It only happens in right wing world.

For some silly reason, when I saw this headline, the first thing that popped into my head was; Journey & the Mikala Salahy (sp?) scandal... lol

Proof - it's not politics 24/7 with me I guess...

' President Obama’s policies have weakened America, and thus diminished America’s presence on the global stage. We must correct our course."

Where, exactly, do these jerk-offs get the idea they can say this stuff? I suppose if they come out and say 'the sky is green', we are supposed to take them serrious just because they said so. Criminy, it's like reading a No Jo or JAS post or some damned thing.

The Republican Party will never forgive Huntsman for working in the Obama Administration. And they will never forgive him for writing that letter. Never.

They are hateful people, the Tea Party. They don't even realize that they are out there protesting FOR those institutions that failed us. They were funded by The Koch Brothers.

They are standing up against their own best interests. We need regulations. Otherwise, nothing in this country will work properly and we the tax payers will continue to be exploited.

They need to open their eyes and tell these institutions to take a hike, that they're not going to protect them any longer. Unless and until they do that, they will continue to be exploited.

We all will.

d-b-o:

Where, exactly, do these jerk-offs get the idea they can say this stuff?

They get it wherever the dial stops for FOX News. No one polices FOX or the right-wing blogs -- or the left-wing blogs, for that matter -- and no one, not even candidates, ever suffers any consequences for saying untrue and irresponsible things.

"The don't drink the sand because they're thirsty, they drink the sand because they don't know the difference." ~ Andrew Shepard, THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT

Low information voters don't know the difference, and most of them don't care.

First of all:

Democrats do and say this kind of stuff also. You can go into the archives of any politician and FIND something as to where it contradicts what they are saying in the present.

DBO:

Huntsman and the other republican candidates is NOT trying to win Democrat votes. THIS IS the Republican primary. The country is going to vote 45% - 45% irregardless of what is said or done. Those 10% that are confused is what each candidate will be vying for.

Pat:

Go back to sleep. That is all I can say about your post. You have to be a 60's era throwback with the rhetoric you espouse to.

If President Obama's leadership has weakened us abroad as these right-wingers claim, how do they explain that the positive view of America by foreigners has risen substantially since he took office? Maybe a reporter could ask that question while Romney, Huntsman and friends make such ridiculous claims.

Maybe a reporter could ask that question

*gasp*

Oh Heaven's NO... lol

This stupidity is brought to you by the Barry Obama School of Fraudulent Accounting:

Remember when Barry told the American people that his HCR ClunkerCare plan was going to cover 30 million additional uninsured people AND reduce the deficit AT THE SAME TIME??

Only in Washington, DC are such magical feats of budgetary accounting possible. And only financially clueless lefty liberal Dems are dim-witted enough to believe these lies. The subtitle of this MSDNC story says it all: “$80 billion in premiums used to estimate deficit cuts exist only on paper”

If businesses ever tried this kind of crap, they would end up in prison with big fines for totally fraudulent accounting. In Barry’s Washington DC, it’s just the Chicago way “business as usual”.

From MSDNC.com:

'Zombie' in the budget: long-term health care plan

$80 billion in premiums used to estimate deficit cuts exist only on paper

WASHINGTON — They're calling it the zombie in the budget.

It's a long-term care plan the Obama administration has put on hold, fearing it could go bust if actually implemented. Yet while the program exists on paper, monthly premiums the government may never collect count as reducing federal deficits.

Real or not, that's $80 billion over the next 10 years.

The Community Living Assistance Services and Supports program, CLASS for short, may just keep lurching along indefinitely. It would join other peculiar creatures of the federal budget such as "trust funds" that are actually more like IOUs and Medicare cuts that can be counted twice.

"It's a gimmick that produces phantom savings," said Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan group that advocates deficit control..

"That money should have never been counted as deficit reduction because it was supposed to be set aside to pay for benefits," Bixby added. "The fact that they're not actually doing anything with the program sort of compounds the gimmick."

The program was created under President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, and arguably provided much of the 10-year, $143 billion in savings claimed under the law. But now some Capitol Hill aides have dubbed CLASS a "budget zombie."

The administration recently asked Congress to hold off on money for implementing CLASS as it tries to find a way to make it solvent for the long run. The chief financial expert for CLASS left the government, saying the program's staff was abruptly reassigned.

Pat:

Go back to sleep. That is all I can say about your post. You have to be a 60's era throwback with the rhetoric you espouse to.

You must be a clown performer for Herman Cain or is it slave catcher for Repuliclowns?

Maybe you're a pizza delivery boy?

' President Obama’s policies have weakened America, and thus diminished America’s presence on the global stage. We must correct our course."

Where, exactly, do these jerk-offs get the idea they can say this stuff?

________________________________________________________________________________

Actually anywhere except FR, thinkprogress ....

Out of 11-12 leaders/crisis in the Mid East and N. Africa, how many leaders in the least bit listened to Obama?

One - Mubarek, and today they are shooting Christians in the streets. (Good job, on so many levels, Obama.)

Name a friend we still have in this area. Libya ... the "rebels" that were killing Americans in Afghanistan and Iraq this time a year ago?

Everyone focuses on the economy, but Obama is every bit the horrible failure on foreign policy that is he is on the economy.

Anna Molly No one polices FOX or the right wing.............

Who in the world would you have doing this policing? This is still America and you can say whatever you like. It is up to each of us to seperate fact from fiction.

Mark Murray -- My morning is off kilter without the usual here....thanks for at least getting me to hum along as well. ; )

Osama Bin Laden strongly disagrees with Romney, about America being weakened by president Obama.

No more FR love for Jon Huntsman?

FR's favorite GOPer?

lol

I still like him better than the rest, early on when he had the ads showing him in his dirt bike leathers and helmet I thought he was going to be some sort of republican power ranger!

and from fiesty's first post now you know why he's at 1.8%.....

maybe huntsman will make a good write in candidate for the few progressives that haven't sold out their principles!

Early on, I posited that Romney's biggest problem would be MassCare, and Huntsman's would be serving as Ambassador to China under Obama.

Neither has done a very good job explaining these issues.

Huntsman's answer to the question translates to ". I'm ambitious. This looked like a rung up the ladder-bonus points for foreign policy experience.".

What he SHOULD have said was that he saw it as an opportunity to mitigate against any potential damage by the Obama administration to a relationship with a fairly politically antagonistic trading partner. That he could head off at the pass any potential threat to Taiwan by dealing with issues BEFORE they got to Washington. That, yes, he was considering a run against Obama in 2012- and gaining first hand experience dealing with the Chinese gave him the knowledge he needed to deal successfully with them as president.

Just as Romney should have said "the people of Massachusetts wanted a comprehensive health care plan for the Commonwealth. We tried to put together a policy that took into account the drawbacks of TennCare, and Hawaii's plan, so that we would not be subject to the same issues that caused them to fail. While the people of Massachusetts are pretty happy with the plan- due to the costs, I am not. It seems that all our best efforts failed to contain costs- so, despite the apparent acceptance of the people of Massachusetts, I'm not happy with the result- it just proves that no matter how careful you are, government should not be dictating to doctors, patients, hospitals- or insurers.

I'm going out on a limb here, but I assume neither man said anything of the sort because it is not what he believes.

So be it.

I stopped voting republican when Reagan sold out the GOP's principles! It's been down hill since he began the anti-government, anti-tax movement and the sad thing is todays GOPers do not realize that even Reagan did not believe the words he spoke because he did the opposite. That's a fact, not a liberal viewpoint.

Excuse me, "no joe", but why is Huntsman's service as Ambassador to China a "problem"?

If anything, all Huntsman need say is, "I was asked by the President of the United States to serve my country as Ambassador to China and I chose to do so honorably."

If the neo-cons and "Tea Party Patriots" can't accept that answer then that's their problem and not Huntsman's.

Noid, you miss the point entirely. It's not his service as ambassador that is the problem. It's the blazing endorsement of Obama that causes the problem. Now that he's running for President, his endorsement is hypocritical... just because he wants to be head cheese.

See, but that's not the impression that I get from "no joe". She makes it seem as if the real issue is that he accepted the ambassadorship and so he now, in her opinion, has to invent reasons for doing so that fit some kind of narrative.

Now, that said, yes, the issue here is the "endorsement".

Do not look for cost cutting measures in healthcare under the new Deficit Commission.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-10-09/supercommittee-deficit-panel-has-many-ties-to-lobbyists/50713626/1

It appears no one is interested in lowering the costs when the special interests get a seat at the table.

You don't read very well, do you, Noid?

Last time I checked, Huntsman wanted the REPUBLICAN nomination. Obama is a Democrat. To sell the idea that he was the person republicans should choose as the nominee, Huntsman needed to explain why, in fact, he took the job under Obama- and then praised Obama as the best thing since tuna in a can.

He hasn't done it.

NoJoe-

Huntsman is running for the 2000 Republican nomination...He needs a "Hot Tub Time Machine", because that Republican Party doesn't exist today. Where would "W" be in the polls today if he was running on the same platform?

At about 1.8% right?

His only real hope is to be the John Anderson of 2012...and that didn't even work for Anderson...

dangerfield-

How far back do we need to go to see the Democratic Party nominate a candidate as centrist as Hillary (or Bill, for that matter) Clinton?

Obviously, it's before 2008...

Now...let's see.

What sort of candidate did the GOP nominate in 2008?

Was he a darling of the far right? A Christian conservative?

Had to be a hard-liner, that much is certain.

What is your point MB? Are you questioning the veracity of my statement? I can cite many references.

Do you deny the radicalization of your party, or are you just playing the same "moral equivalency" game as the left?

This very dilemma is the essence of YOUR guy's problem, don't you think?

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

A key bloc of GOP voters agrees only on disliking Mitt Romney

The anti-Romney activists, many of whom identify with the tea party movement, say they are hesitant about Romney because they simply do not trust his conservative credentials, recalling his past support of abortion rights and a health-care mandate.

But it is these activists and voters like them who could eventually decide who gets the nomination. Do they coalesce around a single alternative, such as Perry, or do they continue to divide their support among all of the other hopefuls?

Or do they swallow their misgivings and begin to give Romney another look based on the argument that he is their best chance to beat President Obama in 2012?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-key-bloc-of-gop-voters-agrees-only-on-disliking-mitt-romney/2011/10/08/gIQAr1tWYL_story.html

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

Did you enjoy the Romney vids? Didi you read the WaPo article comparing this election year with "64 and '04?

There has been a far more extreme narrowing of the republican party in the Post "w": era than in the democratic party, empirically speaking, do you disagree?

I'm afraid that I see symmetry relative to the polarization of the two major parties in recent years, dangerfield...despite your considerable powers of persuasion, and helpful supporting evidence.

So, I remain unpersuaded that rank and file GOP voters and conservative independents question Romney's "conservative credentials" in this election cycle one iota more (and probably less, actually) than they questioned Senator McCain's in the last one.

Not sure who YOUR guy actually is, but if it's President Obama, I would argue that he has an impressive set of problems of his own to overcome in order to be reelected.

If Romney secures the GOP nomination, he'll have one more.

And...

Questioning your veracity? Hardly.

I'm disagreeing with you...not calling you a liar, friend.

I'm a bit surprised that you'd suggest that.

I don't even call First Read's liars "liar".

lol

If you think I have A GUY in this race on either side...you do read my replies don't you?

I would opine that the Obama camp is silently rooting for Mitt, and I won't try to use my considerable powers etc. to support that contention.

Look, on the one hand I agree with David Brooks (I'm paraphrasing here) that first they go for the guy in the leather jacket, the radical, the Howard Dean, but they settle for the solid and safe traditional choice."

On the other hand I do see the radicalization of the republican party (and yes, to a somewhat lesser extent the Dems, but lacking a presidential primary season that is less germane to this discussion) and the similarities to the "64 and "04 elections.

So you can see my posts defending "your guy", without supporting him,

Don't you think it's possible that my not actually having a horse in this race gives me a somewhat more objective perspective on things?

I did not say you were calling me a liar...

I respect you opinion, but you've already filled your dance card and that does tend to color one's judgement...

Nah.

Axelrod and Plouffe are rooting for Perry, but only because Bachmann and Palin aren't going to be nominated.

This is going to be a very, very negative cycle. The Obama reelection campaign has limited options given the lack of progress by this administration on the issues of economic growth, unemployment, and job creation...but lots and lots of money ($1 billion) for campaign ads. I suppose they could run on their landmark healthcare reform legislation, but that would be a step in the wrong direction.

Rick Perry or Bachmann would be very easy to attack and demonize. Romney, not so much. Much harder, anyway...unless they figure out how to attack him on his faith without suffering backlash.

By the way...

Do you similarly agree with David Brooks when he argues for Romney as "an effective executive who is right for this moment"? That's a thinly-veiled way of saying that President Obama is not right for this moment, isn't it?

The GOP field is what it is, and I'll take Romney from that group. He's far from an ideal candidate and far from MY own ideal candidate.

But the choice would be him vs four more years of the Obama Administration.

That one's easy for me.

Do you really think the country benefits from one party controlling the exec and legislative branches simultaneously? Mitt promises to be almost as weak a national candidate as the President. I personally feel that the congressional elections of 2012 are far more important than the one for the WH, and the Democratic party is going to lose the Senate.

I don't, but then I don't have any FAITH (lol) in either party, only the system of government and the balance of powers.

My general mistrust is better served by a divided exec and legislative branch...

Actually, dangerfield-

I can't say I disagree with you about divided government.

The voters certainly agreed with you in the 2010 midterms. Do you realize what an historic anomaly it was (certainly in modern times) for voters to toss out 52 incumbent Democratic House members?

Normally, incumbency is gold.

The fact that 2 freshman GOP members went out with the rest of the trash hardly attenuates the voters' message.

That said, you have a point about the Senate. I doubt that, given the math, anything can save the Senate for Democrats. The House is unlikely to switch, although the GOP will probably lose seats...it's certainly not inconceivable that it could flip. If I had to bet today, I'd bet against Democrats regaining the House.

Anyway...

Based on recent history, no...I don't think it's good when one party controls everything.

Of course, if that occurs...we all better hope the incoming chief executive manages that situation better than the last one did.

And honestly, dangerfield...

How often do voters consider voting for divided government to the detriment of a personal favorite in a presidential election?

I can't say that I ever have...

You?

MB-

They also agreed in the 2006 mid-terms at an almost equally (30 seats in the House and six in the Senate) historic rate. Actually the loss of 50+seats was surprising, but not shocking, at least to me, and I would have expected 20-30 seats switching as a "normalization, due to the anomaly (apologies to ana) of The President's long coattails in traditional republican districts in 2008.

That The democrats mistook their victories in 2006 and 2008 as a MANDATE, instead of as a repudiation of the incumbent administration and policies was the source of the overreach and hubris that has Republicans mistaking their victory in 2010 and their prospects (as we speak anyway) of another victory in 2012 as a MANDATE, rather than a repudiation of the current disappointing administration and ITS policies.

The financial crisis is worldwide, ongoing, and wasn't caused by the current administration, and certainly not by the President, and most (as in a majority) people have continued to state this belief in polls taken from and by all political stripes. That he and his policies have done little if anything to positively impact the situation he inherited is undeniable The Germans, whose memories (and poignant photos) of their grandparents with wheelbarrows filled with inflated, almost worthless Deutschmarks in the post WWI era have made them and the Eastern European nations the tight asses financially that they are, seem to be embracing a much less austere stance in assisting their failing partners in the south as an act of enlightened self-preservation.

Republicans talk as though the crisis is ours alone and began in January of 2009. The "Great Depression" was worldwide and lasted for over a decade. If anyone actually knew what to do now to reverse the slide, anywhere in the world we would be looking to imitate that right now. We obviously can't have a strong economy if our primary trade partners and allies are in danger of collapse. We can't emerge alone, nor can the EU or the BRIC countries. It really is a global economy, like it or not, so a recovery will be global or probably not at all.

I think we both agree (I know that we did.) that the only realistic way for the USA to EVENTUALLY emerge from this situation will require cutting spending, raising revenues, cutting waste, revising and streamlining the tax code, and retooling entitlement programs to ensure their financial stability into the next generations. The rich, the poor and the middle class ALL have to suffer a little bit so that everyone can get well together. That is certainly happening to a far mare radical degree than is required here, in parts of the EU where some lucky folks got to retire at 35 (I know I'm exaggerating) and are now protesting in the streets as they roll back some of the unrealistic and under financed entitlements offered up by 3 generations of politicians.

Do you realistically see that happening here, WHOEVER controls the exec and legislative branches in the next election cycle?

Can you really make a significant impact on the 24 million estimated unemployed, underemployed, and out of the market American workers by cutting taxes and slashing spending alone? How long will will the electorate give that "policy" to bear fruit? I'll give you a hint, there will be mid-terms in 2014, that's how long.

So My long winded point here is that instead of the republicans licking their collective chops and preparing their victory dance, they should be thinking about the past 5 years (3 election cycles) as a "cautionary tale" The one political truth I believe I know for sure is that until the economy starts to improve in a real and significant way, it has been and will be a bad stretch for incumbents, of every party and persuasion.

You misunderstood me, dangerfield.

Maybe your research ability exceeds mine, and I'll willingly acknowledge that, providing...

You can tell me the last time 52 House incumbents OF THE SAME party were defeated in one election.

I say that's historic.

I expected substantial Democratic House losses...but a net 63-seat loss, including 52 INCUMBENTS?

That was unusual.

As for the rest, I won't argue...your points are valid, and there are lots of other First Readers I need to butt horns with, anyway.

I keep forgetting to ask you this, but...

What was your take on NY-9?

Surprised at the results...not surprised...par for the course...just don't care anymore...?

Not surprised at all. Think I "predicted" it here somewhere as well as a 50 + seat loss for the dems in 2010.

Surprising but not shocking, and yes historic, but credit where credit is due, so was the degree of mistaken policy prioritization and legislative arrogance of the preceding 18 months.

Have fun with that stick...

See- here's another one that thinks that by SAYING some damned-dumb thing, it makes it reality.

Sheesh.....

......and I guess by YOU saying it is a dumb thing to say, it makes it reality.....see how that works.

OPINION.....just like yours.

Perhaps the right-wingers would like to provide proof for Huntsman's statement and their concurrence with it. Saying it does not make it true.

Never let it be said that Dash doesn't exhibit Obama loyalty. Amist all of Obama's poor leadership, Dash is ever faithful. Dash totally dismisses the complete failure in Obama's inability to get the economy under control, unemployment numbers up, Obama's anti-business stance and the forked tounge messages he delivers. First Obama wants to raise taxes, then doesn't want to raise them... now wants to raise them again... wait!!! That's the sign of a true democrat leader... Indecision and non-committment to a plan of action. Through all this, Dash feels Obama is the cats pajama, mamma jamma.

Who gives a crap about Huntsman Jody? Don't presume those on the right support the man... he doesn't stand a chance of winning dog catcher.

Amused- I was thinking more along the lines of 'moral' and 'majority'....

Both Amused and Dash are stuck in the 80's. Doncha know that today's republicans are evil swill? At least that's what I've been hearing on First Read everyday.

Eloquently put Jody. The facts are out there. But people in this country don't care. That's the problem with the Republican Party, especially their supporters. They don't ever believe in facts. Ever.

Thanks, Pat. So true, facts elude them.

Jody, Iowa

Thou have sinned, using Blame and Bush in the same sentence! Hannity and Limp-Baugh would be so angry... The right will declare you a witch and, well you know what the religious right did to people that spoke their mind in the past

Again, left wing lunacy speaks up. For all the war bashing by the left, now they are proclaiming it to be beneficial. Of course they only use Afghanistan as their reason to pile on accolades to Obama. Forget about all the great improvements to society in Iraq. Never let it be said that their way of life is more sustainable, they live under freedoms most of the population has never enjoyed and there has been a major stability placed in that country. No... libbies will never admit to that... because it doesn't serve to build up their hero in the White House.

Unfortunately, Jody, any good news out of Afghanistan is dependent upon our soldiers being (and dying) there. History does not bode well for cell-phone carrying TV-watching girl-school-attending Afghanis. It is not up to them after we are gone, it is up to them right now. We didn't break anything, the United States is just another in a line of foreign powers who for some reason believe they can press their will on that part of the world. Groups like the Taliban are remarkably patient and if it is not them some other similar organization will likely rise after we leave.

Has nothing to do with Bush or Obama. The United States is barely a blip on the radar screen of history in that area.

It is sad.

More of them than you think Robert.

Monetfan,

When tribesmen, herding cattle in parts of Africa, want to cross a river that's infested with pirranna, they sacrafice one old steer to draw off the attack from the rest of the herd.

Maybe that's what Perry's true purpose is here. The lightning rod that draws off the leftist media attacks from the rest of the candidates. The media only has so much time and energy to spend per day.

You have to remember Monetfan, Perry is the only tea people GOP republican candidate that is interesting, Romney is boring, Cain is uninteresting and doesn't have a clue what he's talking about, and the other don't have a snowballs chance to win, that leaves Perry the only one who can boost ratings, till someone else comes along.

I agree LSCWquilter, I was impressed with Huntsman till he went to the far right dark side, the tea people GOP republican far right dark side.