E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Mark Murray and Domenico Montanaro give their analysis of the republican response by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) to the 2011 State of the Union. Plus, what about the Tea Party response by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN)?
Thanks to newdayDAWNING10 for the question!
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Don’t forget to submit questions for the Boiler Room segments next week. Write questions below, post them on our Facebook page, or tweet it, to @NBCFirstRead or @mmurraypolitics or @DomenicoNBC.
Edited by Alexandra Moe. Video was shot by Ali Weinberg.
Leave a Comment:
The Republicans have no response. No need to paint it any differently. The people see it for what it truly is, smoked salmon and broken mirrors. Thanks for that line Mr. President. SMH.
Congrats NDD!
Let me buy you a drink at the Dew Drop Inn later (as long as the Weeper of the House isn't a 'guest' bartender) lol
I'm disappointed that Mark & Domenico didn't answer to my follow up question regarding if any knows what Michelle Bachmann is on and whether or not it's legal? ;o(
Oh well maybe next week! lol
Hey, that's right! They did miss the third part of the question!
Gee, I forgot to congratulate you newday. It was an excellent question. Perhaps, the GOP/TB could benefit from your optimism.
@Feisty ,
I'm disappointed that Mark & Domenico didn't answer to my follow up question regarding if any knows what Michelle Bachmann is on and whether or not it's legal? ;o(
Since Bachmann's drugs are probably prescribed, I'll say yes they are legal.
More Seriously this is no laughing matter; in fact, it is a legitimate question. I think we should have Mark & Domenico look into that.
If Bachmann is serious about the presidency and public office we have the right to know if she is mentally fit.
Tom Eagleton's was on Thorazine and his Vice Presidential candidacy was ended because of it.
So how about it? The American people need to know.
Awesome - still hitting the speeches. So I guess there's just nothing else going on around Washington, or politics, other than the speeches.
What is really interesting, Sparky, is that they'd not address the plagiarism.
Obama stole from Woodrow Wilson. From JFK. That line about the salmon was lifted from FDR- although with FDR, it was bears, not salmon. Still does not make it original. ( FDR decried that the departments of interior and commerce had authority over bears, depending on whether they were on, or off, federal lands. He wondered who had authority over cubs born of an "intermarriage".)
He even stole from Margaret Thatcher when he claimed, as his own, the line that we were the only nation on earth born of an idea.
I KNOW that plagiarism is taught as a serious no no in journalism 101. Heck, I taught it that way when I was teaching sixth graders.
Any thoughts on WHY they are ignoring this?
Let us not forget that obama looked to reagan for how to inspire the populace and evoke confidence. I did think that the "sputnik moment" quote fell flat. Todays kids needed something more relevent to relate to. I imagine more than a few members of congress didn't know who or even what sputnik was about.
As is typical in all Presidential speeches, authoring with originality is not the norm. You know that FDR lifted his Bear comment from someone himself. As far as Sputnik Moment, that is a stretch for them to make that connection with modern times anymore than the New Deal would be for a rerun. Though I do believe the Educational System of the last 25-30 years is to blame as much as the parental disconnect with their childrens' range of subjects learned/covered. Watching DWTS is MUCH more important than the kids.
As Bushbama melds more into the actual Corporatist he is, this sort of soft sell will become more prevalent.
And the lines continue to blur...
And BTW, congrats to NDD!
Thanks nosojingo
No, Thank YOU!! Quite an achievement!
(-:
hate it when this site goes all "HTML" on me!
posted below; but it goes here:
Ironically, NJNB plagiarizes Rush, Beck and the nutty websites where she generously 'lifts' her facts. And she wants to preach to the President about plagiarism and ethics in writing?
Talk about your "oh Sh@t" moments. Priceless.
So, your contention is that reporting facts reported elsewhere is plagiarism?
Hey, guys, do you remember enough of journalism 101 to set Clara straight?
No?
Okay, then, I will do it.
Plagiarism is using the words of others as your own without attribution. Changing a word or two ( as in, changing Bears for salmon) is not enough. He could have cured it by drawing attention to the fact that the situation had not changed since FDR first said. . .now it is salmon.
He could have said that Thatcher was right when she said. . .
Or Kennedy.
Or Wilson.
Or any of the others he quoted, almost exactly, without attribution.
As to your contention: by your reasoning, any news item is only to be reported in one place. So, NBC can cover a train wreck, but no one else.
Even youndo not believe that- but, in the case of Obama, you would be more than happy if no one ever pointed out his failures and thefts- and that is what plagiarism is, Clara, theft.
Pretty hard to defend such, so you would prefer it be ignored.
So you are still contending that the Mumbai story was factual?
again, priceless.
Hey, thanks for the thoughtful response guys! Interesting to say the least. And new dog does work, cause I got a pup!
They said it fast, New Day, but didn't one of them call you a "loyal" poster?! Congrats!
Congrats newday! :o)
Thanks all! It is so exciting to have them answer!
Look Into My Eyes!
You are now under my spell, believe whatever I say! ---------Bat crazy Bachman.
Here's a question - it may be trivial, and since I first heard about it a few weeks ago, maybe it's already been covered here and I missed it, but it's about the new Republican congress voting to end "voting rights" for delegates from D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam, etc. Since these places don't have actual representatives in the House or Senate, what actual "floor voting rights" do they have? And why is this a "longtime dispute" that's obviously politically motivated each time the balance of power shifts, instead of having a permanent (legal)decision in place ? As far as that goes, what's the basis for the legal argument that subjects these residents - notably those who live in D.C. - to taxation without representation in the first place? Okay, that's actually three questions, but here's the story that originally caught my attention:
House Republicans End Floor Voting Rights for 'Delegates' from Puerto Rico, Guam, D.C. and Samoa
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
By Jim Abrams, Associated Press
Washington (AP) - One of the first acts of the new Republican-controlled House is to take away the floor voting rights of six delegates representing areas such as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam and American Samoa.
Five of those delegates are Democrats, while one, from the Northern Marianas Islands, is an independent.
The GOP decision to rescind the ability of delegates to vote on amendments on the House floor was the predictable outcome of a longtime dispute.
Democrats extended those voting rights in 1993 when they controlled the House. Republicans disenfranchised the delegates when they became the majority in 1995, and Democrats restored delegate rights when they regained control in 2007.
That is a great question which deserves answering. I mention in a thread right after the mockery the Republicans did by reading the Constitution.
The GOP/TP is a the worst version of government I have literally seen since the Civil rights era. Tea Baggers are tearing down the moral fiber of our country.
How can they speak of of a government of the people, for the people and by the people when then take away the voices of the people?
They are rioting because Mubarak is a dictator. To our President like Mubarak. To those angry, pitch fork, gun toting righties who hold on to the premise President Obama is a dictator just look at Egypt. Tea baggers you cannot make in comparison because you have a democracy. Egypt didn't.
DECODE THOSE PLEASE!
If you’re really serious about fixing this problem, and exonerating yourselves of these acts of violence, then I offer a challenge.
JoAnne to go along with your question about representation, by the way I would like to know the answer as well...
With the new census numbers we've heard that New York is losing seats and Texas is gaining seats, who decides who loses the seats in New York? I'm guessing in Texas the legislature will redistrict new borders to add the 4 new house seats. They will probably draw them up to split up a blue, urban district to give the GOP a better chance of picking it up. Its been done before anyway.
However in New York, who tells who not to show up for work?
Congrats, newdayDawning, good question. Mark & Domenico make a valid point about going after any President but personally, Paul Ryan, could have said GOPers disagree with the President on this, this and this; we need to do this, this without claiming the 20th century would be our last good one unless we do what GOP wants and without Greece and Ireland--it was doom and gloom. He could have said we have big problems but we can solve those problems and meet the challenges--if he said anything like that it was dispersed so in the gloom scenario that it went right by me.
JoAnne, PA. Really good question. I forgot about that but was wondering the same thing when I first heard it.
WTF are you talking about!!!!??? Really nut ball? You want to relate some how what's happening in Egypt to the TEA Party or think because what is happening in Egypt will happen here because of the TEA Part, then that makes you a nut.
"They are rioting because Mubarak is a dictator. To our President like Mubarak. To those angry, pitch fork, gun toting righties who hold on to the premise President Obama is a dictator just look at Egypt. Tea baggers you cannot make in comparison because you have a democracy. Egypt didn't."
Yellowdog,
You just answered you're own question. Hey look at a district for JJ jr in Chicago? Tell me those are some straight lines or a square.
jody in iowa - Obama spoke in generalities (as befitting a state of the union address) but you want the republican responce to name specifics? What foolishness from someone who categorically stated that she "hates" republicans and relegates the tea parties "ideology" as not having value.
It would seem that the Republicans who decided on a responder wanted Rep. Ryan because he "looks like" a young President Reagan -- thick hair, genial face, etc. But President Reagan was an actor and someone who knew how to appear natural in front of a camera, whereas Rep. Ryan (like others before him) IS natural in front of a camera....earnest, but with delivery flaws that detract from the message. The entire affair is a charade because Rep. Ryan's speech is prepared BEFORE he sees or hears the State of the Union, so it is not a "response," but just an attempt at "equal time" or an "opposition" take on the State of the Union. Both President Obama and Rep. Ryan gave us essentially a "snapshot" of the state of the union: there is debt, it must be managed. President Obama thinks it can be managed one way, Rep. Ryan thinks it can be managed another.
I remember sitting with my Dad, watching a 4th of July concert on TV once, in a previous recession year, was it during Bush SR's term? I turned to my Dad and remarked on the unusually flamboyent tone of this concert, compared to previous years, a really over the top display of patriotic sentiment. My Dad must have been thinking the same thing because he immediately answered " it's because we're losing ground economically. We are losing our manufacturing base. The country is attempting to rally itself to compete against our rivals." I think President Obama's speech was in that vein: trying to rally the troops, while Paul Ryan's was like the back story, telling the public why we need to rally. Two sides of one coin, is how I saw it.
This bozo is a 40 yo.... what does he know ? His vary words were that of yet another Republican political hack ! All they have to do is allow the people to use the insurance pools ! But that would be to business like... and create honest competition between the insurance company's. Which would end the big bribes for reelection !
It was likely the lighting, but I was thinking Mr Rayn looked a lot like Billy Mumy (as 'Eddie' on the Munsters).
I seemed to be so distracted by that, though, that I completely missed the Republican Plan he was promoting. There IS one, right?
Yeah, he had one:
"Limitedgovernmentlimitedgovernmentlimitedgovernmentlimitedgovernmentlimitedgovernment. Spending spree. Limitedgovernmentlimitedgovernmentlimitedgovernmentlimitedgovernmentlimitedgovernment".
But hey, at least he said the healthcare bill was only "job-stifling", not "job-killing". I give him points for originality.
Even if he never did actually name which part(s) of the government should be limited.
P.S. It wasn't just the lighting.
What.. are you "LOST in SPACE"..
Oops, Steve got you there, DBO - it was Butch Patrick, not Billy Mumy.
But it still wasn't just the lighting..... ;)
JoAnne, my visual reaction to the staging: dark suit, dark hair, dark back ground (I couldn't see anything behind him except a bit of the flag), low lights. Just that alone was depressing without the negativity in his response.
Yeah, Jody, I even went back and read Ryan's response in print to see if it came off any differently, but it didn't really help - it was still all gloom and doom. I think Mark and Domenico make a good point about how hard it is to follow any SOTU address without coming off that way, but still.....this is one time when maybe just a little of that "hopey/changey stuff" would have worked in Ryan's favor. I guess time will tell if it was another Bobby Jindal moment or not, but I didn't see - or hear - anything that said "rising star of the GOP".
And to be brutally honest here? My first "visual reaction" was actually that if Ryan does get to be a star some day, at least we won't have to endure any more lame jokes about how big President Obama's ears are. I mean, look at that picture - we're talking near-Vulcan here.
Live long and prosper!
A Generation "Lost in Space".. Describes these posters...
The Republicans had a response? When did this happen? I mean I saw a bit of Paul Ryan, but thought it some sort of infomercial for something that is worthless and is not needed. Oh wait, that is generally the Republican response.
Ryan is only slightly less of a whack job than Michelle Bachmann.
Between the two of them they wouldn't be able to concoct a reasonable approach to anything.
If these two weirdos, and their ideas are the future of the Republican party, then Mitch McConnell's mission of making Barack Obama a one-term President is as likely as Boehner giving up his booze. Democrats should be feeling pretty damned good if this is the best the RNC has to offer.
Paul Ryan comes across as fresh-faced, soft spoken, moderate, affable but his policies are anything but mainstream. The scarey part is most people recognize Bachmann as a "bubble short of level" and dismiss her ideas as extreme; with Ryan, people are fooled--they both have equally extreme policy views.
hmmmm.... quite an apt discription of obama as well. Still can't get over bidens big azz frown during most of the addrtess.. Only recall three smiles, at the beginning when obama acknowledged him, some time in the middle when he ogled someone in the gallery and when obama ended.
I agree that the Republican response to President Obama's SOTU address was lacking in detail and direction, but there is a reason for that.
The SOTU address was eloquent in style and presentation and totally pedestrian in content.
The Presdient choose a tag line -- Winning the Future which is the title of Newt Gingrich's book and abbreviates to a blog favorite of "WTF" which was a good descriptor of the speech and the opposition's response.
The Preisdent describe the country having a "sputnik" moment, without a definitve goal such as the the "sputhnik" moment of President Kennedy that the President Obama was trying to compare to.
President Kennedy set the clear goal of going to the moon and back by the end of the decade. President Obama had no goal at all.
Yes the response was weak, but it was sufficient to the quality of the SOTU address.
On voting right-these people in those territories pay US taxes. They should have right tobe taken into account when decisions are made. Sen Ernest Gueing of Alska was for year Alaska'scongression representative beforeit because a sstate.
Republicans are wrong, and those are normally Demcraticvotes which is exaclty why the want to have them not counted.
Apparetny lea partiers have already abandoned taxation requires representation.
Many people didn't like what Paul Ryan had to say but I think it's time to face the truth. This country is on shaky ground as far as our economy is concerned. We can't do anything until we confront the problem. The debt commision had some really good ideas and so does Paul Ryan we need to accept reality. Now is not the time to bury our heads in the sand.
Don't forget how Ronald Reagan quoted movie lines and storys in his speeches and forgot that they weren't real.
Ironically, NJNB plagiarizes Rush, Beck and the nutty websites where she generously 'lifts' her facts. And she wants to preach to the President about plagiarism and ethics in writing?
Talk about your "oh Sh@t" moments. Priceless.
An innocent teenage girl was brutally killed recently by three illegal immigrants in Arizona. Of course you won't read about this on this liberal-based website at MSNBC. Her blood in on Obamas hands.
www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/30/mexican-murder-suspects-turn-death-american-teen/?test=latestnews
You mean this story?
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41331503
and why Obama's hands? Bush failed to secure the borders, too, right?
Was it just me or did Paul Ryan appear to be reading from a teleprompter? The Republican/Tea Party has led me to believe only a Democratic President would stoop that low. What a two faced group of people!