The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Crapshoot]

Dola,
let me elaborate. Its clear why the congressional GOP believes this; the candidates, by definition, who are left in the party are likely to be "more conservative" (having come out of safer, more conservative districts); ie, as a whole, the GOP Caucus now is almost certainly more conservative than it was before the election. Nonetheless, if they want to come back into power (and the idea of unchecked Democratic rule for the next X years is not really appealing), they have to offer something to the middle.

Its actually pretty fascinating for us as strategy fans (bring this back to FOF )- what's best from the interest of the party as a whole (a moderation that leads to power) is not always best for the interests of the members who are likely to be primaried if they "moderate" ( Leiberman in the Dem primary, and Specter might be this year in the GOP as Toomey is running again).

[Dutch]

A successfully executed plan between Rahm Emmanuel and the media?

Rush Job: Inside Dems' Limbaugh plan
Most Emailed News Stories

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Jesus Christ, does the GOP know any better? Reagan was a brilliant politician (once in a lifetime), but if the GOP's entire strategy is to wait for another one, how realistic can it possibly be? I try reading RedState at least once a day, and it always fascinates me about the lack of pragmatism - apparently, the solution is to run a candidate who's even more right-of-center (which is when I see the ranting about Specter/Snowe etc, I want to laugh - do they actually believe any other Republican could hold those seats)? I mean, they constantly rail against moderate Republicans - would they prefer them as Moderate Democrat's instead? The entire thrust of the idiocy thus espoused is that even though Barack Obama got the greatest presidential mandate since Reagan, even though his approval ratings are sky-high, the solution is to run further to the right. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the GOP seems to espouse this.

It's not just the GOP. Both sides have fringe elements at the extreme that somehow believe that when they lose, it's because their candidate wasn't liberal/conservative enough. They live in a different reality than the rest of us though so it's hard to convince them of the need to be moderate.

Funny thing is that if a more conservative guy like Brownback or Thompson won the nomination, Obama would have won with 400+ electoral votes. McCain was their best hope and if they didn't screw it up with the Palin selection and Ayers crap, he may have had a shot at winning.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by Dutch

A successfully executed plan between Rahm Emmanuel and the media?

Rush Job: Inside Dems' Limbaugh plan
Most Emailed News Stories

The seeds were planted in October after Democracy Corps, the Democratic polling company run by Carville and Greenberg, included Limbaugh’s name in a survey and found that many Americans just don’t like him.

“His positives for voters under 40 was 11 percent,” Carville recalled with a degree of amazement, alluding to a question about whether voters had a positive or negative view of the talk show host.

Paul Begala, a close friend of Carville, Greenberg and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, said they found Limbaugh’s overall ratings were even lower than the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s controversial former pastor, and William Ayers, the domestic terrorist and Chicago resident who Republicans sought to tie to Obama during the campaign.

Sounds like a smart enough move.

[larrymcg421]

In one of his books, Carville talks about learning that move in the 80s from one of his political mentors. He was in a Virginia statewide election and Jerry Falwell had endorsed their opponent, so they pushed that endorsement in the media.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Dutch

A successfully executed plan between Rahm Emmanuel and the media?

Rush Job: Inside Dems' Limbaugh plan
Most Emailed News Stories

Dutch, even in your cocooned world, this has hardly been a secret conspiracy, right? Every Democratic official has said loudly that they want to link Rush Limbaugh as the head of the GOP. Dems didn't make Steele grovel back to him, or make Gingrey apologize. All they're doing is boasting about it here, and Rush continues to nominate himself as the de-facto leader of the right. And I'd bet if anything, Rush Limbaugh's ratings are up now (I'd bet JIMGA knows this stuff fairly well - I'm curious how ad rates/sales for Rush are going now - is their any noticeable change from say, 2 months ago). Its a win-win for both Rush and the Dems; but a lose for the GOP.

The idiocy here is on the part of the GOP members that let themselves get into a situation with regards to Limbaugh, who is a blowhard of epic proportions (to be sure, the most popular radio host in the country, but still a hypocritical blowhard - I always find the drug-addict who has been married 3 times preaching about the sanctity of marriage as hilarious) - he loses nothing in this whole saga and gains noteriety. But think of it this way - what % of Rush listeners voted for anyone other than the GOP last year? 10% to be wildly optimistic? His demographic is basically you - older white guys who oppose gay rights, are strongly pro-life, and think lines like "feminism was invented by ugly women" are the bedrocks of policy. He's preaching to the choir. To be sure, losing those 15-20M votes would doom any future Republican president - but any future Republican can't win if those 20M votes are seen as the litmus test for the GOP. Its a horrible position for the GOP to find itself in.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Dutch

A successfully executed plan between Rahm Emmanuel and the media?

Rush Job: Inside Dems' Limbaugh plan
Most Emailed News Stories

Is it really some master plan to let Rush just be himself and not interrupt him being part of the news cycle? It's not like the White House is putting out memos every day talking about Limbaugh. Otherwise, they might have to apologize to him

That said, isn't James Carville the Clinton's big political guy (last seen working on Hillary's campaign)? I haven't heard much from him since she dropped out of the race. I kindof doubt he's running much of anything right now except maybe as some company director board or some university chair.

SI

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Dutch, even in your cocooned world, this has hardly been a secret conspiracy, right? Every Democratic official has said loudly that they want to link Rush Limbaugh as the head of the GOP. Dems didn't make Steele grovel back to him, or make Gingrey apologize. All they're doing is boasting about it here, and Rush continues to nominate himself as the de-facto leader of the right. And I'd bet if anything, Rush Limbaugh's ratings are up now (I'd bet JIMGA knows this stuff fairly well - I'm curious how ad rates/sales for Rush are going now - is their any noticeable change from say, 2 months ago). Its a win-win for both Rush and the Dems; but a lose for the GOP.

The idiocy here is on the part of the GOP members that let themselves get into a situation with regards to Limbaugh, who is a blowhard of epic proportions (to be sure, the most popular radio host in the country, but still a hypocritical blowhard - I always find the drug-addict who has been married 3 times preaching about the sanctity of marriage as hilarious) - he loses nothing in this whole saga and gains noteriety. But think of it this way - what % of Rush listeners voted for anyone other than the GOP last year? 10% to be wildly optimistic? His demographic is basically you - older white guys who oppose gay rights, are strongly pro-life, and think lines like "feminism was invented by ugly women" are the bedrocks of policy. He's preaching to the choir. To be sure, losing those 15-20M votes would doom any future Republican president - but any future Republican can't win if those 20M votes are seen as the litmus test for the GOP. Its a horrible position for the GOP to find itself in.

You know. I would think the democrats should be quietly encouraging their members to listen to Rush. Nothing better than inflating his numbers giving the Republicans even more reason to cowtow to the Rush line. Makes sense to me, assuming that Rush's views are that polarizing.

[Dutch]

Dutch, even in your cocooned world, this has hardly been a secret conspiracy, right?

Conspiracies were behind every corner in Crapshoots world when Bush was in office, so those words are stinging from such a credible source. The reality though is my cocooned world only expects the media to not act like it's run by the state. Let's be honest for a second, Crapshoot, it's not like this Rahm Emmanuel "plan" was mentioned while NBC and MSNBC were grilling Michael Steele and Ron Paul respectively over the matter on TV the other day. What's to hide? Don't blame me when Matt Lauer (NBC) and Chris Matthews (MSNBC) can't and won't explain to the general public that this anti-Rush story is apparently being generated by the DNC itself.

I don't recall gotcha-journalism like this when Michael Moore was the leading name of the DNC during the Bush years.

[Crapshoot]

Yeah, the person Rush hurts the most are GOP moderates. I don't dispute for a second that's he's a commanding personality who has an amazingly loyal following (one interesting comparison I read was to Oprah in terms of a mass audience who takes their cues from an entertainer), but the question is whether Rush is a positive for the GOP as a whole - that, I doubt.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Conspiracies were behind every corner in Crapshoots world when Bush was in office, so those words are stinging from such a credible source. The reality though is my cocooned world only expects the media to not act like it's run by the state. Let's be honest for a second, Crapshoot, it's not like this Rahm Emmanuel "plan" was mentioned while NBC and MSNBC were grilling Michael Steele and Ron Paul respectively over the matter on TV the other day. What's to hide? Don't blame me when Matt Lauer (NBC) and Chris Matthews (MSNBC) can't and won't explain to the general public that this anti-Rush story is apparently being generated by the DNC itself.

I don't recall gotcha-journalism like this when Michael Moore was the leading name of the DNC during the Bush years.

Conspiracies? Firstly, that's bullshit - find me a thread anywhere here where I bought into that damn looney bin of conspiracy theories. Basically, you're making shit up -again. In fact, you're the guy who seems to imagine the media conspiracies for years. Hell, given a vote in 2000, I would have voted for Bush. Secondly, Michael Moore has always been an idiot, but no one would ever claim he has anywhere near the following that Rush Limbaugh has, nor has he suggested he's the head of the opposition in the country. If the Dem leaders had to apologize to Michael Moore every time they said something, they would rightly be ridiculed as idiots.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Yeah, the person Rush hurts the most are GOP moderates. I don't dispute for a second that's he's a commanding personality who has an amazingly loyal following (one interesting comparison I read was to Oprah in terms of a mass audience who takes their cues from an entertainer), but the question is whether Rush is a positive for the GOP as a whole - that, I doubt.

The point though, is that when a guy like Michael Moore represented the same kind of iconic character on the left, there is NO WAY the GOP plays this game. (not that they wouldn't, just that they couldn't) The allies of the GOP in the media are simply too outnumbered and bullshit like this would be called exactly what it is. This is the perfect storm right now. DNC President, DNC Senate, DNC House, DNC Media. It will definately be a rough ride for anybody supporting the GOP or providing alternative opinions.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Conspiracies? Firstly, that's bullshit - find me a thread anywhere here where I bought into that damn looney bin of conspiracy theories. Basically, you're making shit up -again. In fact, you're the guy who seems to imagine the media conspiracies for years.

The media bias is incredible. Fox News and AP Radio are miniscule compared to their counterparts. If not because of the plan hatched by Rahm Emmanuel, then Limbaugh is getting it because he's one of but a handful of conservatives that even make it into the mass media.

Hell, given a vote in 2000, I would have voted for Bush.

Al Gore was a clown, agreed.

Secondly, Michael Moore has always been an idiot, but no one would ever claim he has anywhere near the following that Rush Limbaugh has, nor has he suggested he's the head of the opposition in the country. If the Dem leaders had to apologize to Michael Moore every time they said something, they would rightly be ridiculed as idiots.

Michael Moore would never have had any following with his hair-brained bullshit and lies if he wasn't propped up by Hollywood and the media who just adored him. So, you might be right, his following could have simply been the media pretending he was popular.

BTW, I don't even listen to Rush Limbaugh.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The media bias is incredible. Fox News and AP Radio are miniscule compared to their counterparts. If not because of the plan hatched by Rahm Emmanuel, then Limbaugh is getting it because he's one of but a handful of conservatives that even make it into the mass media.

For such a bias, the media conveniently didn't ask any tough questions in the leadup to the Iraq war. I mean Fox News didn't ask a single tough question going into the war yet had 24/7 breaking news about Obama having been in the same room as Bill Ayers 30 years ago. I'm not saying that there is no media bias, I'm just saying it swings both ways at times. The media picks favorites and plays to the populace. Obama isn't picked on because the people like him. Bush wasn't picked on going into Iraq because the public didn't want them to.

Perhaps if the media didn't play to the public, we wouldn't have gotten into that bullshit war.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Conspiracies were behind every corner in Crapshoots world when Bush was in office, so those words are stinging from such a credible source. The reality though is my cocooned world only expects the media to not act like it's run by the state. Let's be honest for a second, Crapshoot, it's not like this Rahm Emmanuel "plan" was mentioned while NBC and MSNBC were grilling Michael Steele and Ron Paul respectively over the matter on TV the other day. What's to hide? Don't blame me when Matt Lauer (NBC) and Chris Matthews (MSNBC) can't and won't explain to the general public that this anti-Rush story is apparently being generated by the DNC itself.

I don't recall gotcha-journalism like this when Michael Moore was the leading name of the DNC during the Bush years.

In fairness, the Rush story didn't get a lot of attention here. Sure it ran on the cable news networks a lot, but that's a rather small audience. Most major news broadcasts were extremely brief and I didn't even see it in my local newspapers. It's more a blogger story and something talk radio and guys like Hannitty and Olbermann run with.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

For such a bias, the media conveniently didn't ask any tough questions in the leadup to the Iraq war. I mean Fox News didn't ask a single tough question going into the war yet had 24/7 breaking news about Obama having been in the same room as Bill Ayers 30 years ago. I'm not saying that there is no media bias, I'm just saying it swings both ways at times. The media picks favorites and plays to the populace. Obama isn't picked on because the people like him. Bush wasn't picked on going into Iraq because the public didn't want them to.

Perhaps if the media didn't play to the public, we wouldn't have gotten into that bullshit war.

well except that old lady in the front....Helen. She was pissed.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It wasn't a Senator, it was Congressman Gingrey from your state.

Really? Wow. (found some linkage that caught me up on this). Apparently we've now discussed it more on here than the play it got locally, I didn't see or hear a single thing about Gingrey's comments until after this apology.

It's just preaching to the choir. Steele's job on the other hand is to bring in new voters to the party and win elections. Ultimately, he is more valuable in the end.

Except that
a) there's no evidence to this point that Steele can bring anyone new to the party (and I find the notion that he will to be downright laughable)
and b) if the existing voters aren't motivated to go to the polls then any additions mean squat. And that's where Hannity (who I think is a better at this) and Rush, et al come in.

They have a chance to provide what amounts to a daily pep rally and given the lackluster feelings about the last candidate we managed to send to the post that's something that's sorely needed.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

well except that old lady in the front....Helen. She was pissed.

On a random note, I was happy to see that she was still in the front row at one of Obama's first press events. Surprised, since I thought she was retired several years ago, but from a professional standpoint I was glad she still got a chance to work it.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The point though, is that when a guy like Michael Moore represented the same kind of iconic character on the left, there is NO WAY the GOP plays this game. (not that they wouldn't, just that they couldn't) The allies of the GOP in the media are simply too outnumbered and bullshit like this would be called exactly what it is. This is the perfect storm right now. DNC President, DNC Senate, DNC House, DNC Media. It will definately be a rough ride for anybody supporting the GOP or providing alternative opinions.

It's like the 2001-2006 never happened in your world. Do you not remember time after time of Democrats asked to distance themselves from controversial statements? After Fahrenheit 9/11? After Natalie Maynes? After Ward Churchill?

Tying extremist characters/language to your opponents isn't exactly a new political strategy. The GOP just walked into it. No Dem made Steele grovel. No Dem made Rush attack the moderate wing so viciously. No Dem made Rush the leading voice of the GOP.

You just keep working the media bias. It appeals to an ever smaller, but more ideologically pure segment. Eventually, if you try hard enough, you can get the GOP down to the 20% or so that are true, Reagan conservatives.

[larrymcg421]

Well, obviously the media should not cover the RNC Chair having to apologize to a popular conservative talk show host. That's not newsworthy. It MUST be a liberally biased conspiracy!

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Conspiracies were behind every corner in Crapshoots world when Bush was in office, so those words are stinging from such a credible source. The reality though is my cocooned world only expects the media to not act like it's run by the state. Let's be honest for a second, Crapshoot, it's not like this Rahm Emmanuel "plan" was mentioned while NBC and MSNBC were grilling Michael Steele and Ron Paul respectively over the matter on TV the other day. What's to hide? Don't blame me when Matt Lauer (NBC) and Chris Matthews (MSNBC) can't and won't explain to the general public that this anti-Rush story is apparently being generated by the DNC itself.

I don't recall gotcha-journalism like this when Michael Moore was the leading name of the DNC during the Bush years.

I don't remember the years when Michael Moore was the leading DNC face. Could you point to the time when Howard Dean was deferring to Michael Moore for judgment? Or when someone in Congress was groveling to him because they called him out and his legions of fans were demanding an apology? Oh wait. That's because it never happened and you're full of crap.

Is there some silly little warped world where playing political games is the same type of "conspiracy" as little petty things like lying about WMDs to get into a war, outing a CIA agent because her husband spoke out against it, and secretly recording American citizens phone conversations without discretion, cause, or a warrant?

SI

[albionmoonlight]

The difference seems to be that if you had asked Gore, Kerry, Edwards, etc. whether they agree with Michael Moore or whether they think that Bush caused 9/11 on purpose, or whether they agreed with Al Sharpton, they would have said "no." And it's not like the GOP didn't try to tie them all together. The GOP very much tried to make Moore and Daily Kos and Moveon.org the face of the Democrats. And why wouldn't they. That's just smart politics. It's just that the mainstream Dems tried to run from those guys.

So, what drops my jaw to the floor today isn't that the Dems are trying to tie mainstream Republicans to Limbaugh. That's just smart politics. It's that the mainstream Republicans don't have the balls and/or sense to disavow Limbaugh.

I voted for W in 2000, so it isn't like I am the kind of voter who can never be convinced to vote Republican. But NOTHING that the party is doing is even giving me pause in hoping for its continued marginalization.

[albionmoonlight]

dola:

I mean, isn't this really an easy ju-jitsu for the GOP? Dems say that they are all about Limbaugh. All McConnel, Steele, Cantor, etc. have to do is say, "No. We are not. We beleive in [good conservative principles], and the Dems fear that. Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer; he is not a leader of our party, and we are not afraid to say that. Maybe the Dems want to talk about Limbaugh instead of [whatever bad economic news is most recent.]"

They should be happy to have the chance to slam Rush and get back the moderates, right? What am I missing here?

[sterlingice]

The problem is that Rush's ego won't let them. There have been 3 figures who have slammed him in 2 months with almost those words and each time he's shown outrage and directed his wing of the GOP to get pissed at them and force them to apologize.

SI

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Except that
a) there's no evidence to this point that Steele can bring anyone new to the party (and I find the notion that he will to be downright laughable)
and b) if the existing voters aren't motivated to go to the polls then any additions mean squat. And that's where Hannity (who I think is a better at this) and Rush, et al come in.

They have a chance to provide what amounts to a daily pep rally and given the lackluster feelings about the last candidate we managed to send to the post that's something that's sorely needed.

I think Steele was a dumb pick and I don't think he is remotely qualified to bring the GOP back. I don't think the other options were good either though.

I think if you are a Rush listener, there is little chance you are going to skip the polls on election day. You have an interest in politics and probably don't like the other guy too much. I just don't see many of those people sitting at home.

The problem though is that the Rush types only make up a small percent of the voters. The GOP needs to attract those independents who don't care about talk radio, blogs, or talking politics. They catch things in soundbytes. When they see Rush mocking Michael J. Fox for having a horrible disease or playing songs called Barack the Magic Negro, they are turned off. The GOP needs to bring in new voters and by bowing down to Rush, they aren't doing that.

[RainMaker]

Limbaugh came out today and more or less mocked the fact that Ted Kennedy is dying. It has to feel like Christmas everyday for the Democrats. Just one gift after another.

[watravaler]

I guess it is a generational thing with Rush. He has a tall podium, but his popularity still boggles my mind. He is part of the problem, and it's time for him to walk away...imo, of course.

[SFL Cat]

Lol. Rough week for Hillary Clinton?

Tongue-tied Clinton gets warm EU welcome

Clinton gift gaffe: 'Overcharge'

[Flasch186]

yup, much worse then the glossed over Rush stuff:

Still, Clinton has been well received in Brussels, where the Obama administration has been viewed as a breath of fresh air after the unpopular leadership of George W. Bush. His secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, often drew protests on her travels.

Its a dark new day for America and it's foreign relations

Fellow foreign ministers stood and applauded Clinton's presentation at a meeting with NATO counterparts Thursday and extra space had to be set aside for a spillover audience of 800 at the European Parliament.

Parliament President Hans-Gert Poettering was effusive in his praise, saying that with the new administration, the United States and Europe once again "share the same values."

[SFL Cat]

Parliament President Hans-Gert Poettering was effusive in his praise, saying that with the new administration, the United States and Europe once again "share the same values."

Yep...just a step away from socialist utopia!

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Limbaugh came out today and more or less mocked the fact that Ted Kennedy is dying. It has to feel like Christmas everyday for the Democrats. Just one gift after another.

As I understand it, he said that by the time Congress gets through with the expanded health care bill, it will be the "Ted Kennedy Memorial Health Care Bill". That's mocking him?

Now, Rep. Bobby Rush compared Roland Burris to Ted Kennedy a few days ago, saying that Burris shouldn't resign when a Senator "drove off a bridge. People died." But since he's another Democrat, I suppose there's no reason to get our knickers in a twist.

Before any Democrat, liberal, or progressive decides to freak out about Rush Limbaugh, they should spend an hour listening to Randi Rhodes. Seriously. This country's in a world of hurt and the leaders of our nation are picking a fight with Rush Effing Limbaugh?? It would be laughable if it weren't so damned sad.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

I think this is relevant.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

As I understand it, he said that by the time Congress gets through with the expanded health care bill, it will be the "Ted Kennedy Memorial Health Care Bill". That's mocking him?

I guess everyone will have to use their own judgment. The way it sounded to me was mocking and callous.

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Now, Rep. Bobby Rush compared Roland Burris to Ted Kennedy a few days ago, saying that Burris shouldn't resign when a Senator "drove off a bridge. People died." But since he's another Democrat, I suppose there's no reason to get our knickers in a twist.

Bobby Rush doesn't matter. I'd argue that most of the country has never even heard of him. But he has taken a lot of heat, particularly here in Chicago for his comments. It would be a bigger story I'd imagine if Bobby Rush mattered and had any national presence.

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Before any Democrat, liberal, or progressive decides to freak out about Rush Limbaugh, they should spend an hour listening to Randi Rhodes. Seriously. This country's in a world of hurt and the leaders of our nation are picking a fight with Rush Effing Limbaugh?? It would be laughable if it weren't so damned sad.

Randi Rhodes hardly represents the Democratic Party. Again, I doubt many people even know who she is. I have no doubt that she'd be irritating to listen to as most partisian talking heads are. But I do know there won't be Congressman, Governors, and the head of the Democratic Party groveling and asking for her forgiveness.

As for those people freaking out, I highly doubt they are. They love this. It's Christmas Day for the Democratic Party everytime he says stuff like this. The guy has huge unfavorables, especially amongst independents. When he says stuff like that it simply rallies their base and turns independents off from the GOP.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

The difference seems to be that if you had asked Gore, Kerry, Edwards, etc. whether they agree with Michael Moore or whether they think that Bush caused 9/11 on purpose, or whether they agreed with Al Sharpton, they would have said "no." And it's not like the GOP didn't try to tie them all together. The GOP very much tried to make Moore and Daily Kos and Moveon.org the face of the Democrats. And why wouldn't they. That's just smart politics. It's just that the mainstream Dems tried to run from those guys.

So, what drops my jaw to the floor today isn't that the Dems are trying to tie mainstream Republicans to Limbaugh. That's just smart politics. It's that the mainstream Republicans don't have the balls and/or sense to disavow Limbaugh.

I voted for W in 2000, so it isn't like I am the kind of voter who can never be convinced to vote Republican. But NOTHING that the party is doing is even giving me pause in hoping for its continued marginalization.

When was there a media firestorm supporting the White House for the Dem's not disavowing Michael Moore or MoveOn.org or the DailyKos?

The RNC attacks the DNC and vice versa, but that's not my point.

What I am talking about is the media jumping on the RNC vs Rush but never the DNC vs Moore (or any of the leftist nut jobs). Ari Fleisher was asked on MSNBC why he didn't also disavow Rush and he responded, "Why don't you disavow Keith Olbermann?" which the MSNBC host paused, sipped his coffee and simply responed, "Good one."

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

On a random note, I was happy to see that she was still in the front row at one of Obama's first press events. Surprised, since I thought she was retired several years ago, but from a professional standpoint I was glad she still got a chance to work it.

She's an old blowhard that deserves to be there. She was extremely tough on Bush from the first day to the last. Extremely tough on Obama? Well, she asked Obama if he believed there were terrorists in Afghanistan at his first press conference.

[Flasch186]

unreal.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

As I understand it, he said that by the time Congress gets through with the expanded health care bill, it will be the "Ted Kennedy Memorial Health Care Bill". That's mocking him?

It's certainly insensitive about his current condition. Much like the GOP Senator's comments about Ginsburg's condition.

Now, Rep. Bobby Rush compared Roland Burris to Ted Kennedy a few days ago, saying that Burris shouldn't resign when a Senator "drove off a bridge. People died." But since he's another Democrat, I suppose there's no reason to get our knickers in a twist.

I think there's a difference between bringing up a scandal from the past and mocking someone's current health condition. But anyways, Bobby Rush is a piece of shit and I'd gladly slam him along with Limbaugh.

Before any Democrat, liberal, or progressive decides to freak out about Rush Limbaugh, they should spend an hour listening to Randi Rhodes. Seriously. This country's in a world of hurt and the leaders of our nation are picking a fight with Rush Effing Limbaugh?? It would be laughable if it weren't so damned sad.

Rush has made himself the de facto leader of the party. He's been able to do it because the Republicans let him. They're the ones that picked the fight with Limbaugh. Then they didn't have the guts to stand by what they said, so they apologized to him. So now Rush mocks Ted Kennedy's current health condition (so much for that "Culture of Life" Republicans supposedly believe in) and gets attacked for it. If Olbermann suggested a Republican was going to die, you can bet he'd be disavowed.

As for Randi Rhodes, she certainly goes overboard and has been suspended for it (ironically one of her suspensions was in the late 80s for offending the Miami gay community), but she doesn't have nearly the same exposure that Rush has., And the left has not given her the same legitimacy that the right has given to Rush.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Dutch

When was there a media firestorm supporting the White House for the Dem's not disavowing Michael Moore or MoveOn.org or the DailyKos?

The RNC attacks the DNC and vice versa, but that's not my point.

What I am talking about is the media jumping on the RNC vs Rush but never the DNC vs Moore (or any of the leftist nut jobs). Ari Fleisher was asked on MSNBC why he didn't also disavow Rush and he responded, "Why don't you disavow Keith Olbermann?" which the MSNBC host paused, sipped his coffee and simply responed, "Good one."

When did Olbermann make a comment about a Republican politican's impending death?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Dutch

When was there a media firestorm supporting the White House for the Dem's not disavowing Michael Moore or MoveOn.org or the DailyKos?

The RNC attacks the DNC and vice versa, but that's not my point.

What I am talking about is the media jumping on the RNC vs Rush but never the DNC vs Moore (or any of the leftist nut jobs). Ari Fleisher was asked on MSNBC why he didn't also disavow Rush and he responded, "Why don't you disavow Keith Olbermann?" which the MSNBC host paused, sipped his coffee and simply responed, "Good one."

I know you keep ignoring this question because we know you know the right answer but llike to make up crap so I'm just going to cut and paste my last post since you didn't respond to it.

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I don't remember the years when Michael Moore was the leading DNC face. Could you point to the time when Howard Dean was deferring to Michael Moore for judgment? Or when someone in Congress was groveling to him because they called him out and his legions of fans were demanding an apology? Oh wait. That's because it never happened and you're full of crap.

Is there some silly little warped world where playing political games is the same type of "conspiracy" as little petty things like lying about WMDs to get into a war, outing a CIA agent because her husband spoke out against it, and secretly recording American citizens phone conversations without discretion, cause, or a warrant?

SI

[Noop]

I don't know if anyone has watched "Right America: Feeling Wrong" but its an interesting documentary.

[miked]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Yep...just a step away from socialist utopia!

If only you took the time to read. Karl Marx would probably be sick to his stomach with people thinking this was a path to socialism. Now if you want to say social democracy, then maybe there's more credibility...but then again that would actually require you to think and read about what you say before you say it.

[JPhillips]

Let me predict right now that if Obama doesn't promote more Republican ideas there's no way he can defeat McCain.

[Flasch186]

depends on what polls you're looking at....plus you have to remember that there are some rolling averages out there that are going to skew upwards, I mean downwards, the things youre looking at. I mean remember, whomever wins will only have 30 days to turn this thing around before we judge his tenure as a success or failure, unless of course we decide to give him longer than that.

BTW - I cant believe that the liberal media would be focusing so much on all of the Clinton Gaffe's overseas, eh? They must not have gotten the message that theyre supposed to be biased.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dutch

She's an old blowhard that deserves to be there. She was extremely tough on Bush from the first day to the last. Extremely tough on Obama? Well, she asked Obama if he believed there were terrorists in Afghanistan at his first press conference.

Maybe you've missed this, but Helen Thomas has been real hard on Obama. She recently blasted him for his policy on Afghanistan and sort of took a jab at him for his blueprint toward recovery. She's badgered him about Israel and taken him to task for his support of the country. She was one of the few media members who trashed the media for their fawning over Obama during the election.

And God forbid she ask some tough questions to Bush before he sends some kids off to die in a war that was pointless.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by miked

If only you took the time to read. Karl Marx would probably be sick to his stomach with people thinking this was a path to socialism. Now if you want to say social democracy, then maybe there's more credibility...but then again that would actually require you to think and read about what you say before you say it.

It is sad to see the level of ignorance toward basic government terminology. How adding national health care is suddenly the difference between officially being called socialists. The fact we have socialized highways, police departments, intelligence agencies, military, parks, schools, and so on just doesn't pass the test.

This country has always been a social contitutional democracy. Acting like socialist aspects are suddenly creeping into society is just ignorant.

[miked]

Well, it give people like Rush one-liners and catch phrases to snare/scare the sheep. So people just cut and paste talking points. I think the above mentioned poster may be the political jbmagic.

[CamEdwards]

I can't believe how freaking insensitive Democrats in Congress are being.

Senate Lion Ted Kennedy Roars Once More for National Health Care - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com

A spokeswoman for one of the architects of a national health care bill said that any legislation that emerges would be named after Kennedy.

"He wouldn't name it for himself, but the majority of the body working on the legislation would say he's devoted his life to it," said Jude McCartin, a spokeswoman for Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., a member of Kennedy's committee. "Now that we're on the verge of doing something major, the naming of the legislation should reflect his longstanding involvement,"

Who knew Jeff Bingaman hated Ted Kennedy?

[Flasch186]

huh?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

That's totally equivalent to what Rush said. Totally.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I can't believe how freaking insensitive Democrats in Congress are being.

Senate Lion Ted Kennedy Roars Once More for National Health Care - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com


Who knew Jeff Bingaman hated Ted Kennedy?

....and stretch.