The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[molson]

ding ding ding

I'm snickering at the irony.

[Flasch186]

snicker away...

according to the tests I took Im not far left but whatever floats your boat.

[Grammaticus]

Just in case someone forgets to post this new poll on just one site today here it is:

AP Poll: Health care overhaul has a pulse - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091007/ap_on_bi_ge/us_ap_poll_health_care)

This is kind of interesting. Even though support is really not what you need to put something this taxing into place, it is up a little. Now the delima for Obama is the choice between taking the plan congress presents or vetoing possibly his biggest campaign promise. If he takes it he breaks several promises he made regarding health care reform. If he uses the veto, he fails to deliver on the big promise. I almost think he is in a lose / lose situation.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I almost think he is in a lose / lose situation.

http://www.forumspile.com/That-Is-Excellent-MrBurns.jpg

[Buccaneer]

$1.4 trillion deficit for FY 2008-2009?

Did I read that right or is that not true??? If so, how can anyone tolerate that, esp. with all of the correctly-placed outrage over $400 billion deficits? But I guess we can excuse that away and make it look ok.

[Flasch186]

It definitely sucks but IMO I wish we didnt have to spend money to save ourselves from the great depression 2 {shrug}

[Big Fo]

Well Congress could try significantly cutting the budget in other areas and/or raising taxes to balance things out but for some reason they don't seem concerned enough with the massive imbalance and the already mammoth national debt. It doesn't make sense to me.

[Buccaneer]

It is one thing if you believe that such federal govt expenditures way beyond the revenues averted a depression but what about now? With the forecast being something like $1.12 trillion for 2010, why add to it and compound the problem?

[Flasch186]

to get coverage to 94% of people (or whatever) so theyre not one illness away from bankruptcy and in all honesty the Health Insurance companies dont give a shit about you, me or anyone (really) and IMO have lost the right to self regulate (for a while anyways.)

I think I laid out my position with Arles a few pages back.

[Buccaneer]

to get coverage to 94% of people (or whatever) so theyre not one illness away from bankruptcy and in all honesty the Health Insurance companies dont give a shit about you, me or anyone (really) and IMO have lost the right to self regulate (for a while anyways.)

I think I laid out my position with Arles a few pages back.

Thank you, Flasch, for reminding me that you still live in a hyperbolic paranoid world. I work for a 2000-person company and we all have excellent health coverage. We even just opened up an on-site health clinic. We can't be the only one? But, I should never have come back. Just wanted to see the outrage about the budget deficit.

[Flasch186]

you used a great word there:

"work"

the real unemployment rate is north of 15% right now. So its a shame that when you lose your job your choice is the crazy expensive Cobra, or none at all....and thats if you had a leg up to begin with. thank you for placing the light on your position because it simply lacks the empathy Id expect out of you and the tunnel vision that you miss ALL of the other facets of the debate and focus only on the deficit. Nothing wrong with that, youre allowed to choose your priorities. Luckily there are elections.....

[JPhillips]

The CBO projection on the Baucus bill shows it actually reducing the deficit by @80 billion.

[Flasch186]

But the GOP, in this case, says that the CBO estimate is analyzing untruths...

On Squawk they called one of the Congressman out on the fact that they used the CBO report to blast the earlier analysis yet discount it now.

[molson]

snicker away...

according to the tests I took Im not far left but whatever floats your boat.

I think something was wrong with those tests, but what I was snickering about was you and lungs' high and mighty attitude that the middle-left isn't properly acknowledged, when I don't think you or many of the liberals on this board have ANY concept of the middle-right.

[Flasch186]

could be...apologies for me misunderstanding your snicker :)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

The CBO projection on the Baucus bill shows it actually reducing the deficit by @80 billion.

As I stated previously, none of this really matters. Yesterday comments by both sides were little more than posturing. We still don't have a final bill. The politicians are making a bunch of comments about a bill that will not ever go to a vote in its current form. Much negotiation still has to take place before we even get close to seeing a final draft that probably will only partially resemble the Baucas bill.

[Flasch186]

Sen. Grassley on CNBC just said, now, that eventhough this bill is deficit neutral via CBO reports, or 'positive', theyre against the bill and the idea of it because it'll see raising of taxes.

Move that cheese.

[miked]

Thank you, Flasch, for reminding me that you still live in a hyperbolic paranoid world. I work for a 2000-person company and we all have excellent health coverage. We even just opened up an on-site health clinic. We can't be the only one? But, I should never have come back. Just wanted to see the outrage about the budget deficit.

Congrats, I work for a large University and they just raised their prices on all plans. Even more, if I want my spouse on it and she has another job where they offer coverage (they actually do and it's mega-shitty) we have to pay an additional 50-100 a month as a penalty of some sort. I mean, the "family" plan is already pretty significantly higher than the individual, I don't know why they feel they have to do it other than their endowments are down and the insurance companies keep jacking rates.

I'm not paranoid, I just think it's silly for insurance to be tied to work and the prices are way out of control. I mean, for every $200 a month I'm paying, the University is paying $700 or something (also silly because I get grants that pay for fringes and overhead that go into a large pool). All this, and my itemized bill from a simple doctor visit looks like I built a space station because they will only recover 25% from the insurance company.

But congrats on your awesome coverage. Mine is pretty solid too. If you think that represents any kind of majority, you're silly.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Sen. Grassley on CNBC just said, now, that eventhough this bill is deficit neutral via CBO reports, or 'positive', theyre against the bill and the idea of it because it'll see raising of taxes.

Move that cheese.

While realizing the slant you're attempting to put on that comment, I don't think that statement is inconsistent at all with what the Republicans have been pushing for. They've said they want a bill that is defecit neutral at worst and that doesn't raise the taxes or premiums of existing policies or reduce the coverage of existing policy holders.

You can argue whether all of that is possible, but it's certainly not a new request from the Republicans. They've been asking for that all along.

[Flasch186]

Theyve been asking for a lot of stuff for a long time. They had a ton of time to do something yet did nothing, not even Tort reform (which Im for). I dont believe that they want HI reform at all....luckily new polls lead me to conclude that a majority of Americans also see through the smoke AND believe that HI reform is good for the country.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Theyve been asking for a lot of stuff for a long time. They had a ton of time to do something yet did nothing, not even Tort reform (which Im for). I dont believe that they want HI reform at all....luckily new polls lead me to conclude that a majority of Americans also see through the smoke AND believe that HI reform is good for the country.

Define 'nothing'.

Define 'majority of Americans' and the specific poll question that led to that conclusion.

[flere-imsaho]

Define 'nothing'.

You really think the GOP came into the healthcare debate with a plan to do anything besides (at best) loosening restrictions on private health care companies?

For all but a few GOP Reps and Senators this has been an exercise in political obstruction with a goal of gaining electoral advantage.

Define 'majority of Americans' and the specific poll question that led to that conclusion.

This stuff isn't hard to find. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/123470/Opposition-Healthcare-Legislation-Drops-Modestly.aspx)

[DaddyTorgo]

Congrats, I work for a large University and they just raised their prices on all plans. Even more, if I want my spouse on it and she has another job where they offer coverage (they actually do and it's mega-shitty) we have to pay an additional 50-100 a month as a penalty of some sort. I mean, the "family" plan is already pretty significantly higher than the individual, I don't know why they feel they have to do it other than their endowments are down and the insurance companies keep jacking rates.

I'm not paranoid, I just think it's silly for insurance to be tied to work and the prices are way out of control. I mean, for every $200 a month I'm paying, the University is paying $700 or something (also silly because I get grants that pay for fringes and overhead that go into a large pool). All this, and my itemized bill from a simple doctor visit looks like I built a space station because they will only recover 25% from the insurance company.

But congrats on your awesome coverage. Mine is pretty solid too. If you think that represents any kind of majority, you're silly.

well played sir. shitty situation for you indeed. those "oh you've arleady got coverage options somewhere else" fees are stupid shit.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

You really think the GOP came into the healthcare debate with a plan to do anything besides (at best) loosening restrictions on private health care companies?

For all but a few GOP Reps and Senators this has been an exercise in political obstruction with a goal of gaining electoral advantage.

They have proposed 3 alternative bills that I am aware of which I posted previously in the thread. As recently as a few days ago, Bobby Jindal put forth a pretty good ten-point plan, though it didn't have specifics which would obviously be important in properly assessing it.

As far as politics go, they're not playing politics any more than the party that holds a large majority of votes in both houses, yet indicates that they somehow need bipartisan support in order to get the bills through. Politics happen. Let's not pretend otherwise. That doesn't change the fact that the word 'nothing' means something different than what Flasch seemed to indicate.

I'd also note that you're giving the Republicans far too much credit for any electoral changes that may take place in 2010. The Democrats have done a much better job of hurting their chances in 2010 than anything the Republicans have done.

This stuff isn't hard to find. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/123470/Opposition-Healthcare-Legislation-Drops-Modestly.aspx)

Evidently it is hard to find. I see one measurement where it manages to squeak out a 51% in favor measurement and that's only by eliminating the people that have 'no opinion'. That's hardly a 'majority'. I'm going to assume that's not the poll Flasch was referring to. He wouldn't base a post on an altered poll result such as that one.

[DaddyTorgo]

As recently as a few days ago, Bobby Jindal put forth a pretty good ten-point plan, though it didn't have specifics which would obviously be important in properly assessing it.


You really think that's credible? It's a stall tactic, nothing more. "Oh...well here I have ten ideas...but I have no specifics, so let's take 4 months and go off and come up with specifics, and then we'll include a poison-pill for democrats so they have to reject it and we're back at square 1."

it's not trying to bring about healthcare reform - it's just trying to stall things and drag stuff out.

i can't believe you actually tried to call it a "plan" when it doesn't have specifics either. it's a collectin of ten ideas.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

On CNN, two story headlines:


Wilson GOP rock star after 'You lie' (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/08/joe.wilson/index.html) <script type="text/javascript">document.write(cnnRenderTimeStamp(1255008456278));</script>23 min
'Die quickly' congressman becomes liberal hero (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/08/alan.grayson/index.html)The rest of us die a little inside.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

You really think that's credible? It's a stall tactic, nothing more. "Oh...well here I have ten ideas...but I have no specifics, so let's take 4 months and go off and come up with specifics, and then we'll include a poison-pill for democrats so they have to reject it and we're back at square 1."

it's not trying to bring about healthcare reform - it's just trying to stall things and drag stuff out.

i can't believe you actually tried to call it a "plan" when it doesn't have specifics either. it's a collectin of ten ideas.

Understood. It's little more than a form of a campaign speech and I mentioned that, though I would note that a couple of his points were in the proposed Republican alternatives, so those are certainly more than just talk.

[Flasch186]

That doesn't change the fact that the word 'nothing' means something different than what Flasch seemed to indicate.


no it doesnt. IMO, despite the rhetoric, the GOP want 'no change' and therefore 'nothing'. I dont parse words like you do.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

On CNN, two story headlines:


Wilson GOP rock star after 'You lie' (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/08/joe.wilson/index.html) <script type="text/javascript">document.write(cnnRenderTimeStamp(1255008456278));</script>23 min
'Die quickly' congressman becomes liberal hero (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/08/alan.grayson/index.html)The rest of us die a little inside.

Did I see that right? The Wilson video report is 23 minutes?!?!?! Sounds like a good way to take a 23 minute nap if you ask me.

[flere-imsaho]

Evidently it is hard to find. I see one measurement where it manages to squeak out a 51% in favor measurement and that's only by eliminating the people that have 'no opinion'. That's hardly a 'majority'. I'm going to assume that's not the poll Flasch was referring to. He wouldn't base a post on an altered poll result such as that one.

I give you a link to raw data at Gallup, and you immediately claim bias. :lol:

I'd say go look at the trendlines from that poll, go look at the responses to individual questions, etc... but honestly, what's the point?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

no it doesnt. IMO, despite the rhetoric, the GOP want 'no change' and therefore 'nothing'. I dont parse words like you do.

Once again, you appear to be ill-informed. Republican have not said they don't want any change. They have some alternative ways that they want to facilitate some changes in health care that should be considered and voted on. If they're not good ideas, they'll be voted down and they can move on to other options. As of now, that vote in either house has not been allowed by the majority party.

[Flasch186]

I said 'despite' the rhetoric IMO they really want 'nothing'. Not really something you can debate....unlike empirical data you spin. Take your spin arrows and point them elsewhere.

[flere-imsaho]

Republican have not said they don't want any change. They have some alternative ways that they want to facilitate some changes in health care

Such as? Could you describe some of these and explain how, exactly, they represent true change and improvement to health care, and are not window dressing?

It's funny. On one hand you're quite certain that the (now quite extensive) plans Democrats have put forward are terrible ideas and should be rejected out of hand, but the nebulous "talking points" ideas the GOP have put forward deserve more thought and consideration.

Why is that?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I give you a link to raw data at Gallup, and you immediately claim bias. :lol:

I'd say go look at the trendlines from that poll, go look at the responses to individual questions, etc... but honestly, what's the point?

No, I did not claim bias and any move to indicate that would not be correct. A majority would be a situation where the majority of respondants answered affirmatively in favor of the bill. That's not what happened here. Only 40% of the respondants who said 'yea' or 'nay' said they were in favor of the bill. That's much different than a majority. 40% isn't much of an improvement.

I'd still note as I have before that we're still asking poll questions in this case about a bill where literally none of the respondants have any idea what the actual final bill will look like. Without seeing the full poll, I'm guessing that they didn't lay out the exact bill that they were saying they favor if they responded in the affirmative. All of this is FAR too premature to make any sort of sense or provide any real measurement.

[flere-imsaho]

I said 'despite' the rhetoric IMO they really want 'nothing'. Not really something you can debate....unlike empirical data you spin. Take your spin arrows and point them elsewhere.

To wit: (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/republican-party/gop-rep-admits-fail-concedes-republicans-should-have-fixed-health-care/)

The exchange kicked off when Ryan claimed that multiple aspects of our health care crisis could be solved without a “government takeover” of health care. Frank called him out, pointedly asking why Republicans hadn’t figured out that the health care crisis could be solved (their way) during all the years they were in power.

“I’m glad you now understand that,” Frank continued. “Can you tell me at what moment the revelation occurred?”

After Ryan demurred, noting that he had submitted bills over the years, Frank pressed again, prompting this exchange:

FRANK: You had control of the Congress. Why didn’t the Republican Congress act on it?

RYAN: I will have a moment of bipartisan of agreement. We should have fixed this under our watch and I’m frustrated we didn’t.

Dems are now pouncing on the comment as a sign of the GOP’s unwillingness to confront the nation’s problems, pointing out that Ryan drafted a plan to eventually replace Medicare with subsidies to help retirees enroll in private health care plans. Critics argue that subsidies would lag behind inflation, leaving the poor and ill without coverage.

“There’s a reason why a growing chorus of Republican leaders in the states are calling out Congressional Republicans’ obstruction and hypocrisy,” DCCC spokesman Ryan Rudominer emails. “After all, it was Ryan who led the fight to try and end Medicare as it’s presently known just six months ago, which attracted the support of 137 House Republicans.”

MBBF is arguing that a party with a clear historical record of obstinately opposing health care reform is now attempting to act in good faith now. Looking at their record (and I believe Ryan has been in office at least since 2000), that's a pretty hard claim to believe.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Such as? Could you describe some of these and explain how, exactly, they represent true change and improvement to health care, and are not window dressing?

It's funny. On one hand you're quite certain that the (now quite extensive) plans Democrats have put forward are terrible ideas and should be rejected out of hand, but the nebulous "talking points" ideas the GOP have put forward deserve more thought and consideration.

Why is that?

I've linked three times in this thread to the Republican alternatives. Feel free to read through them (they're relatively short when compared to the Democrat bills) and make your own judgment.

I actually have never said that the Democrat bills are terrible and rejected them out of hand. I've said several times that we don't even have a full final bill, so debate that you're in favor or against a bill is premature. With that said, I do reject specific points that some Democrats have proposed, and I'm assuming that's where your confusion lies. With that said, I have no clue what the final bill will look like. Some or most of the places where my objections lie may not be in the bill in the end. If there's no public option, no increase in taxes or premiums on existing policies, and no change in my current coverage then I likely won't have any objections. But until we get a final bill, there's no way of knowing what to object to in the bill.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

To wit: (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/republican-party/gop-rep-admits-fail-concedes-republicans-should-have-fixed-health-care/)

MBBF is arguing that a party with a clear historical record of obstinately opposing health care reform is now attempting to act in good faith now. Looking at their record (and I believe Ryan has been in office at least since 2000), that's a pretty hard claim to believe.

Once again, a mischaracterization of my stance. I never said they were acting in 'good faith'. I didn't realize that there was a requirement that the minority party had to act in good faith. Someone might want to tell both parties if that is the agreement so both sides can stop being a pain-in-the-ass when they're the minority.

[Flasch186]

No, I did not claim bias and any move to indicate that would not be correct. A majority would be a situation where the majority of respondants answered affirmatively in favor of the bill. That's not what happened here. Only 40% of the respondants who said 'yea' or 'nay' said they were in favor of the bill. That's much different than a majority. 40% isn't much of an improvement.

I'd still note as I have before that we're still asking poll questions in this case about a bill where literally none of the respondants have any idea what the actual final bill will look like. Without seeing the full poll, I'm guessing that they didn't lay out the exact bill that they were saying they favor if they responded in the affirmative. All of this is FAR too premature to make any sort of sense or provide any real measurement.

I didnt use the word 'vast' :p :lol:

I do find it ironic that the argument of 'we havnt seen a bill to talk about' is being used when that was what I was yelling about when the Tea Parties were in full swing. I had said that they aren't really even opposing UHC at those things but a much broader swatch of stuff. Its good to see you come around.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I didnt use the word 'vast' :p :lol:

Had you instead said 'the smallest majority measurable when excluding people who had no opinion', then I wouldn't have had any problem with your statement.

:p

[Flasch186]

as an aside after some thought , with you, I do parse words, so I take that back.

[flere-imsaho]

No, I did not claim bias and any move to indicate that would not be correct.

What's this, then?

I see one measurement where it manages to squeak out a 51% in favor measurement and that's only by eliminating the people that have 'no opinion'.

It's hard to read that as anything else but Gallup summarizing their numbers in a way that gets a major indicator over 50%.

I'd still note as I have before that we're still asking poll questions in this case about a bill where literally none of the respondants have any idea what the actual final bill will look like.

Yet you've seen fit to use low poll numbers as an argument against the Democrats' potential bills in Congress. You can't have it both ways.

Polling on the general question of whether or not there should be reform to health care consistently shows good support (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/361/9/e13). If, according to you, we can't talk meaningfully about specifics, then let's limit ourselves to generalities. And in general, Americans support health care reform.

[flere-imsaho]

Once again, a mischaracterization of my stance. I never said they were acting in 'good faith'.

So what's this:

They have proposed 3 alternative bills that I am aware of which I posted previously in the thread. As recently as a few days ago, Bobby Jindal put forth a pretty good ten-point plan, though it didn't have specifics which would obviously be important in properly assessing it.

As far as politics go, they're not playing politics any more than the party that holds a large majority of votes in both houses, yet indicates that they somehow need bipartisan support in order to get the bills through.

Are members of the GOP presenting real alternatives (i.e. "acting in good faith") or are they playing politics? You can't have it both ways.

Are these measures the GOP is putting forward actual initiatives they want passed, or counterpoints to weaken support for Democratic proposals? And if it's the former, why didn't they try to pass these reforms while they controlled Congress and the White House?

[DaddyTorgo]

Yet you've seen fit to use low poll numbers as an argument against the Democrats' potential bills in Congress. You can't have it both ways.

Polling on the general question of whether or not there should be reform to health care consistently shows good support (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/361/9/e13). If, according to you, we can't talk meaningfully about specifics, then let's limit ourselves to generalities. And in general, Americans support health care reform.

you definately hit the nail on the head here - both as far as hypocritical use/dismissal of polls, as well as on the general question of healthcare reform

[Flasch186]

you keep saying he cant have it both ways...

O RLY?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

It's hard to read that as anything else but Gallup summarizing their numbers in a way that gets a major indicator over 50%.

Yet you've seen fit to use low poll numbers as an argument against the Democrats' potential bills in Congress. You can't have it both ways.

Polling on the general question of whether or not there should be reform to health care consistently shows good support (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/361/9/e13). If, according to you, we can't talk meaningfully about specifics, then let's limit ourselves to generalities. And in general, Americans support health care reform.

I don't have any problem with someone citing poll numbers as long as they're aware of the pitfalls that they provide. There were polls in recent weeks showing that 40-45% of people were opposed to the 'bill' with a good number of 'no opinion' responses, but you didn't see me saying that was a 'majority' when no opinion responses were taken out. It's a manipulation of the data that would be just as silly as the one proposed in the Gallup poll you cited.

In general, I support health care reform and would contribute to the majority of people who want it changed. But that doesn't mean I support the form of health care reform being proposed by Democrats if we use the Baucus plan as the measurement since we don't have a final bill yet.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

you keep saying he cant have it both ways...

O RLY?

Yes, I'd disagree that it can't be both as well. You can provide legitimate alternatives and still play politics at the same time. I'd love nothing more than to see all three proposed bills signed into law, but we know that won't happen as they'll never get a vote. Even if they did pass, Obama would kill them with a veto. That's fine and certainly part of the process, but that doesn't eliminate them as meaningful alternatives.

[molson]

The health care debate I think has run its course. That's the feeling I get from the last few pages here.

Looking foward to the Dems making up their minds and giving us something that they believe in enough to vote for and implement (even without unanimous Republican support, which of course they don't need)

We've had almost a decade now of Dems pointing out how everything is wrong and that their version of change will make things better. I'm more than ready for them to implement their visions on things so we can know either way.

It's really such a huge opportunity for them. With healthcare and with everything. Haven't seen much yet though. I hope they succeed. Either way, I hope they try.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

you definately hit the nail on the head here - both as far as hypocritical use/dismissal of polls, as well as on the general question of healthcare reform

I'm guessing you're harkening back to the election timeframe because it has little basis in reality in the current timeframe. I've been extremely selective in using polls since that point for the reason that they are extremely unreliable, far more than I realized. I did quite a bit of reading about polls after the election and there's honestly not many polls that are worth a damn.

[Flasch186]

The health care debate I think has run its course. That's the feeling I get from the last few pages here.

Looking foward to the Dems making up their minds and giving us something that they believe in enough to vote for and implement (even without unanimous Republican support, which of course they don't need)

We've had almost a decade now of Dems pointing out how everything is wrong and that their version of change will make things better. I'm more than ready for them to implement their visions on things so we can know either way.

It's really such a huge opportunity for them. With healthcare and with everything. Haven't seen much yet though. I hope they succeed. Either way, I hope they try.

good post.

[DaddyTorgo]

I'm guessing you're harkening back to the election timeframe because it has little basis in reality in the current timeframe. I've been extremely selective in using polls since that point for the reason that they are extremely unreliable, far more than I realized. I did quite a bit of reading about polls after the election and there's honestly not many polls that are worth a damn.

most likely probably *nods* fair enough

[Flasch186]

+1 except some polls due allow us to draw conclusions.

[RainMaker]

The health care debate I think has run its course. That's the feeling I get from the last few pages here.

Looking foward to the Dems making up their minds and giving us something that they believe in enough to vote for and implement (even without unanimous Republican support, which of course they don't need)

We've had almost a decade now of Dems pointing out how everything is wrong and that their version of change will make things better. I'm more than ready for them to implement their visions on things so we can know either way.

It's really such a huge opportunity for them. With healthcare and with everything. Haven't seen much yet though. I hope they succeed. Either way, I hope they try.

I'm in the same boat. Heard both sides and am sick of the debate. The Dems have the 60 Senate seats and an overwhelming majority in the House. Can't blame not passing this on anyone anymore.

Tired of talk. Just fucking get something done.

[RainMaker]

I still think most of the polls are irrelevent because none of the people being polled really know what's in the bill. We still have people believing in death camps and forced abortions. I think a lot of the responses are based off of fear of the unknown. That's partly the Democrats fault for letting special interests and Republicans control the debate and throw out some lies to scare people.

Kind of like the Iraq War polls before the war started. Most people supported it but didn't know that the WMD thing was a farce and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. If people were more educated on it, the polls would have been much different.

Basically what I'm saying is that polls mean shit if the people being asked don't know what the fuck is going on.

[JPhillips]

I've linked three times in this thread to the Republican alternatives. Feel free to read through them (they're relatively short when compared to the Democrat bills) and make your own judgment.

I actually have never said that the Democrat bills are terrible and rejected them out of hand. I've said several times that we don't even have a full final bill, so debate that you're in favor or against a bill is premature. With that said, I do reject specific points that some Democrats have proposed, and I'm assuming that's where your confusion lies. With that said, I have no clue what the final bill will look like. Some or most of the places where my objections lie may not be in the bill in the end. If there's no public option, no increase in taxes or premiums on existing policies, and no change in my current coverage then I likely won't have any objections. But until we get a final bill, there's no way of knowing what to object to in the bill.

None of those bills have more than a few dozen Republican supporters. The GOP House leadership said well over one hundred days ago that they were putting the finishing touches on their alternative proposal, but so far they have delivered nothing. There isn't any piece of legislation or proposed legislation that would garner support from a majority of GOP members.

[CraigSca]

None of those bills have more than a few dozen Republican supporters. The GOP House leadership said well over one hundred days ago that they were putting the finishing touches on their alternative proposal, but so far they have delivered nothing. There isn't any piece of legislation or proposed legislation that would garner support from a majority of GOP members.

Which, as the posters above have shown, is irrelevant because the Democrats don't need the GOP's support anyway.

[Flasch186]

again showing my naivete, I do wish that there could be a bill that is bipartisan on input, support, and results.

[JPhillips]

Which, as the posters above have shown, is irrelevant because the Democrats don't need the GOP's support anyway.

Irrelevant in passing a bill, but certainly not irrelevant when the argument is that the GOP has presented alternatives.

[JPhillips]

Wow.

"When I was sworn into the Marine Corps, I was sworn to uphold the Constitution against every enemy, foreign and domestic. We've got a lot of domestic enemies of the Constitution and one of those sits in the speaker's chair of the United States Congress, Nancy Pelosi." -- Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) at a townhall last week.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Wow.

Some of these politicians are modern-day drama queens. It's got to be over the top or else.

Pelosi's not too bright and is a poor leader, but she's certainly not an enemy of the constitution.

[flere-imsaho]

How quickly some people forget how fast-and-loose with the Constitution folks like Tom Delay and Dick Cheney were not so long ago.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

.....fast-and-loose........Tom Delay......

Save it for the 'Dancing With The Stars' thread.

[miked]

Given the rednecks Broun represents, he's just trying to rally his voting base a little. I doubt most in his district (except the obvious college students) can even spell "Constitution" let alone tell you what's in it.

[miked]

In fact, his most recent accomplishment...

H.CON.RES.121 : Encouraging the President to designate 2010 as "The National Year of the Bible".

H.R.227 : To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization.

H.R.1621 : To withhold Federal funds from schools that permit or require the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance or the national anthem in a language other than English.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Given the rednecks Broun represents

Ahem.

[Kodos]

In fact, his most recent accomplishment...

H.CON.RES.121 : Encouraging the President to designate 2010 as "The National Year of the Bible".

H.R.227 : To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization.

H.R.1621 : To withhold Federal funds from schools that permit or require the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance or the national anthem in a language other than English.

At least he's spending his time on important stuff.

[molson]

In fact, his most recent accomplishment...

H.CON.RES.121 : Encouraging the President to designate 2010 as "The National Year of the Bible".

H.R.227 : To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization.

H.R.1621 : To withhold Federal funds from schools that permit or require the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance or the national anthem in a language other than English.

That still exceeds the accomplishments of the current administration and congress as a whole.

How about we make 2010 "The Year of Doing Something and Not Complaining About Everyone Else".

[molson]

again showing my naivete, I do wish that there could be a bill that is bipartisan on input, support, and results.

I can see why that's important to someone voting on the bill (so they're not solely blamed if it bombs), but why is that important for a regular citizen? Why is it so important for you to Republicans to agree?

I mean, you don't agree with the Republican platform in general, right? You believe that the Democratic platform is generally more correct. So why don't you want to see that actual platform in action, not some watered down version of it that Republicans agree with? What's with all the waffling now that the Dems have power?

[CamEdwards]

That still exceeds the accomplishments of the current administration and congress as a whole.

How about we make 2010 "The Year of Doing Something and Not Complaining About Everyone Else".

Watch out, molson. You may be getting fact-checked by CNN if you keep making comments like this.

[JonInMiddleGA]

At least he's spending his time on important stuff.

Eh, I'd give him 1-1-1 on that list.

The Con. R. took some staffer a few minutes to write, if that, I'm down with the idea but it's fluff.

Me & Broun part ways on when life begins, so that's a loss.

1621 I'm very proud he's attached to, even if it sadly doesn't have any real hope of being passed. As important a use of his time as any of a hundred other things it could have been spent on afaic.

[DaddyTorgo]

In fact, his most recent accomplishment...

H.R.1621 : To withhold Federal funds from schools that permit or require the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance or the national anthem in a language other than English.

really? wow. what a douche. so if they PERMIT it to be recited in another language (say Native American reservation schools?) he wants Federal funds withheld? What a fuckwad.

[DaddyTorgo]

I can see why that's important to someone voting on the bill (so they're not solely blamed if it bombs), but why is that important for a regular citizen? Why is it so important for you to Republicans to agree?

I mean, you don't agree with the Republican platform in general, right? You believe that the Democratic platform is generally more correct. So why don't you want to see that actual platform in action, not some watered down version of it that Republicans agree with? What's with all the waffling now that the Dems have power?

you've got the answer there in your statement. GENERALLY MORE CORRECT, not 100% ALL CORRECT

[DaddyTorgo]

1621 I'm very proud he's attached to, even if it sadly doesn't have any real hope of being passed. As important a use of his time as any of a hundred other things it could have been spent on afaic.

I guess that really doesn't surprise me.

As far as REQUIRE I guess I'd agree with (although what about say optional Chinese Language Immersion programs within public schools?). As far as PERMIT I'd strongly disagree with.

And this coming from someone (me) who thinks that bilingual education is largely a crock and we should require all immigrants to learn English. So I'm not exactly liberal on this issue.

[molson]

you've got the answer there in your statement. GENERALLY MORE CORRECT, not 100% ALL CORRECT

OK - so does that mean you'd have doubts with a plan that Democrats universally supported, and Republicans universally opposed? I can understand that. That's what sucks about the partisianship of all this.

[DaddyTorgo]

OK - so does that mean you'd have doubts with a plan that Democrats universally supported, and Republicans universally opposed? I can understand that. That's what sucks about the partisianship of all this.

i wouldn't say my doubts were tied to who supported it or opposed it, but more just in general.

i don't necessarily think it'll be a better plan because it'll be 100% democrat. there's a real danger in that in that you don't have any outside input into it looking out for other ways to get things done and it can all just sort of snowball.

that being said i'm much more in favor of the general idea of the plans put forth by the democrats than the republican proposals. but the devil is in the details, and i think the Republicans are really failing to do their job as far as engaging in the political process and raising legitimate questions and offering legitimate alternatives.

[DaddyTorgo]

i hate coming off like i'm partisan, because my views are really a lot more nuanced than that.

shit...i'm for universal healthcare, but i'm also for making english the national language and requiring immigrants to learn it.

but the whole environment has become so polarized that everyone is pushed onto one side or another, largely based on where they stand on social issues (gay rights, abortion, that type of thing).

[Flasch186]

I can see why that's important to someone voting on the bill (so they're not solely blamed if it bombs), but why is that important for a regular citizen? Why is it so important for you to Republicans to agree?

I mean, you don't agree with the Republican platform in general, right? You believe that the Democratic platform is generally more correct. So why don't you want to see that actual platform in action, not some watered down version of it that Republicans agree with? What's with all the waffling now that the Dems have power?

cuz generally I think veering more than X from the middle is bad for America.

[Kodos]

It's a bit sad that the Dems actually made some effort to meet Reps in the middle on legislation since the last election, and the Rep response has basically been to attack whatever the Dems put forth. It would have been nice if the extreme partisanship from the Bush / Clinton days could have been scaled back some, and both sides could have tried to work towards something mutually acceptable. But obviously, that's not going to happen.

What I don't understand (and frustrates the hell out of me) is why the stupid Democrats are unwillingly to say, "okay, you don't want to play ball, so we'll just do things our way, and you can go screw yourself" and take advantage of their holding both chambers and the Presidency. You KNOW the Republicans would be passing all sorts of stuff if the tables were turned. I wish these guys could get on the same page and get some stuff done. Quit trying to reach out and getting your hands cut off, you idiots. You may never get another chance like this for decades. STEP ON THEIR NECK WHEN THEY ARE DOWN. THEY WOULD DO IT TO YOU.

[molson]

Somehow I don't think Obama would have been as successful in the election, especially the primaries, if the message was, "Change We Can Believe In As Long As The Republicans Agree".

[molson]

i think the Republicans are really failing to do their job as far as engaging in the political process and raising legitimate questions and offering legitimate alternatives.

I'm sure they are, but for the Democrats to blame the minority Republicans for their failures - that's just sad and pathetic.

They think they've set it up well though. SOMETHING will pass eventually. It will be a big compromise. If it doesn't work out, the Dems will still have their scapegoats. Even though this particular scapegoat is completely ridiculous. It's all about setting up who to blame ahead of time.

[Kodos]

The Democrats' failures are on their own shoulders. The Republicans couldn't really do much about things if the Democrats had their act together.

[CamEdwards]

It's a bit sad that the Dems actually made some effort to meet Reps in the middle on legislation since the last election, and the Rep response has basically been to attack whatever the Dems put forth. It would have been nice if the extreme partisanship from the Bush / Clinton days could have been scaled back some, and both sides could have tried to work towards something mutually acceptable. But obviously, that's not going to happen.

What I don't understand (and frustrates the hell out of me) is why the stupid Democrats are unwillingly to say, "okay, you don't want to play ball, so we'll just do things our way, and you can go screw yourself" and take advantage of their holding both chambers and the Presidency. You KNOW the Republicans would be passing all sorts of stuff if the tables were turned. I wish these guys could get on the same page and get some stuff done. Quit trying to reach out and getting your hands cut off, you idiots. You may never get another chance like this for decades. STEP ON THEIR NECK WHEN THEY ARE DOWN. THEY WOULD DO IT TO YOU.

Why would you expect that the party that seems largely antagonistic to the idea of personal responsibility would want to, you know, be responsible for anything? For eight years they've been able to demonize Republicans for the direction of this country, and now with a near supermajority in the Senate and a clear majority in the House, they're still demonizing Republicans for the direction of this country. After eight years of not having to take responsibility for the country, I'm convinced that many Congressional Democrats either don't want, or don't know how, to be an effective majority party.

The GOP is suffering from a lack of leadership now, which isn't that surprising. What is surprising to me is that the Democrats also seem to be suffering from a lack of leadership. Obama seems uninterested in details or specifics in legislation, and seemingly would prefer to just sign the bill that gets to his desk. But since he's both the president and head of the Democratic party, I don't think he can be a "hands-off" president. Most people, his critics included, thought that Obama was going to be a bold and strong president. Instead, almost one year in he looks like the weakest we've had since Carter.

[Kodos]

Yeah. Honestly, Obama is really disappointing me. The stars are aligned like never before in my lifetime, he is well-regarded by the people who elected him and around the world, but he seems better at sweeping speeches than in getting in there, getting his hands dirty, and getting the job done. He's too worried about bipartisanship and playing nice. I won't vote for him next time out if he doesn't dramatically improve. I still have hope that he will rise up to the challenge, but that hope is a lot weaker than it was a year ago.

In baseball terms, swing for the fences. It's better to strike out than to not even swing.

[Arles]

I see two problems with minority support in legislation (esp when the White House and congress is held by the same party):

1. Politics is now a team sport. So, "helping" Obama pass legislation (even legislation that you may feel is good for the country) hurts your team. The republicans are much better off as a party if nothing passes on a major issue.

2. A lot of times the minority doesn't agree with the premise. Take "Cap and trade" - most republicans don't want any bill that would add stress to industry related to "carbon credits" or any similar measure. If that's your premise, how do you compromise? It's like telling a Red Sox fan: "You don't have to root for the Yankees the entire ALCS, just root for them for the first game or two". You are still asking someone to endorse an action they are diametrically opposed to.

As time passes, partisanship will continue to ratchet up and there will be less and less willingness by the party out of power to do anything. This is just a result of the "team sport" nature of politics combined with the 24-hour cable news cycle. Even if Mitch McConnell wanted to endorse a policy created by Harry Reid and helped it pass, he'd be tarred and feathered by the right for even helping them out. It's a lose-lose for the party out of power combined with the party in power getting put down by their supporters for trying to get a consensus (esp when one isn't needed).

I'd go more into it, but all that can said now is that "it is what is" and I don't see it changing anytime soon.

[JonInMiddleGA]

But since he's both the president and head of the Democratic party, I don't think he can be a "hands-off" president.

I'd strongly question whether he's considered the latter within the party. They haven't been able to figure out whether it's supposed to be Reid, Pelosi, or whomever but I've always gotten a pretty strong vibe that they all agree it's not Obama.

[Buccaneer]

Back on the health care, yes, "work" is a great word and I am fortunate. My coverage is excellent but it is expensive, never said it wasn't. What's the old adage? Quality-Service-Cost: pick 2. My empathy is in the quality of health care and living/maintaining a healthy lifestyle (which is also the priority of my company which recently won a national(?) award for healthy living initiatives - against good competition since Colorado is the healthiest state). Anyway, there are a lot of people working for companies so I reacted against that 94% are one illness away from bankruptcy (if I read that right).

And yes, it is tied to the deficit. What if Congress over the decades had not done a lot of stupid things - or were encouraged not do such things? These range from temporary expenditures that ended up being permanent, to wasteful "war" on X, to ridiculous parochial weapons programs, to ill-thoughtout nationbuilding, to corporate welfare, to cheating tax codes and to alledged stimuluses that are only targeted to help the fewest people possible (and not the ones that really needed help). Perhaps they cried wolf too many times that they would be hard pressed to do something that could actually matter. But instead, we shouldn't trust them as they have not proven they can be trusted with many big things. I wish health costs were lower and I wish more can get basic coverage (without having to resort to CORBA, which is ridiculous) but I do not trust or believe they can do that.

[miked]

Eh, I'd give him 1-1-1 on that list.

The Con. R. took some staffer a few minutes to write, if that, I'm down with the idea but it's fluff.

Me & Broun part ways on when life begins, so that's a loss.

1621 I'm very proud he's attached to, even if it sadly doesn't have any real hope of being passed. As important a use of his time as any of a hundred other things it could have been spent on afaic.

Well, I was leaving Athens out of my redneck comment (for the most part), however your approval of 1621 reinforces your other occasional racist comments. I recited the pledge in French during my AP French class in high school (as she wanted everything done in french, no english), but we all know what Broun means to write is that he wants funds pulled if it's recited in Spanish. Plays perfectly in to the xenophobia in rural Georgia, however I guess it's better that he wastes his time pushing drivel into committees (like Saxby) rather than gain any traction for any of his issues.

[miked]

Dola, I also think bilingual requirements are stupid, but we know the true undercurrent of the bill and who he's trying to appeal to.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Well, I was leaving Athens out of my redneck comment (for the most part), however your approval of 1621 reinforces your other occasional racist comments.

Speak English or die motherfucker pretty well covers it within the borders of the 50 states as far as I'm concerned & most especially when it's on the taxpayers dime. I don't bitch cause Quebec likes French, why anyone has a problem with English here beats the hell out of me (or it would if I particularly gave a damn why).

but we all know what Broun means to write is that he wants funds pulled if it's recited in Spanish.

Yep, which makes sense since we aren't seeing many Hungarians in northeast Georgia lately. If we were, he'd want 'em pulled for doing the Pledge sounding like Zsa Zsa Gabor.

On the bright side, the economic downturn has at least reduced the crowd outside the Home Depot enough that you can get into the parking lot most mornings without having to dodge the loitering throng as it no longer spills over beyond the tent into the entrance, so we've got that going for us.

On the whole I'm pretty happy with Broun, and the instances where we do part company are more than made up for by how wound up he gets our local assortment of nouveau hippies & garden variety liberals. Heck, he could never introduce another piece of legislation as long as he's in office and still be worth keeping around just for his votes and the service he provides by discomfiting the enemy so consistently.

[Edward64]

Yeah. Honestly, Obama is really disappointing me. The stars are aligned like never before in my lifetime, he is well-regarded by the people who elected him and around the world, but he seems better at sweeping speeches than in getting in there, getting his hands dirty, and getting the job done. He's too worried about bipartisanship and playing nice.
Unfortunately, I agree with this statement. He has been a disappointment over the past couple months.

I like him but winning the Nobel Peace Prize is premature and, imo, a joke.

[Young Drachma]

Yeah. Honestly, Obama is really disappointing me. The stars are aligned like never before in my lifetime, he is well-regarded by the people who elected him and around the world, but he seems better at sweeping speeches than in getting in there, getting his hands dirty, and getting the job done. He's too worried about bipartisanship and playing nice. I won't vote for him next time out if he doesn't dramatically improve. I still have hope that he will rise up to the challenge, but that hope is a lot weaker than it was a year ago.

In baseball terms, swing for the fences. It's better to strike out than to not even swing.

He's doing a lot of payback for what he did to get elected and most of that is...well...looking like he's in charge, but ultimately realizing he's way in over his head. I mean, most of his team seems that way too. Like in theory thought they could do this, brought in a ton of ex-DC paperweights to "help" him look more experienced and really, everyone is just "getting theirs" and the Boy Emperor is really just doing what he does.

Getting on planes and riling up people.

[JonInMiddleGA]

... the Boy Emperor is really just doing what he does. Getting on planes and riling up people.

You left out winning stuff he has zero business winning in a remotely sane world.

[RainMaker]

Speak English or die motherfucker pretty well covers it within the borders of the 50 states as far as I'm concerned & most especially when it's on the taxpayers dime. I don't bitch cause Quebec likes French, why anyone has a problem with English here beats the hell out of me (or it would if I particularly gave a damn why).
Schools should be English, but being bilingual is extremely important in today's global market. Raising kids to speak 2 or 3 languages is a huge benefit to their future.

[stevew]

Yeah, if they are languages like Japanese or Chinese.

[lungs]

Damn it, you better speak English in your own home too!

[RainMaker]

Yeah, if they are languages like Japanese or Chinese.
If you're a CEO or something. But a large percent of the population speaks it in this country and throughout the world. If you're bilingual, it opens a ton of jobs for you. I remember when I worked at a large furniture company, they'd hire managers who were bilingual because they could communicate eaiser with a lot of the workers on the lines.

Lot of professions like doctor, dentist, social worker, teacher, etc have a major advantage in the job marketplace if they speak Spanish.

[lungs]

Lot of professions like doctor, dentist, social worker, teacher, etc have a major advantage in the job marketplace if they speak Spanish.


It won't be once we get all them Mexicans out of this country.

[gstelmack]

Lot of professions like doctor, dentist, social worker, teacher, etc have a major advantage in the job marketplace if they speak Spanish.

For domestic work, sure. For international work, other languages are better. French and Chinese would sure be handy for me right now, but I took Spanish in high school and German in college. Sigh.

[RainMaker]

For domestic work, sure. For international work, other languages are better. French and Chinese would sure be handy for me right now, but I took Spanish in high school and German in college. Sigh.
I agree. But for the most part, the average person has a higher chance of needing another language for domestic instead of foreign. In any event, knowing multiple languages can only enhance your job prospects no matter what it is.

[gstelmack]

But for the most part, the average person has a higher chance of needing another language for domestic instead of foreign.

Yes, like trying to order food. My wife and I still laugh at the time we ordered an Egg McMuffin with folded egg and they tried to put lettuce on it...

[Edward64]

For the future, I would vote for Mandarin and Spanish. Mandarin obviously because of China's growth and importance to US businesses and Spanish because of Mexico/Caribbean/Latin/South America.

Unfortunately, the French I learnt in school, is ... old Europe.

[gstelmack]

Unfortunately, the French I learnt in school, is ... old Europe.

I work for a French company and have dealings with the Montreal studio on a semi-regular basis, that's the only reason French would be important to me.

[RainMaker]

I don't get why the President is being praised for his speech on repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" the other night. It's a nice speech and all, but he has the power right this minute to repeal it with a stop-loss order. It's 8 months into his Presidency on an issue he said he'd handle and it's gone nowhere. Enough with the fucking speeches and promises on this, sign a stop loss order Monday morning and get this abomination over with. Then let Congress put together a bill so that we don't have future Presidents reversing it (although I think that would be highly unlikely).

[JediKooter]

What I really need is a droid that understands the binary language of moisture vaporators.

[Greyroofoo]

What I really need is a droid that understands the binary language of moisture vaporators.

I LOLed

[Chief Rum]

For domestic work, sure. For international work, other languages are better. French and Chinese would sure be handy for me right now, but I took Spanish in high school and German in college. Sigh.

"No one who speaks German could be an evil man."

[Dutch]

Then let Congress put together a bill so that we don't have future Presidents reversing it (although I think that would be highly unlikely).

You mean, a bill that makes sure the Dem's stay in power after Obama is gone? Chavez repealed the laws that allowed the people to even elect somebody new...maybe we should go there next?

[gstelmack]

Chavez repealed the laws that allowed the people to even elect somebody new...maybe we should go there next?

The Massachusetts' Democrats DID just repeal their own law forcing a special election to replace a Senator that has to leave office now that they have a Democrat governor in office when Ted Kennedy died.

[ISiddiqui]

I don't get why the President is being praised for his speech on repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" the other night.

He actually isn't by a lot of gay rights activists (including Andrew Sullivan). They agree with you - it's just talk and no action. And I'm getting sick of the "other priorities" thing. Gay Americans are being treated as second class citizens and that isn't a even a mid level priority? Really?

[Tigercat]

OT, but I'll put it here 'cause its not so important to make a new thread.

Met Howard Dean yesterday at our park. Didn't even recognize him at first because he was very subdued in person and he has lost a decent amount of weight. He showed a lot of interest in what we do though, which was cool of him because that kind of interest isn't really a necessary part of his life anymore.

[RainMaker]

You mean, a bill that makes sure the Dem's stay in power after Obama is gone? Chavez repealed the laws that allowed the people to even elect somebody new...maybe we should go there next?
A stop-loss can be reversed as soon as another President comes into power. Making a law on the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy would make it much harder to overturn as it would have to go through Congress.

Not sure where you are going with the Glenn Beck-esque rant.

[RainMaker]

He actually isn't by a lot of gay rights activists (including Andrew Sullivan). They agree with you - it's just talk and no action. And I'm getting sick of the "other priorities" thing. Gay Americans are being treated as second class citizens and that isn't a even a mid level priority? Really?
I know some are upset, but it still seems like a small minority who are being vocal about this. It should have been done the day after he was put in office. Everyday it's not should be an uproar. He should be treated the same as Bush on gay rights until he actually does something.

[ISiddiqui]

Well, gay voters are treated by the Dems as pro-life voters are treated by the Reps. A few bones tossed to them, but overall, they are just used as a locked in voter base.

[RainMaker]

Well, gay voters are treated by the Dems as pro-life voters are treated by the Reps. A few bones tossed to them, but overall, they are just used as a locked in voter base.
But a President can't ban abortions overnight. It's a Supreme Court issue and I think Republicans have done their best lately to put in people who would overturn Roe v Wade.

Bush also signed Presidential orders that was beneficial to the Pro-Life movement.

[larrymcg421]

Well, I think he saw what happened when Clinton started with that right off the bat. And he probably wants it done as an amendment to the Uniform Code, since it would be alot harder to be reversed.

I sure hope he gets it done soon, though. I'll be disappointed if he chickens out on it like Clinton did.

[RainMaker]

World has changed a lot since Clinton on this issue. This coming generation doesn't think homosexuality is a big deal.

[JPhillips]

It isn't just Obama, congressional leadership is just as responsible for not touching DADT. It's shameful.

[RainMaker]

It is shameful of Congress, but Obama doesn't need them to fix it.

[JPhillips]

It colors my view of everyone who can fix it, but chooses not to.

[Greyroofoo]

I still don't understand why we let felons into the military but not openly gay people.

[ISiddiqui]

I've never heard of felons engaging in gay activities :mad: ;)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

A pretty baffling more by the Obama Administration here. I can't even imagine the backlash had the previous administration made a similar statement towards MSNBC. It doesn't make sense to make a statement that will likely only increase the audience of the network you are attempting to minimize with that statement.

White House Escalates War of Words With Fox News - Political News - FOXNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/12/white-house-escalates-war-words-fox-news/)

[molson]

A pretty baffling more by the Obama Administration here. I can't even imagine the backlash had the previous administration made a similar statement towards MSNBC. It doesn't make sense to make a statement that will likely only increase the audience of the network you are attempting to minimize with that statement.

White House Escalates War of Words With Fox News - Political News - FOXNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/12/white-house-escalates-war-words-fox-news/)

FOXNews has to be loving this.

I don't know exactly what the White House hopes to accomplish here, but what a moronic strategy. I mean, do they think Republicans who watch FoxNews are going to shut it off based on what the White House says? Do they think its going to make Glenn Beck fans turn against him? It's like these people got an FOFC account and are blowing off steam in a political thread.

And, I'm sure this will be defended by people who would have had a problem with Bush attacking free speech in a similar matter. It's not up to the White House to characterize American media. If a network wants to report news with a conservative bias, and supplement that with commentators with conservative opinions, that's their right. And while the administration isn't literally suppressing that right yet, its just odd to see them attacking non-complacent media.

[JPhillips]

Funny how when it's the NYT that's being hit neither of you complained.

[Flasch186]

First off, this quote sums up 'News' on most of the Channels right now and I HATE IT and I think it is WRONG. On Fox, on CNN, on MSNBC, I hate it all when the Cafferty of said channel comes on with his witty comment or opinion. Jesus, just give me news. And Fuckin' stop with the twitter quotes! I love some Wolf Blitzer because he leaves his opinion behind.

Fox News senior vice president Michael Clemente, who likens the channel to a newspaper with separate sections on straight news and commentary, suggested White House officials were intentionally conflating opinion show hosts like Glenn Beck with news reporters like Major Garrett.

That being said, I think the White House shouldnt be engaging the journalistic pool, regardless of their opinion, at all. It is a bad precedent and they ought to stop it NOW. You could obviously present News and Opinion and then hide 'false' news behind the opinion label, use them interchangeably and cause all kinds of shenanigans.

[molson]

Funny how when it's the NYT that's being hit neither of you complained.

Did the Bush administration attack the NYT because they printed an unfavorable article? If so, I missed it, that's TOTAL crap, and yes, I'm complaining about it. I could care less what party does it, it's crap. I think its funny how you're so desperately partisan about this though.

[Flasch186]

'couldnt' :)

[BrianD]

These seem like very silly comments by the administration, but does the fact that the comments are pretty much true change anything?

[JPhillips]

Did the Bush administration attack the NYT because they printed an unfavorable article? If so, I missed it, that's TOTAL crap, and yes, I'm complaining about it. I could care less what party does it, it's crap. I think its funny how you're so desperately partisan about this though.

Yes, the Bush admin attacked the NYT as part of the larger attack on liberal media. How is this any different than the standard liberal media bias attack that's not only not criticized, but generally regarded as truthful among many around here? Why is media criticism suddenly crap when Obama levels the same criticism that's been going since at least Nixon, only in reverse?

[molson]

These seem like very silly comments by the administration, but does the fact that the comments are pretty much true change anything?

I'm sure that makes it defensible from the perspective of many Obama supporters.

It's not really a big deal, just kind of humorously inept. Not sure what they're trying to accomplish.

[Flasch186]

It is funny and similar to the crying Liberal Media Bias all of the time....

That being said it ALL ought to stop!

And for Christ's Sake News Channels ought to be NEWS channels and stop all this other garbage!

[molson]

Yes, the Bush admin attacked the NYT as part of the larger attack on liberal media. How is this any different than the standard liberal media bias attack that's not only not criticized, but generally regarded as truthful among many around here? Why is media criticism suddenly crap when Obama levels the same criticism that's been going since at least Nixon, only in reverse?

Whatever. I just think the Obama administration shouldn't get into a pissing match with FoxNews. It accomplishes nothing. It makes them look bad. I'm not saying its different than anything else in the past. I'm not saying that Republicans haven't done this.

I could say all the same stuff to you. Why do you have a problem with the "liberal bias" accusations, but have zero problem with Obama taking on a specific network that's not kind to him? Your agenda looks a lot clearer than mine. I can say that Bush was a shitty president. You can't criticize Obama. It always goes back to complaining about/blaming someone else.

[Flasch186]

hmmm, how much time in the term did you allot before coming to that conclusion on Bush?

Anyways, agreed, the GOP ought to stop crying about Media bias as should this admin. Ill bet the liberal Media Bias' is stated much more than this most recent sillyness.

[molson]

hmmm, how much time in the term did you allot before coming to that conclusion on Bush?


It was hard to tell for a while after 9/11. The country and politics kind of took a different direction. By the end of the first term at least, it was pretty clear that this wasn't a good president. Too bad the Dems blew it '04 by nominating a stiff.

[JPhillips]

Whatever. I just think the Obama administration shouldn't get into a pissing match with FoxNews. It accomplishes nothing. It makes them look bad. I'm not saying its different than anything else in the past. I'm not saying that Republicans haven't done this.

I could say all the same stuff to you. Why do you have a problem with the "liberal bias" accusations, but have zero problem with Obama taking on a specific network that's not kind to him? Sure agenda looks a lot clear than mine. I can say that Bush was a shitty president. You can't criticize Obama.

Funny how just yesterday I called his actions shameful, but I guess criticism only counts of it matches your own.

I don't really care about Obama's thoughts on Fox. I know what I think of them and neither he nor anyone else is going to change that. I think te whole press shop should be ignored, but media organizations are too cheap and lazy to do that, so whatever press releases come out get treated as news.

The bigger issue, though, is that much of the specific criticism of Obama was ignored when Bush was president. This was less than a year ago. I'm perfectly willing to take criticism like Buc's on face value because he was making the same criticisms last year, but too many of you weren't. Now the latest outrage is admin attacks on the media when this wasn't just tolerated, but celebrated when Bush was out to get the NYT or when Palin was freezing out the networks.

[JonInMiddleGA]

And for Christ's Sake News Channels ought to be NEWS channels and stop all this other garbage!

They'd go broke.

[molson]

The bigger issue, though, is that much of the specific criticism of Obama was ignored when Bush was president.

Exactly my point. The "bigger issue" of this OBAMA story is apparently Bush. Someday, maybe this administration (and the Democratic party) will be about something else.

And how, in what universe, were the liberal media attacks "ignored" when Bush was president? You must be joking. I'm pretty sure I recall some healthy criticism of that administration, on everything, in the media, popular culture, and message boards during that time. Including criticisms of the Republicans' obsession with characterizing the media as "liberal".

I mean, is your contention that because Republicans are obsessed with demonizing the "liberal media", that Obama should return the favor and call out Fox News? He's definitely not worse than Republicans in that kind of comparison, but there's yet another check against change, I guess.

Obama kind of has the burden of proof to be better. Being just as bad as Republicans isn't particularly inspiring.

[JPhillips]

But I'm talking about you. Where were your criticism of the GOP complaining about the media? Or where were your criticisms of Palin complaining about the media? Do I really need to go back to the campaign thread and pull your quotes complaining about how the media was being unfair to Palin and McCain? Why is that okay, but criticizing Fox unacceptable?

[molson]

But I'm talking about you. Where were your criticism of the GOP complaining about the media? Or where were your criticisms of Palin complaining about the media? Do I really need to go back to the campaign thread and pull your quotes complaining about how the media was being unfair to Palin and McCain? Why is that okay, but criticizing Fox unacceptable?

A couple of posts up I complained about Bush calling out the NYT for printing unfavorable articles, if that happened.

I don't have a problem with Republicans generally calling the media "liberal". Or Democrats generally calling FoxNews "bias". I might disagree with the opinions expressed there, but I don't have a problem with the expression of that speech. I do have a problem with a presidential administration, any administration, calling out and attacking specific news/media/entertainment organizations that disagree with them. I just don't think that's their role.

I do think there is a difference between the president going after FoxNews and me personally expressing displeasure about the media being unfair to someone. There's a lot of things I say, and do, that a presidential administration probably shouldn't. My opinion is worth jack shit. The president has a somewhat more complicated role.

But aside from all that, again, my main observation is the stupidity. What is this going to accomplish? I don't think its remotely a big deal otherwise.

[JPhillips]

There I can agree with you, but this isn't some new thing. Media criticism from the White House is at least as old as Nixon and probably goes back much further.

[Flasch186]

I do think there is a difference between the president going after FoxNews and me personally expressing displeasure about the media being unfair to someone. There's a lot of things I say, and do, that a presidential administration probably shouldn't. My opinion is worth jack shit. The president has a somewhat more complicated role.




So you agree with me that the GOP leadership and it's mouthpieces had a responsibility not to lie and create outrage over lies in regards to the UHC debate, like Palin's Death Panel comment. Ill have to go back and see if you backed me up on my opinion that leaders should be held to a higher standard than us common folk, including you and I. It was a couple of full pages in here about the lies that were being regurgitated at the Tea Party events like the Death Panels and such.

[Buccaneer]

So this is what it comes down to all of this time? The amount of criticism can only be measured against the level of previous criticism?? How pathetic and so predictable. Nothing has changed in 33 years when it's about revenge and political/argumental points against your opponents. I do not expect any of us to be better than that but don't act like you are.

[molson]

So you agree with me that the GOP leadership and it's mouthpieces had a responsibility not to lie and create outrage over lies in regards to the UHC debate, like Palin's Death Panel comment. Ill have to go back and see if you backed me up on my opinion that leaders should be held to a higher standard than us common folk, including you and I. It was a couple of full pages in here about the lies that were being regurgitated at the Tea Party events like the Death Panels and such.

Palin is a complete idiot. I think its funny that Dems monitor her so closely, and then have an orgasm when she says something dumb. Her being an idiot doesn't make you more right about health care, or anything else. All it shows is that Palin is an idiot. It has nothing to do with health care opinions generally. That's the typical strategy, and its a disingenuous one. You're not going to convince me that Democrats are right about everything just because Palin's a moron, and the tea parties are dopey.

No idea what any of this has to do with anything. Because I don't think the White House should single out specific media outlets they don't like for attack, I must be pro-Palin or something?

It has nothing to do with holding leaders to higher regard. Obama is the PRESIDENT. The PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION (any one) shouldn't get in pissing matches with media outlets that disagree with them. It's not that they should be held to a higher standard, it's that it's kind of creepy and un-American for the presidential administration to be bullying specific media outlets they don't like. The only purpose of such attacks, is a ridiculous attempt to suppress free speech (which won't be successful here), and I don't think presidents should try to suppress free speech. Just my opinion. It has nothing to do with party politics. I don't think Bush should have done it, I don't think Nixon or Ford or Reagan should have done it either.

The other thing the White House might be doing here is to actually make FoxNews more relevant and important, which will be great for FoxNews, but ultimately bad for republicans.

[RainMaker]

A pretty baffling more by the Obama Administration here. I can't even imagine the backlash had the previous administration made a similar statement towards MSNBC. It doesn't make sense to make a statement that will likely only increase the audience of the network you are attempting to minimize with that statement.

White House Escalates War of Words With Fox News - Political News - FOXNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/12/white-house-escalates-war-words-fox-news/)
You can't imagine the backlash if a previous administration made statements like this about a media source? Have you been following politics the last decade? The New York Times and every other media source out there not named Fox News has been labeled with a liberal media bias. They've been labeled liberal, unpatriotic and even treasonous by some. I understand not liking this stuff, but you can't honestly tell me that this is somehow new territory we've hit here.

I think it can be viewed two ways. The first is that it's the administration becoming more aggressive against attacks. They have let the other side control the debate on a lot of issues lately and perhaps this is their way of calling out lies. I did think they did a poor job addressing issues like death camps and forced abortions when those got passed around. So maybe this is their way of saying that if you are going to make up stuff, you'll be called out on it.

The other is of course that bickering with a cable news network is below the Presidency. That most people know what Fox News is and that it doesn't need to be addressed by the administration. That this kind of stuff should be handled through back channels and not through the office of the President.

I personally think it was a political move done by the administration in the same vein of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" and "liberal media bias". It's a way to discredit anything the network says. It's a way of trying to label the opposition as those who watch Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly. Not unlike thier portrayal of Republicans as the party of Limbaugh earlier. It may help build up the viewership on Fox News, but they will bank on the high negatives the network receives from the public to counteract it.

I also don't think that it was that far out of line. I mean Fox News is more or less the news of the Republican Party and tends to follow the talking points on a daily basis. They have had multiple reporters and journalists with close ties to the party. Heck, Tony Snow ended up going from being a reporter on Fox News to being the Press Secretary. There have also been the instances of fabricating stories and making news that is unfavorable to Obama (having a producer tell the crowd what to do at the tea party rallies). I don't blame Fox News for it as they should strive to get the best ratings they can, but saying they aren't really an honest news source doesn't seem to be a real stretch.

[Flasch186]

Palin is a complete idiot. I think its funny that Dems monitor her so closely, and then have an orgasm when she says something dumb. Her being an idiot doesn't make you more right about health care, or anything else. All it shows is that Palin is an idiot. It has nothing to do with health care opinions generally. That's the typical strategy, and its a disingenuous one. You're not going to convince me that Democrats are right about everything just because Palin's a moron, and the tea parties are dopey.

No idea what any of this has to do with anything. Because I don't think the White House should single out specific media outlets they don't like for attack, I must be pro-Palin or something?

It has nothing to do with holding leaders to higher regard. Obama is the PRESIDENT. The PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION (any one) shouldn't get in pissing matches with media outlets that disagree with them. It's not that they should be held to a higher standard, it's that it's kind of creepy and un-American for the presidential administration to be bullying specific media outlets they don't like. The only purpose of such attacks, is a ridiculous attempt to suppress free speech (which won't be successful here), and I don't think presidents should try to suppress free speech. Just my opinion. It has nothing to do with party politics. I don't think Bush should have done it, I don't think Nixon or Ford or Reagan should have done it either.

The other thing the White House might be doing here is to actually make FoxNews more relevant and important, which will be great for FoxNews, but ultimately bad for republicans.

Welp, I agree with you about the President but I also think people in leadership positions ALSO have to be held to a higher standard, ie. the CEO of a company. I dont give a pass to the VP because he's not the Pres, and down the hill as well. People in leadership positions, regardless of whether or not you agree with them or think theyre a loonbat, still may hold a leadership position and therefore have that same responsibility to know that they are in that position, have attention paid to them and their words, and need to be even more accurate. Both sides, as you say, no matter the topic at hand should be held to the same standard including the latest debate du jour be it UHC a few pages ago. On today's point we agree, Obama and the administration ought to leave the Media alone, be it the 'opinion block' or the 'news block' or the blended 'block'.

and yes Bucc, if you level one rate of rancor at one side of debate based on a facet or pillar you ought to hold the same amount of rancor for the other side in a debate that also rests on the same pillar.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Funny how when it's the NYT that's being hit neither of you complained.

Even more funny is how you totally missed the point in an attempt to make this somehow a partisan discussion.

It doesn't matter who's targeted or who's doing the targeting. Any administration who uses this tactic to target any media outlet that they consider bias against their party or their goals is looking for trouble. They're instantly increasing the viewership (or readership) of the media outlet they're trying to attack.

Also, FoxNews is a relatively dangerous target to go after. While they do lean conservative in their shows, they have a very diverse and industry-leading viewership base that is spread out between the two parties and the independent supporters. The administration basically told those viewers that they weren't smart enough to distinguish between what was partisan and what is not on FoxNews. Not a smart move.

[Flasch186]

so many things I disagree with in MBBF's last paragraph in the post above in his word choices...boy do I ever parse words. Reminds me of how he posted in the Iran thread. {head into brick wall}

[molson]

They've been labeled liberal, unpatriotic and even treasonous by some.



So your standard to judge Obama's presidency is if Republicans (even non-president Republicans) generally do something, its OK for him?

Change we can believe in!

[JPhillips]

Even more funny is how you totally missed the point in an attempt to make this somehow a partisan discussion.

It doesn't matter who's targeted or who's doing the targeting. Any administration who uses this tactic to target any media outlet that they consider bias against their party or their goals is looking for trouble. They're instantly increasing the viewership (or readership) of the media outlet they're trying to attack.

Also, FoxNews is a relatively dangerous target to go after. While they do lean conservative in their shows, they have a very diverse and industry-leading viewership base that is spread out between the two parties and the independent supporters. The administration basically told those viewers that they weren't smart enough to distinguish between what was partisan and what is not on FoxNews. Not a smart move.

No, I understand the point, whatever Obama does is wrong. I just expect a little consistency in dealing with the past administration.

I'm surprised that you're still willing to make quantifiable predictions, but good luck. I doubt it will increase Fox's viewership measurably, but even if it does, the raw number of people watching cable news just isn't that great. Fox is much more important as a vehicle to get ideas out to other outlets and make their stories national in scope.

Fox doesn't have a diverse viewership, at least when it comes time to vote. Very few demographics are a more reliable GOP vote than Fox news viewer. In 2004 Fox viewer was a more reliable Bush vote than conservative, evangelical, gun owner, or military service. In 2008 it was a more reliable demographic than conservative, evangelical, gun owner, Bush 2004 voter, or military service. Maybe you can make an argument that independents that don't watch Fox will be turned off by these attacks, but I'm skeptical until I see some evidence.

I don't think Obama needed to make this so public, but there isn't a lot to lose at this point. Fox proudly sees itself as the Alamo against Obama and has set out to bring down his presidency. I'd prefer Obama just quietly froze them out, but this latest outrage will die down in a couple of weeks when there's a new czar to foam about.

[molson]

No, I understand the point, whatever Obama does is wrong.

And I understand your point that the president should never be criticized, if Republicans have also ever done anything wrong.

[JPhillips]

And I understand your point that the president should never be criticized, if Republicans have also ever done anything wrong.

No, I'd just like some honesty that the same critiques could have been made during the last admin but weren't.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

so many things I disagree with in MBBF's last paragraph in the post above in his word choices...boy do I ever parse words. Reminds me of how he posted in the Iran thread. {head into brick wall}

It's easy to debate when you don't make a single counter-argument or post information to counter one's discussion point. The non-debate debate, is it?

I'll address a couple of my points further in an attempt to pull you out of your non-debate cubby-hole.

1. Fox News is an industry leader. They have ridiculously high numbers when compared to their competitors. They often boast an audience 3x-4x what their competitors have. mediabistro.com: TVNewser (http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/)

2. Fox News also has a more diverse audience than any other news outlet. More of the 'opposition' watches Fox News than any other cable news network. Who Watches What: Party Lines & Cable News - mediabistro.com: TVNewser (http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/state_of_the_news_media_2008/who_watches_what_party_lines_cable_news_91828.asp)

[molson]

No, I'd just like some honesty that the same critiques could have been made during the last admin but weren't.

I still haven't seen a link or anything of the Bush White House criticizing a specific media outlet for negative treatment. If it happened, and I certainly wouldn't be surprised if it did, than that's just as bad. Where's your consistency? Where's your complaints about this? Why can't we see similar criticism from you and others with prior administrations?

I don't think random Republicans complaining vaguely about the "liberal media" is remotely the same thing, and the fact that that's the comparison being made tells me a lot about the spell Obama has over some of you.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

No, I'd just like some honesty that the same critiques could have been made during the last admin but weren't.

I'd disagree with that. I think there were plenty of people complaining about the NY Times attack. You were most certainly one of them. But once again, that has little to do with the topic at hand. Quit trying to divert the topic.

The discussion is whether these kinds of attacks are a good idea when done directly by the administration. IMO, the answer is no. There's no positive outcome available. At best, it's a neutral outcome. At worst, it's a hinderance to the administration's popularity. They come off as being less than professional when attacking the media outlets.

[JPhillips]

It's easy to debate when you don't make a single counter-argument or post information to counter one's discussion point. The non-debate debate, is it?

I'll address a couple of my points further in an attempt to pull you out of your non-debate cubby-hole.

1. Fox News is an industry leader. They have ridiculously high numbers when compared to their competitors. They often boast an audience 3x-4x what their competitors have. mediabistro.com: TVNewser (http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/)

2. Fox News also has a more diverse audience than any other news outlet. More of the 'opposition' watches Fox News than any other cable news network. Who Watches What: Party Lines & Cable News - mediabistro.com: TVNewser (http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/state_of_the_news_media_2008/who_watches_what_party_lines_cable_news_91828.asp)

Yes they are the industry leader, but the raw numbers aren't that great. A huge night for O'Reilly is about 4 million viewers. That will crush all the competition, but even if you assume everyone watching is a voter it's @3% of the voting public.

[cartman]

I still haven't seen a link or anything of the Bush White House criticizing a specific media outlet for negative treatment. If it happened, and I certainly wouldn't be surprised if it did, than that's just as bad. Where's your consistency? Where's your complaints about this? Why can't we see similar criticism from you and others with prior administrations?

I don't think random Republicans complaining vaguely about the "liberal media" is remotely the same thing, and the fact that that's the comparison being made tells me a lot about the spell Obama has over some of you.

Cheney: New York Times harms US security

Cheney: New York Times harms U.S. security (http://www.journalstar.com/news/local/article_dedce179-26c2-5c97-a2f9-2595ad7d4270.html)

[JPhillips]

I still haven't seen a link or anything of the Bush White House criticizing a specific media outlet for negative treatment. If it happened, and I certainly wouldn't be surprised if it did, than that's just as bad. Where's your consistency? Where's your complaints about this? Why can't we see similar criticism from you and others with prior administrations?

I don't think random Republicans complaining vaguely about the "liberal media" is remotely the same thing, and the fact that that's the comparison being made tells me a lot about the spell Obama has over some of you.

Did you not read the last page where I said I agree with you?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Yes they are the industry leader, but the raw numbers aren't that great. A huge night for O'Reilly is about 4 million viewers. That will crush all the competition, but even if you assume everyone watching is a voter it's @3% of the voting public.

Excellent. Now we're getting somewhere. This is obviously the traditional argument to minimize Fox News and their standing in the cable news industry. So now that we've noted that they have such a minimal impact on the overall voting public (and in the case of the NY Times it's probably even smaller), why would an administration ever consider throwing away both political and professional capital on a network that has little to no impact on the voting public?

[JPhillips]

MBBF: You're too clever for me.

[gstelmack]

Cheney: New York Times harms US security

Cheney: New York Times harms U.S. security (http://www.journalstar.com/news/local/article_dedce179-26c2-5c97-a2f9-2595ad7d4270.html)

Interestingly I can't find any discussions of this article on the board here to see how folks came down on it.

[molson]

Fox doesn't have a diverse viewership, at least when it comes time to vote. Very few demographics are a more reliable GOP vote than Fox news viewer.

Then what's the problem?

FoxNews is allowed to have a conservative-themed news/commentary network. If the FoxNews viewership is not diverse, and its just hard-core Republicans watching anyway - what does Obama hope to accomplish by attacking it? If their viewership isn't diverse - then its not like they're brain-washing Democrats.

Should the White House release a list of "acceptable" news/entertainment organizations? Isn't that the next step, the obvious implication from the fact that there are apparently unacceptable news/entertainment organizations?

[Neon_Chaos]

Over here in the Philippines, we get Fox News USA on cable...

...and almost everyone I know who's seen it considers it the channel for the Republican party.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

[molson]

Cheney: New York Times harms US security

Cheney: New York Times harms U.S. security (http://www.journalstar.com/news/local/article_dedce179-26c2-5c97-a2f9-2595ad7d4270.html)

Yes, that's very ridiculous, and I would say worse than Obama's pissing match with FoxNews, because Cheney played the security card. Playing the security card to attack a media outlet is both wrong, and really destructive because it undermines actual security concerns. During the Bush administration, we got to the point where any concern that was raised about national security, legitimate or otherwise, was automatically greeted with skepticism and doubt. That's mostly that administration's fault, because of stuff like this.

Now if a conservative commentator made this critisism - that's a different thing. That's just more political speech. When the president/vp says it, it takes on an added level of creapiness.

[JPhillips]

Then what's the problem?

FoxNews is allowed to have a conservative-themed news/commentary network. If the FoxNews viewership is not diverse, and its just hard-core Republicans watching anyway - what does Obama hope to accomplish by attacking it? If their viewership isn't diverse - then its not like they're brain-washing Democrats.

How many times do I have to say I agree that the admin shouldn't have made this a big public spat? If they don't like Fox, just don't do interviews with them, but I think especially given the timing this will just serve as a distraction.

[molson]

Over here in the Philippines, we get Fox News USA on cable...

...and almost everyone I know who's seen it considers it the channel for the Republican party.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

So Obama thinks Americans are dumber than Filipinos, as we need the president to characterize these networks for us.

FoxNews is just filling a market niche that a lot of people want. A lot of people think most news organizations are overally liberal (even Obama thinks this, based on the joke he made in the original article - or at least he was having fun with that perception), whether one agrees or disagrees with that is irrelevant to the business. People think the news media is liberal, so they really like one that's conservative (or from many perspectives, "neutral.")

[Neon_Chaos]

So Obama thinks Americans are dumber than Filipinos, as we need the president to characterize these networks for us.

FoxNews is just filling a market niche that a lot of people want. A lot of people think most news organizations are overally liberal (even Obama thinks this, based on the joke he made in the original article - or at least he was having fun with that perception), whether one agrees or disagrees with that is irrelevant to the business. People think the news media is liberal, so they really like one that's conservative (or from many perspectives, "neutral.")

Fox News will always be hostile to Obama anyway, I guess his team felt it was better to have it out in the open. :)
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

[flere-imsaho]

Well, I think he saw what happened when Clinton started with that right off the bat. And he probably wants it done as an amendment to the Uniform Code, since it would be alot harder to be reversed.

I sure hope he gets it done soon, though. I'll be disappointed if he chickens out on it like Clinton did.

Speaking as someone who worked on Capitol Hill in January, 1993, I can tell you that Clinton blundered into the entire thing and never had a chance. He built no consensus behind the scenes, didn't even bother to prep his own party on the hill, and hadn't even thought through his own position. And he got crucified for it.

Times have changed, but there are still some very powerful entrenched forces against this move, and Obama's caution is warranted.

A pretty baffling more by the Obama Administration here.


I don't know exactly what the White House hopes to accomplish here, but what a moronic strategy.

Oh come on, you guys aren't this naive.

Obama's political advisers hope to tie the GOP to morons like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly in the same way the Karl Rove hoped to tie the Democrats to an alleged "elite" institution called the New York Times or blowhards like Olbermann.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Oh come on, you guys aren't this naive.

Obama's political advisers hope to tie the GOP to morons like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly in the same way the Karl Rove hoped to tie the Democrats to an alleged "elite" institution called the New York Times or blowhards like Olbermann.

I don't think anyone was wondering what he was doing as much as why. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. And once again, you're not getting away with the 'in the same way' comment in an attempt to make it partisan or somehow legitimize it. I've been very consistant in stating that it's the tactic, not who's doing it, that is the issue at hand.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Fox News will always be hostile to Obama anyway, I guess his team felt it was better to have it out in the open. :)

That's the real strange part about all of this. I can't think of anyone who doesn't know about Fox News and their inherent lean to the conservative side, yet the article states that people in the Obama Administration actually believe that there are people who aren't aware of it. That's way out of touch with reality IMO. If people in the Phillipines know it, I think the American public is similarly aware of it, if not moreso than foreigners.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

MBBF: You're too clever for me.

Doubtful, but thanks for the false hope.

[molson]

That's the real strange part about all of this. I can't think of anyone who doesn't know about Fox News and their inherent lean to the conservative side, yet the article states that people in the Obama Administration actually believe that there are people who aren't aware of it. That's way out of touch with reality IMO. If people in the Phillipines know it, I think the American public is similarly aware of it, if not moreso than foreigners.

And the people that don't understand Fox News' slant probably aren't going to have their mind changed by Obama.

At best, this is just an attempt to group all opposition together, which is just politics as usual. Obama wants 2012 to be Obama v. Fox News/Limbaugh. Those are the two sides. If you fall somewhere else, you don't really matter. Yes, it's similar to Republicans trying to group opposition into a "media elite". But again, isn't Obama supposed to be better than that? Is "just as bad as a Republican" really what we thought we were getting here?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

At best, this is just an attempt to group all opposition together, which is just politics as usual. Obama wants 2012 to be Obama v. Fox News/Limbaugh. Those are the two sides.

The Republicans are doing something similar right now with Obama. They're tying him and the Pelosi/Reid "leadership" together and trying to make them the face of the Democrats. I think it's a much more significant tie-in since they are all politicians rather than a media outlet.

[JPhillips]

The Republicans are doing something similar right now with Obama. They're tying him and Hitler/Stalin together and trying to make them the face of the Democrats. I think it's a much more significant tie-in since they are totalitarian dictators that killed millions rather than a media outlet.

Fixed

[molson]

Fixed

You've definitely hit on Obama's campaign strategy for '12. You're either with him, or you're comparing him to Hitler.

[RainMaker]

So your standard to judge Obama's presidency is if Republicans (even non-president Republicans) generally do something, its OK for him?

Change we can believe in!
No, I'm saying it's pretty standard these days in politics.

And those mentioning your previous lack of criticism on other administrations was just a way to point out your hypocrisy. It's not a statement on whether it's right or wrong.

[molson]

And those mentioning your previous lack of criticism on other administrations was just a way to point out your hypocrisy. It's not a statement on whether it's right or wrong.

Except that I've criticized the previous adminsitration. Other than that, ya.

[panerd]

So this is what it comes down to all of this time? The amount of criticism can only be measured against the level of previous criticism?? How pathetic and so predictable. Nothing has changed in 33 years when it's about revenge and political/argumental points against your opponents. I do not expect any of us to be better than that but don't act like you are.

Why bother with these guys? There are about 4-5 people on each side who just argue the new talking points over and over and over. They claim to be balanced and share points of view from the other side but you maybe see that once every 100 posts. I don't even doubt that they honestly believe that they are balanced but they are the exact problem with this country. Obama has convinced his disciples that health care can't be reformed without massive insurance overhaul. The unions and lawyers are fine though. The Republicans have convinced their followers the exact opposite. I have an idea... how about both insurance reform and tort reform? Nah, both parties wouldn't be able to keep special interest groups that contribute to their campaigns and keep them in office happy. So instead lets throw a bone to the JPhillips and Flaschs of the world and criticize Fox News. That way they will completely ignore how the Democratic party is under the control of unions and lawyers and bitch about the New York Times and a former vice president. And how about the Republicans throw a bone about socialism to MBBF and Molson that way they will ignore that their strategy is just to get back in office and do nothing again. Just this century the Republicans had about 6 years to do something and now the Democrats are going on 3 (with about 9 months of controlling all three). Wonder why they never get anything done???

But why waste your vote on a third party? What we have is so much better. :banghead:

[RainMaker]

I still haven't seen a link or anything of the Bush White House criticizing a specific media outlet for negative treatment. If it happened, and I certainly wouldn't be surprised if it did, than that's just as bad. Where's your consistency? Where's your complaints about this? Why can't we see similar criticism from you and others with prior administrations?

I don't think random Republicans complaining vaguely about the "liberal media" is remotely the same thing, and the fact that that's the comparison being made tells me a lot about the spell Obama has over some of you.
I don't know, this seemed to happen all the time and I highly doubt there is a single post from you or MBBF on this. In fact, I remember the wiretap story being rather large and there are even a couple threads on this forum about it. Yet not surprisingly, no criticism on either of your parts of the administration.
Bush Criticizes Reports About Bank Tracking - Los Angeles Times (http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jun/27/nation/na-bush27)
Bush Team Criticizes New Report About Iran - New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/washington/21prexy.html)

What people are pointing out is that you aren't arguing an issue, you're arguing a side. What Obama does is wrong no matter if it was right 2 years ago under Bush. It is important in a debate to know whether the other person is arguing the issue or not.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Obama wants 2012 to be Obama v. Fox News/Limbaugh.

Gosh, so do I. Considering that FXNC outdraws the entire liberal cable news cabal combined every night, I'd take that comparison.

If you fall somewhere else, you don't really matter.

We should be so lucky. Just manage a draw with those who don't watch any of 'em and that show up to vote and it's a win.

[RainMaker]

I don't think anyone was wondering what he was doing as much as why. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. And once again, you're not getting away with the 'in the same way' comment in an attempt to make it partisan or somehow legitimize it. I've been very consistant in stating that it's the tactic, not who's doing it, that is the issue at hand.
They do it because it works. Because in 2004 they were able to portray Democrats as tree-hugging, peace loving, homosexual pussies from San Francisco. I mean fuck, they even portrayed a guy who actually fought in a war as some coward.

Democrats will now push to portray Republicans as uber-Christian, bigoted conspiracy nuts who are Glenn Beck zombies.

[gstelmack]

They do it because it works. Because in 2004 they were able to portray Democrats as tree-hugging, peace loving, homosexual pussies from San Francisco. I mean fuck, they even portrayed a guy who actually fought in a war as some coward.

Democrats will now push to portray Republicans as uber-Christian, bigoted conspiracy nuts who are Glenn Beck zombies.

Some day this board will come together and just bash BOTH parties constantly.

[JPhillips]

You've definitely hit on Obama's campaign strategy for '12. You're either with him, or you're comparing him to Hitler.

Lighten up Francis.

[JPhillips]

Why bother with these guys? There are about 4-5 people on each side who just argue the new talking points over and over and over. They claim to be balanced and share points of view from the other side but you maybe see that once every 100 posts. I don't even doubt that they honestly believe that they are balanced but they are the exact problem with this country. Obama has convinced his disciples that health care can't be reformed without massive insurance overhaul. The unions and lawyers are fine though. The Republicans have convinced their followers the exact opposite. I have an idea... how about both insurance reform and tort reform? Nah, both parties wouldn't be able to keep special interest groups that contribute to their campaigns and keep them in office happy. So instead lets throw a bone to the JPhillips and Flaschs of the world and criticize Fox News. That way they will completely ignore how the Democratic party is under the control of unions and lawyers and bitch about the New York Times and a former vice president. And how about the Republicans throw a bone about socialism to MBBF and Molson that way they will ignore that their strategy is just to get back in office and do nothing again. Just this century the Republicans had about 6 years to do something and now the Democrats are going on 3 (with about 9 months of controlling all three). Wonder why they never get anything done???

But why waste your vote on a third party? What we have is so much better. :banghead:

How can you not see your own ideological blinders? I've admitted in the past I'm ideological, though I wouldn't classify myself as partisan as I do very little to help candidates get elected. What you and Buc don't acknowledge is that your particular set of political beliefs are just as rigid as anyone you're criticizing. The answer is always smaller government, no matter what the question.

Not every political belief is based on the head of a party. I have thought for many years that our healthcare system is inefficient, Medicare costs will eventually crush us, and a move towards a single payer system could expand coverage and reduce costs. That has nothing to do with Obama. My somewhat tepid support of his efforts on healthcare reform come because I believe in the policy, not because I care whether Obama is seen as the greatest president evah.

We really aren't anywhere near as different as you'd like. We both are strong proponents of a multitude of policy solutions. While you'd like to think you're above it all, you're really down in the mud with everyone else.

[Passacaglia]

That's the real strange part about all of this. I can't think of anyone who doesn't know about Fox News and their inherent lean to the conservative side, yet the article states that people in the Obama Administration actually believe that there are people who aren't aware of it. That's way out of touch with reality IMO. If people in the Phillipines know it, I think the American public is similarly aware of it, if not moreso than foreigners.

This is a country of 300 million people -- I'm SURE there are people who aren't aware of it. Especially since Fox News has by far the biggest font out of all the cable news networks -- this brings in those viewers who are the least aware of anything, old people.

[DaddyTorgo]

this just in - Olympia Snowe has said she will vote for the Finance Committee's version of the healthcare bill...

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

This is a country of 300 million people -- I'm SURE there are people who aren't aware of it. Especially since Fox News has by far the biggest font out of all the cable news networks -- this brings in those viewers who are the least aware of anything, old people.

Of course. There's always the exception if you're going to take it to that level. Not sure what it accomplishes outside of saying there's a person that doesn't know. Now that we've taken Heidi Montag out of the equation................

[Flasch186]

Why bother with these guys? There are about 4-5 people on each side who just argue the new talking points over and over and over. They claim to be balanced and share points of view from the other side but you maybe see that once every 100 posts. I don't even doubt that they honestly believe that they are balanced but they are the exact problem with this country. Obama has convinced his disciples that health care can't be reformed without massive insurance overhaul. The unions and lawyers are fine though. The Republicans have convinced their followers the exact opposite. I have an idea... how about both insurance reform and tort reform? Nah, both parties wouldn't be able to keep special interest groups that contribute to their campaigns and keep them in office happy. So instead lets throw a bone to the JPhillips and Flaschs of the world and criticize Fox News. That way they will completely ignore how the Democratic party is under the control of unions and lawyers and bitch about the New York Times and a former vice president. And how about the Republicans throw a bone about socialism to MBBF and Molson that way they will ignore that their strategy is just to get back in office and do nothing again. Just this century the Republicans had about 6 years to do something and now the Democrats are going on 3 (with about 9 months of controlling all three). Wonder why they never get anything done???

But why waste your vote on a third party? What we have is so much better. :banghead:

cept that im for tort reform and not necessarily sold on the unions but yeah, I get your point.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I don't know, this seemed to happen all the time and I highly doubt there is a single post from you or MBBF on this.

And I highly doubt that I would not have said anything about the administration in that situation. It appears we're both suffering from a high amount of doubt.

[Passacaglia]

Of course. There's always the exception if you're going to take it to that level. Not sure what it accomplishes outside of saying there's a person that doesn't know. Now that we've taken Heidi Montag out of the equation................

Oh sorry -- I'll just get out of the way -- I didn't mean to interfere with everyone's accomplishments in here.

[RainMaker]

Yes, that's very ridiculous, and I would say worse than Obama's pissing match with FoxNews, because Cheney played the security card. Playing the security card to attack a media outlet is both wrong, and really destructive because it undermines actual security concerns. During the Bush administration, we got to the point where any concern that was raised about national security, legitimate or otherwise, was automatically greeted with skepticism and doubt. That's mostly that administration's fault, because of stuff like this.

Now if a conservative commentator made this critisism - that's a different thing. That's just more political speech. When the president/vp says it, it takes on an added level of creapiness.

Just to play devil's advocate here, but if Cheney really believed it was a threat to national security, don't you think he should come out and say it? If something really is threatening our security, I'd want our leaders to be as vocal about it as they can get.

I know the administration destroyed credibility on the national security debate, but I personally want a President/VP to tell a source to fuck themselves if they are threatening my safety.

[RainMaker]

Of course. There's always the exception if you're going to take it to that level. Not sure what it accomplishes outside of saying there's a person that doesn't know. Now that we've taken Heidi Montag out of the equation................
I think you're giving the public too much credit here. Everyone here is pretty up-to-date on the world and politics, but spend a few hours at the local Wal-Mart and you will lose all faith in humanity.

There are people who don't see the slants because they don't want to. Glenn Beck or Keith Olbermann is just the neutral view of the world because they agree with what they are saying.

[ISiddiqui]

this just in - Olympia Snowe has said she will vote for the Finance Committee's version of the healthcare bill...

Good for her. There is a reason that I do say that I'm a Northeastern Republican, because of folks like Snowe. Though I do find myself very close to Governor Schwartzenegger as well... so, Northeastern/California Republican?

[lungs]

Good for her. There is a reason that I do say that I'm a Northeastern Republican, because of folks like Snowe. Though I do find myself very close to Governor Schwartzenegger as well... so, Northeastern/California Republican?

But wouldn't most Republicans outside the northeast call a Northeastern Republican an oxymoron? :) RINO for sure.

I used to call myself a Republican (and I used to be more conservative) but having some liberal views got me called a RINO (not on this forum as I didn't post here). So I said fuck it, agreed, and switched allegiances. Now since then, I've drifted plenty further left so as to not be accused of being a DINO :)

[Kodos]

Good for her. There is a reason that I do say that I'm a Northeastern Republican, because of folks like Snowe. Though I do find myself very close to Governor Schwartzenegger as well... so, Northeastern/California Republican?

You're definitely not a Girly-Man Republican.

[JonInMiddleGA]

But wouldn't most Republicans outside the northeast call a Northeastern Republican an oxymoron? :) RINO for sure.

I haven't itemized 'em completely but yeah, I'd say the majority of (R)'s in the region would qualify as RINO's.

Given her various positions, I'd say she's more like a blue dog than anything else.

[lungs]

I haven't itemized 'em completely but yeah, I'd say the majority of (R)'s in the region would qualify as RINO's.

Given her various positions, I'd say she's more like a blue dog than anything else.

Just so Molson doesn't accuse me of being a partisan hack looking to make Republicans look bad, I'd also say that on the other end of the spectrum, most (D)'s in the South these days are considered DINOs by many.

[DaddyTorgo]

But wouldn't most Republicans outside the northeast call a Northeastern Republican an oxymoron? :) RINO for sure.

I used to call myself a Republican (and I used to be more conservative) but having some liberal views got me called a RINO (not on this forum as I didn't post here). So I said fuck it, agreed, and switched allegiances. Now since then, I've drifted plenty further left so as to not be accused of being a DINO :)

i think you're less likely to be called a DINO by democrats than a RHINO by republicans. no statistics to back that up or anything, just my opinion

[ISiddiqui]

But wouldn't most Republicans outside the northeast call a Northeastern Republican an oxymoron? :) RINO for sure.

Fuck 'em ;).

And there are some that would fit very nicely from other places other than the Northeast and California (like Bob Dole or, even, John McCain).

I used to call myself a Republican (and I used to be more conservative) but having some liberal views got me called a RINO (not on this forum as I didn't post here). So I said fuck it, agreed, and switched allegiances. Now since then, I've drifted plenty further left so as to not be accused of being a DINO :)

I don't think I could be a Democrat. I'd rather be an independant who voted Dem most of the time. But if the Republicans keep shifting and the Dems pick up the former moderate Republicans....

[lungs]

i think you're less likely to be called a DINO by democrats than a RHINO by republicans. no statistics to back that up or anything, just my opinion

I do get the impression that the conservative side of the spectrum tends to value ideological purity more strongly. Only my impression, nothing to back it up. But having gone through an ideological purge within the party myself (not literally in the Stalinist sense) it's obvious why I get that impression.

[molson]

Lighten up Francis.

I think the first person that mentions Hitler is generally the one needs to lighten up. Isn't that message board 101?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Good for her. There is a reason that I do say that I'm a Northeastern Republican, because of folks like Snowe. Though I do find myself very close to Governor Schwartzenegger as well... so, Northeastern/California Republican?

Used to be called a Rockefeller Republican, though it appears to be archaic. I've pretty much accepted that I'm estranged from both parties at this point. I've gotten the feeling that I'm not particularly welcome in the Republican Party as currently constituted and couldn't really see myself ever registering (D), so I've been independent since the 2004 election. I might just listen to panerd and go third party from here on. Though it might not do much, voting for either of the main two has pretty much proven no to do much.

[JonInMiddleGA]

i think you're less likely to be called a DINO by democrats than a RHINO by republicans. no statistics to back that up or anything, just my opinion

I'd say you don't hear the DINO phrase as often (heck, I'm honestly one of the few people I can think of that uses it really) but that just feels more like a case where the acronym just hasn't caught on as well not that the sentiment isn't felt to reasonably similar extents.

[Swaggs]

I wonder how many people had ever heard of Anita Dunn before this past weekend...

[molson]

I might just listen to panerd and go third party from here on. Though it might not do much, voting for either of the main two has pretty much proven no to do much.

That's where I've been for a while too. There's good people in the parties, but on a whole, the current landscape just makes me cringe. The only way I can express that in the voting booth is to go 3rd party. People say that's a "waste of a vote", as if their singular vote for the lesser of two evils somehow decides the presidency. Nobody's vote changes an election, the best we can do it vote our conscience.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I'd say you don't hear the DINO phrase as often (heck, I'm honestly one of the few people I can think of that uses it really) but that just feels more like a case where the acronym just hasn't caught on as well not that the sentiment isn't felt to reasonably similar extents.

Ask Lieberman if the sentiment exists.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Nobody's vote changes an election, the best we can do it vote our conscious.

And if you can vote your conscience while conscious even better ;)

[RainMaker]

Used to be called a Rockefeller Republican, though it appears to be archaic. I've pretty much accepted that I'm estranged from both parties at this point. I've gotten the feeling that I'm not particularly welcome in the Republican Party as currently constituted and couldn't really see myself ever registering (D), so I've been independent since the 2004 election. I might just listen to panerd and go third party from here on. Though it might not do much, voting for either of the main two has pretty much proven no to do much.
I think Reagan Democrat is another popular term that is used. Although that is usually used in a positive light while RINO is often used in a negative light.

I still don't get why certain people want everyone to fall under one party or the other. That it's so horrible that a Senator would have an independent thought. I just wish we'd drop the R and D shit and just focus on the fact that these are Senators who are representing their respective states.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I think Reagan Democrat is another popular term that is used. Although that is usually used in a positive light while RINO is often used in a negative light.

There's probably something in there about who's-doing-the-defining that might influence how the term is used though.

Heck, it seems pretty reasonable to figure that Reagan Democrats might very well make up the largest identifiable block of GOP voters at this point.

[lungs]

Too late in the game to do it for this country, but political parties ought to have been nipped in the bud before they got started.

George Washington's farewell address:

20 I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

21 This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

22 The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

23 Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

24 It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

25 There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

[JonInMiddleGA]

So Washington basically opposed the right of association? Interesting.

[panerd]

Used to be called a Rockefeller Republican, though it appears to be archaic. I've pretty much accepted that I'm estranged from both parties at this point. I've gotten the feeling that I'm not particularly welcome in the Republican Party as currently constituted and couldn't really see myself ever registering (D), so I've been independent since the 2004 election. I might just listen to panerd and go third party from here on. Though it might not do much, voting for either of the main two has pretty much proven no to do much.

Wow, that would be cool if I could actually push you towards that. I think after 2 years of pestering I have both of my parents and a cupple of buddies on board. Did me voting for Bob Barr (or local and state level Libertarians) make any difference in the last election? No. But at least when someone tries to debate me (not even on this board mind you but just in general) and they try to use the talking points I cut them off immediately.

panerd's friend: "Well you don't like Obama bailing out the banks? What about when Bush did it?"

me: "Didn't care for Bush either."

panerd's friend: "You against government program X, so I guess you favor government program Y?"

me: "How about we cut both?"

It's hard for someone to debate somebody when they actually have to defend a crappy program instead of arguing how the other side's program is far worse. "Why can't I take $10 from you, would you rather I do the Democrat's plan and take $20?" "No, I would rather you do neither." "That can't happen, you're dreaming." "Why is that exactly?"

[ISiddiqui]

Used to be called a Rockefeller Republican, though it appears to be archaic.

'Tis true, the term is dated and probably has been since Nelson Rockefeller left politics.

[panerd]

That's where I've been for a while too. There's good people in the parties, but on a whole, the current landscape just makes me cringe. The only way I can express that in the voting booth is to go 3rd party. People say that's a "waste of a vote", as if their singular vote for the lesser of two evils somehow decides the presidency. Nobody's vote changes an election, the best we can do it vote our conscious.


I can only speak for myself but the Libertarian platform is almost spot on in both economic and social aspects for me. I don't pretend that everyone will agree with it but I know a lot of people who support gay rights and more personal freedom who think the Democrats are going to do something for them and friends who think the Republicans will actually cut back government if they get in power. We could at least give the Libertarians a chance.

[molson]

I can only speak for myself but the Libertarian platform is almost spot on in both economic and social aspects for me. I don't pretend that everyone will agree with it but I know a lot of people who support gay rights and more personal freedom who think the Democrats are going to do something for them and friends who think the Republicans will actually cut back government if they get in power. We could at least give the Libertarians a chance.

I usually vote libertarian, but I'm never particularly excited about the candidates nominated by that party. I think the best libertarians are kind of "stuck" in the parties (usually Republican, but Democratic too) because of reality.

But I still vote third party.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

panerd's friend: "Well you don't like Obama bailing out the banks? What about when Bush did it?"


Reminds me a lot of this thread. It's something I've been guilty of in here as well which is why I've tried to stay out of it (comparatively at least) the last few weeks. Sometimes you're so eager to score a point that you find yourself arguing something ridiculous and you ask yourself "How did I get here?"

[panerd]

I usually vote libertarian, but I'm never particularly excited about the candidates nominated by that party. I think the best libertarians are kind of "stucK" in the parties (usually Republican, but Democratic too) because of reality.

But I still vote third party.

You are right on that. Ron Paul and Alan Greyson are two guys that completely stand out for me on economic principles that are supposedly members of the Republican and Democratic parties. Of course everyone is always so quick to marginalize both as crazies while (with a straight face) determining that Hilary Clinton, Barrack Obama, John McCain, and Mitt Romney were the 4 best candidates this country had to offer for president. Bob Barr has some shady stuff in his past (impeachment of Clinton, previous stance on marijuana) but I would take him or Ron Paul as president any day of the week over any of those 4.

[RainMaker]

Ron Paul still isn't really a Libertarian. I mean he'll say he is in speeches and vote that way most of the time. But when it comes down to it, he's still filing earmarks and big government requests like all the other representatives.

[panerd]

Reminds me a lot of this thread. It's something I've been guilty of in here as well which is why I've tried to stay out of it (comparatively at least) the last few weeks. Sometimes you're so eager to score a point that you find yourself arguing something ridiculous and you ask yourself "How did I get here?"


Yeah. I have gotten to know MBBF and Flasch's (and others, these guys are just the most outspoken IMO) personalities a bit over the years here and think they are both good guys that really believe a lot of the principles of the particular party they vote for. But then they will start arguments over NY Times versus Fox News and I wonder think "Come on, you really aren't going to be tricked into arguing over this while the corrupt politicians continue to waste our tax money against all of our self interests." This is exactly what they want you to do. People are noticing how high the defecit is becoming... send a member of each party to the morning talk shows to shovel out bullshit about some wedge issue and take the focus back off the complete lack of finanicial responsiblity by either party.

[panerd]

Ron Paul still isn't really a Libertarian. I mean he'll say he is in speeches and vote that way most of the time. But when it comes down to it, he's still filing earmarks and big government requests like all the other representatives.

Yes and no. He said something along these lines once that I won't be able to say as eloquently as he did but I will give it a shot... I am against the tax code but that doesn't mean I am not going to take a deduction for my house or charitable contributions. I don't think my math department needs a $1000 budget at my middle school but the money is already out there and will just go to some other wasteful cause if I don't take it. He says the same thing. He is against all wasteful government spending (and always votes against it) but if there is $50 million budgeted for wherever in Texas he is from he either takes it for them or gives it up to some other pork barrel project.

The greatest idea I ever heard him propose was that Congress' pay be based on inflation. (Not go up, but down based on poor spending that causes economic problems.) That of course never caught on.

[path12]

I'd say you don't hear the DINO phrase as often (heck, I'm honestly one of the few people I can think of that uses it really) but that just feels more like a case where the acronym just hasn't caught on as well not that the sentiment isn't felt to reasonably similar extents.

I think that Blue Dog pretty much equals DINO these days. *shrug*

[Greyroofoo]

Ron Paul also generally votes against bills he adds earmarks to. Why not give them government money when everyone else is getting it and everyone has to suffer the effects.

[Flasch186]

Yeah. I have gotten to know MBBF and Flasch's (and others, these guys are just the most outspoken IMO) personalities a bit over the years here and think they are both good guys that really believe a lot of the principles of the particular party they vote for. But then they will start arguments over NY Times versus Fox News and I wonder think "Come on, you really aren't going to be tricked into arguing over this while the corrupt politicians continue to waste our tax money against all of our self interests." This is exactly what they want you to do. People are noticing how high the defecit is becoming... send a member of each party to the morning talk shows to shovel out bullshit about some wedge issue and take the focus back off the complete lack of finanicial responsiblity by either party.

just wanted to say thanks

and

Im against ALL News that blends opinion in, now one could say to excise the two from eachother is impossible but I can dream and Wolf Blitzer himself does a damn good job. Shoot, the dude could put you to sleep. It's just too Daily Show like on the other side y'know. The Daily Show is Comedy BUT I can see how in my grand wish that wouldnt be allowed eiather so Im not sure where that line falls but I can see how a % of 300million Americans can mistake or be swayed by an opinion in News' clothing, and vice versa. In this case, for the first time that I remember (but I could just be mistaken) an editor admitted to it which I can appreciate! At least he admitted it, I respect that a ton more than the ones who dont on ALL sides.

[lungs]

So Washington basically opposed the right of association? Interesting.

In theory, I guess you could say he did. But I think the conundrum with this is that it's impossible to keep groups of people from associating when they want to associate. As much as I'd like to, I just can't fathom a way that we could possibly do away with political parties without becoming an oppressive one party system. People that want to associate with each other will find ways.

Now on the other hand, I do believe it is possible to forcefully associate people that don't necessarily want to be associated, and desegregation is a prime example of this.

[gstelmack]

The problem isn't that we have a Party system, it's that it has broken down into just two main parties, and that they have enough power to keep any other party from gaining enough traction to be relevant. Political parties should not be able to shut other candidates out from access, and yet these do, by gerrymandering districts, instituting requirements to run for office, and blocking access to public debates.

[lungs]

The problem isn't that we have a Party system, it's that it has broken down into just two main parties, and that they have enough power to keep any other party from gaining enough traction to be relevant. Political parties should not be able to shut other candidates out from access, and yet these do, by gerrymandering districts, instituting requirements to run for office, and blocking access to public debates.

I'd call it a one-party system that is divided into two factions for the above reasons.

[path12]

I'd call it a one-party system that is divided into two factions for the above reasons.

It's my belief that we are racing towards corporatism, unfortunately. It's why the parties need to be opposed on the fringe issues to differentiate themselves to the public -- corporations own both sides and are able to dictate much of what actually gets legislated.

[JPhillips]

I'd be all for proportional representation, but as Greg says, the system is rigged to perpetuate the system.

[CamEdwards]

The problem isn't that we have a Party system, it's that it has broken down into just two main parties, and that they have enough power to keep any other party from gaining enough traction to be relevant. Political parties should not be able to shut other candidates out from access, and yet these do, by gerrymandering districts, instituting requirements to run for office, and blocking access to public debates.

You know where the term gerrymander comes from? Eldbridge Gerry, who was the beneficiary of redistricting back in 1812, inspired a political cartoon based on the new district, which twisted and turned through the Massachusetts countryside like a salamander.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/96/The_Gerry-Mander_Edit.png/573px-The_Gerry-Mander_Edit.png

Hopefully that picture shows up. Anyway, we've had two strong federal parties since the beginning of this country. I don't see how you can make the argument that something that's been with us for more than 200 years is now the primary cause of our political ills.

Plus, I think the case could be made that our parties are much more "small d" democratic these days. Most of country relies on primaries, and not party conventions that were the home of the smoke-filled rooms. More Americans identify as independents than either Democrats or Republicans. Heck, even things that we take for granted like universal sufferage have made the political system more democratic.

We've always had requirements to hold office, and I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "requirements to run". I do wish we had more debates though. Heck, if I had my way I'd run political debates like American Idol or Survivor and make a reality show out of them. :)

[gstelmack]

We've always had requirements to hold office, and I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "requirements to run".

I mean things like "x number of signatures to appear on the ballot". And the folks in power have played shenanigans with those rules before.

Or heck, the recent Massachusetts flip-flopping on whether the governor appoints a replacement Senator or it takes a special election.

The one thing both sides cooperate on is making it as difficult as possible for anyone else to get on the ballot with them.

[CamEdwards]

I mean things like "x number of signatures to appear on the ballot". And the folks in power have played shenanigans with those rules before.

Or heck, the recent Massachusetts flip-flopping on whether the governor appoints a replacement Senator or it takes a special election.

The one thing both sides cooperate on is making it as difficult as possible for anyone else to get on the ballot with them.

Ah. But you know, if you can't get 10,000 people to sign their name to get you on the ballot... why should you be on the ballot to begin with? It seems weird to argue that moderate voices are being left out, so the answer is to encourage more fringe candidates. :)

[ISiddiqui]

I think one of the main issues is that people think it was somewhat "better" in the old days. Shenanigans were far more pronounced back then... and the franchise was far more restricted (first just while male property owners, then white men, then all men, then all adults [of varying ages based on the state], then all adults over 18). In addition to Senators being elected by state legislatures and political parties being incredibly closed and the primary system only coming into play in the last half century or so, we probably have the most open and democratic system in our country's history NOW... of course the Founders were somewhat worried about that (ie, how much Democracy).

[lungs]

I do wish we had more debates though. Heck, if I had my way I'd run political debates like American Idol or Survivor and make a reality show out of them. :)

Do you agree that debates are one area where third-party candidates get the shaft? I'd think if you'd want more debates, then you'd want more participants?

I'd get bored as hell watching the same two guys getting asked questions and responding with a completely different answer than what was asked as our current debates are.

Now I'd understand the need to not have every American Nazi Party candidate included in the debate or American Stalinist Workers Party, but what about being on the ballot in a certain amount of states would allow participation in debates?

[JonInMiddleGA]

we probably have the most open and democratic system in our country's history NOW

I couldn't find a Sponge Bob "good luck with that" image but maybe this will do
http://i462.photobucket.com/albums/qq347/Hexanov4/good-luck-road-sign.jpg

[gstelmack]

Ah. But you know, if you can't get 10,000 people to sign their name to get you on the ballot... why should you be on the ballot to begin with? It seems weird to argue that moderate voices are being left out, so the answer is to encourage more fringe candidates. :)

Ballot Access News (http://www.ballot-access.org/)

There are far more shenanigans than signature count, although some searches today did show more repubs and dems getting tripped up than I thought, although they seem to have a much easier time appealing than anyone else.

[CamEdwards]

I think one of the main issues is that people think it was somewhat "better" in the old days. Shenanigans were far more pronounced back then... and the franchise was far more restricted (first just while male property owners, then white men, then all men, then all adults [of varying ages based on the state], then all adults over 18). In addition to Senators being elected by state legislatures and political parties being incredibly closed and the primary system only coming into play in the last half century or so, we probably have the most open and democratic system in our country's history NOW... of course the Founders were somewhat worried about that (ie, how much Democracy).

And rightfully so, in my opinion. Unfortunately, I think it's more likely that Western Democracies become more like China than an old-school Federalist system.

[CamEdwards]

Do you agree that debates are one area where third-party candidates get the shaft? I'd think if you'd want more debates, then you'd want more participants?

I'd get bored as hell watching the same two guys getting asked questions and responding with a completely different answer than what was asked as our current debates are.

Now I'd understand the need to not have every American Nazi Party candidate included in the debate or American Stalinist Workers Party, but what about being on the ballot in a certain amount of states would allow participation in debates?

I'd actually prefer two candidates actually debating, instead of the contrived soundbite fests that they are today. Adding another candidate on the stage to say "blahblahblah" isn't as appealing to me as putting candidates under the gauntlet of a series of Lincoln-Douglas style debates. Then again, I am under no illusions that my tastes are those of the public at large. Your solution is much more likely to happen than mine. :)

[RainMaker]

Ah. But you know, if you can't get 10,000 people to sign their name to get you on the ballot... why should you be on the ballot to begin with? It seems weird to argue that moderate voices are being left out, so the answer is to encourage more fringe candidates. :)
Takes much more than 10,000 people to sign their name on a petition. Each state has different rules and many make it very difficult for a third party to get on the ballot. Some require signatures from all the counties, some require large fees, some require 5-10% of the state to sign (which I doubt even the major parties could get done in a small timeframe).

The biggest problem with the current restrictions is that any 3rd party must spend most of their time and resources just getting on ballots, while the two major parties don't have to. While Perot was on the ballot in all 50 states, newer rules have made it tougher. The top 3rd parties like Libertarian and Green rarely get on all 50 state ballots. It's tough to win an election when you're at a 5-10 state disadvantage from the start.

Sure there are a lot of cultural issues behind why 3rd parties can't succeed, but the two major parties have made it next to impossible to compete. I also think the lax attitude Americans have toward elections play a role. If we treated our votes like we treated other major decisions in our life, I'm sure there would be a lot more people casting ballots for 3rd parties (if they are allowed on the ballot).

[RainMaker]

I'd actually prefer two candidates actually debating, instead of the contrived soundbite fests that they are today. Adding another candidate on the stage to say "blahblahblah" isn't as appealing to me as putting candidates under the gauntlet of a series of Lincoln-Douglas style debates. Then again, I am under no illusions that my tastes are those of the public at large. Your solution is much more likely to happen than mine. :)
I would like this too. I think the problem is that with our current society, the soundbites are all people have time for and care about. That's all these politicians look to do and all they would do in these debates.

My biggest issue with this form (and all debates in general) would be that there are some really smart people who just suck at debates. Not necessarily on the issues, but in how they present them to the public. I dont' like how "image" means so much. We could have the brightest guy in the world running for President but have him stutter a few times during a debate and it's over for him.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Yeah. I have gotten to know MBBF and Flasch's (and others, these guys are just the most outspoken IMO) personalities a bit over the years here and think they are both good guys that really believe a lot of the principles of the particular party they vote for. But then they will start arguments over NY Times versus Fox News and I wonder think "Come on, you really aren't going to be tricked into arguing over this while the corrupt politicians continue to waste our tax money against all of our self interests." This is exactly what they want you to do. People are noticing how high the defecit is becoming... send a member of each party to the morning talk shows to shovel out bullshit about some wedge issue and take the focus back off the complete lack of finanicial responsiblity by either party.

I'm a bit confused by this post. I agree with nearly all of your posts and the point of view behind them. I'm very like-minded to your opinions in regards to politics. Not sure how I became the extremist when I split time between left and right overall. The only reason I generally get tossed in the conservative camp is because economic policy and spending are the usual discussion points in this thread, which I'm totally opposed to Obama's handing of economic policy. I agree with nearly all of his social policies beliefs, but that's never a factor because it's rarely discussed here.

If you want to place me as against nearly all of Obama's economic policies and spending, fine. But I'm not even close to being a Republican if all my beliefs are considered. I'd be considered a traitor.

[CamEdwards]

I also think the lax attitude Americans have toward elections play a role. If we treated our votes like we treated other major decisions in our life, I'm sure there would be a lot more people casting ballots for 3rd parties (if they are allowed on the ballot).

It's like Tom Paine said, "What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly."

[Swaggs]

I think term limits would do a world of good for congress. 10-years in the House and 12-years in the Senate is enough. Get new people in, get them working, and then get them moving on before they become too entrenched.

[panerd]

I'm a bit confused by this post. I agree with nearly all of your posts and the point of view behind them. I'm very like-minded to your opinions in regards to politics. Not sure how I became the extremist when I split time between left and right overall. The only reason I generally get tossed in the conservative camp is because economic policy and spending are the usual discussion points in this thread, which I'm totally opposed to Obama's handing of economic policy. I agree with nearly all of his social policies beliefs, but that's never a factor because it's rarely discussed here.

If you want to place me as against nearly all of Obama's economic policies and spending, fine. But I'm not even close to being a Republican if all my beliefs are considered. I'd be considered a traitor.


No it wasn't meant to be confrontational but re-reading it it sure didn't come out how I wanted it to. I was basically saying that we all have core values that we believe in but we get tricked into these fringe issues that we really don't care about. And while you and I may believe in limited government and Flasch may believe that some government programs really do a good job you end up debating total bullshit that nobody cares about. Politicians do a great job of making us believe we have big differences when in fact we are the ones getting shit on while they go out and get rich.

You are a Royals fan so here is an analogy I heard once. (It was Cards/Cubs but it will work here also) So the Royals and Cardinals fans (I long for the days when it was Chiefs/Rams) will get all up in arms about 1985 and steroids and Brett vs. Pujols and hate each other. We think we are both fighting for a side, us vs. them. But in the end of the day Albert Pujols is 10,000 times more likely to go out for a beer with a Royal's player than any Cardinal's fan. The enemy!!! These politicians get you going on Fox News vs. NY Times and then go out for a cocktail together with their common banker buddies and tobacco lobbyists laughing their way to their next term in office. They don't really have differences, do they?

1980's: Republicans bail out savings and loans. Fight wars
1990's: Democrats finalize NAFTA (draw your own conclusion). fight wars
2000's: Republicans bail out banks, fight wars.
Obama (New kind of politician): Bails out banks, fights wars.

[Warhammer]

I really think we could do with a little less democracy and go back to some of the old school Federalism. Part of the reason why things get bogged down and everything gets boiled down into soundbites is that the electorate by and large is ignorant and will not do what they need to do to make an informed decision. The result is that people vote for the person who has the best soundbites or the person that has a big R or D next to their name.

[RainMaker]

Yes and no. He said something along these lines once that I won't be able to say as eloquently as he did but I will give it a shot... I am against the tax code but that doesn't mean I am not going to take a deduction for my house or charitable contributions. I don't think my math department needs a $1000 budget at my middle school but the money is already out there and will just go to some other wasteful cause if I don't take it. He says the same thing. He is against all wasteful government spending (and always votes against it) but if there is $50 million budgeted for wherever in Texas he is from he either takes it for them or gives it up to some other pork barrel project.

The greatest idea I ever heard him propose was that Congress' pay be based on inflation. (Not go up, but down based on poor spending that causes economic problems.) That of course never caught on.

I understand his reasonings, but it still comes across like a big show. Voting against something like that when you know it's going to pass and you'll receive the funding anyway doesn't really show me any principle. It's a cheap gimmick.

If he's a true Libertarian, there should be no reason he needs to setup all these earmarks. It's one thing to request funding for your district and get your share of the pie, but that's not what he was doing. I respect the guys views on a lot of things but I still think it's real easy to play the role of maverick when you know your vote won't change anything and you'll still reap the benefits if you lose.

[RainMaker]

I usually vote libertarian, but I'm never particularly excited about the candidates nominated by that party. I think the best libertarians are kind of "stuck" in the parties (usually Republican, but Democratic too) because of reality.

But I still vote third party.
The candidates they get are I guess "weird". I used to donate to the party years ago but I've been disappointed in their direction of late. This younger generation really has some libertarian leanings and they've failed to capitalize off that.

I think they'd do much better with a moderate candidate that was for fiscal conservatism but very socially liberal. That's a huge voting block that is just not being targeted right now.

The problem they have right now is that they want too much change. They have great ideas that can resonate with people, but then throw in some batshit crazy ones that can't possibly work that turn people off. I love the freedom stuff (legalizing marijuana, allowing gambling, etc), the lower taxes stuff, and the less spending stuff. But then they start talking about disbanding the CIA, FBI, CDC, etc and it just turns me off.

[gstelmack]

Obama wants seniors to get another $250 - Oct. 14, 2009 (http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/14/news/economy/obama_seniors_payment/index.htm?postversion=2009101509)

So consumer prices have fallen but Obama wants to spend an extra $13 billion on social security anyway?

[DaddyTorgo]

The candidates they get are I guess "weird". I used to donate to the party years ago but I've been disappointed in their direction of late. This younger generation really has some libertarian leanings and they've failed to capitalize off that.

I think they'd do much better with a moderate candidate that was for fiscal conservatism but very socially liberal. That's a huge voting block that is just not being targeted right now.

The problem they have right now is that they want too much change. They have great ideas that can resonate with people, but then throw in some batshit crazy ones that can't possibly work that turn people off. I love the freedom stuff (legalizing marijuana, allowing gambling, etc), the lower taxes stuff, and the less spending stuff. But then they start talking about disbanding the CIA, FBI, CDC, etc and it just turns me off.

I agree. Fiscal conservatism but social liberalism is the direction they need to go. And they can't be all "disband the CDC and the FBI and become isolationist." They have to recognize that there's a need for America to engage with the world, and there's unfortunately a need for the military, and for the CIA/FBI/CDC/NSA/etc.

[JPhillips]

Obama wants seniors to get another $250 - Oct. 14, 2009 (http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/14/news/economy/obama_seniors_payment/index.htm?postversion=2009101509)

So consumer prices have fallen but Obama wants to spend an extra $13 billion on social security anyway?

Yep, not in favor of this pandering to seniors at all.

[Flasch186]

I too am not in favor of this, please take note so that later some people wont broadly paint that I am in favor blindly of all the things Obama tries to do (since it didnt get through when I opposed Gitmo not closing, a continuation of the abhorrent rendition, opposition to the stimulus checks portion of the stimulus bill) in an effort to minimize the things I truly am in support of. It'll cut out that ridiculous waste of time later on in this 125 page thread.

[ISiddiqui]

I agree. Fiscal conservatism but social liberalism is the direction they need to go. And they can't be all "disband the CDC and the FBI and become isolationist." They have to recognize that there's a need for America to engage with the world, and there's unfortunately a need for the military, and for the CIA/FBI/CDC/NSA/etc.

True, but third parties tend to be more extreme due to the system we have. It was started by those who didn't fit in the two party system and were a bit, let's be honest, off the reservation. Those who were fiscally moderate and socially liberal could find at least some likeminded members in, say, Northeastern Republicanism and in some pockets of Southern and Mountain West Democratism (Scoop Jackson, etc). It'd be fun if those groups splintered to become a moderate third party.

[gstelmack]

True, but third parties tend to be more extreme due to the system we have. It was started by those who didn't fit in the two party system and were a bit, let's be honest, off the reservation. Those who were fiscally moderate and socially liberal could find at least some likeminded members in, say, Northeastern Republicanism and in some pockets of Southern and Mountain West Democratism (Scoop Jackson, etc). It'd be fun if those groups splintered to become a moderate third party.

It's surprising right now as much as both parties are pandering to their extreme that a middle-of-the-road party hasn't found room to emerge.