E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSPresident Obama's nomination of former Senator Chuck Hagel for defense secretary has been earning criticism, with Hagel under fire for past statements on Iran and Israel. Obama, however, said Hagel's "willingness to speak his mind" is "exactly the spirit I want on my national security team." NBC's Chuck Todd reports.
Hagel rollout went as well as planned, but still not an easy fight … Obama puts HIS team in place and is trying to make his mark on foreign policy … Poll shows better marks for Obama than Boehner in fiscal-cliff fight … the White House’s gun push takes shape and could be coming soon … Gabby Giffords, Mark Kelly announce formation of group to counter the NRA … Bloomberg tries to assert mayoral influence, but how much does/should he have? … Christie ‘State of the State’ today to focus on Sandy … R.I.P. Richard Ben Cramer -- he had what it takes.
*** No margin for error in Hagel nomination: Yesterday’s official rollout of Chuck Hagel for defense secretary went about as well as it could have for the Obama White House. Statements of praise for Hagel by folks like Colin Powell and Robert Gates? Check. A statement of past praise from John McCain (who said in 2006 Hagel would make a “great secretary of state”), even though McCain is now taking a skeptical look at the nominee? Check. And getting Chuck Schumer, perhaps the Democratic senator with the most reservations about Hagel, to issue a non-committal statement? Check. So the White House feels pretty good about where things stand, although this won’t be an easy fight. Yet what Team Obama can’t afford is any new negative information, any other shoe to drop. Bottom line: There is no margin for error from this point onward. Hagel’s support, at best, in the Senate is an inch deep and that “inch” would get him the votes he needs. But it wouldn’t take much for the bottom to, well, fall out. This is going to be a precarious few weeks. Very few senators are in D.C. right now, so the interest groups will be front and center. Hagel needs his confirmation hearing sooner, rather than later, but right now, it’s unclear when those hearings will be scheduled. Hagel also needs FACE time with senators, and he won’t have that opportunity for a good week or so.
Mark Wilson / Getty Images
President Barack Obama speaks during a news conference with former Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., in the East Room on Jan. 7, 2013.
*** Obama’s confidence -- 2009 vs. 2013: As we wrote yesterday, Obama is clearly projecting a level of confidence at the start of this second term than he did four years ago, in particular, on foreign policy. Just look at the initial comfort level with his picks for his second-term national security team (Hagel, John Kerry, John Brennan) vs. the first-term team (Hillary Clinton, Bob Gates, Leon Panetta, Jim Jones). At the start of his first term, the president was no less confident about his foreign policy judgment but he made the calculation that he needed to placate the Washington establishment so he stuck with the Republican Gates at Defense, brought in Hillary to State, brought in a former general, Jim Jones, as his National Security Adviser. Gates and Clinton worked out, but Jones didn’t.
Top Talkers: The Morning Joe panel – including Time's Mark Halperin, New York Magazine's John Heilemann, former DLC Chair Harold Ford Jr. – discusses President Obama's nomination of Chuck Hagel to defense secretary and why several top GOP lawmakers are having a tough time with the nomination.
*** Amplifying his views, using political capital: Now? The president is using his national security choices to amplify his views in a way that was missing four years ago. Kerry, Hagel, Brennan and keeping Tom Donilon as NSA (even potentially elevating Deputy NSA Denis McDonough to White House chief of staff) indicates the president is not just interested in running foreign policy out of the White House, but he wants to leave an Obama imprint on Defense, CIA, State etc. But it may be more than that -- Obama is displaying a confidence that he didn’t necessarily show after 2008. Much of this is what you get with a second-term president who got more than 51% of the popular vote (for the second-straight time). He may NOT be saying it the same way Bush did in 2004-05 after winning a second term, but he’s, so far, displaying the following notion: Obama believes he’s earned political capital, and he’s going to use it.
*** Polling the concluded fiscal-cliff debate: Our first initial look at some polling post-Fiscal Cliff offers few surprises. According to a new Washington Post/ABC poll, American voters approve more of President Obama’s handling of the just-concluded debate over the fiscal cliff. “In the new survey, conducted after the House followed up a Senate vote by passing the measure, 53 percent of voters say they approve of the way Obama handled the matter, while 40 percent disapprove. The overall tally is clearly negative for Boehner’s performance: 30 percent approval and 56 percent disapproval.” For Boehner, that includes 52% of Republican voters who disapproved how he handled the negotiations. Meanwhile, a new Pew poll finds that 57% of adults “say that Obama got more of what he wanted from the tax legislation, while just 20% say Republican leaders got more of what they wanted. And while 48% approve of the way Obama handled the fiscal cliff negotiations only 19% approve of the way GOP leaders handled the negotiations.”
*** The White House and guns: Mark Glaze, the executive director of the Michael Bloomberg-backed Mayors Against Illegal Guns, chatted with First Read and NBC yesterday, saying that there were three proposals the White House could announce as part of its comprehensive package dealing with the aftermath of Newtown, CT. One, require background checks for ALL gun buys. (This actually has support from gun dealers and manufacturers, Glaze said, because it’s the private sale of guns that’s the big problem here.) Two, ban assault weapons and magazines. (If background checks are the easiest proposal to pass, then this might be the hardest.) Three, pass a federal anti-trafficking statute, making it a crime to be trafficking in guns. Glaze also said there were things the White House could do administratively -- like put an actual director at the ATF (either through Senate confirmation or recess appointment) and prosecute prohibited sellers (which he said the administration currently isn’t doing). By the way, don’t be surprised if the White House moves to unveil its proposals by as early as next week. In other gun-related news, Vice President Biden today will meet “with gun violence victims’ groups and gun safety organizations,” the AP reports. And Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly announce the formation of Americans for Responsible Solutions to counter the National Rifle Association in an op-ed on gun control in USA Today.
*** Bloomberg’s wandering (mayoral) eye: Speaking of Bloomberg, the New York Times runs yet another story suggesting that the outgoing New York mayor isn’t happy with the slate of candidates running to succeed him. “Mr. Bloomberg has mused about a Mayor Charles E. Schumer with the Democratic senator from New York, and teased Mortimer B. Zuckerman, a fellow billionaire media mogul, about a possible bid. The mayor’s advisers raised the idea of a run with Edward G. Rendell, the former Democratic governor of Pennsylvania and mayor of Philadelphia, and with Edward Skyler, Mr. Bloomberg’s former top deputy in City Hall, according to several people. The mayor’s most formal overture was delivered to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, perhaps Mr. Bloomberg’s most quixotic choice for the job.” More: “The flirtations are unwelcome news for [apparent front-runner Christine] Quinn, who has been Mr. Bloomberg’s reliable partner in city government for years.” How much sway does Bloomberg really have though? Yes, he changed the rules to win a third term, but voters didn’t overwhelmingly send him back. He spent millions to win a race that should never been as close as it was. Candidates who decide to fall under Bloomberg’s spell about running ought to take a look at the 2009 results: Bloomberg didn’t crack 51%.
Must-Read Op-Eds: Before Mika Brzezinski reads a David Brooks NYT column on why President Obama chose Chuck Hagel for the defense secretary position, the Morning Joe panel discusses NJ Gov. Chris Christie's rising popularity in his home state.
*** Chris Christie to deliver State of the State address: The Philly Inquirer reports: “Gov. Christie will focus Tuesday's State of the State speech on rebuilding towns damaged by Hurricane Sandy, a storm that pushed the well-exposed Republican governor further into the national spotlight and brought him bipartisan praise. But New Jersey Democrats were clear Monday that they hold him responsible for the economic doldrums the state had fallen into before Sandy: a 9.6 percent unemployment rate and the country's second-highest foreclosure rate.”
*** RIP, Richard Ben Cramer. The obituary from the New York Times: “Richard Ben Cramer, the Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and the author of “What It Takes,” a superbly detailed account of the 1988 presidential election considered among the finest books about American politics ever written, died in Baltimore on Monday night. He was 62.” On Twitter last night, it was striking to see so many political operatives and political journalists (your authors here included) note how inspirational “What It Takes” was to their careers. There are plenty of other folks offering great tributes to Cramer today. Ours is simple though: we believe there’s just one book every aspiring political journalist and operative ought to read if they want to know whether or not they are serious about this profession: it is “What It Takes.” It’s basically the unofficial textbook of Washington. If you haven’t read it, then you don’t get it.
http://is.gd/ccxyrR">Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on http://is.gd/TzuR1b">Facebook and also on http://is.gd/hkhSDT">Twitter. Follow us @http://twitter.com/#!/chucktodd">chucktodd, @http://twitter.com/#!/mmurraypolitics">mmurraypolitics, @http://twitter.com/#!/DomenicoNBC">DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower
Leave a Comment:
President Obama has picked Myrlie Evers-Williams, widow of slain civil rights icon Medgar Evers, to deliver the invocation at his public swearing-in later this month. It is believed to be the first time a woman, and a layperson rather than a clergy member, has been chosen to deliver what may be America's
most prominent public prayer.
The inaugural committee Tuesday plans to announce that the benediction will be given by conservative evangelical pastor Louie Giglio, founder of the student-focused Passion Conferences, which draw tens of thousands of people to events around the world.
In a statement released by the inaugural committee, the president said the careers of Evers-Williams and Giglio "reflect the ideals that the Vice President and I continue to pursue for all Americans - justice, equality and
opportunity."
Obama will privately take the oath of office for his second term on the constitutionally mandated date of Jan. 20, a Sunday. But the public ceremony will be the next day, coinciding with the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday. In a statement issued by the Presidential Inaugural Committee, Evers-Williams said "it is indeed an exhilarating experience to have the distinct honor of representing" the civil rights era at the Jan. 21 event.
This year is the 50th anniversary of the murder of Evers, who was the NAACP's Mississippi field secretary at the time of his death. Myrlie Evers-Williams spent decades fighting to win a conviction of her late husband's shooter, and served as chairman of the NAACP in the 1990s.
For close to a decade I have become increasingly convinced that America's best days can only be seen in the rear view mirror. It started in 2003 when Republicans began acting like entitlement-spending addicted Dems by passing Medicare Part D without providing for any funding source to pay for it. Nothing since then has changed my belief that America is already in a long term, likely irreversible, decline to becoming just another former world power like Spain, England and France that are now slow economic growth, high unemployment, socialist mediocracies. Barry's trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see are just more proof of the inevitability of this decline.
Today's WSJ has an article that supports my belief. It's about a deficit ceiling work-around being floated by Dems in Washington that would be considered a bad joke if it weren't being seriously considered. Excerpts from the WSJ:
According to a coin expert in another article, "$1 trillion worth of platinum would weigh about 22,048 tons, be one-foot thick and about 241 feet in diameter."
One thing for certain is that, a U.S. $1 trillion coin would ABSOLUTELY have to have Barry's image emblazoned on one side, and an image of Santa's sleigh flying over America showering the land with free gifts on the other side, shouting "Ho Ho Ho, don't worry, be HAPPY, the "rich" will pay for it all. Ho Ho Ho".
Sad, but true.
President Obama's balanced common sense approach to fiscal cliff is consistently supported by the most people. Boner is screwed ... again.
.
Keeping score for Obama's 2nd term -
Obama 1: House GOP 0.
Again Joe, you need to take a government class as well as learn some decency. You are wrong on all counts as usual. Plus you disrespect the president without valid reason. You should know shame but you don't.
Christie for President 2024
I like Republicans with common sense.
As I said yesterday,
"Mitch McConnell might as well settle down and realize that he will lose the political fight over the debt ceiling. President Obama will not get drawn in again over this issue."
"McConnell need to hear two words, Fourteenth Amendment!"
As I had expected, NONE of the FR lefty liberals were up to my challenge to name Hillary's five greatest accomplishments as SoS on yesterday’s First Thoughts. The resident hoser from the Great White North mentioned some ridiculous crappola about her limited involvement in a Turkish-Armenian treaty that no one ever heard of. Some Husky-size Gal put up two links to some no-name lefty bloggers posts from 2009 about Hillary’s "accomplishments". There were a few pathetically lame attempts to dodge the issue by saying she had too many accomplishment to list them. I was only asking for the five greatest ones - LMFAO!!!!!
Beyond that: ZIP, ZERO, ZILCH, NADA, NOTHING.
The FR lefty liberal’s inability to refute my position on Hillary’s lack of accomplishments as SoS PROVES she is nothing more than an empty pant suit.
And it PROVES all that lefty liberal Hillary-worshiping is nothing more than mindless Clinton idolatry.
If Isreal is one of our Strongest Allies, can someone, anyone, point out when an Isreali Soldier has stood Side-by-side with an American Solider in the last 40-50 YEARS?
Does anyone seriously think Iran is dumb enough to BOMB Isreal, knowing that would be THE END of the Persian Empire as they call it?
Comeon MAN !!!!!!!!!!!!
Occupy Soggybottom!!!!!
Pigotry,
This year I will be in the stands as our President takes the oath of office publicly. Thanks to our Rep. Betty McCollum.
In 2008, I took the day off and had a champagne luncheon with friends at my house. It was so fun watching television throughout the day.
Looking forward to four more years of the Obama Administration!
Hey, NorthstarDFL #1.8
U R so lucky !!!!!!
I am sure you are going to have a GREAT TIME. But we are all part of GREAT HISTORY. We are all fortunate to live in a GREAT TIME.
Republicans, quit wasting the Nations time , as well as the Presidents and confirm our President's choices for these Posts.
Also Mr. President can you make GUN CONTROL your first priority after your appointments are made. The lives of our children and citizens of our Nation are far more important than any Political BS.
.
Poor little Joey gets more delutional every day.
The debt ceiling fight is a loser for Republicans and they should pass on that one. Although the increase should be short term, not more then a year out with promises of tax reform and spending cuts from Obama. That way when Obama reneges, which he will they can line up for another battle. Obama is committed to financing the government, and no amount of debt left for future generations is of any concern. Obama wants to increase spending, and as such raising more taxes is on the horizon. Democrats better realize that Obama maybe more radical then even they imagined, and now that he has the flexibility of no more elections, his true ideology is emerging. When Obama finishes his second term with the nation well over 20 trillion in debt, not only will the country be in shambles, it is likely the Democratic Party will be as well.
Can someone explain why we need every appointment to be a fight? I thought the country had BIGGER things to be concerned with. Stop arguing about stupid s@$t, please. Focus...focus..it's the economy stupid...or is it JOBS?
Henry Blodget: The "trillion-dollar coin" is a ridiculous idea.
It is an absurd legal gimmick that would ordinarily be the farthest thing from the minds of serious, responsible people who have been elected to lead this great country through a challenging period.
But the problem is that some of the people who have been elected to lead this country have revealed themselves to be unserious, irresponsible people.
How? By threatening to turn the United States of America into a deadbeat nation that refuses to pay its bills.
Put this discussion where it belongs … in the Budget CR debate (expires on 3/27) or as part of the new Sequester resolution on 3/1.
Joe, I am assuming the remark was a joke, but I just had to make sure. You know the coin would not have to be actually worth $1 trillion. Our currency is not backed to precious metals.
Either way I doubt the president would take that course. I know I would never want to be the president who minted the trillion dollar coin. I can guarentee that will leave a legacy.
Joe the moron.
Of course in the Idiot's world over 500million people in the European Union don't exist, and of course there are no Americans of Turkish or Armenian extraction. Enough with you Joe ... shove a salmon up your arse and smoke it.
I may be wrong and if I am please correct me.
If the president controls a majority of the Senate, why attack his nominees for Cabinet?
There is no human who is flawless.
About that 1 trillion dollar coin.
WSJ missed the part where Krugman also called it a gimmick.
And to burst Joe Albany's delusion, by law, the image of a living President cannot be used on US minted coins.
Exito,
Your question is spot on.
The only reason I can think of is that Mitch McConnell and gang cannot get off their autopilot response of NO.
Dont_carry_it_all
Bursting Joe's delusion will not lead to deflating the derision he so richly deserves.
From the article above:
The dark days of the Bush years are finally coming to an end.
America and American’s are sick of all the pain and suffering the GWB administration has heaped on this great country. We are sick of Rush, Faux sNewzzzzz and all the hateful propaganda.
America is moving forward again and we are gleefully leaving behind all the naysayers, the pessimistic liars, the doomsday losers, and the conspiracy wackos.
Your decade of terror is over.
You are all officially dinosaurs.
Buh-bye.
* **
“My grandmother started walking five miles a day when she was sixty. She's ninety-seven now, and we don't know where the hell she is.” Ellen DeGeneres
Salud
Ok, I'll take a stab at it for you. How about during the first gulf war when the US deployed the patriot missile system to protect from Iraqs scud missles. We did have Americans there to run/train the Isrealis on it use.
Further more, Isreali's are VERY capable od defending it's self from invasion and rarely needs help.
Joe in Albany challenges liberals to list five accomplishments of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. How about No New Wars, No New Wars, No New Wars, No New Wars and No New Wars.
They do have an excellent military and intelligence organization but we need to buy them their military hardware. In any attempt to take out Iranian nuclear site ,they will be 100% dependent upon us for both military hardware and troops and also aid.
Poor, poor Albany Joe. You forgot that the GOP fiscal irresponsibility began long before 2003, try 2001 when Bush chose to implement a trillion dollars of unfunded tax cuts, then he started an unfunded war which he didn't finish before he started a second unfunded war. Medicare Advantage was only a small portion of the trillions in unfunded GOPer spending yet Medicare is your only point of focus. You ignore the rest. Our annual Defense budget is larger than Medicare, Medicaid and S-CHIPS combined yet Albany blames Medicare Part D as the culprit.
In fact, Albany fails to mention that the fiscally irresponsible unfunded spending actually began in 1981 with President Ronald Reagan, followed by more unfunded billions and trillions with the first President Bush; as if those irresponsible spenders played no role in our current debt. Now, I'll credit Reagan and Bush 41 for trying to fix the quadrupling of the debt the two did by raising taxes but they continued to give the most tax breaks to those who had the most. It's difficult to put the Genie back in the bottle once out. President Clinton did manage to put that fiscally irresponsible Genie back and succeeded. We were on the road to budget surpluses and paying down the debt....then along comes a spider named "Dubya" who again uncorked the bottle and ultimately crashed the economy, not with a cyclical recession but a depression. It took 30 years of irresponsible GOPers, with only an 8 year reprieve from Clinton, before the total crash came but crash we did thanks to the fiscally irresponsible GOPers who never met an unfunded spending bill or a tax cut they didn't like until Barack Obama was sworn in as our President.
Geez Brucie ! I thought that when you attacked a country with about $1 billion in Cruise missiles .... that might be considered "war" in some circles !! Of course, Obama gave the order to attack Libya WITHOUT Congressional approval, and look how they showed their appreciation... by attacking an embassy compound while Obama was planning his trip to a Vegas fundraiser !
Then there was the asinine coverup by Hillary, Susan Rice and Oblamo !
to quote Michael J. Fox. "LIBYANS!"
Ikarus tisk tisk tisk. you're stooping to low levels.
Bruce -848280
but according to the righties, "no new wars" is a weakness. They love to send other people's children to kill or be killed so your point will go over their heads.
Look at their candidate Romney: a pro-war draft dodger who publicly criticized those opposing the Vietnam War but believes in starting wars himself.
Bruce-lotsanumbers:
The Albanian idiot is a classic troll and he revels in replies to his indefensible rudeness and to his bottomless ignorance.
With respect to Secretary Clinton's successes and accomplishments, diplomacy is not conducted under Klieg lights. We may never know of the greatest successes of the Obama administration. One thing is a certainty however. Foreign leaders trust this administration far more than the Yahoo Gunslingers of President George W. Bush.
The Hagel nomination is a fight because he does not have his head op either party's @ss. An independant thinker with real experience, what a concept....... Vote Yes please.
sonmanvb, and who helps subsidize Israel's military? Oh, that's right, it's the billions the USA gives Israel every year, along with Israel purchasing our weaponry with some of our billions which then feeds our military industrial complex which....
Parker,
Perhaps I can call on you to set the bar a little higher?
there has been plenty of wars started by the left..you lefties seem to find fictious fights in anything you think will support your cause...War on success, war on wealth, war on the constitution.
Then we have posters talking about bottomless ignorance as they pontificate yet dismiss the irony of garbage coming out of their own mouth regarding ignorance... LMAO
I'll call your pint and raise you two...besides you have the wax wings, so skies the limits eh?
I tell you what..if I could accurately recall everything I did wrong when younger and if my wife wasn't so crazy (said lovingly) I'd love to make a run at the Senate. I'd take my six year term and simply p*ss in the wheaties of all these people.
A huge irk of mine is listening to people in positions of authority say stuff simply to be saying stuff and I swear, increasingly, whenever I hear Representatives and Senators speak, that is all I hear. Simply saying stuff for the sake of speaking.
To me, that is kind of one of the underlying currents for when people say that President Obama 'is the adult in the room'. When I hear him speak as President, he is saying something. It is with intent, purpose. But when I hear members of Congress speak, you just feel like they are putting more energy into not saying what the really want to say, the way the really want to say it. Like that old phrase about 'crying wolf'...that is Congress to me. Everything is a 'wolf' and then every once in a while when a real wolf appears, no one wants to hear from them, because the term has lost it's edge from being used over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Just tiring.
@Dont_carry_it_all#1.19: Of course Krugman is right, and you, as well. We are a nation of "wealth gimmickry"though. Actually, existence of such a coin wouldn't be any more ridiculous than the dimwitted perceptions of the purely rottening effects of the debt. Beliefs, which so many harbor. Regards
OK. Joe may be over the top. But can any of you say you're not legitimately worried about our Defecit and Debt?
I am.
I agree that using the Debt Ceiling as hostage is dumb. I prefer to let the sequester take full effect. Then hold the line that any bill to reinstate funding for anything (Military or Entitlement) has to be paid for by cuts somewhere else.
Further, any new spending should be offset by cuts.
Bipartisan support for the sequester was the first, and only meaningful cuts this Congress made. If they let it take effect, it is the only way to achieve a slowdown in spending. The President is not serious about cuts. And congress (including republicans) are only marginally more serious.
Bravo Jody!! While the Albanian Idiot may enjoy sock-eyed Salmon, we can rest assured he is no fisherman. No one is chomping at the bit to bite his bait while he waits with bated breath. I would suggest he take a breath before he suffocates.
jim once again proves his intellectual level, about that of a 2nd grader. He is a follower of the Rush Limbaugh school of misdirection. The fact is jim, THERE WAS NO COVER UP AND YOU ARE A FOOL FOR BELIVEING THERE IS. All the kings men, and all the kings soldiers couldn't put jim back together again.
Hey Jim,
Let's remember, "Crazy Doesn't Win."
jim, spin it all you want but Libya was a UN agreement to establish no-fly zone. The US Senate, by unanimous consent, demanded the US establish a no-fly zone in Libya. We did that through the UN (a success for Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice). So that dog won't hunt no matter how loudly you and those GOPer Senators yelled, they had already authorized the Libya no-fly zone intervention. How many US troops were on the ground? None. How many US troops died while the Libyan rebels overthrew Ghaddafy? None. It was Libya's war, not ours; all the UN did was enforce a no-fly zone to help the rebels.
Interesting response, Sonmanvb. But the example you offer is the United States defending Israeli interests. The original question focused on Israel committing troops to help defend OUR interests. The short answer is: Never! The longer answer is: It never will.
Upon reflection, I may actually have to agree with Joe... clearly not for the same reasons. Maybe there is a decline in America, well at least in its politics. It seems that now the greatest battles on the hill are no longer for the welfare of our nation or the path towards our future, but we now see battles fought only for the sake of perception. Both sides can be held guilty of this. The strange thing of this whole "game" that has been created is that perception of our leaders is lower than ever.
The more I think on it, the less it makes sense. My hope is we will see less of that over the next 4 years. Time will tell.
Caesar Augustus-
Don't for get the War on Christmas.
That's Ailes and Hannity's favorite.
Salud
Parker, the ages have taught me to keep my feet firmly on sanctified ground if I am to let my soul soar.
jim #'s -- When people, such as yourself, start expressing outrage day in and day out about the recent tragedy that took place on our own soil I might begin to believe them when they express outrage over the Benghazi tragedy.
bcwc -- Joe likes to reap what he sows. Ha! One of these days we must stop feeding him.
A TRILLION DOLLAR COIN. As an avid coon collector I can't wait for it to come out, spent and end up in a COIN SHOW. WOW, If I could buy it can you imagine how much it would be worth on the secondary market? I'd be rich, Ha Ha Ha.
Unconventional numbers, While many are worried about the debt, I don't think I can take it seriously and I don't think the republicans are serious about fixing it with spending cuts either. The history of debt begins with WW ll the numbers were much smaller then but so was the price of a loaf of bread or a gallon of gas. When I was growing up and through most of my adult life becoming a millionaire was a goal. There were no billionaires. A billion wasn't anything but an imaginary number. Now we have billionaires and a trillion is a number that most cannot conceive.
Two points I would like to make is Bill Clinton had this country moving in the right direction, he had a balanced budget, and a way at least to stop the borrowing and to pay down the debt. His two terms ended too quickly as George W. Bush and his all republican congress stepped up the spending but what is worse cut taxes which resulted in lower revenue and more debt. Then the Bush recession took hold and even less revenue was coming into the treasuary so the debt blossumed.
Point 1, Yes, we need to cut spending but Rush Limbaugh is wrong, we will never cut spending enough to pay down the debt without hardship for those that need it most. Social Security is a contract between the American people and its government and this should never be considered part of the spending cuts. Neither should medicare and as a matter of fact if republicans were to be serious about spending, they would make medicare availble to all. This would spread the cost of medical care over a larger pool saving this country money and it would also control cost as it has in other nations with socialized or government sponcered health care.
Point number two, Supply side economics has failed, and will always fail. The so called job creators are smart people with a lot of money and they are not going to invest in anything that there is no demand for. Thus they do not create jobs. We need to tax these people enough to start with a program of repairing out infrastructure, roads and schools need to be repaired and replaced. We also need to invest in our public workers. President Obama put 100000 police on the street, crime went down and as I have said we were going in the right direction. The two things I propose is, the government needs to spend and the government needs to be fully funded. Then when good times return and they will it is the time to cut back and spend less and let the economy grow on its own. To cut back severely now would cause a calamity and may put us into a deep depression worse then the 1930's. I can cite my resources for my vision if you need them.
Joe in Albany.......said:
So, when was it that America had its "best days" ?
Maybe it is Joe in Albany who sees his "best days" only in the rear view mirror.
Democrats prefer keeping our eyes mostly on the road ahead with an occasional glance into the intolerant, ethnocentric, imperialistic past only to remind us of our successes and why our struggle is so important.
Probably, if you were happy with our direction, it could only be the wrong one (backwards).
Why is it that the ATF does not have a director? This agency has it in its title that they should have a hand in gun safety so I think this is an idea that should be considered. There is a registry for cars and we have to be tested for the skills needed to operate a car ability to see well enough. And if you are not mentally fit to drive... why are we not doing the same with guns?? Lets DMV the $hit out of this problem to reduce senseless violence and continue to have law biding citizens purchase the guns they feel they need for protection, sport or collection, etc...
what an arrogant POS statement.. not surprised from a group of individuals who are more dedicated to coffeehouse theory than real world practicality
Good morning Mac. That was Krugman's point as well, I believe.
Well said.
Here we go again more obstruction from the party of no. The weird thing is this time they're trashing another Republican.
Too funny watching you lefties defend the homophobic Hagel. You folks really don't have any principles at all.
Don't mess with us beatniks Parker, our poetic berets are lethal weapons.
Caesar, care to explain Wall Street and the billions in profits made by big business the past three years if there is some liberal war on wealth, success. It seems the wealthy and the successful are doing just fine these days. You're blowing the same smoke the right blows with their accusations of a liberal war on Christmas, which despite that alleged war, comes every year and liberals celebrate it as much as conservatives.
Unconventional. Yes, there are many of us concerned about the deficit and the debt BUT, the deficit and debt are a "long-term" problem which is why debt reduction must be done over the long haul and cannot be done immediately and drastically. The short-term deficit problem is the sluggish economy.
Right now, the government can borrow money at extremely low, almost zero interest rates. It is what this country (both parties) has always done in the past. The best way to resolve the deficit and ultimately tackle the debt is by government investing in the country; what better time to invest in our aging and crumbling infrastructure and actually get something for the money spent. That creates jobs which reduces the deficit because more revenues are available. We are recovering from a Great Recession, actually a depression minus nearly all the banks going belly up and customers losing their money as a result (FDIC laws). The worse thing that could happen now that the economy is recovering would be to implement too much austerity too quickly. We must, of course, look to reducing waste and fraud, unnecessary programs but debt reduction must be a "long-term" goal accomplished by first creating more jobs and getting the economy not just rolling but roaring along. More jobs means more revenues which means lower deficit. We need to overhaul our tax code which is filled with unncessary corporate welfare and tax breaks on luxury yachts for the rich. Of course, we should be concerned about the debt but that should not be our primary focus right now. Our focus now should be economic growth, jobs and stability--and we can tackle the debt in a responsible and sane way.
So the President won his phony crisis fiscal cliff fight?
I hope that all here understand that this government is not being funded by current taxes but by your children's taxes and it is their future you are currently spending.
It get more depressing when more details of the "deal" emerge.
That should have been the focus four years ago! It wasn't. It won't be as long as Obama is President. As Mort Zuckerman (lifelong Democrat) said - "This administration has no understanding of macro-economics"
Job1
I disagree. Bachmann got re-elected.
good question, interesting we dont see Gates, Buffett or Opera extending their philantropy to the IRS yet call for tax hikes. Are these fine humans more examples of leadership LOL. nothing but PR moves
Q22
so Q22, we are supposed to worry about a statement Hagel made a decade and a half ago but you expected us to accept Romney/Ryan as a potential PRESIDENT/VP in 2012?????
As a SOCIETY we have evolved when it comes to gays/gay marriage. You wouldn't even find a show on TV that had regular gay characters - not the case today, is it? So I am not worried about the 90s as much as I am worried what politians do or will do in 2013.
If you are going to make a statement like that, make sure that your party is not guilty of blocking everything and anything that is pro-gay, pro-women, pro-minorities, pro-poor, and pro-other religions/nonreligions because otherwise, you make yourself look just plain silly!
I read this today and while it is somewhat dated, I found it extremely interesting. Care to comment?
Letter to the Editor
Has America become the land of the special interest and home of the double standard?
Lets see: if we lie to the Congress, it’s a felony and if the congress lies to us its just politics; if we dislike a black person, we’re racist and if a black dislikes whites, it’s their 1st Amendment right; the government spends millions to rehabilitate criminals and they do almost nothing for the victims; in public schools you can teach that homosexuality is OK, but you better not use the word God in the process; you can kill an unborn child, but its wrong to execute a mass murderer; we don’t burn books in America, we now rewrite them; we got rid of the communist and socialist threat by renaming them progressives; we are unable to close our border with Mexico, but have no problem protecting the 38th parallel in Korea; if you protest against President Obama’s policies you’re a terrorist, but if you burned an American flag or George Bush in effigy it was your 1st Amendment right.
You can have pornography on TV or the internet, but you better not put a nativity scene in a public park during Christmas; we have eliminated all criminals in America, they are now called sick people; we can use a human fetus for medical research, but it’s wrong to use an animal.
We take money from those who work hard for it and give it to those who don’t want to work; we all support the Constitution, but only when it supports our political ideology; we still have freedom of speech, but only if we are being politically correct; Parenting has been replaced with Ritalin and video games; the land of opportunity is now the land of hand outs; the similarity between Hurricane Katrina and the gulf oil spill is that neither President did anything to help.
And how do we handle a major crisis today? The government appoints a committee to determine who’s at fault, then threatens them, passes a law, raises taxes, tells us the problem is solved so they can get back to their reelection campaign.
What happened to the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave?
Ken Huber, Tawas City, Michigan
Printed on June 9, 2010 in the Iosco County News Herald
You would if Hagel was nominated by a Republican president. In fact, you - personally - would be screaming about it in every one of these "First Read" boards. Since it's your guy doing the nominating Hagel gets the famous Democrat "Byrd" pass where all his past bigotry is forgiven. You folks are so transparently hypocritical it's laughable.
Tea party is intent on destroying not only Obama but the entire federal government (even if it brings down the US economy) because they have no respect for the federal government. (They need to focus on what they do best -- making meth out of their trailers.)
Akeem, to ease your mind, I remember in the 60's we were told our best days were behind us; again in the 70's, our best days were behind us, and on it goes. The problem with our politics today is what we have seen in the past but have forgotten--whenever one party moves to its extreme, to its radical side, we end up with what we see today. The GOP has moved so far to the right, it has become frozen in its own rigid ideology; it sees America's demographics changing in a way that conservatives cannot comprehend and actually fear. We watched that extreme during the fiscal cliff/curb/slope debate as republicans rejected democratic offers of balanced spending cuts and revenue increases time after time. We see that extreme, radical attitude in the debt ceiling chatter. It would be easy to say our best days are behind us except that would be wrong. We are again seeing business bring back manufacturing jobs back from overseas, increased manufacturing jobs in wind and solar, and new innovations. Our best days will only be behind us if we the people, and our politicians succumb to the notion and say America can no longer do big things by refusing to try.
Johntho, great post. You said it much better than I did.
Jody, Iowa
so you are admitting the US is PROGRESSIVELY getting worse. good to know
Hi bayllie,
True, she did have to spend most of her resources to get re-elected. So, let's hope that we have marked her and she had better lay low.
Q22
if he made these comments in 2012/2013, you bet I would. Kind of like Paul Ryan claiming that preventing same-sex marriage is part of America’s “universal human values.
Those are the kind of people YOU should worry about...but I'll bet you LOOOVEEEE Paul Ryan.
Job1
but what's scary is that there were enough people who voted for her..at least Todd Akin and Richard Mourdoch lost. 2 out 3 ain't bad.
Caesar, nothing like deflection to avoid answering the question. Okay, why doesn't Mitt Romney extend his philanthropy to the IRS, why should Gates, Buffet or whoever Opera is be the only ones? Seems to me if conservatives and conservative rich people are so concerned about the debt, they yell about it daily, then they should also be willing to donate to the cause. Anyone with a few brain cells knows we cannot "cut" our way to balanced budgets. We could eliminate every federal expenditure for a year and not make a dent and, in fact, eliminating that spending would put us in another depression. BTW, since Gates and Buffet (and many other wealthy people) wanted higher taxes on the rich, that means they will be paying more money to the IRS just as they supported doing.
America's best days are behind her.....
Really? I have to disagree. I know there are a lot of problems in the world, and a lot of things that could go better here in America. The streets seem less safe, the problems larger, the outlook bleaker.
Yet if given the choice would I send my son back in time even so far as my childhood of 40-some years ago? Not a chance.
My son can be friends with or marry whoever he wants - minorities (of all kinds) and those with disabilities are much better off today.
Advances in medical science means he will have a better chance to live a long and healthy life, and that he will get a better chance to know his grandparents.
He can learn so much more than I ever could, because if used properly technology like the internet, iPads, and smartboards can enrich his learning. He has access to SO much more music than I did - MP3 players and iPods can broaden his musical experience.
Yes, the world has changed, and America has changed with it. There are things I miss, but overall the things that have improved even in my lifetime greatly outway the things that have gotten worse.
America's best days are still ahead.
I recall just a few months ago y'all jumping all over Dr. Paul for something he NEVER said 20 plus years ago, and calling him a racist. Good for the goose thing, and all that....
Actually that was leftists claiming that stagflation and the oil crisis was the "new normal" and we should just deal with it and buy a sweater. Thankfully Reagan showed that our best days were ahead of us.
Absolute hogwash! If you think the Republicans of the 80's were any less focused on the sized and scope of government, any less pro-2nd amendment or any less pro-life then you are delusional.
Exactly what "balance" was actually offered?? What spending cuts? Heck, the Democrats wouldn't even agree to a more accurate measurement of the cost of living that might reduce the growth of entitlements. In the end you got tax increases balanced with spending increases and zero spending cuts. Look closer - Obama and your extremist Democrats want NO CUTS! NONE! except for the Pentagon.
The only "radical chatter" is the Democrats refusal to address the spending problem.
Like: Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt, Solyndra, Beacon Power, Nevada Geothermal, SunPower, First Solar, Babcock and Brown, Ener1, Amonix, Fisker Automotive, Abound Solar, A123 Systems, Willard and Kelsey Solar Group, Johnson Controls, Brightsource, ECOtality, Raser Technologies, Energy Conversion Devices, Mountain Plaza, Inc., Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company, Range Fuels, Thompson River Power, Stirling Energy Systems, Azure Dynamics, GreenVolts, Vestas, Compact Power, Nordic Windpower, Navistar, Satcon, Konarka Technologies Inc. and Mascoma Corp. ?
More impressive has been the oil and gas boom (on private lands - since Obama has restricted the use of Federal lands and off-shore).
Q22,
I forgot to add: I will take your "Byrd of 1940s" and raise you Todd "legitimate rape" Akin of 2012.
Why don't you do me a favor and start giving me examples that happened during THIS decade. FOR EXAMPLE:
”I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them other people’s money. I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn their money and provide for themselves and their families. The best way to do that is to get the manufacturing sector of the economy rolling.”
~Rick Santorum
Caesar, try reading the rest of my comment because that is not what I said....and you know it. Time to move on as debating or discussing anything with you is a waste of time.
Johntho @ 1.3: You say Joe in Albany is wrong as usual, yet you fail to (more likely can't) point out where he has stated anything incorrectly. Not in our history has a President lied and two-faced the citizens like this little dictator wannabe has. He lied about taxes, he lied about spending cuts, he lied about tranparency, he lied about lying and the biggest lie of all was he lied about telling the truth. He has set a new precedent for executive behavior, and you libs think our best days are yet to come. Maybe yours, but not mine.
On Hillary: Never has a Secretary of State traveled so much and accomplished so little in her globe trotting escapades. The press are determined to uphold this worthless woman as the greatest peace negotiator ever, when in truth she will probably not get even an honorable mention in high school and college civics books. Liberals really slobber over her though, like cattle at a salt block. Lambs to the slaughter.
Thanks for the reply Jody, I am a bit younger so for me I am witnessing events like this for the first time.
I guess my fear lies in that I do not see the Republican party, as it stands now, being able to reconcile with the change that is only accelerating. I do not see how our country can move forward without one of 3 options. Either the Republican party undergoes thorough refurbishing of its core, ceases to exist, or, in my opinion worst of all, they win the national debate. Without, either of those happening I just do not see an end to the gridlock which only stagnates the nation. Long term of course, I am not implying this will happen tomorrow.
Also, I am in no means saying Democrats have all the answers, but with an incompetent right progress cannot be made. Right now, it appears only the left is embracing the culture change, while the right works ardently against it. Currently no middle exists and it seems there is not an end in sight until Republicans/Conservatives come back to the middle. Especially since, as how you pointed out in a lower post, the media is not doing its job as "referee". It seems they enjoy this chaos since it creates a story. Politics is no longer boring, it is actually quite scary.
I call shenanigans on you. For you there is no statute of limitations on Republicans and for you to claim otherwise is a lie.
Also - it's not what Hagel said - he actively tried to block Hormel from being an ambassador for the sole reason that he was gay.
But he's your guy now....let's let bygones be bygones....
1SGFitzsWife4ID
sorry my friend but if you are going to point MY POSTS, get your story straight:
1. it was NEVER about Ron Paul being racist but by being a "government has no business in people's lives" HYPOCRITE while co-sponosting anti-abortion laws. So Ron Paul is for small government as long as it does not involve vaginas.
2. It wasn't 20 plus years ago but in 2012
Thanks for playing though.
1SGFitz, that would be because Dr. Paul still espouses those same anti-civil rights views as does his son Rand; they just change their wording a bit.
Q22
I love it, you cannot come up with a rebuttal so you just twist my words...no my friend, I simply pointed out the fact that before you condemn someone for saying something in the 90s, you should worry first about your own people saying much worse in 2012.
We all know the Republicans want to take the country back (back to 1980s?? 1950s?? 1800s???) but it will never happen so EVOLVE with the times: start living like it's 2013! it's ok for gays to marry; and it's ok for women to make decisions concerning their vaginas....
ouch...perhaps you can debate with David Walker or Fisty or Jack in Portsmouth.. Cuz we all know that debating with 'Reichwing Nazi's' is a waste of time.
Because Romney wasnt on this pseudo misguided Robin the Hood crusade. You proved my point with the war on success/wealth
as to the debt, its interesting this country takes in billions each year but the liberal solution is Tax the rich (middle class). What spending cuts? I didnt think so. because the keynesian leftwing commie approach to spend yourself to prosperity...what a joke
Akeem, I figured you were younger; never lose hope. We are watching a war within the GOP and it will take a few more years before the party either rights itself or another moderate one emerges to take its place. Rigid ideology fuels gridlock. Part of what we see in the GOPers in Congress is the refusal to accept the changing demographics and President Barack Obama is the iconic picture of that change. Prior to the civil rights era of the 60's democrats were the old dixiecrats refusing to accept that blacks were equals, deserved human rights and civil rights; refusing to accept the changing views of the country (just as Abraham Lincoln and the republicans emerged as public opinion turned against slavery), and changing demographics of that era. John F. Kennedy began the shift of the democrats, his brother Bobby continued the fight and Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act and two years later the Voting Rights Act. When LBJ signed that first bill into law, he said the democrats would lose the south for 50 years. He was right; we are only beginning to see some erosion of LBJ's prediction. Those democrats became known as dixiecrats who turned republican and are now today's southern republican party. It is why conservatives, even here today, like to throw out the name of Robert Byrd, who instead of becoming a dixiecrat turned republican, remained a democrat and began to change his views because he was not rigid. He was not proud of his former KKK ties or anything associated with it; he even apologized to President Obama for his long-ago racist views. It's a fascinating history of one party's extreme racist positions eventually becoming that party's salvation, its equalizer. The result for the GOP was the opposite, the southern GOP embraced the extreme dixiecrats and have continued moving further to the right; now they have hit the farthest edge. We need only look at the history of the John Birch Society which mainstream republicans refused to allow into their party for decades; William Buckley hated it and said so but now some within the Tea Party and Libertarians are simply retreads of the JBS. The extreme, radical right has been allowed back. Most conservative Americans are not extremists, are not radicals and it is only a matter of time before they stop voting for those who are radicals and do not represent their views.
BTW, Akeem, when I was in my 30's, republicans said that social security and medicare would not be there for me; those government handouts were doomed. Now I am retired and they're both still here. The only way they won't be is if we buy the anti-entitlement rhetoric conservatives sell. As Reagan once said in a speech or debate, social security has nothing to do with the deficit and debt so even he knew the truth.
Ian Emdee,
Why do Democrats sound so much like Marxist? Oh, and you left out "Bourgeois."
1. The point is how quickly you abandon your principles once the person becomes one of your guys.
2. I've never heard Hagel disavow his actions in the 90's so I am unwilling to give him a pass. Why are you?
"When liberals can't win an argument by using facts and reasoning, they engage in irrationality and deceit."
Q22
wow, you are dense or pretending not to understand, which one is it?
so let's play YOUR game:
since you are so oviously morally superior to me, now show the outrage for what Santorum said last year...or Akin, or Mourdock.
If you cannot forgive someone for a stupid comment made in the 90s, you gotta be seriously p*ssed off about all the Republican morons of 2012.
Jody, thanks for the flowers, coming from you I consider it an honor.
I'mnotlost, I get angry at joe and now you. Both of you are nothing more then bigots, there is not one policy decision that Obama has taken to deserve your wrath, nor calling him a dictator and a liar. You two suck, without the apple.
I have seen this great country deteriorate from the time Ronald Reagan took office. He created the tent city's and soup kitchens that have caused the income disparity that is prevalent today. There is a we v. them mentality and I truly believe if comes from the time when that stinking Reagan leaned out over the podium and said liberalism was a "four letter word" It isn't, progress will be made again when conservative fascist tea party people as well as the Reagan conservatives and the right wing media are put in their place and that place has probably not been dug yet. But the shovels have been purchased with the last election. C. U. people in hell.
The GOP Koch Tea Movement outcry is getting sickening, when is this trash going to end !
Jody: That was a very eloquent explanation of today political parties. Thank you.
Jody,
You have the worst grasp of history I have ever seen. Yes - the Dixiecrats were Democrats (not exclusively Southern either). They were all FDR liberals and, save one, all stayed on as Democrats after the Civil Rights and Voters Rights bills were passed. Why, if civil rights were the issue, would Dixiecrats become Republicans?? Republicans voter FOR Civil rights and voters rights by over 70% while the Democrats could barely muster more than 50%. In fact the Dixiecrats all (except Thurmund) remained Democrats and remained as liberal as ever.
What happened is that Dixiecrats and their supporters died. They were all Roosevelt era politicians and by the late 60's and 70's they were all really, really old and began to die off. The next generation didn't have the racist leanings of their parents but they also didn't trust the Federal government, were pro-military and fiscally conservative which made them much more in line with Republicans.
The "Dixiecrats became Republicans" narrative is a myth. A slander perpetrated by liberals who refuse to deal with their party's racist past.
Not a stupid comment. A deliberate action to block someone from being an Ambassador for the sole reason that he was gay. People say all kinds of things and sometimes they are either taken out of context or not spoken very well. This is different. One would think that the people who are so incensed at the owner of Chik-fil-a for believing in traditional marriage that they would boycott the business would be livid at the selection of a known homophobe to such an important position. But I guess politics trumps principle for you.
Thanks for another great response Jody. I do have some hope, as when I speak with friends of varying political affiliations there seems to always be some common ground. This is why I am surprised to see the opinions on the national stage I do, and even on this board. Republicans I know personally are nothing like the ones I see represented. It is probably because New Jersey leans a little bit more left.
It is just awful that we have this extreme polarization at a time so critical given the issues both global and domestic.
Anyone for a cup of southern tea served by the Koch movement ???
Akeem,
Polarization and extremism run both ways. Don't think the Democrats are in the slightest bit accommodating or conciliatory. They are not.
Gosh IQbarely22 - you are so bent on protecting gays from Hagel. Riddle me this - why are a bunch of hysterical screaming Log Cabin queens, so busy at their manscaping duties and matching their fingernail and toenail colors, taking time from their busy gossip filled day to produce ads against Hagel, yet continue to throw their accumulated bear weight bound in leather garb behind the very conservative party determined to ensure they cannot marry, adopt, or enjoy otherwise basic human rights afforded to any other group. Liberals/progressives forgiving anti-gay Hagel rhetoric seems a lot easier than forgiving a bunch of nellie, screaming, whining, Gossip Girls supporting a party bent on keeping them buried in their decidedly second class citizen loser lives. Makes about as much sense as a Jew supporting Hitler and the Nazi party.
Ask them. Why do you support the President's choice of a known homophobe for Secretary of Defense?
I disagree Q22. Look at many of the large debates between the two parties. It is usually some absolute stance asked by the Republicans vs a flexible one by Democrats.
Take the tax debate. The concept of compromise you would think would be somewhere in the middle, a small tax increase. Instead, the argument from Republicans was not only should there be no tax increase there should be DEEP spending cuts. I do not want to argue the reasoning behind either idea but just take a look at what the Republicans are asking Democrats to do. They want them to completely abandon their position, the call for tax increases, and even go further in to the Republican's position. How is that any sort of compromise? To expect the other side to give up their entire position and then some while giving up nothing?
If not for the result of the elections, the only way it seems Americans could reach these politicians, and the Fiscal Cliff which gave Republicans no hand, they would continue to go in to negotiations like this. Then you add in the idea to thake the Debt ceiling hostage to pass legislation. I honestly get confused how you can legitimately not say Republicans are the major cause for the gridlock.
You are wrong. Republicans did offer increased revenue (revenue is the goal isn't it? whether by rate increase or eliminating deductions) to the tune of $800b but wanted spending cuts in return. It was Obama who insisted on rate increases without any spending cuts. In the end, Obama got his rate increases (though not as much as he wanted) with spending INCREASES and no real cuts (oh, and the middle class got hit with a payroll tax increase). Was that balanced? Was that at all compromising? What, exactly, did the president give in return for the rate increases? Who was intractable
The Republicans only ask for spending cuts to offset the debt limit increase. Why is that so extreme? We can't have Trillion dollar deficits forever - At some point spending has to be addressed. Since Obama has no interest in addressing the spending side the Republicans have every right to use the leverage they have to get some fiscal responsibility in exchange for authorizing a higher limit.
Any of those deductions that would have meaningful impact would hit the middle/upper middle class harder than any other area. The Spending cuts offered were much larger than the revenue increases. That is not negotiating in good faith. It is quite obvious that the increased tax revenue from removing deductions is not the same as increasing rates. If it was the Republican congress would be indifferent.
Spending will sort itself out when we fully withdraw from the war, and if the economy grows at any point in the next few years which is very likely. Still I DO AGREE some serious spending cuts are needed now, but I think a tax increase is needed just as much.
Svenolafson......you said:
We don't.....except to ignorant and/or fascist purveyors (i.e. yourself, Hitler, Mussolini, etc.) who consider democracy and/or any system wherein political power lies with the people a threat to their conservative authoritarian ideology. Probably, Jefferson, T. Roosevelt, and F.D. Roosevelt sound "marxist" to you also.
BTW---Apparently, you don't realize "bourgeois" means "middle class". We (democrats) are champions of the middle class. That is only one of the reasons you folks must either: 1. change to become more like us. 2. continue into political irrelevancy 3. overthrow our democracy. We are keenly aware which is your choice.
Great humor. Leftists all of them.
[You are all officially dinosaurs.]
Tomas, you are very astute, my friend.
Yet the very same "repeat what Fox "news" tells me" crowd will tell you that dinosaurs have evolved, even though they do not believe in evolution. While this may very well be true, these same dinosaurs that have "evolved" keep flying into the window pane in some vain attempt to mate with itself, smashing their beaks each time.
Q22
but you're ok with your party having Congressmen like Akin who claims that women don't get pregnant if they are legitimately raped or a presidential candidate who said: "... These are people who pay no income tax. … and so my job is not to worry about those people.."
so you're ok with a Legislator and a potential president both discriminating against MANY in 2012 but not a nominee for a Cabinet making a comment that discriminated against one in 1998? I just want to make sure I am understanding you: "Yes" or "no" to this question will be sufficient.
Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/12/13/mitt-romneys-47-percent-gaffe-tops-yales-quotes-of-the-year/#ixzz2HPheNDXp
Johntho, you're welcome; those flowers were deserved.
Exito, thank you.
Q, you really didn't read my comment very well because I said the dixiecrats were democrats, and yes, the majority were from the south. Those dixiecrats switched parties and became republicans. That's history, Q.
Akeem, glad to provide some information. You are right, most of the republicans I know are nothing like what I see in Congress or read here, not even close. Actually, extreme polarization of the parties is what we had just before the Great Depression and during it. Just as prior to the Great Depression, we had the greatest income disparity ever because of robber barons and greed (sound familiar?). During the lead up to and the Great Recession, we had the same dynamics in income disparity, unfair taxes, deregulation and greed. That usually happens when one party or the other moves to the extreme and legislation over time reflects that extreme. Polarization is often what helps fuel events like the Great Depression because gridlock makes governing difficult and extreme views dictate laws.
Dixiecrats who remained Democrats after 1964:
Orval Fabus
Benjamin Travis Laney
John Stennis
James Eastland
Allen Ellender
Russell Long
John Sparkman
John McClellan
Richard Russell
Herman Talmadge
George Wallace
Lester Maddox
John Rarick
Robert Byrd
Al Gore, Sr.
Bull Connor
Dixiecrats who became Republicans after 1964:
Strom Thurmond
Miles Godwin
That is the history.
Q22......you said:
Do you ignorantly believe fascism is a "leftist" ideology?
Read the quote (#1.101) by Mussolini. Perhaps you think YOU know better than he what defines the extreme right-wing ideology (fascism) he sought to force upon the Italian people and the world.
BTW---Do you also believe Marxism is a right-wing ideology? Or, perhaps you consider Marxism and fascism equivalents. Maybe, you just know very little about both.
It's not about me. How can you support a known homophobe for Secretary of Defense?
Marxism, Fascism and Nazism are all left wing ideologies. In fact there is little difference between them since they germinated from the same 19th century German intellectualism. That the Nazis hated the Communists doesn't change the fact that they are all spawned from the same ideology - just as Catholics and Protestants have historically hated each other even they are all Christian faiths.
That is an arrogant POS statement!
What a fine well-reasoned response - But then, what else can we expect from a Caesar Augustus, the man who destroyed the Roman Republic and extinguished political liberty. I suggest you read up on the man whose name you take as moniker, how he came to power and what he did with that power after he had it. But maybe you already have... it is obvious that you wish the same fate for America.
Q22.....you said (with regard to Dixiecrats):
It wasn't so much Democrat (Dixiecrat) politicians who became Republicans. They did that only to the extent they perceived the switch would enhance their electability. Rather, it was Dixiecrat VOTERS who began to vote for Republicans (i.e. Richard Nixon). He (Nixon) called it the "southern strategy". It's odd you don't seem to know this.
Fortunately, for us (Democrats), it (southern strategy) worked (rid our party of undesirables).
It is amazing how far you folks are willing to go so as to rewrite history. It won't work. The history is ubiquitous.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy Look at the 40 references if you don't trust Wikipedia.
EEngineer......
Thanks. It is amazing how some folks literally advertise their ignorance.
Q22........
Your avatar is apt.
The famous leftist shifting goalposts.
Oh..Not the actual Dixiecrats - since they really did remain Democrats and suffered no party consequences for their bigotry - it's the 2% of voters who voted for the Dixiecrats. I assume the 2% Dixiecrat voters joined the 13% Wallace voters in 68. Later, Nixon won every State but Massachusetts. Were they all bigots?
Later, Carter won the whole South. Did he get the bigot vote?
Foolishness.....
Johntho @ 1.88: ..............deteriorate since Ronald Reagan...........Are you serious? Are you serious? I must be 20 years older than you. I saw a deterioration begin in the 60's with LBJ trying to "save" Appalachia by pouring zillions out of the treasury as giveways. Once the money was gone, everyone was back to the old lifestyle, except for the free upgrades to their property. We were poorer than yellow dirt but my Daddy wouldn't buy into the scheme.
Jimmy Carter (at the time) was the worst President ever. No desire to learn the job. Horrible foreign policy. But compared to your Messiah, they were both very successful public servants.
One more thing Johntho: All the lies I mentioned were campaign promises. It's documented, look it up. You act just like Feisty.
Ian Emdee
yes, he does
I can prove my position. Unlike you.
Q22......you said:
Do you also consider "corporatism" to be a "left-wing" ideology? Of course not, we all know it is right-wing (conservative). After all, that's why you folks support it. Unless you are now prepared to declare yourself "left-wing".
So, how do you rationalize Mussolini's promotion of "corporatism"? Only in your strange fantasy world where facts are misconstrued and reason is missing could such rationalizations exist.
Please then, do so. You have said nothing yet beyond assert it. Read Mussolini's manifesto. Enlightenment awaits you. No doubt, it will be left waiting. http://www.freemediaproductions.info/Lyceum/showthread.php?t=9532
BTW---Did you read the references to the "southern strategy"? For you folks, "truth" really IS inconvenient.
One last thing Q22.......
"Dixiecrat" is a diversion. We should really be discussing right-wing southern Democrat voters. They were the targets of Nixon's "southern strategy.
They were sometimes, but certainly not always, Dixiecrats. Mostly, they just considered themselves democrats. Many were racists. Some were "religious" conservatives. All were misguided and most migrated into the republican fold by the early 1980's. Perhaps you are one of them.
Q22.......since you don't seem to care much for reading.......
Here, for your easy edification, is an excerpt from Mussolini's manifesto on fascism:
Now, we all await your explanation on how it is YOU know better than Mussolini the true nature of fascism.
Look... Late in the 19th century there was a split in political thought between East and West (West being anything west of Germany). The Western thought was on individual liberty and lasse-faire economics. The Eat thought was collectivism and central planning. Fascism fits squarely in the Eastern thought - as does Communism and National Socialism. The term "corporatism" doesn't mean that corporations ran the show - it was some weird employer-employee collective deal that the state used.
Ian, one question:
If democrats are always keeping their eyes on the road ahead, why so many immature and ignorant posts on this site blaming all of our current economic problems on former administrations?
If it was so successful then why did Carter take all of Old Dixie? He must have used some sort of Southern Strategy too eh?
It's a stupid proposition. It assumes that the South is motivated only by race and nothing else. That may have been true when the Dixiecrats were in their heyday and respected Democrats like Wallace and Bull Connor were running the show but by the mid 1970s there were few Dixiecrats left and the issues that were of concern in the South were far more diverse. Nixon (a supporter of civil rights) won 49 states - not just the South and it didn't last since Carter took the South in the next election. The whole "Southern Strategy" trope is just a way for Democrats to deny their racist history. Sorry to burst your bubble but the Dixiecrats were liberal Roosevelt Democrats. They hated Republicans as much as they hated blacks. They believed in big government and soaking the rich. They are your brethren.
Gosh, and therein lies the issue. Q22 believes we are still stuck in ideology of the 19th century, and the so called split. Corporatism is the new word used to describe the Robber Barons of the 19th and early 20th century. Marxism, Fascism, Communism were all models developed to combat the Robber Barons. Q22 will have you believe the middle class was a thriving class in the 19th century. He/She/It (or @!$%# for short) completely fails to understand the middle class as defined today, did not happen until after WWII or more precisely, 1945 and beyond. While Q22 obviously hates the middle class, it is the middle class that drives the economic engine of powerful nations. Henry Ford understood the principle, as did many of the new wave of 'corporatists' of the early 20th century. The number one nation in economic growth is China, and the reason for that growth is they are creating a middle class society that previously didn't exist.
The middle class costs money, and guess what folks, the money to grow the middle class comes from the wealthy. But the returns from building the middle-class are huge. It is as simple as you can build things .. but if no one can afford to buy the things you produce, your product is a loser. If the middle class can afford your product, you win.
Q22.......you said:
It isn't clear you actually believe what you are saying. But, with that assumption, here is why you should not (believe it):
Your ideas are a gross simplification of (eastern and western) European political philosophies. Just as in this country, there were folks at both ends of the political spectrum in ALL countries. Marxism was at the leftmost extreme of that spectrum and fascism was at the rightmost extreme. They were and are polar opposites. Neither was confined to a particular geography.
Fascism (read the manifesto) celebrated the individual and believed that (some) individuals were innately unequal (better) than others. You can find this reflected in the works of authors such as Ayn Rand. It is also clearly stated in Mussolini's manifesto.
Marxism, on the other hand, celebrates the community (e.g. COMMUNism). Marxism, in its basic form, contends that all people are merely cogs in a societal machine and that the individual must be subordinated to the collective. In other words, it is the exact polar opposite to fascism.
There are some on the far right in America who would dearly love to associate liberalism with fascism (and any other despised and discredited philosophy). But, this is flatly false and denied by virtually all (respected) political scientists. But, the most important evidence is that early proponents (of fascism i.e. Mussolini) clearly and convincingly place fascism on the rightmost end of the political spectrum. It's there for all to read and it's not going away.
If you need to hurl epithets at liberals (and not be considered ignorant), call us socialists or even communists. Neither is (usually) true, but at least you will be on the correct side of the political spectrum. What next? Would you have us believe that Genghis Khan was "left-wing"?
Regarding the "southern strategy": Jimmy Carter took the south (mainly) for two reasons: He was from Georgia and the American electorate was absolutely sickened by the corruption of Richard Nixon and had no faith in the incompetent Ford administration.
It seems you are so ideologically bound that you are unable (or unwilling) to accept even the most starkly obvious truths regarding American politics and/or political science. This phenomenon is exactly that which caused Todd Akin to absurdly conclude that women have some magical ability to prevent impregnation when they are "legitimately" raped.
Folks (i.e. yourself) descend into such absurdity when they first form their opinions and then try to make logic and facts fit it. Of course, it is facts and logic that should drive our opinions and not vice versa.
anniegh........you asked:
The democrat party is much as any other organization (i.e. a nation). It is composed of folks some of whom are deeply profound thinkers and others whose understanding is entirely superficial. You will see comments from both these extremes here and elsewhere (and from both conservatives and liberals). It is entirely up to you whom you respond to.
The Democrat party (as a whole) tries hard (and mostly succeeds) to think progressively. This thinking requires that we clearly perceive our goals (a more perfect union, equality for all, and opportunity for any who pursue it). We don't want to go back to our much more imperfect past. We do not fear the future and the changes it holds. We embrace it with intent to shape it.
Like democracy, the Democrat party is not perfect. But, it is the best (we Americans have) yet conceived.
She was barely 20-years-old, hardly an adult. She wasn't ready for commitment. She liked her job, she liked shopping, and she liked boys. All in all, a pretty normal girl.
If anything set her apart from her other young friends it was dancing. She didn't just like dancing, she loved dancing. None of that classic stuff, just the turn up the volume of the music, grab your boyfriend, and fling-yourself-around-stuff. The joy of dancing.
An ex-boyfriend called her one evening and asked her out. No, she wasn't interested, thank you. Things just didn't work out, and there was nothing there for the two of them. Besides, she was going dancing that night. That's what she thought, anyway.
The ex-boyfriend had a whole different idea. The hell she was going dancing. So, he grabbed a shotgun, and drove to her house. He crashed in the door and cornered her.
Her story was that he screamed at her and said if she wasn't going dancing with him, she wasn't going to dance with anyone. He blew her feet off.
Frankly, I'm not interested in his version of the story. You have only to see a bloody foot on a floor, blood-spattered walls, and a girl strapped to a gurney to know you couldn't possibly care less what the gunner had to say.
Looking back on that, a host of idiotic talking points, and worthless phrases run through my head. A gun death? Nope, she doesn't even count in the gun debate. Second Amendment rights? A well-regulated militia? The security of a free state? Assault rifles? Nope, this was a shotgun.
Nothing important here. We're only talking about a girl who won't dance again.
"We have experienced too much death and hurt to remain idle. Our response to the Newtown massacre must consist of more than regret, sorrow and condolence. The children of Sandy Hook Elementary School and all victims of gun violence deserve fellow citizens and leaders who have the will to prevent gun violence in the future."
Gabrielle Giffords and Mark Kelly
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/01/07/gabby-giffords-mark-kelly-tucson-shooting-gun-control/1816383/
Join up at …
http://americansforresponsiblesolutions.org/
David W, well said; glad to see the topic of gun violence control remaining front and center. For too long, each mass shooting has brought outrage, a brief discussion and then it disappears.....until the next mass shooting. It is time to have a debate, and time for our politicians to do what a majority of the people demand--put in place sensible rules that make it harder. The guy in your story used a shot gun which would remain legal but that doesn't mean we should not try to lessen the damage done every day in this country because of gun violence. We can never completely solve it but we certainly can, in combination with better mental health and awareness, minimize the damage and reduce the numbers.
P.S. Glad to see you post a stand alone. When everyone attaches to that first post, it becomes harder to discuss and debate any one comment.
BCWC, thanks for the info. What better advocates for gun violence prevention than Gabby Giffords who survived it, and her husband who also lived it.
Two black guys. Two white girls. Audacity. Imagine, the audacity of those two black guys or those two white girls thinking they could carry on with an interracial relationship. Enter a bigot with a rifle and bullets. Nary one to allow such audacity to occur, he acted upon his hatred to teach those 4 a lesson. Standing his ground, on a dark city street crosswalk, he exercised his 2nd Amendment right to bear arms and shot the audacity out of the two black guys. As a passerby, I watched the audacity exit the essence of those two men as they choked, coughed, and drew their last breath.
Many will say it wasn't the gun that snuffed audacity, it wasn't the bullet. LaPierre proclaims it was Hollywood movies and Silicon Valley video games. Lawmakers in Florida will say the man was simply standing his ground and protecting his freedoms to stamp out his disgust of interracial expressions of love. As a society, we have the audacity to allow social conservative freaks ready access to firearms. Who is to blame? If only we could ask the victims of the shootings who had the audacity of crossing paths with a bigot carrying a rifle.
He drove to her house.. If saving lives is the main thrust, shouldn't we limit speeds to 35mph, horsepower to 55 and minimum age for drivers at 25? That could be done overnight with the stroke of a pen. Only police and emergency personnel need to go faster. You can get where you are going by leaving earlier and putting no lives at risk. These few "commonsense" laws would save countless lives and maiming of our children. Cars kill many more people than guns each year....how about it?
And the fault is the gun and NOT the ex-boyfriend, right? What makes you think that he would not have used something else, like a knife to keep her from dancing?
Which brings me to my question, Do you even understand the 2nd Amendment and why the founders made it a RIGHT in the bill of rights? HINT: It has nothing to do with hunting.
bagdadjoe-lotsanumbers:
A first-grader could come up with a better deflection than yours.
I directly addressed the issue of lives. The point of the post was that guns do far more than kill. They destroy without killing as well.
As a matter of fact, emergency responders do NOT have to exceed the speed limit. Speeding through city streets is extremely dangerous, distracts motorists, and does not result in much of an increased response time.
Yes, you can get where you're going by leaving earlier. Not only do I do that, I drive at 55 on freeways and my MPG exceeds EPA estimates. At the same time, I have the satisfaction of knowing that money that could be going to oil producers stays in my pocket and I produce less pollution.
Any other red herrings?
sonmanvb:
You can bet your backside I understand the 2nd Amendment. You're damned right it has nothing to do with hunting. It has everything to do with a well-regulated militia.
What is it with you guys and your pathetic deflections? The assailant did not take a knife. He did not take a hammer. He did not take a tire iron. He took a damned shotgun. Take your woulda, coulda, shoulda's somewhere else.
David,
What do you think the answer is?
unconventional-lotsanumbers asked:
Make me king.
55 is way too fast. Why do you feel the need to go that fast? Besides, you do understand that if you are doing 55 on a freeway and everybody else is doing 70, which they do, then you are the traffic hazard from people trying to get around the "bottleneck"..you. Good for you, but your EPA mileage won't save one life. Who said anything about city streets? See, you just redirect and divert. You don't even have a Contstutional right to drive, it's a "priviledge". So, why don't you drop 'er down to 35 and be really safe, it won't make that much difference in arrival time? There's a hell of a lot of difference between 35 and 55 as to safety. At what speed do they test crash worthiness? Not 70 or even 55. When someone wants to control what you do, which of course you think is perfectly fine to do to others, then you get defensive....
David Walker "make me king"....odd, that's Obama's answer too. There can only be one, I guess you guys will have to slug it out.
How many homicides were committed using a motor vehicle?
@David - didn't you learn from Self-Protection for Dummies 101? It is easier to avoid being shot than it is to dodge a hammer, a tire iron, or a knife being tossed from across the room. Yeesh - even crossing a street in a crosswalk with the walk sign illuminated carries more risk of death than a gunman intent on shooting you.
OK King Walker, what do you decree then?
David Walker:
The best argument that has yet to be challenged by a pro-gun individual is this: If cars kill more than guns then by their logic less traffic laws will prevent more deaths invovled with cars. Keep in mind that these are the same people saying that less regulation of Wall Street is the answer to curbing criminals stealing your 401-k retirement and your pension.
They don't seem to be able to think beyond the selfish nature inside of them that tells them whatever they think or feel is always right and should be applied to everyone much like their religious views. Keep in mind this isn't a blanket statement for all who disagree but definitely for the noisy crowd we always hear from. I wonder if there will eventually be a mental illness associated with such arrogance.
@sonmanvb#2.5: Actually, had the 2ed amendment contained the additional right to apply "bear grease" to "axel wheels" it would have been just as appropriate, relative to arms, then, as today. The country was young. Enemies all around. The forefathers wished the citizenry to have knowledge of firearms in the event an army was quickly called for. They would also need them for gathering food and personal protection. Law enforcement, police etc. were few, and generally nil. The purpose was not to be able to overthrow the government by means of armed conflict. Couldn't do it anyway, once the Nation was able to provide and maintain a national military. This reasoning too, is the basis of "English Militia Law", which at the time, was the basis for the construction of the 2ed amendment.
Text of the 2nd Amendment
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Who would have thought that a simple one sentence paragraph, would mean so much death and destruction of the lives of so many of the Nations Citizens.
unconventional-lotasumbers, you asked:
Here you go, although this is not a complete list.
All firearms are registered at a central registry. (I mean, how else could you have a well-regulated militia? You gotta know who has what.) Upon your initial registration, you will present certification of mental stability.
Firearms are licensed and renewed each and every year and owners and users shall be certified as competent in their use. Every fifth year, you will again present a newly-issued certificate of mental stability.
Misuse a firearm, and you forfeit any and all rights to firearms ownership - EVER. Depending on the nature of misuse, you might even expect to spend some time at the graybar, maybe even the rest of your life.
Magazines shall be limited to five-rounds. (I mean what kind of hunter needs more than a single round to bring down his food?
Law enforcement is not exempt from these requirements.
You may own fully-automatic weapons that will be maintained at a central location by a certified arsenal keeper.
Liability for damage caused by firearms devolves to the owner who now finds a serious incentive for locking up his/her firearms and reporting the theft or loss of firearms to legal authorities.
No concealed weapons. No open carry except where specifically authorized.
Wayne LaPierre is fired.
@David Walker#2.18: Well stated David!!!! Very simple, reasonable, and doable! Thanks, and regards
Bravo, David Walker, #2.18!
The one phrase in the second ammendment that is too often neglected is "well-regulated.
Very Good David! Thanks
@David Walker #2.18. Not that I totally disagree with your premise, but please understand why listing a militia defeats the intended purpose. I know this would not happen, but the premise is a central registry can be used by the government to take the guns of innocent, law-bidding citizens, thus defeating the militia before it can be activated. I do agree we need to do more on guns. Registration and licensing, but treating it like a driver's license is a bit much. I recently received an antique rifle from my deceased father. Should it be registered? I don't hunt or wanted the rifle, but it was my father's (he did hunt) and it has sentimental value. So because of your reasoning, I am penalized to have a keepsake from my father. Something I have no desire to use. Heck, I don't even have the bullets. Cooler heads need to prevail on this issue to get anything done. Knee jerk reactions are the reason for the defeat of such legislation. As for Wayne LaPierre, I have no use for him, but he does have the right to his opinion and to push for his concerns. And when I read things like you print, then I know why he continues to have a forum.
Think - are you suggesting the 2nd Amendment was created to ensure that an anti-government militia could be formed?
David W, #2.18, cheers.
Think, the 2nd Amendment's reference to maintaining a well-regulated militia was not intended to mean protection from the US government. That's the trumped up NRA and paranoid crowd's version to justify stockpiling and selling more guns. Having the citizenry well armed was because in those days the US did not have a standing Army. It was intended as protection against foreign enemies intent to invade and overthrow our newly formed US government.
Not really Red, but it was one of the primary reasons the writers included it in the Constitution. And a government that is concerned about their citizens is a government that is responsive to their citizens. Ask President Assad in Syria about that.
The anti-government people (who I think are a little off their rockers) are few and far between.
Jody, there was a standing army at the time. It was the British Army and one of the best in the world at the time. You never know who the "foreign" enemy will be. I'm not being a pundit for selling guns and keeping a well stocked arsenal in everyone's house, I just worry when we begin to think there is nothing to worry about.
People in New Orleans wanted guns when the civilian government broke down due to Hurricane Katrina. Good citizens were scared and self protection was necessary for some. That had nothing to do with a foreign enemy.
@Think about It-No's#2.22: Constitutional Militias were never meant to be organized, armed, camouflaged groups, hidden within our government as another means of "checks and balances". They are, and were, meant as a then, and some claim now, perceived necessary supplement to the governments military power relative to the defense of the nation from enemies, both within and abroad.
Registering and licensing your gun would not be detrimental to the reasonable validity of "well regulated militias", if such does in fact, hold "reasonable validity" today.
Hagel, John Kerry, John Brennan - a strong cast of cabinet members for the second term.
Wow, surprising support for Obama's choices from a left wing Kool Aid drinker. What a total surprise. Here I would have said Obama isn't picking out the strongest candidates, just those that support his true ideology.
Rick, what are you talking about?
Hagel, for one, is a former Republican Senator who is still known for his past anti-gay remarks. But the best way is to win over your foes is with the right incentives. I guess GOPTP will never understand this, because GOPTO is instinctively vindictive - McCarthyist.
GOP is so Predictable. Listening to the anti-Hagel chatter of the GOPers the last couple weeks, it has the same sound as their anti-Rice chatter along with all the other huffing and puffing they have done the last four years. It is especially true coming from the neocon crowd--those fools would have had us at war in Iraq, North Korea, and anywhere else they think some bad guy needs removing, never mind the cost in treasure or the human toll.
McCain is now filled with concern about Chuck Hagel; he really isn't to be trusted on Israel or Iran. McCain just can't bring himself to support Hagel. The trouble for McCain is that when he was running for president, he considered Hagel as his running mate. McCain said that he thought Hagel would do a great job in any position in his cabinet. So to McCain, Chuck was tops and a-okay before but now he's not.
Graham is just as guilty of hypocrisy as is McCain but then Graham is attached to McCain's hip. Graham frequently praised Hagel when his good buddy McCain was running for president. Couldn't say enough good things about his former Senate colleague; now he accuses him of being anti-Israel, of supporting terrorists, blah blah.
Bill Kristol wrote a strong endorsement suggesting Chuck Hagel as John McCain's Vice Presidential running mate, definitely a cabinet position. Now, Kristol finds Hagel unsuitable; troublesome; a bad, horrible, awful choice. Does Kristol think people are ignorant enough not to question his flip flop, not to wonder how Hagel could be such a great choice as VP or a cabinet position then but now is a horrible choice. What a bunch of hooey we hear coming from this crowd of neoconconservative fools.
It makes one wonder if McCain, Graham, Kristol and all the other Hagel Nay-bobbers who once were Hagel YAY-bobberslive in some world where their previous comments and statements do not exist. Next time one of these flip-flopping republicans appears on TV, the press should throw their previous comments in their faces and ask them to explain their sudden change of mind.....and do not allow them to dodge the questions. Read them Hagel's full statements regarding Israel and demand they explain what is wrong with it and why it "concerns" them.
Otherwise, the media is guilty of complicity in the GOPers character assassination of former Senator Chuck Hagel. First Read is right, THERE IS NO MARGIN FOR ERROR in the Hagel nomination but the ERROR would belong to the media if they allow the nay-bobber conservatives to control the narrative on Mr. Hagel.
Jody, unfortunately many, and I will call them former, Republicans have moved so far to the Right that they have fallen off the ideological cliff.
Jody,
Great post.
The media will be chasing the GOP filp flops on various issues and nominations for the next four years.
Easeir to follow a crazy narrative from the GOP then to really report in depth the various sides of an issue beyond the sound bites of sore losers.
Spot-on as usual, Jody. What we are seeing at best is a complete reversal of the notion of "advise and consent', and at worst it's complete destruction.
What Republicans are trying to do is to preempt the President's choices for his appointed positions. They are effectively submitting a list of choices from which the President may choose.
I think the President could have done better with his choices, but he surrenders Presidential prerogatives if he listens to the senile McCain and the obstructionist Graham. I simply can't help but think of McCain's track record when it comes to choices......PALIN says it all.
Edit to my first paragraph, that should be "at war in Iran, North Korea".
BCWC, I know. I heard a comment last week that the GOP is no longer a party of conservatives, they are a party of radicals. Sounds right to me. Any conservative who thinks crashing through the debt ceiling is no big deal is definitely a radical, an ignorant radical without a clue.
David W, no doubt many people have a nominee preference but what we don't know is the personal relationship between those others. Any President deserves to have someone qualified that they like and work well with. As you pointed out, McCain doesn't have a good track record and we know that Palin and McCain didn't work well together and I doubt they even liked each other if the truth were told.
.
I agree Northstar. The media would rather follow the rantings of the Radical right than report facts.
Will FR please remove that damn McDonald banner, it covers up your replies to posts.
Outstanding post, Jody. The level of hypocrisy in the GOP never ceases to amaze.
Jody, from the way Republicans are behaving out of office, it seems they are bucking to keep that status for a long, long time.
I remember when Obama was running in 2008 and journalists kept asking him if he loved his country. Now, it looks like they were asking the wrong guy. Republicans are not acting like statemen who love their country. They risk our economic recovery to battle the President and they attempt to block qualified candidates to public service. Tell me, Mr. Republican, do you love your country?
Well said Jody, for the most part the media have become complicit in furthering opposition to the President's agenda, regardless of the topic. And while they are entitled to their opinions, the relentless carping and notice taken of some of the most contentious factions is not being objective.
Of course we long ago no longer expect some in the media to be objective, yet it needs to be pointed out that really what they are now doing is slyly taking sides...stirring the pot to gin up readership or viewers. Chuck Todd is a perfect example of this behavior, his cynicism is beyond being skeptical and is contributing to the problem of divisiveness in Washington, just listening to him this morning talking on the Hagel nomination was a good example of poor journalism.
I think I can sum up the Republican opposition to Hagel in 3 words. He's a moderate. A word that they seem to find almost as offensive as liberal.
I have no idea if he's the right man for the job or not, but it sounds like he has the resume for the position. So unless someone can dig up some skeleton in his closet that is truly damning then just give him the job and see how he does.
Yes Jody, we all know how much you love liberals. That doesn't mean that conservatives have to agree with you including those who represent our view in the Congress.
Just as I don't expect liberals in Congress to agree with a conservative president. That's the central tenet of a Republic.
Jody--I'm not sure that any Republican could have won in 2008---the nation was so weary after 8 years of Bush and watching the economy collapse. Had McCain chosen Hagel as his running mate instead of Sarah Palin---who knows? Surely would have been a closer election. This no doubt adds to McCain's bitterness. Every time he tells us that he doubts someone's qualifications I think to myself--well, you thought Sarah Palin was qualified to be President so I'm not really interested in your opinion.
Compromise means agreeing with liberals, obstruction means not agreeing with liberals. Talk about an entire group of non-thinkers, liberals epitomize human lemmings. If Obama says it they agree. If Obama wants it they support it. If Obama blames someone else they blame someone else. If Obama nominates someone they are the best candidate ever. So when Republicans indicate an opposition they are being obstructionists. When Democrats have concern over the same nomination, liberals never mention that fact. As if one person or one party has all the right answers, only liberals can be that gullible.
We as a Nation will never see a Conservative President.
We will not see a Republican President or not as long as they stay allied with the white trash in the tea-party, which is nothing more than the ugly head of the Klan once again, and the Christian Taliban that want to implement their sharia on all of us. An Eisenhower conservitive could win and if the Dems tie their wagon to the public employees unions or other far left causes they will also lose. Where was McConnel during Vietnam? Like most of the chicken hawk conservitives like, Romney (Paris) Bush (keeping the skies of Alambama free) Cheeney (sking) Joe from Albany (bent over and getting it from some farm animal) Hagel volunteered and I don't need two passport Jews deciding who will be Sec of Def or the aparteid govt of Israel. Joe, Boy shut your trailer door ok, put the barrel against your head and just firmly pull that trigger.
Larry Robinson, I didn't realize Chuck Hagel was a liberal. Here I thought I was defending a republican nominee. Fancy that. There was a time when any President's nominee was given the benefit of the doubt, allowed a hearing and unless there was something egregious in their past, confirmed. The central tenant of a republic is governing for the good of all; of being willing to find the common ground which is something too many republicans refuse to even try. These days, the GOPers make us look more like a banana republic. Our country, democracy means compromise and majority rule. Compromise was how this country was founded, our Constitution was written. Compromise with neither side getting everything it wants and neither side opposing everything because they object to 5% of something. The closest we came to reason from the GOP, after 4 years, was the fiscal cliff and the only reasons GOPers came to the table was they were scared spitless of pushing the country over and being blamed, maybe losing their jobs. Democrats aren't perfect but at least they aren't crazy. There are some good, sensible and reasonable republicans in Congress but they have been overrun by the crazy.
Rick, the GOP has refused to compromise for the last four years; in fact, they refuse to use that term. They call it "common ground" but the last time I checked, the GOP's version of "common ground" is their way or no way. That's the only reason we had the fiscal cliff mess, the debt ceiling debacle, the sequester--because the rigid Tea people refuse to come to the table. President Obama has been criticized by the far left side of the democratic party for compromising too much so it is quite clear that the side doing the compromising isn't the GOP. Obstruction is what the GOP Senators have done for four years; they filibustered everthing including bills that eventually were passed with GOP support. Good grief, Mitch McConnell filibustered his own legislation just before Christmas--imagine obstructing your own idea and then trying to say you're not an obstructionist.
If Obama appointed McCain himself I think the repubs would throw a fit. If Obama does it, they hate it. The party of no indeed. The problem with Hagel for many of these repubs is that they kept going further and further to the right and Chuck planted his feet and refused to go bat sh** crazy with all of them.
During His time in the Senate, Chuck Hagel was His own man. He kissed no leaders asses, and showed no deference to party over good policy. Republicans hate such. Of course too, some democrats resent His party affiliation and His independence. All, sh^tty, personal reasons to fault the Man, which only serves to diminish the characters of the interlocutors.
Hagel may face some tough questions but they will be asked by a vast majority of men and women who talk very tough but when their time came they chose not to put on a uniform. That does not qualify him for a government post but it speaks volumes about his character (and theirs for that matter). He may not say or do the appropriate thing from time to time but if senators are concerned about his commitment to Israel perhaps they should move there where they can stay on top of it. It will just save us a lot of money. Additionally, since everyone is in the army there they will be more qualified to talk at length about character and country (if they survive).
I've never heard of “What It Takes.” I will look it up.
One of my current hobbies is media bashing. I can barely watch TV news without getting angry. Radio and print are better, but TV reporting and punditry just sends me around the bend. I sometimes wonder if it's just because I'm older, or was broadcast TV always this bad?
amy -- i, too, think it has gone downhill. i remember the huntley-brinkley report and walter cronkite (we only had two channels). history shows that cronkite was a staunch democrat (don't know about h-b) but he rarely (never?) seemed to allow that to affect his reporting.
there was also a convention used in that era indicating that the speaker was offering an opinion by putting the word commentary (i believe) on the screen so as not to confuse fact with opinion.
sadly as we watch tv reporters the word commentary would almost need to be displayed continually
I could tell you many a story about broadcast media, but the bottom line is the bottom line. You cannot offend sponsors or they'll cut you off at the knees. You cannot offend the elected poobahs. You cannot offend the (fill in the blank).
However, a knowledge of history is the necessary leavening. Bread and circuses. That's it. Deflect and distract, and the money continues to flow to the wealthy. History, if nothing else, is a chronological recitation of class warfare. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
david -- would you be a proponent of a state-run media?
Amy, in television's infancy news personnel were drawn from stalwarts of the print media. People such as Walter Cronkite were steeped in researching events and reporting facts. They were not 'good looking personalities'; they were news people many of whom earned their chops reporting on WWII. They were also experienced, intelligent and focused on who, what, where, when and why.
Today we are burdened by 'personalities' who are more interested in ratings, artificial controversy and air time.
billybob-6210632, David and Bruce
I agree. It may have started to go downhill with the Monica Lewinsky scandal, when the producers realized there was a gold mine in the the entertainment value of covering politicians, and that was Clinton's fault. But I think ,the worst was the selling of the invasion of Iraq, complete with catchy graphics, theme song and the title "Road to Baghdad!"
The media really fell down during the Bush years, and what's funny is, they don't even realize the Jon Stewart Show is parodying them as much as he ridicules politicians.
amy -- they fell down during bush and have failed to recover under obama. i suspect there is little chance that we will return to the characteristics of a reporter that bruce describes above.
billybob-lotsanumbers asks:
David is my proper name and thus the "D" is capitalized.
In answer to your question, that would be an unequivocal "NO!" However, I want the fairness doctrine reinstated, and I'd sure like to see an outbreak of courage in the offices of currently gutless G.M.'s.
i don't know much about the fairness doctrine but a quick look (wikipedia) seems to suggest that it was initiated when there were limited outlets available (as i noted there were two channels in my area).
but now with hundreds of channels on tv and radio along with the internet i am not clear why the fairness doctrine is needed and what would change with its reintroduction.
would you share your idea?
billybob-lotsanumbers:
There will always be limited outlets available. That is the nature of the broadcast spectrum. The public owns that spectrum.
Cable outlets are an entirely different animal.
I can't escape the notion, particularly given the nature of your past posts, that you are trolling. You can answer any further questions on your clock, not mine.
sorry David. thought we were having a conversation. my mistake.
billybob - David is a liberal. All he needs to see is the word "fairness" and therefore it is a good thing.
You dared to question David (with a capital D) and that is all that is needed. Even if it was honestly for a sharing of his ideas. You should see things his way already. No explanation necessary.
On the subject of the media. It has nothing to do with the left or the right. It is all about the ratings anymore. Back in the old days, yes I am old as well, the news was about informing people about important happenings in the world and it only took an hour at most. Now we live in a 24 hour news cycle the media has to keep the ratings up so that they can charge premium prices for the commercials that they play between fluff pieces. It's all hype and sensationalism because they want to keep us glued to the screen on the edge of our seats so that the network can make money, even if there really isn't anything to report about.
The question to ask for an ex military man going into Sec Def - or higher Office, is whether their military experience shaped them or scarred them. Vietnam era guys like Powell and Hagel have a world view and a view of war shaped by their experience. Probably more hesitant to jump in then some yahoo talking tough but never experiencing it. But the flip side is they could be too hesitant. Or like McCain, the experience was so traumatic that they may be damaged goods. I'm not commenting where Hagel lies. I have no idea. All I'm saying is, its fair to (respectfully) ask, and that Military experience or lack there of can cut both ways
And you make my point billybob and Talk to the Hand:
All you had to do was look up the Fairness Doctrine. Further, I already gave you my idea - a return to the Fairness Doctrine.
Talk to the Hand should know that I have addressed the issue of "fair" in any number of posts, making it quite clear that it is very subjective and does not belong in a political debate. But then, Talk to the Hand, I know you are a troll.
I was in broadcasting when the Fairness Doctrine was enacted. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the number of outlets available. Quite the contrary was the case ~ if an outlet presented one side of a debate then it was obligated to present opposing views in equal time. In your example, Channel A could present a erroneous report but to obtain a counterclaim, the listener/viewer would be required to go to Channel B for rebuttal. But politicians were not the prime cause for scuttling the Fairness Doctrine. Broadcasters were at the center of the movement ~ for understandable reasons. Their prime competitor at the time was print media which was not so encumbered. You can see the difference between an editorial board of a newspaper displaying its biases yet a broadcaster could not do that. Imagine having to give equal time to balance out a format featuring both Rush Limbaugh and Ed Shultz. Two separate audiences ~ and people don't change their listening habits by the hour.
ok david. i looked it up as noted in my post. provided a brief understanding that i had and asked what impact you imagined if reinstated.
in response you call me a troll. if you don't want to have a conversation that is fine, it is unnecessary to revert to name calling.
And to think, all this time I thought Talk was an under the bridge bottom feeder. Silly me!! Perhaps I should question the fairness of my doctrines.
And RedDev is an astute, intellectual commenter who never resorts to idiocy and plain disrespect for others' beliefs. Evidenced by one of his/her posts today in response and regards to the upcoming inaugural address by Medgar Evers widow:
About the media--I say, "Starve the beast!" If we stopped watching, reading, listening, etc., then maybe media outlets would have to change the way they do their business. I for one refuse to pay for cable. I don't know how much longer I will have this choice as my Internet/phone provider is trying its level best to bundle all three and make it impossible to choose only the two services. Right now, they have an offer on the table in which it would actually be cheaper to pay for the 3-service bundle rather than the two. However, that lasts for only a couple of years, when we would then be subject to whatever rate hike they deem profitable.
Since so much information is easily available on the internet, I see no reason to pay for cable. Well, last night when the national championship game for NCAA football was kicking off, I kinda wished I had cable. Then I found out that it was yet another rout, so I didn't feel too bad. I could've gone to any number of establishments had I really wanted to see it, though. ANYWAY, the need for playoffs for college ball is another issue entirely! I'm just saying that one CAN live without cable/satellite/etc. NOTHING on TV is worth paying for. (Just my humble opinion.)
Now talk, I would think you would be thrilled by that comment. From your limited perspective of the inner workings of the universe, you can be gleefully assured I will go directly to hell, without passing GO, for making the blasphemous insinuation that Jesus was married.
Ron Brock, well said. Amy, I know what you mean. Billybob, #5.2, for a second day, I actually agree with one of your comments.
In my view, the media's downhill route can be traced not to the fairness doctrine but rather to one particular station, FOX News which is not news nor is it fair and balanced.
FOX, in my view, has done a great disservice to the conservative movement and the GOP by dumbing it down with misinformation and distorted truths. "Fair and balanced" only works in debates, and when presenting honest facts to make ones case or rebut the other. When both sides of an issue are placed side by side to express their views and neither of those sides is called out/challenged by the media or moderator regarding false comments or distorted facts, then fair and balanced is a waste of time. For politics, I generally watch MSNBC because it does at least present facts in addition to opinion; it does have both liberal and conservative hosts except Morning Joe's whining and interrupting of guests can be exhausting that early in the day. I would like nothing more than to be able to also watch a conservative news channel or program such as the old William F. Buckley shows to get honest discussion from the conservative viewpoint but there is no such program or station. The loss of intelligent conservative discussion partly caused by FOX has a lot to do with the hyper-partisanship we see today--it fed the extreme views to the middle of the road conservatives.
The media, whether TV or print, has an obligation to present the facts, not spin and not opinion. Too often, the news reported nightly has become infused with "opinion" rather than just the facts. When people like Chuck Todd have a political talk show and then become the White House reporter, it becomes too easy to mix political chatter and opinion into that news report because the person forgets which hat he/she is wearing.
There is no reason to hold back Hagel's appointment to the Pentagon. He will sail through. The American public will once again see what a broken and bitter man McCain has become since this thrashing in the 2008 election.
you do realize markinbecker that at least 10 Democrat Senators have already announced their opposition to Hagel?
I would say that it was his defeat in 2000 that made McCain lose it. He was once a great man, but he needs to leave the stage before he does any more damage to his reputation. He's tried to fall in line with the Republican party and he was much better off when he was the Maverick of the Republican party. Now he's just become the whipped dog of the party barking out whatever BS they want him to push. McCain needs to be McCain, not the parties lap dog.
Larry, apparently some Democrats are suggesting that Obama should have nominated a Democrat rather than Hagel. Shame on them. Obama seems to be more interested in nominating the best person for the job, rather than using a party affiliation litmus test.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57562591/hagel-nod-faces-opposition-from-both-sides-of-aisle/
Indeed ~ and six of them were not counted as particularly "friendly" toward Hagle when he was in the Senate. Moreover, there are probably others in the Democratic caucus that oppose the nomination of any Republican to the president's cabinet based on the GOP's attitude toward this president since day one. In the end, they will vote to confirm simply because Hagel is the president's choice. Their stated opposition prior to the appointment was aimed at influencing Obama to appoint someone else ~ preferably a Democrat. That having not happened, they will ultimately back their president's choice after playing the usual political games that are so consistent in congress today.
Kent from Iowa, well said. McCain has become a bitter, angry man yelling at clouds. I used to respect him, even if I didn't always agree, but his behavior since he lost in 2008, has eroded that respect. Occasionally we see a spark of the old McCain but it is rare and short lived.
In a normal year, with normal politicians, Hagel's nomination would sail through the Senate. Now, the GOP is so entrenched in obstruction they don't know how to turn it off, even if it is completely inappropriate. They might think obstruction is making them look relevant, but they just end up looking like utter fools.
at least 10 Democrat Senators have already announced their opposition to Hagel
Ricardo, I agree.
Larry, I would be shocked if there wasn't some Dems upset that Obama nominated another Republican.
Larry...
"Announced"? I believe that was advertised as "possible".
There won't be ten in opposition when the vote comes around.
Larry, wrong again. No one from the Democrat side questions Hagel's qualifications; but some D's would have preferred Obama to nominate a Democrat rather than Hagel. Shame on them.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57562591/hagel-nod-faces-opposition-from-both-sides-of-aisle/
See post #6.4 for clarification. The "announcement" came prior to the formal nomination. Haven't heard a peep out of the dissenters subsequent to yesterday's actual nomination. They will all vote to confirm, seeing as how their attempts to exclude even a "moderate" Republican were not honored by Obama.
Ricardo, nicely said and true.
President Obama deserves to have the person he feels is best qualified and feels most comfortable working with in his cabinet. Chuck Hagel, a republican, came to the same view on Iraq that Illinois State Senator Barack Obama held before Bush took us into that war. Obama is not "against all wars, just dumb wars." Hagel, like many Americans felt betrayed once we learned that the Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfeld lead-up to the Iraq war with their word visuals of mushroom clouds and massive stock piles of WMDs was a lie; that we had been misled and that we had taken our eye off Afghanistan to fight an unnecessary war. Hagel initially supported that war but came to realize that Obama was right, it was a mistake. Most likely the opposition from McCain, Graham, and the others on the right stems from the fact that the GOP will never, ever admit that Iraq was their Vietnam so instead they attack any and all who dares to have suggested that Iraq was a dumb war.
Let's just cut the sheet,the gop,are going the way of the dinasoars,
So, your OK with passing a $30 Trillion dept to your kids, thier kids and so on? Do you understand what that means to those future generations of Americans? It will insalve them to to the government in the form of HIGH taxes to pay this down/off. At what point to you think the government will not be allowed to borrow any more? Why not look at what the government is spending this borrowed money on and look at cutting spending where it does not effect SS,Medicare and Medicade and look at some of the waste tghis government has.
We can't borrow and spend our way out of a recession or into prosperity. It just can't happen. REALLY look at what you are passing to your kids and grand kids and the kind of future you will leave them with under all of this dept.
No one supports increasing debt. Everyone, however, should support paying debts already incurred, which is what increasing the debt limit permits.
bruce -- so then we need to stop incurring debt don't we?
we are already so bad off that we have to borrow to pay our bills: we need to stop buying things.
billy, yes we need to curb spending such as two unfunded wars, unfunded drug benefit for Medicare that only benefits the drug companies, etc. But to threaten to withhold payments for debts already incurred is really, really stupid. I think Republicans and Democrats can agree that ours is not a deadbeat nation.
Congress didn't seem too concerned with the "debt" when it was racking up the bills that have now come due. Has anyone ~ in or out of congress ~ considered raising the ceiling for payment of current bills then letting it return to the present value (or lower)? Or prohibiting congress from overspending once the ceiling is hit? There is nothing that demands the ceiling be carried forward to the next year. Raise it to pay obligations we currently owe then let it revert back to its current status, or preferably, a lower value.
Bruce (and Rick), I agree. We've already incurred these debts so we should raise the ceiling without any argument. But, as Rick points out, it should be for a limited time/amount. The discourse over the next raise should begin immediately with bills being written to avoid the need to raise it the next time.
You guys continue to confuse debt and deficit. And you are confusing running a household with running a government.
And yes, sonmanvb, you CAN spend your way out of a recession.
No confusion on the difference between deficit and debt. Deficits do lead to more debt, but you can have debt without a deficit.
Because the formula for calculating GDP includes government spending, yes, you can spend your way out of a recession, but that doesn't mean it is an intelligent thing to do.
Bookem', well, it is and always has been the only way to get out of a recession. The reason the Great Depression lasted so long was Government stopped spending too quickly. The smart thing right now is for Government to spend more at the historic low interest rates, spend it on rebuilding our crumbling and aging infrastructure, on schools, etc. which in turn creates jobs in the private building sector which means more tax revenues and lower deficits. It's a take on the old expression, "in order to make money, you have to spend money." Businesses would not continue to be profitable IF they fail to invest in that business on research or new equipment; the business eventually fails if they don't. The same is true for our country. If government fails to invest in the country, we become less viable as a country.
sonmanvb, odd, during the 8 years of Bush and GOP unfunded spending, not once did a republican legislator question the massive debt they were leaving for their children and grandchildren.
I'd be more concerned about cutting nutrition and education for children if you are that much concerned about them. But of course, you aren't really that concerned.
The gop are the American Taliban.
If you see one open it's hole shove a bullet in it
Posts 13, 17, 18 and 19 - Show you to be a bitter troll. The post above shows you to be unhinged.
Yellowdog,
What's so disheartening is Harleyguyvet received 5 votes.
The GOP is going to do whatever they can to inflict a defeat on Obama after his big electoral and "cliff" victories. They cant afford to lose this one so they'll go all out to defeat the Hagel nomination. I say..... go for it. Let Americans AGAIN see that the GOP is the party of NO, playing politics on everything, even the country's national security. The more nails in the GOP coffin in 2014, the better!
They would need to filibuster to defeat it. No way they burn a filibuster.
They have not been concerned about 'burning' filibusters for about 4 years now.
It does not matter who Obama nominates for any post, the T-baggers are going to do all they can to obstruct. If he picked a top Republican governor or Senator, they would obstruct. If he picked the Lord Jesus, they would obstruct.
Say
True post the GOP will be extinct
at least 10 Democrat Senators have already announced their opposition to Hagel
As I posted a couple of days ago in response to the same idiotic post, that won't happen. He couldn't pick the Lord Jesus. Obama would then have to admit that he isn't God OR Jesus.
Larry, if you keep posting that nonsense, I'll keep posting this link.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57562591/hagel-nod-faces-opposition-from-both-sides-of-aisle/
'
And as long as you're repeating yourself Larry, which country are you now calling home, eh?
They accomplish their goal----the media will chase the bright shiny object of Chuck Hagel's nomination instead of asking what Congress is doing about job creation, immigration reform, tax reform, gun reform----you know, the real important issues we face.
Talk - only dumbfux like you keep insisting Obama has a god complex. Most liberals do not.
Fawk debt,don't have kids and if you,do its not my problem,,,,dam people,are fawking stupid
You are like the pot calling the kettle black.
Perhaps we should fawk dam people - the debt of the water causes to many drownings.
Obama is known as a pretty good poker player. If the Republicans want to obstruct raising the debt ceiling, which will prevent the government from paying the bills already incurred, I have no doubt that Obama will do what Clinton did to then-Speaker Gingrich: "Go ahead and shut down the government". Obama will not blink.
He won't blink because it will all be over by the time he makes up his mind which way the wind is blowing...just like he waited in Libya until the rebels were all but extinct before he did squat.
One of the hallmarks of a brighter-than-average person is the ability to learn from one's mistakes, and President Obama is nothing if not bright. He will beat Republicans during the second debt ceiling by refusing to compromise this time. Heck, he's already beaten them, in the opinion polls. Republicans have hung themselves.
I am neither a democrat or a republican but I do find it a little strange when conservatives complain about passing debt along to their children and grandchildren. Under a republican administration we lowered taxes and fought two wars without paying for them. It had never happened before. Additionally, we finished deregulating the financial markets and brought it down around our ears. I guess it just depends on whose ox is being gored. I just find it strange that conservatives act like (and may well believe) that all this debt was none of their doing.
STOP VEHICULAR VIOLENCE!! If saving lives is the main thrust, shouldn't we limit speeds to 35mph, horsepower to 55 and minimum age for drivers at 25? That could be done overnight with the stroke of a pen. Only police and emergency personnel need to go faster. You can get where you are going by leaving earlier and putting no lives at risk. These few "commonsense" laws would save countless lives and maiming of our children. Cars kill so many more people than guns each year....how about it? Is it worth killing thousands of people each year just so you can go fast???
I love how you want to make every working persons day shorter simply because you get off on being able to own a deadly weapon.
James, I like how you use your 1st Amendment right to try to deny me my 2nd Amendment right.
You always hear the cry babies talk about,,my grand kids are going to have to pay ,well they should ,you brought the bastards into the world you,pay,for,them,,lol.And they can pay for your old worthless asses
Haha hehe hoho
You talk like an idiot.
Get real people the gop are fwaking retarded children
The GOP scum are all products of white women that all got banged by tribes of Mexicans and or monkeys,,,
Some QUESTIONS to all democrats on here:
Is there a point where the federal government just gets to big and starts to impede on your individual rights and taxes you way too much for it's borrowing and spending?
At what point will you say that the federal government is just borrowing too much? Is there and end to it's borrowing?
How will borrowing trillions of dollars each year, we can't pay back, will impede the freedoms of future American generations and do you even care about future generations of Americans, not even born yet, that we are saddleing with all of this dept and spending?
Why do you care loser?like its going to make or break you
Harley, you are the perfect picture of todays liberalism. Congrats!
Here are,a list of things people we can all do without
1 tea bagger Taliban
2 god for money losers
3 America's favorite theatrical prop,,the bible
4 the out dated second amendment musket ass holes
5 simple minded GOP coc suckers
6 all religion
And finally, number 7.) Harleyguyvet
Fixed it for you.
And number eight. You the master Bater
Blow me right tard
Pay more taxes you chumps,most of us got out of that trap in the 90's
Looooosers
So you became a complete taker back in the 90s?
And here, I thought I would miss the repartee.
How dare they nominate a Republican with common sense and logic on top of real combat experience, even if he is from a real red state! Didn't the president know those were banned from DC work by the new GOP? Next up, the just retired lady repub senator from Maine who could not put up with the new GOP? Think her first name was Olympia. Keep picking those moderate repubs for posts, it may be the start of that rehabbing the GOP needs. Ye that's the ticket - call this a rehab of the GOP movement if I were Mitch and John,with Obama helping you kick it off. Its the chance for older repubs that ran the GOP last 30 years to come back and rehab the young tea pots.
That's too logical William.........lol
If your a working stiff you deserve to pay more,,,smart people work for themselves,,,,and we don't play the game
Haha hehe hoho
Is that a pic of Chuck Hagel? Doesn't look like it.