...and you sir, are making profits by virtue of being a paid soldier. Peace is not in your best interest, thats just reality.

Jessica, you make some pretty ridiculous statements.

First, you say that ITM likes Republicans because they are the ones who go to war and that is job security. First of all, members of the military are not paid only when they are at war. Second of all, without specifying the war, you make the statement that being involved in war never benefitted our country. That is just a preposterous statement to make.

As far as McDonald's, perhaps you need a little lesson on personal responsibility. Last time I checked, McDonald's doesn't hold a gun to anyone's head in an attempt to force them to eat their food. McDonald's is not making people obese; people are making themselves obese. If Americans would take some interest in their own health and well-being, it is likely that McDonald's would not exist, or, at least not be so prevalent. In an added bonus, it would likely reduce health care costs, as fewer people would need to undergo some of the more expensive surgical treatment. But, I guess we can't expect people to take responsibility for their own lives and own health, now, can we?

Jill

They get to be Veterans for the rest of their lives. No "WAR", no veteran status.

Paul,

Your post is non-responsive. Nowhere was I, or Jessica for that matter, talking about attaining veteran status, which what, makes you eligible for VA benefits if you've been injured or disabled as a result of active duty? They don't pay you a salary for being a veteran, Paul, which was what Jessica was trying to say.

Well Of Course:

Looking at today’s FR topics, there are no surprises:

Larry Summers is leaving the WH to return as a Harvard professor. It is fascinating how the media is reporting this story as they cast a shadowy light on what’s happening. I think it is a good thing for Mr. Summers, the WH and the Nation.

Murkowski gets punished. Well Of Course. That’s what Republicans do. Punish friend and foe alike. Palin didn’t like Murkowski, so punish her.

O’Donnell shuts out National media. Well Of Course. Just like Palin did in her V-P bid. Just like Sharron Angle and Rand Paul did. Keep those pesky news reporters away so they can’t ask you embarrassing questions. Perhaps I should not leave out Arizona’s governor as she did not want to talk about the non beheadings.

Republicans block repeal of DADT. Well of course they did. Ignore the valiant efforts of gays in the military, so they could keep their senate seats.

Looks like another day on Capital Hill.

There can be no other explanation for this pronouncement other than political motivation. This is the same group that ignored the commonly accepted definition of a recession-two consecutive quarters of negative growth-to declare a recession had begun almost a year before we had negative growth.

Now, I have no doubt that they were seeing distressing trend lines-they were certainly there-but redefining positive growth as negative growth is utter nonsense.

Now we are supposed to believe that we have been in recovery for 15 months-oddly synched up to when Obama's economic policies were fully implemented-and people, particularly voters, are supposed to buy that nonsense?

We're not that dumb. Whoever convinced Obama that this would be a good line for the Democrats, (I'm betting Axelrod), did him no favors. It makes him look more out of touch than he looked before.

By the way, USNavy, First Read unsurprisingly left out a very telling line that is in the NYTimes and Washington Post stories on Woodward's book: when insisting on an exit streatgy that his commanders do not think will work, Obama said, "I can't lose the whole Democratic Party". If you are truly retired Navy, tell me, how do you view a Commander in Chief who makes combat decisions based on the politics of his political party?

"If you are truly retired Navy, tell me, how do you view a Commander in Chief who makes combat decisions based on the politics of his political party?" - no joe

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Isn't it interesting that you would make that assertion, when in fact the talking point at the time was that President Obama was "dithering" about what to do in Afghanistan.

Even though we were bogged down in an 8 year quagmire with a resurgent Taliban, the punditocracy led by the ever fearful Cheney family, felt there was no need to take the time to analyze the situation. . . just do whathever "the generals" say . . . even though "the generals" at no time were elected Commander in Chief.

If the President's only concern was not losing the Democratic Party, there would have been no need for a review in the first place.

If the President's only concern was not losing the Democratic Party, he would not have approved the tremendous escalation of troops.

Regardless of what was or was not said, and regardless of how you attempt to take statements out of their proper context to assign evil motives, President Obama's ACTIONS say that he did what he thought was best for U.S. interests in the Af-Pak region.

Your attempting to score political points on this says more about you than it does the President.

Good morning US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired,

Programs like the Jobs Bill, Infrastructure Bills, extending unemployment insurance etc., are necessary. Jobs are not going to be created by the whims of the richest 2%, big-business is hoarding cash to pad their bottom line and any jobs they are creating are going over seas still, banks are still not lending capital to the small businesses and this scenario is not going to improve unless we the American people get off our best intentions and vote the obstructionist out.

Thanks for calling out these fake patriots.

Did see this? It's even more of an "obstructionist" plot. Republicans as usual are planning on stealing the election.

there’s a plan for “Voter caging” in Wisconsin to suppress votes from minorities and students in this year’s elections using a well-documented — and illegal— practice.

“Voter caging” is a means of voter suppression and intimidation that involves sending mail to a list of voters, compiling a list of mail pieces returned as undeliverable, and then challenging those voters at the polls or otherwise attempting to remove them from the voter rolls. The mere process of challenging voters can intimidate from voting even if they are eligible, cause long lines to form at polling places that will then discourage others from voting, and may result in eligible voters casting provisional ballots which stand a high likelihood of not being counted in the final tally.

In the alleged conspiracy uncovered in Wisconsin, Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity, whose Wisconsin state chair was previously banned from politics in Wisconsin for three years, would finance a test mailing and other costs associated with compiling the caging list and then coordinate with the Wisconsin Republican Party to undertake an elaborate process to remove voters from the rolls ahead of the election, if possible, or at the polls on Election Day. Tea party groups were to provide the volunteer labor and cover for the activity — with all participants signing an extensive non-disclosure agreement under which they agreed to publicly operate in the name of Wisconsin GrandSons for Liberty, who would also provide some funding for the plan. The Wisconsin GOP would also provide additional funds, trainers for the tea party volunteers and would have a team of lawyers “standing by” on Election Day to respond to tea party volunteers and “bring the police” if necessary. As is typically the case in voter caging operations, the plotters appeared intent on targeting minorities, students, and others from heavily-Democratic areas of the state.

Audio recordings of the tea party meeting where the alleged voter suppression plot was discussed include numerous references by presenters to supposed instances of minorities and college students voting illegally. Tim Dake, a prominent tea partier in the state who belongs to Wisconsin GrandSons of Liberty, cited an anecdote about busloads of out-of-state voters voting multiple times in previous elections, then went on to discuss “the racial thing”:

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/21/wisconsin-voter-caging/

BTW: it is legal for out of state students to vote while in their college dorms. The GOPTP is littered with fakes groomed by the Koch Brothers crime family. I guess they calculate the only way they can knock off Senator Feingold in Wisconsin is to steal.

Ron:

Right on, nice post. Same old same old. It is interesting in that the republican agenda now includes silence. They are setting new records for the 100 yard dash to their get away vehicles instead of answering questions. They will only talk through Fox News as per their leader "Mama Grizzly".

Vote for me is the motto. I will not tell you what I stand for or how I will reduce the deficit. I will not tell you how I (the republicans) will create jobs, help education, the middle class, etc.

This new Agenda they are releaseing tomorrow should be real interesting.

Navy: Glad to see you are feeling better. As a retired Navy man, you have the insight many of us do not have. Your voice is important and should be heard.

Fascinating, isn't it? A look at how Conservatives approach Election Day activities reveals just how fraudulent their claims are when they speak of how much they love our democracy. Their activities are largely targeted at PREVENTING people from voting. Students, minorities, registered Democrats who've changed address, the poor...the list goes on and on.

Those aren't the activities of people who are egalitarian and democratic in nature. Those are the activities of people who seek to establish themselves as the elite in society and rule as such.

Bev, I'm going to assume that you have a serious concern for the rights of legitimate voters and simply do not understand why 'poll watchers' are necessary.

I have already posted about my experience with a man who sincerely and genuinely believed that he had the right to cast a vote for his deceased father, but I have never told the story of my own family's experience with disgusting, dirty tricks.

My brother has been in a chronic vegetative state since a car accident in 1984. My mother discovered that he was registered to vote at the facility where he is cared for in 2004-when a woman wearing a Kerry button came into the room to have him 'mark' an absentee ballot. She insisted that my brother had asked to register, and had indicated to her that he wanted to vote for Kerry.

Security was called, as well as the police. It turned out that she had 'registered' many of the residents when she came in as a volunteer. She was removed from the facility, and reported to the Attorney General's office; she received a fine and was banned from collecting voter registrations.

These are helpless people, Bev, and exploiting them is disgusting.

Wisconsin has a history of democratic operatives buying the votes of homeless people for cartons of cigarettes-a violation of the law. Putting people in place to assure that no one is exploited is not depriving people of their right to vote. It is depriving those with contempt for the law of their ability to exploit people.

And that is a good thing.

Ron,

Thank you for your kind words. Us military people have and always will put our country first. We follow our CIC, even when we do not necessarily agree with everything that say or do (applies to both democrats and republicans serving as CIC). That is the oath we swore to and will take with us to our graves.

Too many people in my opinion do not hold that oath as sacred as we in the military do. We follow orders but we also have opinions and express them. As some have indicated otherwise, we do not go marching off blindly into the night.

There is one person here that continues to attack me as a Retired Navy vet questioning my integrity. That person by their posts comes across in my opinion as one very unhappy camper. I have never seen one individual so sour on life. I hope things improve for them, kinda makes me feel sorry for them.

I wonder what our soldiers think about this. They have no budget for supplies, much needed pay raises, etc.

Now watch, the republicans will blame whatever the results are from their obstructionist vote on President Obama.

These are my opinions only.

no no joe,

Bev, I'm going to assume that you have a serious concern for the rights of legitimate voters and simply do not understand why 'poll watchers' are necessary.

Wisconsin has a history of democratic operatives buying the votes of homeless people for cartons of cigarettes-a violation of the law. Putting people in place to assure that no one is exploited is not depriving people of their right to vote. It is depriving those with contempt for the law of their ability to exploit people.

And that is a good thing.

Since I been an election judge on numerous occasions, I know that people can vote by absentee ballot; though laws are different in some states. Republicans have a history of Voter fraud. George bush stole 2 elections. The U.S. Supreme Court gave Georgie boy the presidency.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also it was very good amusement reading your laugh out loud posts.

US Navy:

Maybe people question you because they believe you are FOS.

Also it was very good amusement reading your laugh out loud posts.

Ain't that the TRUTH Bev! lmao...

Here's another FACT versus the fiction of NJ... I worked for 3 months up in WI during the 2008 election many times in some of the poorest parts of Milwaukee - Racine etc...

There WAS NO cigarettes being exchanged... but let me tell ya... Obama bumper stickers and yard signs were sure a HOT commodity!

Navy DV... I've looked at posts and vines at Fox and MSNBC, and I am amazed at the lies that are reported as Gospel. I read the posts from what I call the "X-Box warriors" (those that have no idea what the oath of enlistment really is) and how many ill informed people there are out there. I was ready to blow-chow yesterday reading posts by those that wanted to make the awarding of the CMH to the Viet Nam Sergeant a political move so they could rant against the president.

I would bet that 90% of the combined Tea Party and Republican types have never heard of the Koch Brothers, nor that the Supreme Court ruled that corporations have the same rights as the individual when it comes to political contributions.

I really fear that the noise out there, especially from Fox and Rush L. is going to end this country in a hole so deep we will never get out of it. I keep promoting moderate compromise, and suggesting listening to both Fox and MSNBC with the truth being found between the two, and all I get back is red meat ravings from the far right. Please tell me the majority of those going to the polls in November have more stability than the majority of those that frequent these vines.

BTW... VS-37 (S-3A Viking) aircrew... 81-89 & missing it.

Maybe people question you because they believe you are FOS.

People in glass houses...

Ho,

I know you are ot attempting to call someone out when you have the audacity to use that moniker.

I'm just following in your auspicious and audacious footsteps.

No Joe - You are that stupid!

no joe, here's the thing...if what the repugs were doing was on the up and up...why the non-disclosure agreement?

What's there to hide?

Slightly off topic, but related - why wont O'Donnell talk to the national media? Seriously, she's running for US Senate...not for a seat on some local govt in deleware where truly her idea's only affect the local people. She'll be voting on things that affect all americans...and as such, she and other tea partiers NEED to tell the people of the US what they stand for and who they are.

Refusing to do that tells me these people havent a clue what they are talking about and havent the desire to stand up for themselves and what they believe in. Of course, i suspect you see it differently... you can spin it as "that gotcha liberal media just wants to trick them".

But again, how stupid must you be to get tricked by the media? why must these people continue to promote the notion they are stupid and cant answer questions without being fooled? Are we really electing baffoons, or do they just like to play the part so as to appear as victims?

Beverly:

I agree with you. Our President inherited the war in Afghan that was so mismanaged by the Bush Administration that there is no easy way out for him. He is literally stuck between a rock and a hard place. We never should have gone into Afghan to begin with. Then after we did, we switched or goal to Iraq which left our troops in Afghan blowing in the wind. Now they are trying to pin this on President Obama just like these obstructionists and party of no has done all along on virtally everthing that they messed up to begin with.

President Obama is playing a loosing hand that was dealt to him by the republicans.

My grandfather, a staunch Republican, is rolling over in his grave.

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

President Obama is playing a loosing hand that was dealt to him by the republicans.

That is so true Navy. In both wars the Republicans are looking for lucrative profits. There is a pipe line in Afghanistan.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/sardi7.html

Then there is the oil in Iraq; plus contractors who put their money in off shore accounts to avoid paying taxes.

I'll bet that has a lot to do with shaping foreign policy. Unnecessary was are about greed.

You can stop with the inherited stuff. ALL PRESIDENTS inherit something from their predecessors.....Nothing stops because of a new POTUS.

Republicans are not obstructing jack. In 09 Democrats had everything from the POTUS office to the nasty kitchen sink. They could have passed everything but they knew they would have to run again in 2010. This time when they run, they won't benefit from str8 ticket voting.

Your GP is rolling in his grave watching his Liberal GS make an azz out of himself daily.

IntheMiddle, TX

Sure is funny how you guys love to change history. I'm sure we can go back through the archives and see how many of you, especially you ITM, were screaming how Democrats better not pass anything by reconcilliation, which they didn't.

So tell me again how Republicans did not block and obstruct, I'm just waiting to call you a liar but would really love to say it to your face, both of them.

dangerfield-I don't take issue with your post, and can't speak for what ails Democrats, (well, other than that many of them seem to believe in unicorns, and become incensed when provided with proof that they don't exist), but, for Republicans, this comeuppance is somewhat overdue.

This is supposed to be the party of smaller government and fiscal sanity; for too many years, it acted as 'democrats' lite'. Lisa Murkowski is a prime example: she was rejected by the voters in her state's party PRECISELY because she campaigned on having 'brought home the bacon'.

It is this spending philosophy that is being rejected by majorities in the Republican party. Those who set that course for the party are naturally bewildered when their mantra of 'free candy over here' is rejected-the voters have discerned that the free candy costs a lot more than the politicians lead them to believe.

For too long, republicans acted like democrats with a religious agenda-an agenda many eschew. Fiscal responsibility is the most important priority for the rank and file of the party-and if it took the TEA Parties to get them back to their basics, I say, thank goodness.

It is this spending philosophy that is being rejected by majorities in the Republican party. Those who set that course for the party are naturally bewildered when their mantra of 'free candy over here' is rejected-the voters have discerned that the free candy costs a lot more than the politicians lead them to believe.

From Michael Linden:

Republicans love to say that the deficit is a “spending problem.” It’s their go-to talking point. Of course, when pressed to say exactly what they would cut to solve this problem, they always come up empty. In fact, all House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) could come up with when he was asked three times what he would cut from the budget was “we’ve got spending to cut in the short-term, and what we’ve got is a huge problem in the long-term, where we’ve got to get serious about it. You’re absolutely right.”

Either Republicans don’t really care about reducing spending, or they just don’t want to share their ideas since they’re bound to be incredibly unpopular.

The Center for American Progress released a new report that calls their bluff (link below). The new paper, entitled, “A Thousand Cuts: What Reducing the Federal Budget Deficit Through Large Spending Cuts Could Really Look Like,” goes through the exercise of trying to find sufficient spending reductions to get the federal budget to primary balance by 2015. (Primary balance is when total spending, with the exception of interest payments on the debt, is equal to total revenue.) This also happens to be the goal set out for President Obama’s deficit commission.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/09/thousand_cuts.html

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/09/21/linden-thousand-cuts/

If you eliminate of all of the following departments: Department of Defense, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Transportation, Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of State and Other International Programs, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Education, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Energy, Department of Agriculture, Department of Justice, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Department of Commerce, Department of Labor, Department of the Treasury, Department of the Interior.

We would still have a deficit of $250 billion. And of the $1.2 trillion those departments cost more than half is “Defense”.
So what is your proposal for budget cuts ?

*Stands and applauds Dennis!*

The TRUTH will set us free!

No Joe, if fiscal responsibility is what the TEA parties are bringing to the party, where is the evidence of that? Sarah Palin, Sharron Angle, Rand Paul -- none of them have outlined any useful ideas and none of them have the kind of expertise needed to do so. Rep. Ryan (of WI) on the other hand, who is touted as the Republican "whiz" on reform, does not identify himself as a tea party candidate, and has been in Washington for ages, not only as a five-term legislator but also as a senate aide and economic adviser. By tea party standards, he would be part of the problem, not part of the solution. Christine O'Donnell (formerly of NJ, by the way) has shown absolutely no aptitude and no record of any ability in crafting legislation on economic policy. What the tea party seems to be doing is building up the resentment of a group of people who had it easier when they didn't have to compete for jobs with women, people of color and immigrants, and who want to "take the country back" to a time when those groups of people were marginalized and without full protection of the law.

Bush wasn't a conservative and the republicans spent and spent and spent and that is why fiscally conservative insurgents are often cleaning their electoral clocks. The republican party, as Jack Nicholson playing the Joker (not heath ledger kids, the older one) said about Gotham City, "needs an enema!"

And they are damn well getting one.

There's a whole lot of other stuff that comes along with an upheaval of this historic, and I think it is an historic shift in the republican party. The short term benefits, enthusiasm, new blood, etc. will soon turn into longer term problems as the old guard cedes to the new blood.

The "purge" will radicalize the party as the "purists" who replace the old leadership will be even less prone to compromise and will refuse to toe the line on legislation, becoming fractious and contentious, causing the republicans to effectively "lose' their majority in ideological squabbles much like the blue-dog democrats in the democratic party.

If the republican insurgency parallels the democratic one in the 1960's, I believe that Sarah Palin will be the republican nominee in either 2012 or 2016, and she will lose by a McGovern/Goldwater-esque landslide. That loss will be the beginning of a second wave, a more moderate wing of the republican party as a backlash to the radicalization and by the 2020's you will see a more moderate, progressive and more inclusive republican party.

Dennis,

Excellent. There is nothing new that the republicans can present that will lower the deficit. They are on record for keeping the tax cuts of GW and doing awy with the estate taxes. This alone will add over 3.2 trillion dollars to the deficit. Repealing HCR will add another 140 Billion plus, and the list goes on. If they want to stop all spending, then how are they going to create jobs? The tax cuts to those making more than a quarter of a million dollars does not work. Banks are still not lending money to small businesses and big businesses are sitting on trillions padding their balance sheets but not hiring in the USA.

They do not have a plan, we are going to hear a bunch of rhetoric with no substance behind them, just watch.

dangerfield

Look at Lisa Murkowski in Alaska.

Yea look at Lisa Murkowski she said "I am listening to my constituents. That's what it's all about,” she said. “It's not about trying to make the Republican Party happy … it's trying to respond to the people of the state of Alaska. I'm going to give them a choice.”

Tea bagger candidates listen to the Koch Brothers crime family who will do any extreme dangerous thing to keep the money away from their tea Bagger cconstituents.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/19/murkowski-i-was-victim-of-smear-campaign/

dangerfield-

Interesting analysis. As a fiscal and national defense conservative (not social), your conclusion is certainly one possible outcome. Regardless of what most of the media has to say about the Tea Party movement, and the emergence of candidates like Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell, I try not to take my eyes off the ball.

The Tea Party is still primarily focused on issues surrounding debt and deficits, and the size and scope of government. Since those issues are central to the whole concept of conservatism, I'm doubtful that the Tea Party will radicalize the Republican Party in the way that you envision...social conservatism would have to emerge as the central theme of the movement, and not just the focus of a handful of fringe candidates who may become an afterthought after November 2nd.

Anyway, we'll certainly see, won't we?

Since you're a New Yorker, and a liberal Democrat (but not an ideologue), I'd be interested in your take on the latest polling of the gubernatorial race from Quinnipiac showing only a 6-pt spread between Cuomo and Paladino.

Chuck and the gang here at First Read have suggested that either the electorate is REALLY, REALLY riled up, or that Quninipiac's likely voter screen is way too tight. Could Paladino actually mount a serious challenge to Cuomo? Is the New York electorate that angry?

Quinnipiac does pretty good polling in the northeast, but everybody gets it wrong from time to time.

What do you think?

Mixed,

Far be it from me to question the wisdom of of our esteemed hosts, but two developments in today's' news; The quinn poll of your mention and the Kos/PPP Poll of the Wisc. Senate race. Viewed as harbingers or "canaries in the coalmine" should scare the hell out of all democrats.

The closeness of a race I thought would be a "walk" for Cuomo, and the truly stunning drop in Senator Feingold's poll numbers in Wisconsin could indicate that we are all standing on the beach in the movie "Deep Impact" helplessly watching the coming Tsunami.

New york is a large, extremely diverse, STATE, with liberal and conservative strongholds, and we have obviously elected members of both parties to national and statewide office, with a republican two-term governor directly preceding the disgraced Eliot Spitzer four short years ago. But Paladino is far to the right of any candidate the republicans have nominated, and frankly seems a little "off". If he continues to do well in subsequent polls, I would be surprised, but I would no longer be shocked.

Russ Feingold being 11 pts down weeks before the general election IS shocking. He is one of the truly independent democrats in the senate, so can't be depicted as a "rubber stamp" for the administration. I think EVERYONE is going to be shaken up by this election cycle, both parties, and personally I think they BOTH need exactly that.

"The Center for American Progress released a new report that calls their [Republican] bluff..."

Absolute garbage, do the people who post these links ever actually read this crap? I object on two grounds. First, this analysis was done by a left leaning organization. So it has the same amount of credibility for me as if I had refernced an analysis by the Cato Institute or the Heritage Foundation would have for you. If you people want to be taken seriously then support your arguments with impartial sources -- you know, kind of like I did earlier this month when UI referenced numerous government sources to support a post on Social Security.

Second, The Center for American Progress heavily inserted its own values into the analysis by exempting Medicare and Medicaid from any cuts, and by only took a modest swipe at Social Security in their most aggressive budget cutting option. And what that really proves is you can't credibly attack the spending side without taking the axe to these big entitlement programs.

Republican bluff? Bull@!$%#, read the Ryan plan. You may not like the medicine, but you can't make up an argument that he has no plan for bring the federal budget into balance.

Bill,

You “object”? It is an opinion not testimony in a trial.

Ryan has a plan and many others have plans that work on paper but are totally unacceptable to the majority of citizens. Now have Ryan put together something that the majority will say yes to.

The first budget we might see from Ryan would be FY2014. But don’t hold your breath it probably won’t be approved even by a Tea Party Congress.

Once again, Ryan's plan does not balance the budget unless you use only the data that Ryan wants you to use. When all of the data that that affects a budget are factored in, Ryan's plan increases the debt.

Outstanding post Pat!

Speaking of Lawrence... T minus 5 and counting! ;0)

Pat: You are focused like a Lazar and every word is on target. It should be stated again. "The sins of the past are now the sins of the Republican party" But, somehow I doubt they will own it, because they don't own much in the integrity department.

For crying out loud, Pat, do you realize that comparing REpublicans to the KKK delegitimizes your argument?

There are serious concerns with the debt, deficits, and spending habits of the Obama administration; there is nothing racist about that. Those same concerns drove Bush's approval ratings below his base.

There are serious concerns about the impact and ramifications of HCR on our healthcare system; there is nothing racist about that. Those same concerns drove democratic losses in 1946 and 1994.

There are serious concerns about how Obama handles his responsibilities as Commander in Chief. Both Bush and Clinton faced the same concerns, albeit in different ways, and at different times.

This is the United States of America. Obama does not get a pass because of his race-THAT would be racism. People disapprove of his policies, Pat. Obviously you disagree, as is your right. Labeling it racism is unacceptable.

Good Morning Ron Indiana

Pat: You are focused like a Lazar and every word is on target. It should be stated again. "The sins of the past are now the sins of the Republican party" But, somehow I doubt they will own it, because they don't own much in the integrity department.

That is always. Keep up the work Pat.

I don't understand why the Republican party needs to use race issues to motivate their supporters.

The Democrats have badly damaged their reputation with their economic agenda. That seems to be the initial cause of the anger with the Tea Party. If the schism here is about policy, how and why does race figure into it? Does race actually figure into it at all?

Thanks for the compliment to you all. After all the reading I did this year on Dred Scott, Plessy and Brown v. Board of Education/Thurgood Marshall, I just can't keep silent. It's all the same. Discrimination is discrimination no matter what excuses the GOP use. These are American soldiers, who volunteered to go and fight. They represented us as a country. And this is how they're treated for political reasons? 80% of the country want this to pass.

It makes me want to weep in shame at our Congress. Again. Everyone I have spoken to are furious at the GOP, including Scott Brown. Absolutely furious.

no joe, no bo, nj: For crying out loud, Pat, do you realize that comparing REpublicans to the KKK delegitimizes your argument?

The Left doesn't have an argument njnbnj. For the next 6 weeks that's all we'll hear from them and they minions in the MSM is smear after smear of the Conservative candidates. From KKK to witches to "tea-baggers" to the 'Party of No', that's all you'll hear from the Left. With the Left's pathetic record of (non)achievement, that is all they have left is to smear the Right. But Americans have figured out the Left/Democrats, and they won't buy the nonsense the Left is spewing. And for some weird reason, the Left thinks they are somehow righteous for putting out all their hate.

"the Left thinks they are somehow righteous for putting out all their hate."

JoAnna, you sound very proud of your party. You shouldn't be. But then you don't strike us as having much in the way of principles for the road our country is being driven down by your party.

Dumb. It's what the GOP and Fox Republican Propaganda News depends on. That's how they're succeeding. You can't dismiss the images for the past year of the teabaggers. The signs are all there that they were carrying.

Once again the GOP is wrong on just about everything. Just like always. Your party owns the hate. Our party is just bringing it to the forefront. And will continue to do so.

no joe, no bo, nj

i think the point your missing is, what some former people from the Bush administration including Powell has said and that is, you can attack his policies with out getting personal. the PERSONAL attacks about his birthcertificate and his faith, and what newt said last week about his father are making people white and black thinks this is about his race.

top members of the republicans party are playing on these personal attacks. when the tea party was carring signs calling him the N-word, monkey and what ever else they could come up with they have stood by and egged it right on.

Mitch, Eric and Bohner have said thing like they will take his word on his religion, they have not tried to put that down. they are loving it, because every person that believes that will vote for the republicans. every person that believes that only makes there party stronger. so No Jo don't give me that please don't compaire the republicans to the KKK, because this same republicans back in the 50 and 60 did the same thing the MLK!!! he is a communist, he is a trouble maker, the same things the KKK labled MLK. so please don't try.

the election is 6 weeks away, No Jo you have been very critical of the bush administration and the wild spending there were on, what makes you think, when they take the house back they will change any thing. to me its the lesser of 2 evils, the republicans who caused our whole economy the near collaspe or the democrats who have tried to spend our way out of the mess the former republican persident got us in to.

No Jo the lesser of 2 evils.

the last time we had a democratic president 1992-2000 we created 23 million jobs, and had a operating surplus, in 8 long years all that goan and the republicans that were there want it back.

Come on No Jo, youre smarter than that!!!!

Hows the hand!!!!

It's LASER;

Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation

Or did you all mean "Swifty" Lazar?

Pat,Boston,MA: Dumb. It's what the GOP and Fox Republican Propaganda News depends on.

Oh, I guess I left Fox out of the rants we'll hear from the Left. Little Ol'Fox, a cable news outfit that does great in the ratings against its like competition, but pales when compared to the numbers the very liberal network news gets. But the Liberals need a bogeyman, and Fox is one of them. So off the Liberals go, ranting and accusing others of mis-representing their so called successes.

Here's a hint Libs. The reason you will lose so badly in the elections this year is because you have done such a bad job while you had all the power, and not because of little Ol'Fox.

The teabaggers would be no where without little Ol'Fox. Same can be said for the Iraq War. And Sarah Palin.

A bunch of no nothing propagandists, doing the bidding for Dick Armey and the Koch Brothers. Fox has nothing whatsoever to do with democracy.

Nothing.

JoAnnaSmith1

Here's a hint Libs. The reason you will lose so badly in the elections this year is because you have done such a bad job while you had all the power, and not because of little Ol'Fox.

the reason why we are in this mess is because conseritve republicans who had all the power caused this mess. so it take a mess creater to know a mess fixer!!!!

Sounds like someone is jealous........

BTW: I'll give your boy Lawrence 4 good months and he will be off of the air. Ratings is the ticket......Well he may still be there, Fatboy Ed has piss poor ratings and he is still on.

Pat,Boston,MA: teabaggers would be no where without little Ol'Fox. Same can be said for the Iraq War. And Sarah Palin.
A bunch of no nothing propagandists, doing the bidding for Dick Armey and the Koch Brothers. Fox has nothing whatsoever to do with democracy.

We see the result of someone listening to way too much to liberal propaganda.

Fox is so small from a media market penetration point of view that it's nearly insignificant. But yet Liberals assign so much power to them. Why? Here's a hint, cable news is 100% entertainment where facts don't matter. Do what I do, ignore it.

But like I said previously, the Left needs a bogeyman, and Fox is one of them.

JS1

I try to avoid your lies altogether; but his one takes the cake and needs a rebuttal:

"...Fox is so small from a media market penetration point of view that it's nearly insignificant..."

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

According to this quick peek,...your comment is untruthful - there is a shocker,...News Corp is the World's THIRD largest media conglomerate behind Disney and Time Warner,...

Their BRAND of Fox might be 'smaller' but their corporate culture and reach is pretty global,...Rupert is getting his message out en masse.

First of all Christine O'Donnell has no responsiblity to answer any questions from anyone except Delaware voters. She has NO responsibility to appear on any National Broadcast what so ever. IF the Delaware voters decide to elect her, then that is their option. Looking from the outside in, it doesn't appear that there is a GOOD choice for the Senate in Delaware. Coons appears to be as big of a nut as O'Donnell, but its up to the people of Delaware to decide which one they want.

janet: any serious candidate for the Senate DOES have a responsibility to show that they are not afraid to answer questions. What they do in the Senate affects all of us. The thing you are ignoring is that these same Republican candidates are quite willing to go on Faux "News" so that they can appear on National TV but not be asked any questions other than those that they want to answer. O'Donnell and her ilk are either serious candidates for an office with national implications or they are not. If they are unwilling to put their views in the public market place, they should not expect people to vote for them.

First of all Christine O'Donnell has no responsiblity to answer any questions from anyone except Delaware voters. She has NO responsibility to appear on any National Broadcast what so ever.

This, of course, did not stop her from booking Face The Nation and FOX News Sunday and then bailing out when she had a "scheduling conflict".

The big economic news yesterday was that the Fed met and didn’t find it necessary to do anything. That’s right, among the gloom and doom and admittedly continued suffering of many, the financial brains felt the best thing to do is to let the economy continue in a recovery that they termed “moderate” and not meddle at this time. In other “not news” Larry Summers is leaving the White House as was planned from his entry into the Administration. Both of these events speak to a situation in which things are doing about as well as can be expected considering a Congress and public not inclined toward further economic stimulation to help pull us out of the Great Recession. I do think Summers’ replacement gives an opportunity for fresh thinking and that’s good.

And what further measures could the Fed take?

The Lefts fascination with O'Donnell is nearing to be a psychological problem for them. For some reason they, the Left, want O'Donnell on every national show there is. But how many other Senate candidates show up on nation shows? Maybe Carly Fiorina, but that's because it's California and she's after the battle-axe Boxers job. You don't see Illinois Kirk on national tv, you don't see Wisconsin's Johnson on tv, you don't Boozman from Arkansas (up by 25 points) on tv. But for some reason the Left keeps screaming for O'Donnell to show up, and it's not clear why.

John B, Des Moines, IA

My local paper had a story this morning about a poll showing that 80% of those asked think the healthcare reform bill adds to the federal deficit, when, in fact, the CBO says it will reduce the deficit by millions over time. Most people thought the healthcare reform bill raised their taxes (only if they are addicted to indoor tanning.)

I almost laughed out loud as the writer of the piece states that President Obama hasn't done a good enough job getting the word out about what is in the healthcare bill. Gee, who is charged with keeping the public informed? I bet the people surveyed can tell you the names and ages of all the Palin children, the state of Bristol's relationship with her baby's father, and so on, but not how the healthcare reform bill affects them.

Janet: Spoken like a true Tea Partier. Perhaps you did not notice that when candidates run for the United States Senate their vote can impact everyone in the country. The national media does have a responsibility to present O'Donnell's views for all to see. Or are you proposing that the electorate be uninformed and dim-witted?

And her scheduling conflict? Church and family time. Who knew church was on Sunday? CERTAINLY she couldn't have foreseen THAT! OK, let's say O'Donnell "has no responsibility except to the voters of Delaware." Please explain to me exactly how refusing to make public statements serves that purpose? How does hiding who she is help the voters to make a better choice?

The argument just doesn't hold water. Not taking questions serves only the purpose of trying to get into the Senate without letting the voters of Delaware know who she is or what she plans to do there. Not taking questions is both cowardly and deceptive. She has in fact betrayed the voters of Delaware even before Election Day if she takes this approach.

The easy answer is that people should not be able to accept money from people who are not constituents. If Christine O'Donnell only has to talk to the voters of Delaware, there is no need for her to accept money from people and organizations without any connection to Delaware, The same is true for Democratic candidates and others. If campaign finance reform called for local elections to remain local, using only constituent funds, one would have a better sense of what people really want. And there would be a lot more money and labor available to tackle pressing issues.

Janet,

I agree with Ron. You have completely missed the point. Elected Senators and Congressmen all have a direct effect on everybody in the US. Did you ever hear of Bills in the Senate passing or not passing? These bills effect everbody that lives in this country.

You really should understand what is going on in the global sense and stop listening to the pundits that claim everything is local. It is to an extent, but it also has a very big impact on the rest of us as well.

The Lefts fascination with O'Donnell is nearing to be a psychological problem for them.

Actually no. The psychological problem is the fascination you all have with Sarah Palin, who knows nothing about anything. Lawrence on the other hand, knows more than Sarah could ever possibly learn. She's incapable.

And now we have this. Evidently Christine won't want to go on Lawrence's new program. Gee, I wonder why?

Think Progress: Delaware GOP Senate nominee Christine O’Donnell gave a rare — and apparently her last — national TV interview last night to Fox News host Sean Hannity, to whom “so many Republicans” have turned to maintain a “shred of credibility” while refusing to talk to real journalists. In the interview, O’Donnell swore off more national media interviews, saying it was completely “off the table because that’s not going to help me get votes.”

JoAnnaSmith1

You know your defending a criminal, using campaign funds for personal use is against the law. as a liberal i could care less about Christine O’Donnell, rand Paul, Sarah Palin, or the chick in nevada and californa.

these people are the republicans problem, just like madam speaker is the liberals problem.

come on Joanna, i know you watch CNN and monday night i know you saw the evidence against her using compaign funds to pay rent, plane tickets and a dinner tap she called entertainment 22 bucks.

that is why she is hiding from the national media, has nothen to do with witch craft. she was a kid and believe me when i was in highschool i don't want to mention what i was in to, you either, right.

So Joanna, read about her, form your own OPINION, she is saying that this is coming from the liberal media, but this same group that filed suits against her, is the same group that got charlie rangle and maxine waters both very liberal democrats. using campaign funds for rent while your not running for office is a BIG NO NO!!!!!!

i really don't think she though she would win, she has been running for office for years and we know now that she did that for income. she has not had a real job for 5 years.

Jeff-1541632 You know your defending a criminal, using campaign funds for personal use is against the law

Really? So what jury found O'Donnell guilty of such a crime? Lets see now, it appears that O'Donnell is not a criminal, but has been accused of being one by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics. Ohh, they sound important. Who could ever not believe that group?

Unless you dig a little further and find that the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics group is led by a woman named Melanie Sloan, who has worked for Congressional Democrats John Conyers, Charles Schumer and Joe Biden. My, my. The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics group doesn't look too non-partisan now does it? It kind of looks like just another leftwing hack group, one of many of them.

But to Liberals, they're good enough to have convicted O'Donnell of federal crimes.

Like I said, they'll be a lot of smears by the leftwing against Conservatives in the coming weeks. This is just one of them.

JoAnnaSmith1

Your right she has not been convicted of any crime, my Bad!!!

Like I said, they'll be a lot of smears by the leftwing against Conservatives in the coming weeks. This is just one of them.

Ok Joanna, The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics group got charlie rangle as well as maxine waters, for ethic violations. so you arguement that this is a left wing non-partisan is flawed. left wing groups only go after consertives, but this one goes after everybody.

Jeff - CREW piled on at the end of the Rangel/Waters ethics probe. They seem to be trying to drive the echo chamber with their accusations towards O'Donnell.

That still doesn't change the fact that public debt has increased under Obama - whether that is his fault or not is irrelevant. What is, is the public perception of the cause of that debt.

It is true that the federal deficit leapt significantly during Bush's final year in office. But it's also true that the 2011 forecast for that deficit is expected to be at or near 100% of GDP, something the US hasn't seen the height of the Second World War. Last I checked, we certainly weren't living in an economy fueling the fires of total war - our industrial output does not match the grotesque proportions of our current debt.

The question to ask isn't what can be done to salvage Obama's reputation. The question to ask is what attitude the Republicans will bring to Congress after the mid-terms. Will neo-conservatism reign supreme again and spend, spend, spend? Will cooler heads prevail and responsibly control the lavish excesses of both Obama and Bush's policies?

The public-at-large blames the initial increases of the deficit during the early part of 2009 on Obama, wrongly so in my opinion. But come 2011-12, unless things have changed and debt has decreased (which seems to remote a possibility as to be moot) it will not matter to the voters whether or not any of his policies now will cause a decrease in spending ten years down the line.

Holocaustic:

When the public perception is shaped by lies it matters.

I reject and denounce the statement that President Obama's spending represents "lavish excess".

The stimulus bill was filled with measures to help Americans suffering through the recession and invest in infrastructure to create some jobs.

What is lavish about that?

The Health Reform bill was designed to stop the wholesale abuse of the American people by for-profit health insurance companies and according to the CBO will in fact lower the deficit.

What is lavish about that?

This ain't about President Obama's "reputation", this is about the American people making decisions about our future based on what is TRUE.

Decisions based on bad information are always by definition bad decisions.

But did it generate the number of jobs it was intended to? Did the actual results yield enough reward to justify the cost?

About HCR, the result there seems to be insurance companies maneuvering any way they can to skirt the provisions of the bill. Even if, long-term, there's a net savings for the federal budget, will the average citizen ultimately be hindered or helped by the legislation? That's something the jury's going to be out on for quite a while.

I agree with you that this is ultimately about decisions made for the benefit of our mutual future, but the left as much as the right is guilty of insituting short-term quick-fixes without regard for the long-term consequence.

Holocaustic:

CBO finds 3.7M jobs created by stimulus

A report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office shows the Recovery Act has increased the number of workers by between 1.2 million and 2.8 million. The CBO also projects that 3.7 million jobs could be attributed to the stimulus by the end of September.

The $787 billion measure included several tax cuts, including one for $400 ($800 per working couple) that showed up in workers' paychecks. It also created Build America Bonds, expanded unemployment insurance and funded several domestic spending programs.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/801-economy/99915-cbo-finds-stimulus-bill-boosted-job-growth

3.7 million is better than zero. Unemployment stalled at 9.6% is better than it rising every month like it was in 2008.

It is interesting how those who are fairly comfortable have the luxury of debating whether it is "worthwhile" to help those who are suffering in this economy through no fault of their own.

What is the critiera that you use to quatify worth?

Assuredly, any jobs retained and created are better than no jobs retained and created. A halt to unemployment is better than it continuing to spiral out of control.

But the original statement that the rate wouldn't increase past 8% proved to be false as early as May 2009. Whatever math went into calculating the White House's projections was never made public knowledge. My point is that Obama's claim on the figure set against the actual results is as big a gaffe as Bush's "Mission Accomplished" fiasco. There is no quicker way to alienate and infuriate the public than miscalculating economic policy.

I wouldn't know what to say about those people who lead luxuriant existences. I'm not of their number and can't speak to how they quantify worth. On my end, I am more worried about the long-term consequences of costs that could act as the catalyst to a worse recession that'd be the cause of greater strife than we've faced in recent memory.

Those who post here often surely groaned when they saw this statement you typed:

But the original statement that the rate wouldn't increase past 8% proved to be false as early as May 2009.

This is sort of a pet peeve of mine . . . President Obama nor anyone in his Administration every promised that the unemployment rate would not go over 8%.

-On the day the stimulus bill was signed, unemployment was already at 8.1%, so how could it possibly be implemented soon enough to stop it from rising to 8%?

-In a report issued by his economic advisors on January 10, 2009 (BEFORE Barack Obama was even sworn in as President), economic advisors Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein issued a report titled "The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan". The VERY FIRST WORDS in the report are these:

"A key goal enunciated by the President-Elect concerning the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan is that it should save or create at least 3 million jobs by the end of 2010. For this reason, we have undertaken a preliminary analysis of the jobs effects of some of the prototypical recovery packages being discussed. Our analysis will surely evolve as we and other economists work further on this topic. The results will also change as the actual package parameters are determined in cooperation with the Congress."

So the report issued was prepared before the President was sworn in, was based on a fictional stimulus, not the one that actually passed, and it says right there in plain english that it is a preliminary analysis and it would evolve.

What about that consitutes a promise that unemployment would not rise above 8%?

-Here is the statement that has somehow been taken out of this PRE- PRESIDENTIAL report and put into the President’s mouth, as if by magic:

"First, the likely scale of employment loss is extremely large. The U.S. economy has already lost nearly 2.6 million jobs since the business cycle peak in December 2007. In the absence of stimulus, the economy could lose another 3 to 4 million more. Thus, we are working to counter a potential job loss of at least 5 million. As Figure 1 shows, even with the large prototypical package, the unemployment rate in 2010Q4 is predicted to be approximately 7.0%, which is well below the approximately 8.8% that would result in the absence of the plan.

Second, as emphasized above, there is considerable uncertainty in our estimates: both the impact of the package on GDP and the relationship between higher GDP and job creation are hard to estimate precisely. . ."

Does that sound like a promise to you? Do the phrases "cosiderable uncertainty" equate to a promise? And the actual figure quoted is 8.8%, not 8%.

But don't take my word for it, read the actual report for yourself right here:

http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf

This brings me back to the point of my initial post, which was when the American people make their decisions using bad information, nothing good can be the result.

P.S. It says the inital goal was to save or create 3 million jobs, and the CBO says that 3.7 million is have been created, so yeah, I'd say we got what we paid for.

Okay, fair enough , but here's my problem with your synopsis of the situation.

That quote on the 8.8% figure also goes on to state that's the result of the economy continuing on without implementation of a stimulus package. Even though dervied from a preliminary analysis made using a fictitious stimulus, is it really believeable to think that the stimulus which was ultimately passed wasn't based largely on whatever number-crunching took place during this initial survey of the problem?

From the Romer-Bernstein study, we do find that the White House finally made a claim that unemployment wouldn't peak above 9% - suspiciously close to that 8.8% figure - and released a chart meant to illustrate how passage of the stimulus plan would mitigate the damage to the economy. However, even with it, the official unemployment rate still peaked at 10.1% last year. The administration's official projection of what direction that rate would take put us at around 7.5% for the middle of 2010; we still sit at 9.6%.

Now, what was believed by the public-at-large to be an actual claim (whether the 8% figure is the result of Republican spin or not) and not down-played effectively by the administration is a major muck-up given the costs to voter approval, since it's pretty much a foregone conclusion the GOP is going to take a number of seats away from the Democrats this year.

I don't deny the Budget Office's numbers; who would? But from what I understand, Obama's original claim that 4 million jobs would be created (and I understand that was revised later to 3.5) only extended as far as the beginning of 2010. Correct me if I'm wrong, but did the CBO not state that by March of this year the estimate was only between 1.2 and 2.8 million jobs created?

I'm not debating the White House's attempts to control the situation. An attempt was very obviously made - an attempt that did fall short of what was projected and sold to the public, hence the national outcry.

Holocaustic:

It is really exhausting to continue to see folks blame the President for not debunking lies well enough.

That represents a new low in American politics, and we really didn't have that far to drop.

I suppose at some point between producing his birth certificate, going to church, and reassuring old folks that the government is not trying to kill them, he could have done a better job debunking that 8% figure.

What a loser he is.

Geez.

Wow. Uhm. Okay.

You know, I'm legitimately surprised at your tone. None of what I had to say was intended to antagonize you directly and certainly none of it was meant to imply I agree with the shipload of red herrings otherwise hung out for the public to feast upon. I don't understand why you'd suddenly dredge that up.

Nowhere did I declare the President a 'loser' - my assertion remained that only the circumstances surrounding his economic policies and the public perception of how much these have contributed to the ever-increasing federal debt affects voter opinion of him. Up until now, Nash, I was rather enjoying this discussion with you.

Holocaustic:

I have been here trying to debunk likes for years.

Forgive me if I don't have alot of patience for folks who once finding out what they believe is not true, casually blame the folks that have been lied about for not correcting the record instead of hold the folks telling the lies responsible.

Frankly that annoys me.

Sorry to be "unpleasant".

Interesting that as long as untruths are presented in a pleasing manner, everything is cool. Presenting the truth with bite however, is just too much.

Very telling.

Interesting that as long as untruths are presented in a pleasing manner, everything is cool. Presenting the truth with bite however, is just too much.

Very telling.

No offense intended, but your response to my last thesis hardly had anything to do with the topic at hand. It was a laundry list of complaints that were not once brought up in any of my posts - the only telling thing here is how quickly the tone shifted from one of civility to antagonism.

Counter my argument: don't smear me. You're obviously more intelligent than that.

Holocaustic:

I also had no intent to smear you or offend.

I apologize if I did either.

Holocaustic:

I will just add that each of my posts had to do with lies, and that was the larger point of my initial post as well, so I was at no point "off topic".

The post that bothered you listed just a small fraction of the lies that have been told about the President.

I never said or implied that you were the author of said lies.

But I am still sorry if my "tone" bothered you - not my intent at all.

I admit, I am an acquired taste - battle hardens you sometimes.

Peace.

Muy excellente mi amigo~

Bill,

The Congressional Budget Office [CBO] is out with a letter in August saying that while the health care law could “reduce the projected budget deficit by $30 billion over the next 10 years,” repealing it would increase the deficit by an estimated $455 billion.

That’s a swing of nearly half a trillion dollars.

Notice the DENIAL. You mean like hiding the Flight Data Recorders from Flights 11 and 175 on 9/11?

So Nash,

Did any of those links help?

dangerfield,

I replied to you on yesterday's thread . . . don't want any nasty spill over from day to day.

;o)

Bill Fairfax VA

The Obama team is baffled that the public still doesn't have a favorable opinion of HCR. How many times did we hear them say that as time passes more folks would like it. Hasn't happened.

As the poll reported by the Washington Post showed, the reason that more "folks" don't like it is because the Republicans have successfully duped "the folks" into believing that it will raise their taxes and authorizes "death panels."

So a yes, or no was "nasty spillover"?

So sorry i asked...:(

As the poll reported by the Washington Post showed, the reason that more "folks" don't like it is because the Republicans have successfully duped "the folks" into believing that it will raise their taxes and authorizes "death panels."

So basically you're saying the Republicans are smarter at making an argument? I'm just curious because I don't watch cable news that much but how many people do you think watch Fox or listen to right wing radio. What is it that you cant accept that HCR is a lousy bill. It's like the fantasy that SS has 4.3 T dollars in a safe somewhere.

Alan, NJ S

So basically you're saying the Republicans are smarter at making an argument?

No, I'm saying that the Republicans are good at lying. It's very sad for you that you don't know the difference between a lie and a rational argument.

No, I'm saying that the Republicans are good at lying. It's very sad for you that you don't know the difference between a lie and a rational argument.

And what lie am i being "duped" by? The extension of benefits will have to paid for so taxes, and premiums, are going up, or do you deny that? How can you have a bill that costs a 1T and is revenue neutral and not pay for it by raising taxes? On the death panels I am all for them. End-of -Life care is bankrupting the system and a rational formula is required.

Alan -- I think you make a really good point. Let me elaborate a bit, if I could.

The lefties around here tend to fall all over themselves in criticizing the right for exploiting ignorance and fear in the HCR debate. In a nutshell, they maintain the right told 'lies' about HCR that the masses believed and that's why the public never warmed up to Obamacare. OK, for the sake of argument – and only for the sake of argument – let's assume that the left is correct and the right just blew one fib after another out their keyster in order to sway public opinion on HCR. Let's think that through a little bit, in particular let's consider what this says about the competence of the administration in debunking these alleged 'lies.'

The short answer is the left has proven to be completely incapable of challenging these alleged 'lies' in a way that would sway public opinion to their side. Now read that sentence carefully. It doesn't say the left has been unable to challenge statements made by the right. It says they were unable to challenge the right in a way that resonated with the masses. And that gets to the core issue of the competence of the Obama team in managing the effort to impose massive change in our health care economy. How can they expect tens of millions of Americans to cheer for HCR when they have had difficulty in explaining what HCR means in terms that the mainstream can understand and be enthused about? In particular, the Obama team never did a good enough job in answering this simple question: how will HCR affect me?

For example, one of the goals of HCR is to extend coverage to the uninsured – a worthy goal that many if not most folks would support in concept. But this laudable goal begins to deflate when you peel the onion back a layer or two. Because while Mr. and Mrs. Jones may support the concept of covering the uninsured, a simple question they might ask is: what effect will clogging the system with another 30-50 million patients have on our ability to get the care we need when we need it? Perhaps even more importantly, how will it affect our kids? Will they get the care they need when they need it, or will they have to take a number and get in line behind a bunch of previously uninsured folks who are also trying to schedule their doctor appointment? Not surprisingly, Mr. and Mrs. Jones are likely to come down on the side of family first. They're not going to be inclined to run the risk that their little David and Ann might be shortchanged by a newly reformed health care system that may not have the capacity to cope with a sudden increase in demand for health care services.

Now, the lefties may have had an argument intended to debunk that possibility and allay the fears of Mr. and Mrs. Jones (although I sure don't know what it was). But was their argument credible? Even if was credible, was it a bit too wonkish for Mr. and Mrs. Jones to grasp? And even if it wasn't too wonkish, did it effectively neutralize the emotional concerns the Jones' may have had regarding the well being of their children and how they would fare under HCR? Because trotting out the 'facts' isn't good enough. Facts can be dry and abstract, but people are real and they have emotions. So while a fact-based argument can be technically correct, unless those facts can pierce through people's anxiety layer and hit the hot button they really care about then the argument will be ineffective.

Consider the Medicare cuts included in HCR as a case in point. You can preach until you're blue in the face that cutting $500 billion from Medicare won't affect quality of care for seniors. But for many (if not most) seniors that argument just isn't credible. The simple calculation in their mind is less dollars equates to less care, period. And the administration was never able to neutralize that fear. Or consider the infamous 'death panels' as another case. I'm on record several times on the board that the death panels were a bunch of hooey, so don't misinterpret my remarks. But I might argue that the term 'death panels' was compelling imagery that opponents of HCR used to great effect to sway public opinion. And it was effective not because it was true, but because supporters of HCR were unable to debunk the claim with equally compelling imagery that hit people in the gut just as hard and forced them to pay attention to the real truth. In fact, the rebuttal was primarily wonkish and boring. And even though the rebuttal was technically correct, boring loses every time.

So let's connect all the dots. If one of the top priorities of the president is to come out of the gate and take on a vexing issue that has confounded previous administrations for the past 50 or 60 years, then you darn well better be prepared to: a) sell your program; and b) respond effectively to the inevitable criticisms, even if those criticisms come from the gutter. Because if you can't do those things then you don't belong in the big leagues and you have no business presuming to be a leader. Whining about 'lies' from the right is no excuse for an inability to channel the debate in the direction you want it to go. Results matter, excuses are for losers.

P.S. I'd like to see the link to the Washington Post poll mentioned by another poster.

And to add to Bill's points. Medicade is the instrument that is being used to insure 15M of the 33M. There is no allowance in the federal bill for the effect that this will have on state taxes. There is mention of raising payments for Medicade when a current Medicade patient is already having trouble finding a physician. How is adding another 15M potential patients to a system that is already failing helping anyone? The fact that someone is insured does mean that they will GET health care. It's a sham.

Sorry if I am lying about this.

On the death panels I am all for them. End-of -Life care is bankrupting the system and a rational formula is required.

Run, Logan, run?

Bill,

I am finding versions of this argument you presented a whole lot lately: Sure we lied, but you did not do a good enough job of debunking it.

(Or the dangerfield version: unless it is a really big lie, who cares?)

You know what Bill?

If lying to get what you want is the new American plan for success, I got a funny feeling that isn't going to end well.

Just like the "tax cuts will pay for themselves" lie didn't end well.

And the "tax cuts will create jobs" lie didn't end well.

And the "weopons of mass destruction" lie didn't end well.

And the "we will be greeted as liberators" lie didn't end well.

And the "oil revenues will pay for the Iraq War" lie didn't end well.

And the "deficits don't matter" lie didn't end well.

And the "regulation is stifling business" lie didn't end well.

And who ends up paying for all these lies Bill? It's "we the people" Bill, that's who.

When Wall Street implodes "we the people" lose our pensions Bill. Wall Street Bankers are still fine - they have off shore accounts.

When the real estate market implodes "we the people" lose our homes. Those with too many houses to count walk away from their "bad investment" property unscathed.

So for you Bill, it may be a fun game.

But the reality is, even if in the short term, lies win elections, in the long term they are destroying this country.

Faulting those being lied about for not debunking lies better is like blaming poor people for the housing crisis . . . oh wait, that was another lie that got the desired result, right?

You reap what you sow Bill. Every time.

I love the conservative solution to health care:

If these 30 million people get access to care, it will clog the system for me!

Let's just keep ignoring them.

Now THAT is a solution.

Oh by the way, "these folks" are getting access to health care under our current system, and we are all already paying for it, so really, there is no mass of people coming into the system, they are already there, showing up and getting treated in emergency rooms.

P.S. Alan, you say that making more people eligible for Medicaid is a sham, I say it is an incentive to make much needed change. What is your solution? How about the no joe method: declare that there is no health care crisis and divert attention to the non mosque not at Ground Zero?

OMG Nash. I meant to reply but clicked the like button on your comment instead.

P.S. Alan, you say that making more people eligible for Medicaid is a sham, I say it is an incentive to make much needed change. What is your solution

Where is the incentive? As to solution I think it's going to much harder than what is currently in the HCR. I, and I'm only throwing out ideas here, would offer incentives to medical student to pay off their college cost if they work for Medicade for a number of years. The government could offer incentives to pay GPs more. Any invectives that would open up basic care for the uninsured would be a start.

I've already suggested on this board that Medicare for children would help everyone. It would reduce premiums of employees that have families, reduce costs to companies, help with labor mobility because your children would not be affected by employment. Added to this would be a requirement that full-time college tuition would include health insurance and you at least would alleviate health care for 0 to 21(ish). If you don't go college then you would have to find coverage on own, but being an adult is about responsibility.

BTW the Emergency Room argument is crock. People with insurance use the ER for convenience.

http://www.heartland.org/healthpolicy-news.org/article/28389/Massachusetts_Reports_Continued_Rise_in_Emergency_Room_Usage.html

Holocaustic

On the death panels I am all for them. End-of -Life care is bankrupting the system and a rational formula is required.

Run, Logan, run?

Welcome to the carousel. What color is your crystal?

Black, my friend. Black, black, black.

I still fantasize over Jenny Agguter

Alan,

Obviously you haven't used an emergency room lately if you think that it is convenient.

Edited to add: I like many of your solutions in regards to Medicaid . . . and that is what I meant by Health Reform being an incentive in that regard . . . an incentive to think of a better way than saying "no" or pretending that letting millions of Americans receive substandard or no care is a solution.

The reason people don't like the health-care bill is because the Senate sold out the American people, they passed all the goodies that the health insurance industry wanted and passed none of the cost controls or competition measures, imagine that. The House had a good bill that was fair to consumers and the health insurance industry both, but Max Baucus and crew made sure the Senate took care of their rich owners instead. Healthcare reform was dead the minute the Public Option was killed, everyone knows that, and Obama should have vetoed the mandated health insurance industry subsidation bill that ended up on his desk, but he didn't.

"Healthcare reform was dead the minute the Public Option was killed, everyone knows that..."

Umm, I don't know that. Pray tell, share the impartial source for that little tidbit of leftist drivel so that we can all be enlightened.

BTW, the public option was a fraud. I'l explain it some day so that even you can understand it.

But there were things in the legislation that were left out of the news spin from yesterday. The Dream Act and a provision allowing abortions at military hospitals were also included as riders in the appropriations bill and received little to no mention in the media.

Knowing that, it puts into better perspective why people like Collins and Snowe opted not to vote up on the measure. It may even explain why Pryor and Lincoln sided with the Republican bloc.

You can't seriously expect the Republicans to go for any measure that includes amnesty for migrants and allows an extension of abortion rights. I'm sure that's why Collins was so adamant about opening up the bill to amendments from the Republicans, which casts Reid in an extremely unfavorable light. Reid (it seems to me, at least) took a gamble with the 59 seats he had and assumed he might be able to convince one of the swing Republicans to the Democrats' side on this issue. That's foolhardy optimism at best and a shallow, cynical way of thinking at worst. Imagine if he'd allowed the Republican bloc the chance to amend the bill to eliminate those two aforementioned provisions.

DADT stood a better chance of being repealed had it been allowed to stand on its own. The Democrats have a clear enough majority in the House (for the time being) and Lincoln, Pryor, Collins and even Snowe might've sided with Reid on it. Reid, however, may even have voted no to try and spin his allegiances for a last-ditch attempt at attracting votes from Sharron Angle.

I know a lot of that last bit is hypothesis and nothing more, but my already-poor opinion of Reid is so soured by what happened yesterday that I almost want to see Angle replace him. With leadership like Reid's it seems preferable to have an easily-antagonized enemy instead.

"You can't seriously expect the Republicans to go for any measure that includes amnesty for migrants and allows an extension of abortion rights."

Snowe and Collins are on record as supporting keeping abortion legal. It's how they won votes from moderate women in Maine. As for a path to citizenship for immigrants who graduated from high school or join the military, I remember when immigration reform was a cornerstone of the Republican platform. It's what helped get Bush elected President. Something tells me the Republicans have lost a generation of Hispanic support on this one.

I should've stipulated "this close to a divisive and nasty mid-term election."

You're right to say they have lost the Hispanic vote, but Republican thought as it is within the context of the current election cycle has to be considered over Republican thought ten years ago when discussing the issues presently faced.

I, too, however, feel cheated that any compromise for an effective solution to the immigration problem has been reduced to one of either total amnesty or a massed deportation along the lines of Eisenhower's Operation: Wetback.

Holocaustin:

You can't seriously expect the Republicans to go for any measure that includes amnesty for migrants and allows an extension of abortion rights.

The DREAM act is not amnesty. It grants legal status -- NOT citizensip -- under strict conditions. The person must have been brought into this country when they were under 16 years of age and they must either be enrolled in a college degree program or join the military. Letting people join the military to get shot at in Afghanistan is not amnesty.

You may be right about the abortion provision, though. While I think it is fair, it is definitely too devisive an issue to put in a bill that also contained both the DREAM act and DADT repeal. But the Republicans didn't even talk much about the abortion provision, they'll always come up with an excuse to block anything Obama proposes, even if they were for it, too before he was.

PS. A story about Collins' vote against repealing the ban on Gays serving openly in the miitary, in the local paper, has broken the online comment feature. THere are so many comments clogging up the system they have had to stop posting for awhile.

This is not good news for the Republican Party in Maine, who have relied on moderate Democrats to keep themin office. It wouldn't surprise me if this didn't galvanize the youth vote in Novmeber too.

Houston!: My views on what to do about illegal immigrants differ with the Dream Act. I don't look on it as amnesty, but I also look on it as cruel. I don't think we should limit our granting of citizenship to the young on a military or collegiate basis: what of those who've been here decades and are well into their later years? What of the taxes owed? What of their ability to seek better employment and educational opportunities they might otherwise be denied presently; their ability to be positive contributors to our economy?

The Dream Act seems too little, too late. Given that it's the brainchild of the Republicans, you'd think the Democrats might've come up with something more comprehensive in scope. That the Republicans refused it is only because the current political climate has made it unpopular for them to do so.

Amy B. Portland, ME: Then Collins may well suffer the wrath of the moderates come November.

Amen.

HOUSTON

Who's the gullible ones? Do you think the Media told you the truth about 9/11? Or the Pat Tillman assassination?

Thanks for bringing that up Houston - it also stated that the more Democrats & Independents LEARNED about HCR the more they supported it...

Here's a SHOCK... the righties were still a resonding NO! lol

Paul-977599: Are you insane?

Feisty:

Thanks for bringing that up Houston - it also stated that the more Democrats & Independents LEARNED about HCR the more they supported it...

That's why the Republicans want to keep the public ignorant and fearful. That's always been their underlying political strategy. All the political strategems and tactical maneuvers that the media obsesses over are relatively unimportant.

Here's a SHOCK... the righties were still a resonding NO! lol

The righties are impervious to facts. You can't be a righty unless you are. To them, people who are influenced by facts are weaklings. They want to "make their own reality" which the "reality based community" must then study, as some Bush hack (probably Karl Rove) once said.

Holocaustic

Are you gullible?

How are you supposed to "NEVER FORGET" something which you IMPROPERLY remember?

Are you gullible?

Apparently not so much as you.

Funny. Holocaustic.

At different times we all seem to agree that the MSM is lying to us. You participated in it yourself when referring to a filibuster by the Republicans, which is a lie, because nobody actually filibusters anything anymore.

Yet you can't conceive of the MSM lying to you and the rest of us about 9/11! You're not just gullible, you're brainwashed into being incapable of independent thought.

A simple question; when did you first publicly question the MSM story of 9/11?

I'll entertain you for just a bit longer.

Assuming you're correct - that we're all lied to, that all of this is out of our control or capacity to influence - what's the point then? Why bother? Why are you here adamantly professing your sentiments if the powers-that-be will always manipulate and obsfucate?

Why expend the energy, eh? Why hammer away at the keyboard? Why not push back from your chair and go find something to do that will bring you a little fulfillment in life instead of throwing yourself on the rocks time and again?

Hi Houston!

From yesterday's posting about 52% would prefer Democratic vs Republicans, I saw it on the crawls on the bottom of ABC's screen yesterday morning. Allow me to apologize for being misleading. Since the GOPTP want to return to extending the Bush Tax cuts, I interpreted that to mean Republicans.

52 percent of Americans say they'd rather havePresident Obama than his predecessor in control of economic policy, vs. 35 percent who'd prefer to have former President Bush in charge. Still, that's not as bad as it once was for Bush, who fell as low as 23 percent approval in ABC News/Washington Post polling during his presidency, en route to the lowest average second-term ratings in modern polling history.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Polling/abc-newsyahoo-news-poll-reality-check-politics-economy/story?id=11662904

In regards to, Velma Hart when will the media stop talking about the her town hall questions? Velma Hart is the latest “average” citizen to be catapulted to an election-year fame for her "heartfelt plea/exhaustion" of President Obama.

She got her 15 minutes of fame on Chris Matthews. Despite her 15 minutes , I'm glad she is still a supporter! But, it's time for a new" reality". Maybe she could ask the banks and Wall Street why are they sitting on their money? I do hope the media will focus, since has become a poster woman, on her support instead of an economy which which the President inherited and the accomplishments.

Patience is a virtue and I wonder sometimes is silence really golden?

Holocaustic

It was a mass murder. Of Americans by fake MUSLIMS for people I would call "Americans-in-name-only". Your question is something akin to asking why we should bother investigating a murder, or prosecuting the murderer, because it is a waste of time since it won't ever bring the victim back to life. We are all the victims of this thinking. My life is as full as anyone's here on this board. I simply feel it is my duty to inform the willfully ignorant of what they are willing to overlook in order to go along to get along.

M.Fisher

I posted this comment as a response to another comment concerning "cyanosis" or, and I'm just guessing here, that we are turning blue as a result of being deprived of oxygen..? But I think my response is worth repeating.

I agree that DC doesn't seem to have the welfare of the country and the people in mind and it has been the case for many years. DC has become a den of thieves and vipers; poisonous to the country.

Can you say there are 2 counter-productive oxygen deprived fruit cakes on the right, Sarah Palin and Cristine O'Donnell have become crooks? Sarah Palin ripped the state of Alaska off. Cistine O'Donnell ripped her campaign off!

And of course the dems have Rangel, Dodd and Waters. It is truly a cesspool on both sides.

Cuomo is falling fast. I wouldn't put him in Albany quite yet.

It may utlimately come to an executive order, but what happens if Palin, Romney or someone like them takes the White House in 2012 and rescinds such an order without reinstituting DADT? What if the military brass decides to make homosexuality a court-martial offense again?

With that likelihood it seems more reasonable to keep DADT lest thousands of devoted servicemen be unfairly discharged.

You don't put things like the DREAM act and the DADT in a defense bill. It looked like Dirty Harry Reid was trying to sneak something thru. I love it that several Dems even turned on him.

Next new show?

First Thoughts with Domenico and Mark. Perhaps on the weekends? That would be cool as well. We could all call in. lol

I remember Mark was on that CPSAN program that airs first thing in the morning. I have forgotten the name of it. This was a few years ago. And I remember sitting on my sofa, laughing, because the callers were killing him about MSNBC being liberal. Mark was awesome. Very professional and friendly. But man did he take some heat from the callers. I had quite a chuckle watching him.

And then I believe on Tuesday, September 28th, Ken Burns will air 10th Inning, a continuation of his baseball series.

You know, the Red Sox have won two World Series since his original program. lol

Looking forward to this. Anything that Ken does ends up being a work of art.

Every time I see the ad for the new Lawrence O'Donnell program I think of you, Pat and Feisty!!

What did you make of Howard Fineman leaving Newsweek? I am a fan of his--and not just because he is from Pittsburgh.

Steeler, I'm happy for Howard Fineman. He as well appears very happy about the move.

Personally I prefer firecracker Ed Schultz. Rachel is always on point but her monotone voice needs a shot of jalapeño peppers. Keith is a lil too smug IMO

Fineman going to the HuffPo - seems like quite a demotion to me.

As Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat from Oregon said, This bill is so flawed and bad that the only choice is to repeal it and start over.

Couldn't agree more Rgiles. There's no question that our regulatory frameworks aren't perfect now, and weren't before the hounds of deregulation decimated most existing regulations. There's always room for improvement in EVERYTHING. Getting rid of regulation ignores, however, the fact that someone saw an urgent need for that regulation some time in the past. If you want to improve something improve it. Repealing it ignores the wisdom of those who were there when something went wrong previously -- see Glass Steagall.

Ray, could you post a link to support that claim regarding Sen. Wyden?

According to this Fox News article, Wyden feels each state should be able to get a waiver from the federal law if the state can create a system that covers the same amount of people as the Fed Law.

The state waiver provision doesn't take effect until 2017, but Wyden has legislation to move it forward to 2014. He thinks some states might want to establish a single-payer system. Others, like Oregon, might want a public option. In any case, states with waivers would be writing their own version of health reforms, in place of the new federal ones.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/07/dems-campaign-obamacare-stay-mum/

Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden says he has an alternative for states seeking to overturn the new health reform bill in the courts: Develop your own health care plan.

The Democrat on Thursday touted an amendment, which he inserted in the new health care law, that allows states to opt out of the federal plan -- including the contentious individual insurance mandate.

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/03/wyden_says_states_can_design_o.html

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/09/02/wyden-mandate/

Your screen name tells us all we need to know about you.

osamaobama: Yelling is easier than arguing your point effectively, isn't it?

Unfortunately for you, Gomer, screen names don't negate the truth of the comments.

Not sure what facts you are referring to. But the names we chose do say a lot about our charactor. Yours, shows a lack of any.

osamaobama: If you have something to say, back it up. No one's taking you seriously otherwise.

Just because a group of people in the Obama administration say the recession is over does not make it so. A recent Rasmussen poll showed over 80% of Americans still believe we are in a recession. So you can tell everyone it is over all you want, doesn't make it so. One thing that is always true about the wealthy is they invest money in their own companies and other companies. This capital is used to fuel economic expansion. But with taxes, regulations, and the health care mandate hanging over their heads, you probably won't see much job creation. One other thing is also true. If this government gets more tax money, they will not use it to bring down the deficit or national debt. They will waste it on more big government programs which will show very little results but will make more unions and green eco people very happy.

Well Ray, 80% of Americans aren't economists, and while the economy isn't good yet we've met the definition of the recession being over. That 80% still believe it says that Conservatives have done a phenomenal job of selling the narrative that things remain so bad society itself is on the verge of collapse. Glenn Beck, for example, has said that he expects the collapse to come within the next year and we should compare notes with our friends and neighbors so we can band together when the time comes. Sean Hannity is now on the "survival seed garden" bandwagon, telling us we should buy seeds at above market value and bury them in a sealed container so the government can't take them away.

As far as investment is concerned I'm just finalizing my corporate budget. NO ONE is asking what the regulatory environment will be, or how much the CEO might have to pay in income tax. We're trying to determine what demand will be, and it'll be there.

During the Clinton Administration additional tax revenue was used to reduce the deficit. Why didn't Republicans offset their temporary, 10 year tax cuts when THEY had the power to do so?

If the Bush tax cuts are rescinded for everyone the people that make the least will get hit the hardest. They were the ones that got the biggest break under Bush. People in the 15% bracket back then had their taxes cut to 10%. Now if you raise there taxes back to 15% the Democratic party might disappear altogether.

Is that why the Conservative Republicans are working so hard to make sure that EVERYONE gets a tax increase?

Dan G.-461155

Lawrence O'Donnell, now that's one O'Donnell you can truly label extreme and a bit crazy.

Hat tip: Lawrence O'Donnell quotes President Harry Truman--"I just tell the truth about them and they think it's Hell-- you oughta not believe your own fiction .

O'Donnell was an Emmy Award-winning producer and writer for the NBC series “The West Wing” and creator and executive producer of the NBC series, “Mister Sterling” and a Harvard graduate.

Thanks Gina... make sure you get EVERY one you know to GET OUT and VOTE! :0)

Gina,

You were not going to vote Republican anyway....Stop frontin' like you're an independent. There is no independents in this country..

Maybe people think YOU are voting against your interest.

I vote for what is good for ME....not you or anyone else.

You were not going to vote Republican anyway....Stop frontin' like you're an independent. There is no independents in this country..

Tell me, where did you acquire the omniscience necessary to declare there are no independents in America? Earnest minds wish to know.

Thanks for stating your opinion gina, and thanks for being so firm about getting to the polls on Election Day. Remember, strong turnout is the best remedy to elections that are controlled by special interests.

Wow-ITM---now you are a mind reader as well. Thanks for letting us know how Gina planned to vote. And thanks for letting us know you only vote for what is good for you. Not a big surprise.

Gina--I agree with you about getting people to vote against their own best interests. Continually amazes me.

Didn't you hear Steeler Fan... there is NOTHING that ITM doesn't know or can't do...

The resume got to be about 50 pages by now.. lmao!

more like 50 sheets of 2 ply

HA

*chirp chirp* *chirp chirp*

LMAO thats what I thought.

Sad but so true.

Well said.

The financial industry has done real well under the Obama administration, what with all the bailouts and stimulus money being thrown at them. And companies are sitting on a near-record $2 trillion in cash, money they could use to invest and create jobs. But they haven’t and they wont. Presumably because they are mad at President Obama abou this policies. Well, that might fly except he has only been in office for 20 months and they have been sitting on a lot of this cash for several years.

Can you corporate greed?

Another comment: Amazingly, the Wa Po headline for the article blames the health care law itself for "making us muddle-minded,." The Washington Post shirking all responsibility for who is really responsible for all the muddle-minded Americans: the media themselves, who act as stenographers for Republicans endlessly repeated lies about taxes and death panels while seldom calling them out for their lies.

Houston!

I can barely stand to watch Brian Williams anymore, and I never watch Katie Couric or whoever is anchoring ABC now. (I dropped ABC after the infamous presidential debate which focused on Obama's patriotism and where Charle Gibson pompously announced that two hypothetical firefighters, who were a couple, might earn $200,000 and subject to more taxes. Brian Williams infuriates me with his doleful head shaking over the economy, while not talking about statistics that indicate recovery, and weak little asides like muttering "what a mess!"after Congress blocked the DADT repeal, as if ALL of Congress were "a mess" and not just Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe for putting party ahead of country.

I grew up during the Cronkite/ Watergate hearing era. Journalists were my heroes. It's unbelievable how times have changed. At least, now we can search the web for original documents and "wonky" analysis. I had to educate myself about the healthcare issues by reading the bill and visiting Kaiser.org for analysis.