Good Morning Retired!

Speaking of job creation, here’s an interesting tidbit I came across the other day that I believe is ‘share worthy’:

From PolitiFact:

Harry S. Truman (Democrat): increase of 2.95 percent a year
Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican): increase of 0.50 percent a year
John F. Kennedy (Democrat): increase of 2.03 percent a year
Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat): increase of 3.88 percent a year
Richard M. Nixon (Republican): increase of 2.16 percent a year
Gerald R. Ford (Republican): increase of 0.86 percent a year
Jimmy Carter (Democrat): increase of 3.45 percent a year
Ronald Reagan (Republican): increase of 2.46 percent a year
George H.W. Bush (Republican): increase of 0.40 percent a year
Bill Clinton (Democrat): increase of 2.86 percent a year
George W. Bush (Republican): increase of 0.01 percent a year
Barack Obama (Democrat): decrease of 3.0 percent a year

(Can we take time out here to say how surprised we are that Eisenhower, who presided over the "happy" 1950s, managed an anemic half-percent job growth per year, while Jimmy "Malaise" Carter finished second with 3.45 percent annual job growth?)

Now for the totals. If you exclude Obama, Democrats averaged 3.03 percent annual job growth, compared to 1.07 percent for Republicans -- a nearly 3-to-1 advantage.

If you include Obama, the Democrats still held a significant edge. With Obama included, the Democrats averaged 2.03 annual job growth, compared to the same 1.07 for Republicans -- about twice as high as the GOP.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/

Damn those Democrats!

Well said, US Navy. The GOP has no answers, that is evident by their refusals to answer the simple question: where will you cut spending?

From 1914 until 1980, (when Reagan brought us his voodoo economics based on the Laffer curve) the USA was a creditor nation. In less than one year of the Reagan presidency, the USA became the world's greatest debtor nation. With the exception of the Clinton years, the US has continued the role of World's Greatest Debtor Nation. Hardly a legacy to be proud of yet the GOP/TP treat him as a saint.

Good post Navy.

John McCain (sigh), he was a lousy student, a lousy Pilot and now a lousy Senator. Is it just old age, or is he still suffering from "losers remorse? He never has anything nice to say about anyone and is against everything that would help this Country. Shame on you John, it's time you went away.

Nice job painting the big picture, USN. Conservatives would like to focus on one little issue at a time, or preferrably a manufactured controversey, to keep us from noticing that their agenda fundamentally alters America from an egalitarian, democratic nation to an aristocracy in which virtually all wealth and power would be held by the fortunate few.

Wow Feisty, those are some startling statistics. I knew it's been proven repeatedly that the economy functions better under Democratic management, I had no idea the difference was that stark.

"Plotting to continue the outsourcing of jobs." Where in the world do you get this stuff? You must have a seat at the board room for GE or other multinational companies.

Navy:

You are saying it like it is. Excellent post...And you are followed up with Feisty giving facts and showing the Republians are clueless when it comes to job creation. You both make progressives proud.

Well TI, that or a little research tells the tale.

http://www.commondreams.org/video/2010/10/15-0

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/28/AR2010092802768.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/10/15/maddow_chamber_of_commerce_promotes_outsourcing_jobs.html

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=how_guestworkers_promote_outsourcing

Conservatives want very badly to deny that outsourcing is a goal, but 30 years of history and plenty of available evidence prove otherwise. Dress it up any language you wish, the end result is destruction of the American middle class.

Feisty;

Thanks much for the for the feedback. Those are great figures and helps prove my point thank you.

Ron and all: thank you and your posts for providing me with additional informtion.

I wish America would wake up and realize that they are being sold down the river.

THIS JUST IN ! It has just been disclosed that the GOP has bargained with foreign Countries to donate funds to them for their take over of our Country and the destruction of America as we know it. The terms of the bargain are that the GOP, upon winning the elections, that America will be returned to a "Colonial Colony"

For this cooperation by the GOP. the following GOP members will be granted the following titles:

KING BUSH II

QUEEN MICHELLE BACHMANN

PRINCES PALIN

LORD LIMBAUGH

PRINCE BECK

SIR HANNITY

MARQUIS BOENER

COUNT CANTER

DUKE DE MINT

EARL CHENY

BE AFRAID, BE VERY AFRAID!

Thanks Guys!

We NEED to keep reminding the voters from now until the finish line on election day, that the Republicans want to keep the 2% RICH and the rest of us fighting over what ever table scraps they toss us!

I see the same ole' people in here high fivin' each other as usual. You guys are preaching to each other. All of that hype you are spewing is falling on deaf ears. It is the same agenda you have attempted to sell since the inception of FR.

DAV- you need to go somewhere and sit down because you have become a tunnel vision liberal. I think you need to visit the VA for a check-up. Maybe they will raise your percentage because you have issues.

California Tom: <list deleted>

Hey Tom,

To vote

And yes we Conservatives will - in massive numbers.

U.S. president Party Term years Start jobs* End jobs* created (in millions) Average annual increase

Harding/Coolidge
R
1921-1925
25,000 **
29,500 **
+4.5 **
+4.2% **

Calvin Coolidge
R
1925-1929
29,500 **
32,100 **
+2.6 **
+2.2% **

Herbert Hoover
R
1929-1933
32,100 **
25,700 **
-6.4
-9.0%

Franklin Roosevelt
D
1933-1937
25,700 **
31,200 **
+5.5
+5.3% **

Franklin Roosevelt
D
1937-1941
31,200 **
34,480
+3.3
+2.6% **

Franklin Roosevelt
D
1941-1945
34,480
41,903
+7.4
+5.2%

Roosevelt/Truman
D
1945-1949
41,903
44,675
+2.8
+1.8%

Harry Truman
D
1949-1953
44,675
50,145
+5.5
+3.0%

Dwight Eisenhower
R
1953-1957
50,145
52,888
+2.7
+1.4%

Dwight Eisenhower
R
1957-1961
52,888
53,683
+0.8
+0.4%

Kennedy/Johnson
D
1961-1965
53,683
59,583
+5.9
+2.6%

Lyndon Johnson
D
1965-1969
59,583
69,438
+9.9
+3.9%

Richard Nixon
R
1969-1973
69,438
75,620
+6.2
+2.2%

Nixon/Ford
R
1973-1977
75,620
80,692
+5.1
+1.7%

Jimmy Carter
D
1977-1981
80,692
91,031
+10.3
+3.1%

Ronald Reagan
R
1981-1985
91,031
96,353
+5.3
+1.5%

Ronald Reagan
R
1985-1989
96,353
107,133
+10.8
+2.7%

George H. W. Bush
R
1989-1993
107,133
109,725
+2.6
+0.6%

Bill Clinton
D
1993-1997
109,725
121,231
+11.5
+2.6%

Bill Clinton
D
1997-2001
121,231
132,469
+11.2
+2.3%

George W. Bush
R
2001-2005
132,469
132,453
0.0
0.0%

George W. Bush
R
2005-2009
132,453
133,549
+1.1
+0.2%

Barack Obama
D
2009-
133,549
130,419 (Jun. 2010)
-3.1 (Jun. 2010)
-1.6% (Jun. 2010)

ITM:

I wonder why you keep showing up and repeating yourself? You apparently don't like people giving other people credit for thoughts well spoken. Perhaps if you presented a conservative position on how conservatives will govern after 11/2/10, someone might acknowledge that you have something constructive to say.

If you don't want to hear what progressives have to say. It's like your radio, go to another station or website. You don't have to listen if you don't want to.

Ron Indiana: If you don't want to hear what progressives have to say. It's like your radio, go to another station or website. You don't have to listen if you don't want to.

My, my, the Libs are getting angry.

Why all the anger Libs? Something wrong?

Big Bear,

Over the last 60 years we have experienced 14 years with a net job loss for the year. Those years are 1953, 1954, 1957, 1958, 1960, 1970, 1974, 1981, 1982, 1991, 2001, 2002, 2008, 2009. Only 1 of those was there a Democratic President, 2009.

I know that there have been down years, Because I have lived through 9 of those 14 years. But do we judge presidents by 1 year or by their term in office. All years have cycles. but on this website you want to blame Bush for all the problems, but throughout his terms, although not great job growth, there was growth. And I even know that Obama will have some growth. But as you see, know matter what the numbers, they can be used as either good or bad.

My problem isn't that people like or dislike our president, my problem is that he isn't listening to the people that elected him. Instead of taking care of Americans, especially the unemployed, he crammed health care down our throats. Instead of finding shovel ready projects, he lied, because they weren't there. Every President since 1920 has had jobs created during their terms as president except for 2--Hoover & Obama, but Obama's could change because his term is not up yet.

But who should create jobs--the private sector or the government? That is the most important question. And those of us who work in the private sector, why should we pay more in taxes to provide government jobs. The Government gets its money from taxes, not by making money or investments. So really those of us working are paying either for the unemployed or the government workers. There is only one group of American government workers that I agree we should all pay for, and that is the great men and women of the military service. The rest, including Congress, should be contracted out:)

It isn't Bush I blame. ALL Republicans are responsible for the last 30 years of stagnant wages, rampant concentration of wealth, outsourcing of jobs, 10 years in which the Dow stood still, and an increasing number of increasingly serious economic bubbles. Conservatism failed.

Dear Friends: with regard to poor JS1. STTS.

Agreed NDD - she has worked herself into quite a 'tizzy' already this morning! ;0))

STTS!

Now John,

We seem to be intellectual today.

According to the Constitution, who appropriates the money for the US Government? Congress or Executive Branch.

Who makes the laws of the land? Congress or Executive Branch. Although I understand that we have allowed our Presidents too much power with Executive Acts. But that in my mind is the fault of the Congress. Not standing up to the executive branch.

Considering that the both parties have pretty much split the senate over the past 30 years and the House has been controlled by the Democrats for 18 of the past 30 years. I don't really see your argument over just Republicans causing the problems. Since the beginning of time, there have been economic bubbles. And most liberals could care less about the DOW, that is where the rich keep their money.

But you really need to answer the real question. Is it the Government's job or the private sector's job to create jobs?

Who pays for Government jobs? Taxpayers?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't taxpayers support private jobs by being consumers in a capitalist society? Why is pointing out that taxpayers support the jobs of government employees an apparently bad thing in your eyes given that every product bought on a store shelf keeps an office or factory worker earning his or her pay?

ED,

You are correct, taxpayers support private jobs by consuming. I would consume more if I didn't have to pay the government 20-30% of my salary in taxes. Plus every time I consume things I have to pay an extra tax. That Milky Way that I love went from 99 cents to $1.07 because of another tax.

So in your eyes, paying taxes to pay IRS agents is okay. It is a bad thing to support the jobs of government workers because on average they make twice what the median salary of the rest of Americans make. So we pay taxes to pay people more than we make so they can have a nice job from the government.

In business, employees make up most of the expenses. So if everyone is looking to cut the deficit, then cutting non-military employees should be the first thing to cut. Then cut programs that don't work, and then cut Congressional salaries and their raises.

Or we taxpayers can keep paying the salaries of overpaid, under worked, government employees. I would rather support businesses of things I consume rather than support a government employee that gets more days off than they work.

Good question Exodite. The answer is simple. As government continues to grow, it squeezes out the private sector in providing goods and services. The government doesn't have to operate on a profit. As the private sector starts to fade away, you lose competition for BETTER goods and services.

My thing is this, BB. The nature of your initial post seemed to indicate that any government job is inherently a bad thing merely because it requires revenue from taxed income to support. Your clarification indicates quite clearly that you don't actually feel that way.

Like you, I think the needs of the nation can be taken care of with a smaller government workforce and a pay scale commesurate with that of the private sector. If anything, I've long been a proponent of lowering compensation for civil servants in order to ensure only the truly committed take up the mantle.

Thanks for elaborating your stance. It's much appreciated.

Thanks ED,

And you don't have to be a Tea Partier, Republican, or Democrat to believe that smaller government would be better. You just have to be an independent thinker, and try to solve those problems that seem to big to solve.

BigBear wrote:

But who should create jobs--the private sector or the government? That is the most important question.

I think most (all?) would agree that we would rather the private sector create jobs. The more important question is how to get it to create jobs. It's obvious there are multiple ways to approach this problem, and it's clear that the Democrats' plan hasn't worked as well as we'd all have hoped. Whether that is due to the size of programs enacted, their makeup, or the reasoning behind them is up to you.

BB, truer words were never spoken.

It's really about balance between government jobs and private jobs. Without an adequate level of government regulation Capitalism becomes predatory and society (as well as the economy) suffers. Too much government regulation and reasonable people agree that it stifles the economy.

In response to the article, first let's acknowledge that McCain is emotionally unbalanced, perhaps becoming senile. He is and no longer will be a maverick or bipartisan, or anything other than bringing seniority to the state of Arizona.

In response to some posts -- I have no problem with an all or nothing approach to government employees, including members of congress, and the benefits and retirement they enjoy at the tax payer's expense. I'd like to see legislation requiring the same health care and retirement programs enjoyed by all or by none.

In response to retired and feisty, great posts as always. As usual, I encourage folks to research the GINI coefficient and how incomes for the top 2% increase five times faster than everyone else during Republican control (and in same proportion to deficits). The reason the majority of Americans favor keeping Bush's tax cuts for the working middle class, but allowing the cuts to expire for those earning a quarter million or more is because the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

We can talk idealistically all we want, but for now we need a progressive tax to prevent further loss of the middle class, and preservation of democracy instead of a plutocracy.

Well said, TP. The Conservative attack on the progressive income tax is part and parcel of the Conservative attack on the middle class.

Statistics are VOODOO at best so you can throw out stats of various presidencies all you want in terms of "popularity" and "effectiveness" all you want. You are trying the old smoke and mirrors thing..guess what it is not working for you libdemwit.

Thanks for a succinct and insightful post. No doubt, you'll be knee deep in trolls by tomorrow...

Smaller government versus Larger government is a win-less argument. Pointless as well. The SIZE of government isn't the issue at all. Efficiency and more importantly EFFECTIVENESS is the primary measurement that needs to be improved. If government is efficient and effective, then the size of that government is not important. We can have a small government that is both inefficient and ineffective because it lacks the resources and strength to do what is needed to get the job done in a timely way and do it well.

Why should public employees (Clerks, science technicians, mechanics, etc,) have their salaries/benefits lowered to private sector equivalents? The private sector is UNDERPAID as it is. Too many private sector workers are not getting enough work hours to qualify for company sponsored health and retirement benefits. Wages for the average Private Sector worker have been stagnant for quite some time and not keeping pace with inflation over the years. That effectively means workers have less earning power than in years past.

What is the answer from Republicans about CREATING jobs? Not McDonaldsand Burger King, or WalMart and other retail sales jobs, REAL JOBS, such as engineering, science, biotech, high end manufacturing, etc!

Lowering the standard of living in the USA seems to be competitive overseas seems to be the Tea Party/Republican platform of the day. Vilify workers (especially union workers), trash talk average Americans in an attempt to paint them as lazy and undeserving. This is the rhetoric from the right. And they wonder why the average middle class American looks at Republicans and Tea Party loyalists as aliens from another planet. They seem very odd and out of touch with every day people. Look at the batch of Tea Party political candidates and their blatent disregard and disrespect they show to middle class Americans. The middle class and the poor deserve much better than what the Tea Party/Republicans (same difference) are offering them (which nothing!).

Good analysis, mdionne. I don't know why so many people can't follow through to the inevitable conclusion. American workers are overpaid and need to have them driven down to equivalence with the Pacific Rim and Indian Subcontinental areas. At that point American workers will be poor, but we'll have done away with the socical safety net. Voila! We've been transformed into a third world country while the rich get richer. How's that for class warfare?

Thanks John B.

It may sound anti-intuitive, but it would be better to raise the standard of living in third world countries (emerging markets) while also improving the standard of living in the USA. It can be done. It just means the rate of improvement needs to be faster in third world countries than here in the USA in order for emerging markets to become active participants in the global economy. There is no need to hold Americans back or allow the American standard of living to decline. The "There is only one pie" argument against this option is meaningless. Diversity of and advances in industry and technology can effectively make many different types of pies to choose from. The same principle can be made to apply to an individual economy as well. Think about it.

That was actually the argument at the time of NAFTA, and I bought it at the time because it seemed reasonable. The Mexican people would have their standard of living raised by jobs that didn't pay as much as jobs in the US, but would pay way better than anything else in the area. The rapidly expanding Mexican middle class would quickly become consumers and the pie would increase for all of us. It made sense to me as a believer in fair Capitalism.

The believers in greedy Capitalism saw it a little differently. Instead of the promised race to become the next Silicon Valley it turned into a race to become the next Indonesia. The critics were right, it was a bad deal.

NAFTA went South because of the notion by Corporations and Conservative economists that the only way to invest in emerging economies and bring them into the global economy was to take money out of the American economy and invest it in Mexico while reducing or eliminating investments here in the USA. (the one pie theory of economics)

They also decided to ignore calls for them to follow US environmental and worker health and safety regulations in Mexico in order to make higher profits.

A key argument for investing in emerging markets was to create opportunities for American companies to produce items at a reasonable cost to sell IN the emerging market. Too many companies ABUSED this in that they turned around and sold those products here in the USA for obnoxious profits at the expense of American and foreign workers both!

NAFTA, by itself, is not the cause of our economic problems. Corporate abuses and manipulation of NAFTA (with the help of Republicans and conservative Democrats) is the problem.

The other piece of the puzzle was the lack of investment here in the USA for alternative industry to replace the ones that were moved offshore. Automation of production also displaced many manufacturing jobs. Companies that took advantage of automating production did so without providing workers with a path to other equal paying jobs elsewhere. Flint Michigan of the 80's is a perfect example of corporations dumping workers, closing factories and leaving the community of Flint Michigan to die a horrible economic death. I don't see how the Tea Party/Republicans are going to change that dynamic. They have not proposed anything to improve any of it.

Couldn't agree more. Great analysis.

Thanks IR!

Can't wait to see what the party favors are! ;0)

Fair Warning Red "Grimey" has put in a request for the Bull Riding Bouncer to let the Tattoo Artist in this time in order that some of your souvenirs of the occasion will be a little more long lasting. Happy Birthday Red and Navy if they collapse it it just shows that there's to many folks taken up hanging around here with entirely no sense of humor

One thing, IR, this post will get some attention; great read.

The US Chamber of Commerce, Karl Rove's group and the many others have something to hide; they do not like the light shone on their PACs--we know by watching their outrage, how dare anyone question who gives them money, anonymity is the desire of their donors. Donors who want to remain unknown have an agenda and that agenda may not be in the best interests of the American people. Every American must demand transparency regarding donations if those groups are buying political ads. WE the People have a right to know who is paying for them, it is critical to preserve our democracy.

Hilarious post IR, I enjoyed it very much. At the same time it does highlight how hard Conservatives have worked to build a system in which monied interests are able to anonymously buy elections. Republicans and their friends in the media are working hard to stomp this story into the ground, but Americans by a LARGE majority don't approve of anonymous, unlimited money in the political arena. It seems the voters know instinctively what the Conservatives on the Supreme Court don't seem to get. Money in politics isn't speech, it's votes. How will the common citizen have ANY voice in government now that the rich can vote as often as they wish...and secretly.

Well done "Will" You do know how to spin a story!

IR...LOL...It would seem only fair!!! :-)

Gee, John, I wonder if you would have found it so hilarious if it had been the DNC, Harry Reid, Chris Coons, et al.

I don't think so.

I am surprised and disappointed in IR. This kind of hyperbole is not going to win you many friends among independent voters. In fact, I'm willing to bet it turns off a lot of democrats.

Things must be going worse for the democrats than I thought, if someone like you has to stoop this low.

IR;

You hit it square. Thanks. This should hit a nerve somewhere. Look who is talking about stooping low. Hypocrisy

And you Tea Partiers still think that the U.S Supreme Courts decision to allow corporations to donate untold sums of money in our elections is STILL a good thing?

SMDH!!!!!!! (Shaking My Damn Head)

Yippee IR!

Can't wait to add on some ink! ;0) lol

NJNB: Hon... you really do need to get a refill on those little pills you're so fond of!

Dang No Jo you seem to be a serious violator of the 11th Redneck commandment this morning. You Know the one that says "Thy shalt not take thyself to darn serious" BTW dear contrary to what some would have you belieive around here I have been a Registered Independent for over Forty years.

They gave the unions the same ability. Why do always neglect to state that FACT???

IR: "this kind of hyperbole...." This, from the Queen of Hyperbole! I so love irony!

If I learned it was the DNC I'd have been rofl'ing all the same.

However IR, this post didn't have enough (if indeed, ANY) laser beams in it. I'm sorely disappointed.

If the DNC had the ability to raise this amount of money; there would not be anything said.

Suck it up and drive on. Obama raised damn near a billion dollars and I guarantee all of those donars were not disclosed. I know he owes A LOT of favors because all of that money did not come from little minions donating $2.00 a piece as he would have us to believe.

janet, I think everyone here on the Left has taken the position that ALL anonymous money should be banned from the system. I know I have.

But here you are defending anonymous, deep-pockets funding of campaigns. Could it be because the money is flowing at a 9 to 1 rate toward Republicans? Your situational ethics are showing.

Anonymous campaign donations are a bad thing regardless of which party is reaping the reward - I screamed as much up and down FR yesterday. As a voter, an American voter, I want to know precisely who the hell is funding a political campaign and in what exacting amount.

Sorry E.D. couldn't get the Hyperdrive jump started to power the Lasers this morning...............Btw the way Janet all Union contributions over 5000.00$ have to be reported to the Dept. of Labor and shown on the books to any member who cares to question them don't you know so why don't we take up comparing apples to apples instead of apples to horse pucky here

John B,

You know as well as I do that the democrats and left don't want their money known either. Until all campaign money is disclosed and donations are limited to personal money and small individual donors, that whoever can get away with it will. The thing that irks the dems this year is that they are losing the money battle. Maybe Obama hasn't spread enough wealth around.

John B & ED;

I agree that anonymous contributions from either party is a very bad thing that just rips the fabric of democracy to shreads. Like most of us, we have been saying this from day one, but the repubs will spin it no matter how many times we say it is totally wrong for either party to do this.

Again; It is wrong for Democracts, Independents and Republicans to not report where they are getting their money and how much. SCOTUS has driven a nail right through the heart of America.

BigBear62: Maybe Obama hasn't spread enough wealth around.

Obama is more into destroying wealth. What he spreads around is something else entirely.

Joanna, if we take your assertion as true, you and the POTUS have more in common than you'd ever want to believe or admit. :D

John B,

I didn't defend anyone with my statement. Care you to prove that I did. All I said was you liberals AS ALWAYS leave out the part of the story that is inconvient for you. As ALWAYS when responding to my statement you inserted facts that weren't there.

janet: anytime you use the word "always" to refer to a group of people, you are wrong. You might be taken more seriously if you provided cites to support the absolutes that you post.

ND,

Kinda like the same way you say "Republicans" referring to a group of people

Are you seriously going to say that you buy into this? You know, I recall a couple of weeks ago, Axelrod being interviewed on ABC news and when asked if the administration or anyone for that matter could provide any proof of any foreign money being funneled into the COC, his answer was this, "Do you have any proof that it's not?" What a BS answer. This shows the desperation the left is in. Axelrod was then asked, "Is that really the best you have?" Kudos to ABC news for standing up to this BS.

That went right over your head, didn't it ITM?

ITM: Don't kid yourself about President Obama's donators. They came from people like me, who started in the primary and then continued in the general, by donating $25 every two weeks, or others that campaigned for him that sent $5, or $10 whenever they could, even change sometimes from kids I know.

Sure he had other contributors, but I know if there were 500K to 1M small donors contributing like I did that that is where a great deal of his donations came from.

CM from Newport, KY

"They gave the unions the same ability. Why do always neglect to state that FACT???"

For a couple of reasons, Janet. Partly because the unions do not currently possess the same kind of money and power as the private corporations. More importantly, however, is the fact that the the unions DO have to disclose all donors, unlike the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/oct/12/george-will/george-will-claims-afl-cio-receives-dues-foreign-e/

Anyone can search for union contributions here:

http://erds.dol-esa.gov/query/getOrgQry.do

Claiming that both sides are equal is false.

Agreed Jody, a real "change" election would be giving the Dem's enough seats to overcome the parliamentary obstructionist tactics the Republicans have used to block meaningful change, how is putting Republicans back in charge so they can continue their pro-corporate anti American agenda "change"? This country can not stand another round of Republican change, I will be very disappointed if the people of this country fall for the same false prophecy again.

Good Morning Jody:

Those Tea Party candidates do not like to talk to the press or engage in debate. Once they give the opinions, they have nothing to say. Don't bother to ask then how to govern. They just say lower taxes, cut spending, small government...and don't change a thing.

Not only the candidates, Jody, but the pundits, the "alternative media", and Conservatives who come here as well. Rarely to we seen anyone who's honest enough to admit that the government will need to discontinue virtually ALL services to make this work. It's an insane plan that leads not to a vibrant, sound, 21st Century nation leading the way but to a backwater has been status.

People vote for whomever they like. What is good in Iowa may not be good in Texas. You cannot just blanket and say that Republican return to power will be bad. The people gave the Dems a chance an apparently they blew it. Now it is time to take your losses and move out of the way.

Everything you Liberals complain about pertaining to what Republicans are doing must work because people are voting your party OUT!

You can complain all you want but Dems will be moved back to the basement for unofficial hearings...lol...now that was some funny sh!t.

Based the ads we are seeing in Texas, one could conclude that truth in advertising does not apply.

At least not for IntheMiddle's part of Texas.

And Jody,

What is the real plan of the Democrats? Really, what is it. Take from those who work and give to those who don't. Only to buy votes. Where is this great plan of the democrats.

Health care, forced upon people? Buy or be fined?

Another stimulus package for those "shovel ready" projects. Even your president admitted on TV he was wrong about those.

Cap and Trade--so consumers have to pay more because companies are taxed more.

Really, where is the great plan of the democrats.
We got SS from Roosevelt--about broke

We got the "Great Society" from LBJ--Where is the greatness of people on welfare still.

Immigration--just give them amnesty, because they do a job that Union workers won't.

Where is the great plan of either side? Where is the compromise in government to make it is to pursue happiness?

The only thing I see coming out of either party is BS--because if you haven't noticed the rich keep getting rich--on both sides, where the poor still get poorer on both sides.

Come up with a better argument.

dangerfield: born out of experience, but there is no way the $13 million he influences through the group American Crossroads is going to reshape an election in which the two parties are spending something like $1.4 billion collectively.

Yeah, but the ads that the $13 million paid for were really, really good ads.

Two weeks out, and if your think the Democrats have been acting bizarre up until now, just wait. You haven't even seen bizarre yet from the Democrats. Going forward, we'll be seeing some heavy duty lashing out from them. Desperation will do that.

The problem with the US Chamber's spending, we do not know WHO. Same with Rove's Crossroads group and the many others. Anonymous rules. The unions can and do maintain records of who donated and those records are available for review at any time.

That is not the truth. Their PACs are not required to disclose their donors.

Conservatives are showing remarkable consistency in their drive to draw a curtain around campaign spending so that the citizens don't know who's behind the candidates. They're almost gleeful about the brilliant strategy of not saying anything, not letting people know who the candidates are or for what they stand.

What is it, exactly, that Conservative Republicans don't want the people to know?

Sorry folks but the Chamber Of Commerce not disclosing where their money is coming from is wrong, the Supreme Courts Ruling was wrong, and your blather about "it's OK because this other group does it" is wrong. I mean come on why bother with your disingenuous arguments otherwise. Not one of you really think this whole mess is "right" or any good can come from allowing all the secret dealing going on so just stop it already.

Look America!

Other people are willing to bury their head in the sand and pretend like folks pay millions of dollars for things and get little or nothing in return! You should too!

Very persuasive, no?

P.S. Ever notice how a corporation will spend millions of dollars on ads, but they can't increase their empolyees salaries?

I mean, since millions of dollars are available to run these ineffective and unimportant ads, why is there always no money when it is time to offer employees health insurance benefits? Strange.

"At this point in 2006 (the last midterm), the Democratic and Republican party committees accounted for 82 percent of all outside spending on express advocacy. Outside groups accounted for only 18 percent.

Fast forward to 2010, the numbers have flipped dramatically.

As of the end of last week, outside groups have spent more money on independent expenditures than have the party committees -- 59 percent to 41 percent. . .

Overall IE spending is significantly higher in 2010 than it was in 2006. Thus far, party committees and outside groups have spent nearly $180 million on elections; at this point in 2006, the combined total was just a hair over $140 million."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/outside-groups-dominate-campaign-ad-spending-in-2010.php?ref=fpblg

-- P.S. Ever notice how a corporation will spend millions of dollars on ads, but they can't increase their empolyees salaries?

I mean, since millions of dollars are available to run these ineffective and unimportant ads, why is there always no money when it is time to offer employees health insurance benefits? Strange.

So true. If these corporations really were worried about their bottom line and really wanted to hire more people but just couldn't because of the economic climate, how do they have so much money to funnel into frivolous tv ads, etc.

Ever notice how Union Leadership spend Union dues on a particular party (Democrat) without consulting individual members?

Money has always been in politics and it will get worse. Obama kicked all of this off during the last POTUS election. If he was concerned then why did he not opt for public funding?

When Democrats were out-raising Republicans you Liberals were leaping for joy, now look at you with your lips dragging on the ground...lol.....(Geez I can't believe they are receiving all of this money) "snark and proper"...lol

IntheMiddle:

You aren't really as simple as you come across in your comments, right?

You don't really think that corporations are "people" do you?

You don't really think that anonymous groups influencing elections is representative democracy, right?

Boy Nash, ITM run over your dog or something? You're wailing like Obama behind the podium at a private fundraiser. Lighten up.

JoAnna:

Thanks for your concern . . . funny thing is, we have you to keep it light. I do heavy. ;o)

The United States Chamber of Commerce (USCOC) is NOT your local Chamber of Commerce.
Imagine huge figure seated on one end teeter totter, and a thousand other small figures on the other end. The odd thing about this is while the small figures are left dangling from a precipice the huge figure sits there laughing. Come to papa little ones I’m hungry.
Sometimes being indirect is the part of understanding that being direct could buy you.
The USCOC is not as much collegial group as they are as they have always been is as representatives of big business. It a matter of history that the building in Washington was built where it was, that it is the size it is, and whom it was that paid for it and who saw to it that it was built.
The USCOC was built by big business as a counter weight to executive power, a way for big business to purchase representation from the other branches of government.
The creation of USCOC could have been done differently, had it been possible to alter the Constitution, but by having the means, the Constitution can be brought effectively through laws and court macerations.
Another branch of government has barged its way in, multiplicities of huge corporations were not common in the 18th Century, but the founders were very much in concerned about banks which of that time were a corrupting influence, you could say that British Capitalism was well started at the time. That was long time ago, but present form of the USCOC resulted from the outgrowth of the epoch of corporate gigantism.
When the political punditry (talk show) ply’s its trade, its most effective communication tools are engaged to spread whatever message it thinks it should broadcast. The public just has to forget that the media’s conveyance is the road sign of omnipresent political punditry, and the media and the political punditry is supported by corporate spending money for endless advertisements. If ever the public was to notice that product advertisement paid the media’s bills, then, maybe, just maybe, the public could jump to the conclusion that the political punditry was also a purchasable community. The political punditry exists in a hall of mirrors with ceiling and floor all the same, echoing light and sound in endless cycle.
Just calling the journalist’s kettle green, runs counter to the journalist credo, that free speech is its primary protective. And free speech is our primary protective; if it was not already then it would have to be reinvented to perform that role. While reinvention brings novelty, it also provides cover for the political punditry hide beneath. Consider what would happened to political punditry if there was only one party, called the Money Party, it would field a team, just one, put one team on the field, there would be no need to have the other team at all. This political punditry would die due to lack of interest. Naively presented the political punditry serves itself and the interest of the two party systems and the media corporations and the advertizing corporations and the collective power of the USCOC. Never mind crushing the pesky little people and their pathetic representation in their government. Lastly the idea of having only one party, is somewhat like having something that is universally agreed upon, but is subject to constant reinjection, in advertizing it called new and improved product XYZ, in politics is called motherhood and apple pie, updated political version is called ‘family values’. It is like one sided playing cards, where the 52 cards are all same and printed only on one side, who on earth is campaigning against ‘family values’ only God and the republicans know.
It simple enough to extend the helplessness of the individual citizen, to the small business world interested in itself, these people have been tirelessly working to advance their corner of the world hoping to join the big players, this is convenient myth, but unrealistic. These small business men do indeed need the support of their peers and so form or join a local chamber of commerce, slam a decal on the door and stay focus on local matters. The local chamber of commerce becomes the unwitting stooge of the USCOC; because of the diversity of the local chambers provide cover for the USCOC. The USCOC just has to leverage the multitude of small business to its cause and what? Just how is subscribing to USCOC from the local level of any benefit to the local chamber? Nothing, the USCOC listens to Congress persons when the call; saying they hear these complaints from small businesses. The Congress then asks USCOC what changes they’d like to see, and a USCOC shows to with a package to the door and Congress proposes the amendment and waits till the next election. Works perfectly, except that lost in the translation was all the concerns of the small businesses. This happens because USCOC does not really represent small business, and has no incentives to do so. In fact having small business do all the complaining is just plain smart politics. Word choice is important, if I were to say that big businesses supports small business out of the good grace of their heart it sounds like mush schmoozing, if I were to say that rich businesses supports poor businesses, it beings to look like a marriage on the rocks. The size of the capitalization matters, rich is comfortable with getting richer, the poor concerned with getting richer, and the rich only move into action when they see the chance of getting less rich (USCOC swings into action). Today’s USCOC horrible strategy of plying the air waves, from secret donations, from uncertain sources, from obviously tainted money to downright sabotage result in huge distrust. The Rovian/Nixonian/Buchannan political warriors are always willing to seed distrust, as they are willing to exploit distrust, and are most likely to both plant the seeds and use distrust as the one in the same strategy. The angry public is too blind to see that if Congress is bought and paid for, to see that the Omnipotent Senate can block anything and everything for years on end, to see that the House of Representatives are running willy-nilly attracted to money like rats are to cheese. The public is also blind to seeing that revenues from corporations feed the Media and that all donations to campaigns, secret or documented by law feed the media. The journalist political punditry ultimately defends only free speech and do not see themselves as participants and presume a objective status as matter of self preservation.
Who then is left to fight the good fight? It is through this anger that the public is incapacitated, running as fast as they can, and spinning out of the mortgage wheel over the adjacent cliff. What else could big business want except to be rid of customer with no income to spend?

@RichMJones@rcn.com: tl; dr

Paragraphs! Learn to use them~

Get Real:

The US Chamber of Commerce has pledged over 75 Million Dollars and American Crossroads has just upped their ante from 52 Million to 65 Million. That is about 140 Million just from those two entities in addition to what the parties are spending. Of the 140 Million, over 90% goes for attack ads against democrats.

Real numbers...

http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?disp=O

USDV- Man, do you have a job?????? Get off of your lazy butt and go to work instead of on here all day cheerleading with these women.

I am a retired DV and I still work plus run a small biz.

Yet that doesn't stop you from posting here all the damn time, does it?

Hi, pot! Meet kettle!

IntheMiddle:

Just because you don't have the intellectual discipline to explain what you believe and share it in a public forum doesn't mean you have to lash out at those that do.

You cannot explain why you support the Republican Party, only why you hate the Democratic one.

You have been bought and sold just like the rest of America. The only difference is that you are to "angry" and "uninformed" to notice.

An excellent example of the general devolution of most threads...

Uh, dangerfield, duh? Derp-derp Internet?

You cannot explain why you support the Republican Party, only why you hate the Democratic one.

You have been bought and sold just like the rest of America. The only difference is that you are to "angry" and "uninformed" to notice."

I know this wasn't directed my way but I'll give it a shot...

First I'll preface it with I'm an independent. I'm a pro-choice naval veteran and athiest. I voted democrat last time around, but in the past 21 months I have been less than pleased with my decision. The choice wasn't an easy one, Obama had/has no experience, McCain was/is a tool, and voting Libertarian could have been a vote for McSame. In my case, it's not so much that I hate the democratic party, but I just don't see them having any real solutions to the mess they put us in. We all know the rhetoric...Obama inherited all the ills of the world from the previous administration, even though the democrats were running both sides of Congress. Bottom line, I want Reid and Pelosi no longer to be in their current roles, and the only way to ensure that is to get the other party in control. Sure some D's are campaigning on not voting Pelosi as speaker next year, but I trust politicians as far as I can throw them. The things that make this country great are being torn apart by people who should not be making those decisions.

Another thing the d-baggers do that I find distasteful...

Democrats have acknowledged they have no evidence the groups are taking money from abroad and using it to fund political attack ads ahead of the midterm elections, but they argue that in the absence of tougher campaign disclosure rules, it's entirely possible.

source: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/124565-democrats-have-raised-1-million-from-foreign-affiliated-pacs

So, the dems KNOW that they are spouting lies, but don't seem to care. And their followers (some of whom find their way to this site) rally around it EVEN THOUGH IT IS KNOWN TO BE FALSE. And then, to continue with the absurdity, the same followers lambaste those who do not follow their line of thinking. It's almost like the dems are saying that they believe in freedom, so long as you are an automaton. That is something that I, as someone who defended this country, cannot support.

Matt Stone, co-creator of South Park, sums it up best by saying, "I hate conservatives, but I really f***ing hate liberals".

Chef Darrell:

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

The issue is anonymous donations, foreign and domestic. If "trust us" is enough for you, then fine. I'm not persuaded. You can't call something a lie unless you can prove it so. The fact is that you don't know if its a lie or not, which is the problem.

Voting for Republicans who ruined our economy and ran up the deficit and are vowing to do the same things again because you don't like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid is counterintuitive to me.

Thinking that problems that have been festering for decades should be fixed in less than two years stretches reality based thinking as well.

But if you feel good about your decision, then I say let the chips fall where they may.

Letting the same folks who created the mess create a new one doesn't strike me as a solution.

Nashville fan,

I should have also mentioned that I'm a Colts fan.

Anyhoo, regarding anonymous donations, etc., you (the people clamoring for book opening) are asking the CoC to prove a negative. Logically that cannot be done. But I'll entertain that thought....let's say they open the books and nothing is found, then what? Do the goalposts get moved with the cries that "they are hiding those donors somewhere"? When will it be enough? I'll go with never.

And when reputable, left leaning sources denounce the claims as baseless, shouldn't the rest of the believers start to think maybe they are on to something?

You make it sound like Reid and Pelosi just showed up in DC. They've been there for a while and have been in their current roles longer than Obama's been president. They've had 4 years so far to get the ship righted...when is that going to happen? I'd settle for slowing the free-fall but they haven't even done that.

Problems have been festering for decades, I'll agree, and it's not just the R's who are culpable. Those seats on the other side of the aisle are filled with people equally as guilty of pointing the country down the wrong path. Obama's plan of spending 'til it's better isn't working so well either. He showed up and heaped almost $1.5T on the debt.

So let's focus on the porkulus plan. Wasn't there a provision in there to create some jobs by retooling the infrastructure? Something to the tune of $28B (I'm not sure of the amount, though I've seen some sources mention $101B for infrastructure)...and just last month he unveiled a plan to retool the infrastructure for $50B...so is he forgetting something? Like how to pay for it? That's something that happened in the past 2 years that needs fixing already.

I do feel good about my decision. Back in the 90s a D president was forced to work with a congress that shifted mid term. Maybe this is what the finger-pointer in chief needs as a wake-up call. It could garner him a second term. If he keeps on this path, though, I don't see it happening.

Chef Darrell:

This is NOT about only the Chamber of Commerce. This is about anonymous entities having the ability to influence our elections. This is about the Supreme Court declaring that corporations are "people" with rights of "free speech".

Do you really think that your speech or my speech will every carry as much weight as anonymous speech financed by millions of unseen dollars? How can you have a "representative" democracy when you don't know who is representing what?

This is not about searching from some "smoking gun" in the Chamber of Commerce donor list. This is about knowing who is saying what and why.

Telling me that "left leaning" sources say something means absolutely nothing. I tap into all sources and form my own opinions. And in my opinion, allowing unnamed folks to pay unrestricted amounts into financing untrue ads is bad news for America, left and right.

I agree that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have been in Washington for a long time. Can you tell me specifically what you realistically expect Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to have done with President Bush exercising veto power in the White House? The simple fact is that this session of Congress has been one of the most productive and successful for HUMAN American people in the modern era.

It is easy to complain about things, it is more difficult to present an actual solution.

You say you would settle for a slowing of the free fall, but you choose to ignore a revived stock market, a leveling off of the unemployment rate, the saving of the banking and automotive sectors (with interest for the U.S. Treasury).

So, it would seem that either your goals were unrealistically high or you are determined to see the glass as haf empty.

You blame President Obama for spending, but the spending would not have been necessary if this country had not been left in SHAMBLES, okay?

Name another President that had a comparable sh!tstorm waiting on him like the President did?

Name another President that had a former Vice President accusing him of treason, a Congress questioning his citizenship and vowing to see him fail?

Name just one.

"But only 10 percent of $2 trillion swing into deficit is due to Obama policies; the rest, about 53 percent of the new deficit, is attributed to Bush's tax cuts and spending increases (including the extensions. Nonetheless, by 2020, spending will equal 26 percent of GDP because of Social Security — that Bush promised to but never did reform — and Medicare — to which he added benefits — while taxes will bring in only 19 percent of GDP."

http://washingtonindependent.com/79537/why-george-w-bush-was-worse-for-the-deficit-than-barack-obama

The stimulus plan worked. Unemployment stopped rising. It has created more jobs in 20 months than President Bush did in 8 years.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/801-economy/99915-cbo-finds-stimulus-bill-boosted-job-growth

This is not a game Chef. This is the future of our country.

If you think you are punishing anyone other than yourself by letting liars and incompetents run the country then you are deluding yourself.

Chef Darrell, in addition to Nashville Fan's points you're simply begging the question as well as setting up a straw man, and missing the point for good measure. Effectively you're saying "there's nothing to find, therefore when you find nothing you still won't be happy and will expect to change the rules yet again." Your argument therefore breaks into three pieces; 1) There's nothing to be found here (even though we don't know that to be true) 2) When the thing that we don't know to be the case happens the Left will just go an a witch hunt (even though it's been stated repeatedly EXACTLY what it is that the Left has an issue with) and 3) You've completely ignored the oft-repeated crux of the matter, that ALL anonymous money ought to be scrubbed from campaigns.

John and Nashville_fan,

I don't follow. Here's what I've seen regarding the CoC issue:

The dems make up a claim of foreign money. The New York Times calls it baseless. The dems don't care, they want to be shown the books.

If there is something to find, then find it. But, when someone like...oh say the vice president...says "prove you're not taking foreign donations" he loses some credibility.  You cannot prove a negative.

If there is something found, the response will be "I told you so! the republicans are bad!" If there is nothing found, the with hunt will ensue until something is "found". I wasn't effectively saying that, I was exactly saying that. Logic and politics don't mesh well.

Also, I'm not ignoring the issue of anonymous sources of ca$h, but you have to be a little honest, both sides are involved here. Hell, even the president didn't release his anonymous donor list until after the election (funny since he ran on a promise of transparency).

When Bush took office, unemployment was 4.9%, when he left it was 8.9%, and as of September it was 9.2%. If Obama has created more jobs than Bush ever did, why is the rate going up?

A raft of reports of questionable or downright faulty jobs numbers -- including many uncovered by ABC News that show dozens of jobs created and millions of dollars spent in congressional districts that don't exist -- has cast a harsh spotlight on the jobs claims connected to the $787 billion stimulus package.

I'm not so much blaming Obama for the spending, I realize it's necessary. What I am blaming him for is the outright refusal to adhere to the pay-go legislation that he signed.

"In a perfect world, Congress would not have needed a law to act responsibly, to remember that every dollar spent would come from taxpayers today – or our children tomorrow," Obama said of the pay-go law.

If you think you are punishing anyone other than yourself by letting liars and incompetents run the country then you are deluding yourself.

I don't think the status quo of liars and incompetents is the answer either.

Chef Darrell:

Based on your own information, the unemployment rate doubled under George Bush and has stabilized under President Obama.

Are you disputing the link I posted, that President Bush had the worst job creation record of any President in modern history?

How do you explain away the fact that we were told if we cut taxes and regulation, it would stimulate job growth, but instead we got a huge deficit and recession?

Dismissing the anonoymous sources of cash because "both sides do it" is not a solution. I'm saying it needs to stop. There was a bill to do just that and not a single Republican voted for it. Why do you think that is?

How can you follow "pay go" rules when the entire point of the stimulus bill is to give a huge, one time jolt to the economy? This is not something that is annual, so it is difficult to reduce the budget by that amount. It is an EMERGENCY spending meausre - and the EMERGENCY was created by the same folks that you want to send to Congress.

Nobody is asking you to love the President, Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid.

But putting the future of our country in the hands of folks who don't have ANY plan to fix the mess that they made strikes me as cutting off your nose to spite your face.

But hey, it's your face.

John B.;

Excellent point. It has been reported by several economists and the CBO that for every 1 Billion dollars invested into our infrastructure, that about 35,000 jobs will be created. McConnell has vowed to oppose this Bill in the Senate. And people want to know why we do not have any jobs?

The republicans have oppossed virtually every job bill including the extension of the ARRA

They are supporting Special Interest Groups that want to outsource jobs to India, China, etc.

They want to lower or repeal the minimum wage

........ and the list goes on.

We are in trouble, and the republican/tea party is not the solution. If they win it will be back to the same agenda of the Bush Administration and we know how well that turned out.

Great points, John B.

Government is evil until there is a flood, earthquake, tornado, hurricane, or huge oil spill, or salmonella outbreak--then the words are, Government, where is the Government, they aren't doing enough to help, they're too slow, why did they not protect us. The dots never get connected that starving the Government means the Government's hands are tied, it cannot provide what is needed because there are not enough employees or enough funds.

Excellent points.

If the American public has shown us anything, it is that their memory is frighteningly short. Doesn't anyone remember the bridge collapse in Minnesota in 2007? Proper inspections would have revealed potential flaws in the bridge design and might have led to the bridge shutting down. Instead, 13 people lost their lives, and many more were injured.

If the federal government is truly evil, then when a natural disaster hits their state, the governors and the senators and the representatives should all say "thanks, but no thanks" to efforts by the federal government to provide aid, because after all, the federal government will only mess things up.

If the federal government is truly evil, then when a natural disaster hits their state, the governors and the senators and the representatives should all say "thanks, but no thanks" to efforts by the federal government to provide aid, because after all, the federal government will only mess things up.

Yeah, that already happened in Louisiana.

Bill Fairfax,VA: But wait, isn't there something just the slightest bit odd about his words? Ah yes I can see it now, this president is in denial. Better to blame an irrational public for the impending repudiation of his agenda than to acknowledge his own failures.

You've hit on the essence of why Obama has failed, and will continue to fail. He cannot adjust. He cannot take responsibility. He cannot recognize that what he is doing is incorrect and he does not have the ability to make corrections. Clinton had that ability, Obama does not. He's a "My way, or the highway!" kind of a guy. Not enough experience, too much ego. Obama is who we said he was coming into office, a guy that just gives a good speech, and today, he can't even do that anymore.

Obama is a clueless guy that just doesn't get it.

"Obama is a clueless guy that just doesn't get it."

_________

What exactly doesn't he get? He understands perfectly the mess he was left with by your party. Did you watch Rachel last night? Did you see all the GOP legislators across the country wanting stimulus money because you know, it creates thousands and thousands of jobs. Only they don't want anyone to know.

Did you hear her mention how the GOP are running on lowering the deficit even though they want to add trillions through tax cuts for the rich?

People in this country are indeed clueless. President Obama is not one of 'em.

Bill,

Seriously? The President hurt your feelings?

When the American people are led to believe that the same entities that sent their jobs overseas are now against outsourcing, how do you explain it?

When the American people are led to believe that a tax cut is a tax hike, that a bill to protect them from health insurance abuses is actually a plan to kill their grandmothers, what would you attribute it to?

When the Chamber of Commerce lobbies Congress to pass the TARP bill, and then pays money to run ads against folks who did what they lobbied for them to do, does that sound sane and rational to you?

The attempt to deflect all discussion away from the issues and on to President Obama is typical but will prove ineffective.

Regardless of what happens in the midterm election, those who have raped and pillaged this country for so long are being unmasked.

And no amount of subject changing and finger pointing is going to keep the truth from coming out.

Who gives millions of dollars and expects nothing in return?

Why do corporations get to buy more "free speech" than the rest of us - how is that fair?

How do anonymous political donations improve America?

Did the founding fathers really intend for corporations to be awarded personhood?

PA, Boston, MA: What exactly doesn't he get? He understands perfectly the mess he was left with by your party

THAT is what Obama, and you, do not get. Obama has greatly influenced the economy he started with with his actions in a negative way, and he has affected where we are today as a country. Obama cannot and will not take responsibility for his actions. But the voters know who owns those problems, and they'll let Obama and the Democrats know in two weeks what they they know today.

Blaming the other guy is what Obama does best. Taking responsibility and ownership of the economy, or anything else, is what he doesn't have the ability to do.

And who's "Rachel"?

You may want to deny the truth within the statement but President Obama is correct, when Americans are scared as they have been for two years, they do not think clearly. Tea Party candidates sound good in tough times whereas in normal years, these extremists would never make it through the first primary debate let alone win the nomination.

Bill Fairfax and JoAnnaSmith:

I'm not going to defend the President. I'm just going to highlight the sheer nonsense of your posts.

It is absolutely true that the American public is scared. News story after news story throws facts at them that they've never seen before. Record deficits, two wars, a gridlocked Congress, high unemployment AND no answers - just constant sniping. The President is not in denial, he is simply making a clear exposition of fact, and it sure as hell scares the public. Like you, many of them just don't get it.

The irrationality of the public is blindingly obvious - although Obama haters are so mired in their hate they cannot see it. Neither the Teabaggers nor the G.O.P. offers solutions. Every right wing candidate runs like hell when asked how they will cut spending. It is rather amusing that the right tells us how we can't dig ourselves out of a hole, even as they're telling us that continued tax cuts will cut the deficit. Pure nonsense. Yet, the right can swallow this crap.

And from JoAnna, who just can't get it right - this nonsense: The President can't adjust? Perhaps JoAnna you'd be good enough to tell us about the adjustments offered by the right wing. There are none. It's the same old crap that got us here.

How does one make any adjustments when the McConnell promises a filibuster on virtually every issue or when one single moronic lightweight like DeMint holds up literally everything in the Senate.

Too much ego? Oh yeah, that's the ticket. All previous Presidents have been totally devoid of ego. Only the most vacuous can take your comments seriously.

JoAnna Smith. Care to explain how the President started his economic policy in in a negative way; what do you mean by that rather innocuous comment. It says nothing. Be specific.

But JoAnna, the GOP want to add trillions to your much beloved deficit that you all love to talk about.

They want to ADD TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS. And yes, it is alway practical to blame the party who caused it. So you know, it never happens again.

Did you know the Republican Party are bragging about the success of the stimulus?

There is a world of difference between ego and narcissism, my friend. Clinton had a huge ego, Obama is a narcissist.

Clinton did not go around telling people that they were too stupid to understand that he was right and they were wrong. Clinton got that the electorate did not want his HCR plan. He go that he had veered too far left after campaigning as a centrist, a new democrat, if you will.

Obama gets none of this. When worried democrats pointed out that their party had lost a tremendous amount of seats in 1994 when they had proposed healthcare reform, (forgetting 1946, when they lost the House for the same reason), his answer was 'the difference is, this time, you've got me'.

That should have sent them running, screaming from the room AND the bill.

This is a man who believed that the sheer force of his personality would persuade the Iranians to give up their nuclear aspirations; you see how well that has worked out.

This is the man who stated that his mere nomination would cause the sea level to decline and the earth to cool.

This is a man who cannot comprehend that his policies have been disastrous; his declining approval rating must be the fault of those who are simply too stupid or paralyzed by fear to appreciate him.

Actually, I think he should go with that. You're, Obama. We are too stupid and blind to apple ate you. We don't deserve to have someone as magnificent as you in office. We deserve to get 'dumped'. Go find a county thAt will appreciate you.

Cuba, perhaps, or Venezuela. Greece, maybe.

Anywhere but here.

"Obama is a clueless guy that just doesn't get it."

Statements such as this and the mental capacity of those who make them are excellent examples of why we are surely doomed to remain under control of corporate tyrants and continue our decline into oblivion.

Good morning no joe.

Good to see your Obama Obsession is still in tact.

I'm starting to think that the narcissist is you.

Mr. Walker - you lost me at "teaba**ers". You're just another left-wing drone regurgitating left-wing bull.

Bravo, David Walker!

Jody,Iowa: You may want to deny the truth within the statement but President Obama is correct, when Americans are scared as they have been for two years, they do not think clearly

"They do not think clearly"

Another quasi-elitist speaks.

I'm reminded of Jib-Jab's animation about Barrack Obama.

"Snap your fingers and save the USA!"

The Washington Post ran an Op-Ed piece this morning about that statement and how arrogant it was.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/18/AR2010101803778.html

JS1 is getting backed into a corner, she's pulling out the "elitist" card. Barack Obama, born to a poor mother and sometimes fed in part by food stamps as a child, pulled himself up by his bootstraps to become President of the United States. He's an elitist. GW Bush, born to a union between banking and political families representing some of the oldest of old money New England families, is a regular guy.

How's that for not thinking clearly.

Are people who say "keep the government out of my Medicare" thinking clearly?

@Go USA-851295: That was a damn good editorial. Thanks for linking it~

JoAnna:

You were lost long, long before I used the word "teabaggers", which I might point out was the chosen name of those who decided to accessorize with such accoutrements.

So you run away as is typical of your ilk, using a cheap excuse for avoiding facts. The truth is, you can't rebut my "left-wing bull".

John B:

Get over your obsession with Obama being the poor blackman.

Obama IS NOT your ordinary everday BLACKMAN from around the way. His azz was groomed and picked to be in the position he is in. He owes a lot of people many favors and they will collect.

There are whole lot of poor blackmen out here that will never be POTUS and we probably won't ever see another one I guarantee you if he was Wesley Snipes black, he would never have been elected. Now that says something about you Liberals too.

IntheMiddle:

Thus sayeth the Republican token.

Too funny.

IntheMiddle: are there varying degrees of whitey as well, or are you so country bumpkin that you can only draw racial distinctions for the mocha-skinned and darker?

ITM...What???

Were your anger management classes cancelled again today?

OMG, run for the hills. Those of us who see the world with clarity are using the primitive portion of our brains. And it's the Jody's, Walkers, Bush's et.al. who actually have it right.

That does it, gimme some of that kool-aid you folks are drinking. Cuz I don't wanna be controlled by corporate tyrants leading us down the road to oblivion. Heck, all I wanna do is see the Ravens get back on track and beat the Bills on Sunday.

So maybe a small dose of leftist nectar might be just what the doctor ordered. Then I can buzz through life completely oblivious to the reality that surrounds me, and ignore the protests of the great unwashed as I do so. You know, sort of like our clueless president.

Good job, Bill! Do the exact thing your detractors do - rationalize away the validity of opposing viewpoints. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant, sir!

...oh wait. You're not being intentionally ironic, are you?

Bill,

What you've been drinking is clearly WAY STRONGER than Obama -aide.

I suggest you stick with the corporate crack pipe. . . its much stronger and you never have to know who donated it.

Ummm, ITM, I didn't mention his race, you did.

Interesting, though, that to be in his position you feel he must have been picked to be the proxy for someone else's hidden agenda. Do you believe that it would be impossible for someone to make the progress that he has in life on his own merits?

"He cannot adjust. He cannot take responsibility. He cannot recognize that what he is doing is incorrect and he does not have the ability to make corrections."

No, that was G.W.Bush's problem. President Obama has adjusted, taken responsibility and innovated to an extent we haven't seen in ten years.

So, E.D., where exactly did you find those valid points that Bill rationalized away?

I looked,and only saw some rusty old talking points, a torn Obama bumper sticker, and a crumpled up email with the latest tracking polls. Looked like somebody stomped on it, too.

Christ, Joe, replace "Obama" with "McCain" and you've got the same collection of knick-knacks for the right.

(Seriously, though, I'm poking fun at Bill's mentality more than anything...)

ED -- I resemble that remark.

Can some of the conservative scholars posting today explain to me why it is okay for "corporate people" to say whatever they want, but you expect us to apologize for using the word "teabagger"?

I thought conservatives just hated "political correctness"?

Now you go all sensitive on us?

Or is this just another ploy to avoid talking about the actual issues?

Of course it is.

Touche, Bill! Touche. Well played~

Obama can "fire up" his base all he wants. By the way, "fire up" sounds a little violent and makes me feel uncomfortable and threatened, kind of like "hand to hand combat", another Obama quote. Given the violent history of the far left, including many of Obama's friends, that's not a good choice of words. Anyway, who cares if he has his remaining groupies riled up. They're voting for the Dems anyway (except for black people, who will not be voting much in November since Obama is not running). It's all about the "independents". They have already figured out that Obama and his agenda are full of crap.

CU Farely: Obama can "fire up" his base all he wants.

The base should have been locked up months ago, during the primaries. What Obama is doing is trying to stop the bleeding, and it's not working. The number of endangered seats for the Democrats should be shrinking as the election nears, but instead, they are growing. Politico is saying their are 99 seats in play, most of them held by Democrats.

The partisan rants from Obama will intensify in the coming weeks. He looks like an angry man at the podium, being less critical of the Republicans, and more critical of the Democratic voters. Obama is great at vilifying groups, but now he's vilifying his own hard-core supporters. We'll soon see if that carries over to the 2012 elections.

TEA Bagging sends some over the deep end.

These right wing rebuttals area like reading a novel, a bad novel; not one bit of truth in them but the title was good.

I enjoyed that a bunch, Jody!

Jody, Iowa;

Touche'

The republican/tea party folks keep talking about lowering the deficit, creating jobs, tax cuts for small business, freeing up capital for small businesses, freedom of speech and religion, wanting to help the middle class, etc., etc. Great words, too bad that their deeds do not support any of these ideas. In fact they are just the opposite.

You are correct, they do read like a dime novel at best. A lot of rhetoric on what they claim to support, but their record does not lend one iota of credence to their claims.

Just the opposite.

And words like " Take him out", "He's in my crosshairs" "We came unarmed-THIS TIME", and other signages and verbage we've seen and heard from the Far Right about President Obama and Democrats that are currently holding office was any better, C U Farley?!?!?!?

And Louis J, You forgot to add mysoginism, sexism; and you might want to add some words that end in "ist", "ic" etc, etc to better describe the Tea Party.

Just a Thought. Good Post by the way.

As for Sen. McCain, one wonders why he ever thought he wanted to be president. He seems completely lacking in tact, diplomacy and rational thought. His "country first" motto is shown as hollow on a near daily basis. He seems so entirely bitter and angry at people who didn't vote for him (perhaps because they were aware of these flaws) that he does NOTHING for the country, for the American people or for Arizona and whenever he is asked to do something (to earn his pay) he says "elections have consequences, ask the other guy."

Actually JoAnna, it's the GOP who villify everybody. Don't you remember those signs at the teabagger rallies? Don't you remember the birth certificate, Muslim issues? That was vilification. And it was all lies.

Don't you remember? President Obama is a kind thoughtful man. He knows we're headed for trouble if your party wins. Because why?

Well, because they're (the GOP) clueless as history has shown.

President Obama has worked hard his entire life. Yet all your party can do is disrespect everything he attempts to do for us, the American people.

Your party only wants tax cuts for the rich. They're not really much interested in anything else.

Especially education. Pity isn't it that one party only attempts to undo any good this country has done. They reminds me of the bullies in the classrooms. They didn't like anyone or anything.

They lived their life by hating everything. That's what the GOP has become. There is nothing to admire about them. Absolutely nothing.

Pat: Congrats, you just opened a can of worms. Prepare for Joanna to spend the rest of her time on this thread asserting Obama is a Muslim Communist grown in an uber-darkie cloning lab somewhere in the heart of Kenya at the behest of Dr. Strangelove.

Pat;

You never looked better. Make sure someone is there with the environmental safe paper towels to clean up the mess when your head explodes...lol......

GOP is full of hate, Gop hates the American people, GOP is dumb, GOP is ignorant, GOP is bigotted, GOP is part of the KKK.....etc.......there I said it all for you..............

...and yet you're the one anticipating someone else's head exploding, IntheMiddle. Curious.

Look Dragon;

No one is talking to your stpid azz. Stay out of grown folks conversation. Didn't your mother teach you anything.

You know what I find continuously amazing about FR, IntheMiddle? That people who're likely double my age act like they're only half of it.

IntheMiddle, TX

GOP is full of hate, Gop hates the American people, GOP is dumb, GOP is ignorant, GOP is bigotted, GOP is part of the KKK.....etc.......there I said it all for you..............

its not that we thinks the GOP hates american people, they just keep doing things to screw the american people. tax cuts that have us broke, tax breaks that send jobs over seas, they want no healthcare for american people, at least the health care they have as lawmakers, they were against the bail out of the banks till its was proven that it was the right thing to do.

but IntheMiddle, for me its not the moderate republicans its the extreme consertives that bothers me, in the area of abortion, as a liberal i don't agree with abortion, (i guess my 4 kids proves that) but at the same time i don't want washington to tell a woman what she can or can not do with her body. they seem to think so, at the same time saying that they don't want government in there lives, ie guns religon.

please what happen to Gerald Ford, Eisenhower, Jack kemp, Bob Dole, these guys were not interested in the things these republicans want to Now. i know that Ford, Kemp and eisenhower are rolling in there graves seeing what the tea party is trying to do.

Your party only wants tax cuts for the rich. They're not really much interested in anything else.

The GOP does not want "tax cuts" for the rich. They do however want the existing tax structure to remain as it is (for everyone), because it is sheer folly to increase taxes when the economy is down and the goal is to increase job creation.

You can deny the facts all you want, but we all know that these tax cuts were put in place to address the economic woes from the collapse of the Internet bubble and the aftermath of 9/11 - and they worked. The economy rebounded and the unemployment rate stayed around 5% (generally considered full employment) through 2007 (when the next bubble burst).

Unfortunately, the types of jobs that were created were not as high paying (on average) as during past recoveries, due to the increase in service sector jobs and the reduction in the manufacturing sector (because jobs were shipped overseas).

However, the problem we are faced with now is that we need to "kick start" the job creation engine. And, like it or not, the people with the money are the one's that create the jobs. But, they currently have no incentive to invest their money in new ventures, because the policies of this administration are not creating a favorable atmosphere that suggests that their ROI would be larger than just letting the money set in the bank and collect interest.

The most important thing the GOP and/or this administration can do to help with job creation is to stabilize the environment. Much of the concern is due to the sweeping nature of the legislation that is on the horizon, and the potential it has to negatively impact companies. Businesses can adapt to change, but it is much easier when it is incremental rather than monumental. When 2000 page bills like HCR come down the pike, nobody knows what the ramifications will be (i.e., mini-med issues, 1099 paperwork, etc.) or how it will ultimately affect costs. And, when they are stacked up like planes on a runway - HCR, Banking Regulations, Cap & Trade, etc. it makes a trip to Vegas look like a more sound investment than opening/expanding a business.

Pietro;

I saw that last night. It is amazing how low these people can stoop. They talk about freedom of speech and thir actions do just the opposite. I guess freedom of speech only applies to a select group of republican/tea party people.

I keep writing that the republican/tea party is trying to create a class based society. They are trying to re-write the First Amendment to serve just them. We see the evidence (proof) of this every day with their actions and how they vote on bills.

American better wake up, and soon. There is going to be a "Great Society" that will dictate what we can say, what we can do, what we are supposed to think and if we do not coward down to their demands we will be handcuffed and arrested.

Is this what we want? I don't, and this is not the ideas that I fought for.

Pietro: Joe Miller and his ilk CONSTANTLY talk about the Constitution, and how they want to "get our country back" They seem to be awfully selective about the parts of the Constitution that they wish to follow, mostly having to do with the Second Amendment. That they ignore and worse, dismiss the legitimate concerns of voters to be able to approach and question them is outrageous. That they only go on one propaganda driven "news" organization so that they may all recite talking points together is something that should not be tolerated by the most dedicated of partisan voter. So, tell me: all of you who support this "candidate", do you consider that his arrogant dismissal of YOUR right to address your potential Senator to be a sign of danger? If he has no caring of YOUR rights now, when he should be doing EVERY thing he can to earn your vote; what possible redress will you have if he gets the office? You have already taught him that he may ignore your concerns with impunity. Again, quoting Thomas Jefferson, who wrote volumes about a free press:

"No experiment can be more interesting than that we are now trying, and which we trust will end in establishing the fact, that man may be governed by reason and truth. Our first object should therefore be, to leave open to him all avenues of truth. The most effectual hitherto found is the freedom of the press. It is therefore, the first shut up by those who fear the investigations of their actions." Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1804.

I saw this on both Countdown and later Lawrence O'Donnell spoke to this reporter. What I wonder is why Joe Miller thinks he needs body guards as a senate candidate. It is possible there have been threats but I tend to think he is a bully and likes to have bigger bullies around to protect him.

I agree with you Jody, it makes Miller feel more important to bully people.

Behind all that pious talk about loving Liberty it's hard for Conservatives to hide their authoritarian bent. From calling anyone who disagreed with GW Bush "traitors" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason:_Liberal_Treachery_from_the_Cold_War_to_the_War_on_Terrorism to open talk of internment camps for Liberals http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/20/gallagher-damon-olbermann/ to ejecting people from public events due to BUMPER STICKERS it's everywhere. Almost daily there are posters here who warn Liberals that "you'll get what you have coming", "learn to keep your mouth shut", and "you should just leave the country." Guess what Conservatives--this is OUR country as well. If you don't like what we have to say tough. If you need to know why, just go ask the Founding Fathers you claim to love so much.

Bodyguards are there to protect their employer.....they are authorized just like any other citizen to make an arrest. The police may come a release but thye are authorized to make an arrest. He would much rather they arrested him than to knock his block off.

Miller is a private citizen until he wears the title of Senator. He is entitled to pay for protection if he chooses.

ITM: I rarely think it worth the effort to respond to your drivel, BUT, Miller is a candidate for high office in this nation. He is no longer a private citizen but a CANDIDATE, and as such is responsible to answer questions of the electorate. Any excuse you make for his action is bogus.

So you're OK with arresting people for asking uncomfortable questions of politicians. An interesting way to run a democracy and it goes directly to my statements in 9.5.

Frankly,

I could care less about Miller. He is no my Senator. I have no dog in his fight.

Just because someone is running for an office does not forfeit their private citizen protections. HE IS NOT a senator yet.

Like I said, ITM, any excuse you make for a candidate to attempt to intimidate a reporter out of doing his job is BOGUS.

I saw the interview and thought Megan McCain came across as an intelligent young woman who should be the representative for Republican women!

Not the 'Desperate Housewives' the current crop of idiots like Palin - Engel etc. represent!

As for McCain... he proved in 2008 that there NO ONE he won't sell out to win a vote and unfortunately his daughter is included!

'Like a crazy old man yelling at pigeons on a park bench' - Bill Maher

I watched Rachael last night, and the right is as repugnant as every. Two faced bigots to say the least. If anybody says anything about O'Donnell, Palin, Whitman, etc, etc, they are being sexiest. If the republicans do it, it is ok and even praised!!!

Hypocrisy to republicans is a virtue. In my opinion it is a serious character flaw.

I wonder...does Cindy McCain get a chill up her spine when the Conservative Talking Heads trash her daughter?

Every time I see Meghan McCain in an interview, I think to myself--how long can she last in the Republican party? She is too common sense and realistic. And apparently by not being a size 4, she is not physically ideal enough to be a Republican woman either.

It wouldn't surprise me if she reads a blog like this one---a smart person always wants to know other viewpoints, whether or not they agree with them. So---Meghan----come on over to the Democrats. We will welcome you, allow you to have differing view points (in fact it is encouraged, as maddening as it sometimes can be!) and you will be accepted for who you are.

It was a good interview; she is smart and refreshingly honest. I may not agree with some of Meghan McCain's views but she is a moderate GOP voice in an ever-increasing chorus of screaming, irrational and extreme right wing elements.

I believe that John McCain has become increasingly cantankerous and cranky became he realizes the biggest mistake he ever made was Sarah Palin; he unleashed the shrill and he knows it. Now his own daughter is attacked by his beloved conservative party for daring to criticize the likes of O'Donnell, Angle and Palin.

You liberals just like M. McCain because she parrots some of your points. McCain is not a true Republican. She is not the representative that conservatives need. She may as well call herself a Liberal.

Who made you judge, jury and executioner of the Republican membership?

Recalling something from yesterday, was William F. Buckley a 'real' Republican? Hell, does George Will qualify as conservative enough for you?

You liberals just like M. McCain because she parrots some of your points. McCain is not a true Republican. She is not the representative that conservatives need. She may as well call herself a Liberal.

Thank you for demonstrating many of the problems she has with the Republican Party right now.

No you didn't, E.D.-

You didn't just try to compare Meghan McCain to William F. Buckley...

Oh no...!

Yeah, I did, MB. Last I checked Buckley wasn't the biggest fan of the neocon movement and neither is Meghan. Sure's, she's a ditz on economics, but if we're going to be so broad as to include people like IntheMiddle, Joanna and Madison under the umbrella of the Republican party, there is plenty of room for John's daughter.

Sorry, E.D.-

While First Read is undeniably a natural home for bad analogies and horrifyingly inappropriate metaphors, that comparison fails to meet even the dreadfully low First Read smell test.

And, I'm afraid that ITM has far more credibility as to who possesses the requisite attributes of a conservative than either you or Da Noid...for obvious reasons.

But...I'll help, just in case:

ITM actually IS a conservative.

It's nice to see you're confusing 'conservative' with 'blithering idiot' insofar as ITM is concerned!

As with my admonishment of him, I don't see any just cause for you to set yourself up as the ultimate arbiter of who qualifies as a conservative and who doesn't - but we can't always see eye-to-eye, now can we, MB?

ED:

WTF died and made you the master of philosophy?

Admonishment? Man please. You're little twerp butt can't even drag my rucksack. You need to go kick it with you're juvenile liberal buddies and leave the level 10 issues to the advanced crowd.

I can get as articulate and philisophical as anyone but I can also be just as filthy mcNasty with the best of them. Shoot your best shot homie!

Kick rocks trick..speak to the hand...

ITM: Trying to bait someone is so very unbecoming. Please be seein' my earlier post about adults acting like children at #8.15.

Your maturity, m'friend, is truly awe-ful.

ITM:

That is spoken like a true DOG FACED SOLDIER! I know you have to be a SF soldier/ 3ID.

Keep up the good fight. Do not let these jerks advance. Keep them at bay because you know we got your back.

This fool with that ignorant name think he is a Political Proff with the knowledge of which only he possess. This clown has the audacity to fade you with the adults acting like children analogy. That is definately old school.

Agreed, E.D.-

I'm just suggesting that ITM is a better arbiter, in terms of discussing the tenets of conservatism, than YOU are...notice the distinction?

But...let's set that aside for a moment.

You've already stated that you voted for President Obama in 2008...since then, it would appear that you've hopped on the fence, politically speaking.

To be sure, you've hopped on the left side of the fence...but nevertheless, you imply that you're still on the the fence, don't you?

A complete independent...of course you are.

Relax...that's completely cool.

Get off the fence, E.D. It's two weeks before a major election!

Tell us why you agree (or not) with President Obama, why you voted for him, and why you're supporting his agenda and why you will vote for the candidates he endorses...

Besides...

I've heard that sitting on a fence is painful.

Might as well jump...eh E.D.?

@soldier1: You were dropped on your head quite a bit as a kid, weren't you? I'm sorry, truly, I am.

I'm just suggesting that ITM is a better arbiter, in terms of discussing the tenets of conservatism, than YOU are...notice the distinction?

Now that you've actually bothered to make it after the fact, yes. Might I suggest aiming for a wee bit more initial clarity in the future? It'll help save you the trouble of having to repeat yourself.

But...let's set that aside for a moment.

You've already stated that you voted for President Obama in 2008...since then, it would appear that you've hopped on the fence, politically speaking.

To be sure, you've hopped on the left side of the fence...but nevertheless, you imply that you're still on the the fence, don't you?

A complete independent...of course you are.

Your powers of observation never cease to amaze me, MB. With a sharp intellect like that, just what is a dazzling urbanite like yourself doing in a rustic setting like this?

Relax...that's completely cool.

Get off the fence, E.D. It's two weeks before a major election!

Tell us why you agree (or not) with President Obama, why you voted for him, and why you're supporting his agenda and why you will vote for the candidates he endorses...

Besides...

I've heard that sitting on a fence is painful.

Might as well jump...eh E.D.?

There's that keen mind of yours at work again, MB: making and running with assumptions based upon a single piece of observable evidence! Just how do you do it? You know I adore answering any inquiry of yours you care to direct to me, but I simply can't when it's based upon a false premise and attempts to lead an answer.

I honestly expect something of a challenge! Perhaps I misjudged you. Bad form, MB. Very, very bad form...

Not gonna jump...?

Rustically speaking...time's-a-wasting!

Hmmm...

Might be a little more conservative in you than I thought.

I'm so terribly glad I'm living up to your lofty expectations. Remind me to put a checkmark in my calendar for partially validating my existence for you today.

Ruminating further...

Might be a little more @!$%# in you than I thought.

C'mon...lose the name-calling, E.D..

What's this now...the third or fourth time?

Anyway...

Why so defensive?

Voting for President Obama isn't any sort of stigma here, is it?

Quite the opposite.

It's having second thoughts that'll put the bullseye on your back.

Two weeks...any second thoughts?

Funny how Conservatives always accuse Liberals of "situational ethics" when it's the Conservatives who seem to exhibit this most clearly and consistently.

John, the Conservatives as you said, for years have been attempting to dictate how we should live our lives. Yeah, like they know. LOL.

I have always had a distate for dictators. And that's basically what the right is.

Got a good laugh out of this. Talk about hypocrisy, Calvin Hill really takes it to a new level. It is like Paladino sending explicit pornographic e-mails while claiming to be righteous.

Who do you think is benefiting from this 140 million dollars of advertising? Oh the media you say, no wonder their defending all these anonymous donations from the US chamber and Karl Rove and want the Democrats to quit talking about them. Has anybody noticed that there is no political ads running on Rachael, Ed and Keith's shows. It's because they keep talking about the Us chamber and karl Roves anonymous donations, the rest of the media has caved in to the republicans threat not to do any advertising if they don't fall in line with the republicans. The dollars always talks louder then reason and truth. The money spent to create the ads is not the problem, it's the money spent to run the ads on all the TV outlets that's buying the election. It's called a boost in revenue for the media outlets. Why do you think every pundit out there is saying over and over that it's bad for the Democrats to keep railing against the Us chamber and Karl Rove? The answer is money.

This is what happens when we have a President who is also a constitutional scholar. He saw clearly what was about to happen and attempted to warn everyone of the danger from unlimited, anonymous campaign funding. At the time he was dismissed as being alarmist, that for a multitude of reasons it would never come to that. As it turns out "never" doesn't last long, since only MONTHS later anonymous money is rushing like a tsunami into campaigns all over the country. Who are these anonymous donors? What do they expect from the candidates they support? Why is it important to them that their identities be protected? What are they hiding?

Great point, Nashville fan. President Obama has talked about this ruling since that State of the Union address and the press has pretty much ignored it until, of course, it is election time. My question to them is why didn't THEY start asking questions after the SoU comment; and why are they ignoring it now.

What is odd is the press treated President Obama's comments aimed at the Supreme Court as something new when other presidents have also criticized Supreme Court decisions.

I heard that Justice Alito won't be attending the 2011 State of the Union until it is less political; one critical comment I guess constitutes political in his view. Perhaps he really did not like seeing the clip of his head shaking and muttering played 24/7 in an endless loop. The right-leaning activist court declared corporations are people, too, and Alito wonders why Americans, not just the President, find that ruling contrary to the US Constitution.

I am so sick of this Contitutional Scholar crap. I have a cousin that has a PhD who teaches at NorthWestern in Chicago. I guess that makes him qualified to be president also. The only difference is my cousin would be glad to show you his grades from college, and allow you to read his Masters Thesis as well as his PhD disertation. I would like to be able to read Mr. Obama's transcripts, and all of his college papers, since everything we did 30 years ago is fair game (kentucky politics) Oh but wait, for some reason all of that has been made unavailable to the general public and press. I wonder why that is......? Could it be his grades aren't as good as we think,...... or does he think the press would make fun of his grades as they did of Bush???

By the way, I have a Masters Degree in Aeronautic Engineering and Operations, any of you that would like to read it, I'll happily make it available to you. It is about Airline Passenger Rage and the original Passenger Bill of Rights

Or maybe it's because only 12 people are stupid enough to actually watch those shows. Would you advertise to 12 of the dumbest people in the country?

janet,

I am really sorry that you are jealous of the President's success and that you don't have anyone in your life to tell you how wonderful you are.

I mean there is pathetic and then there is deluded and pathetic, ya know?

Nashville,

All that lady said was she was tired of hearing that BS. You jumped her and took it all to the left for no reason.

IntheMiddle:

So to translate, ya'll can dish it out but you can't take it?

I'm tired of folks coming on here bashing the President with lies and then playing all delicate when you see the word "teabagger".

You know, I can do this however ya'll want to do this - we can have a debate on the issues or we can get down in the gutter.

Either way, I'm gonna be here, so stop your whining.

Yes, MOST Conservatives are tired of hearing that President Obama is qualified to be President and that his prior experience gave him the ability to accurately predict the faulty SCOTUS decision would unleash a flood of unregulated, anonymous money into the campaign. None of which changes the fact that he is 1) qualified, and 2) correct in his prediction.

All of which conflicts with the ridiculous Conservative narrative of Barack Obama as an inept bumbler who falls short of the sterling qualities and experience that make, say, Sarah Palin so incredibly qualified.

You know some people might let you get away with your liberal crap and insults. I WONT.

BELIEVE ME I AM NOT JELOUS OF OBAMA'S SUCCESS. My point is anyone that is proud of their educational background would release all of his transcripts. Obviously Obama is not proud of his academic history. We should know what his academic history is, afterall you liberals walk around saying how intelligent he is. HE SHOULD PROVE IT.

I can prove my intelligence and will anyday to anyone. I DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO HIDE.

I have more than enough people in my life that tell me how wonderful I am.

I think you are pretty pathetic, and not very educated. You most not have any one to love you, or even to speak to you as much time you spend posting on this site

janet,

You went there. I did not question your intelligence. Your post did.

Folks who are secure in their intelligence don't have to post their degrees online when nobody asked or cared.

I am sorry if the sight of your pettiness splashed back into your face was unpleasant.

You want to run down the President, but you want to pretend like you "meant no harm".

Well you know what? I call bullsh!t.

P.S. I post on this site alot because there are so many folks like yourself who are simultaneously malicious and victimized peddling debunked lies and innuendo. Sorry if the truth is inconvenient for you.

I can prove my intelligence

BELIEVE ME I AM NOT JELOUS

I WONT.

You most not have any one to love you

Thanks for 'proving' that Janet! lmao!

PS: Anyone else notice how much she sounds like Jill our rookie attorney?

Sounds a lot like her, but she can't spell.

All please excuse my errors. I must be more careful when I post things.

I don't recall criticizing the president, I said I was tired of hearing that "He was a Constitutional Scholar," when there are no facts to back up that claim. Teaching a class at a university does not make one a scholar.

Being accepted to Harvard Law, without being a legacy, being editor of the Review, and teaching Constitutional Law at one of the finest universities in the nation do make him a scholar. Or, you have a very skewed vision of what scholarship is.

Janet's just pissed she didn't get any accolades for swinging her e-Dick around earlier in the thread.

Janet;

I enjoy most of the posts and do not believe anyone should be censored. you have the right to your opinion as do I. But, I must say in my opinion your ignorance is only surpassed by your ego. There are many people on this board that are intelligent individuals. When I see somebody that claims to be smarter than another individual I just have to laugh. Do you realize that only points to your own insecurity in your intelligence? How are you going to prove that you are smarter than me, Nash, John B. or anybody else on this thread? And all those people that you claim just love your crap, how do you know, because they tell you? I would tell you anything you wanted to hear just to shut you up.

Sorry Lady, you are just so much BS.

Your concern for the President is noted and appreciated.

Mixed Bag: The candidate of "Hope And Change", and "Yes We Can" has become the messenger of fear...a jarring metamorphosis, really.

12 months ago, the Libs were talking about the Democrats controlling Congress and the White House for a generation. 12 months ago, the Republicans were being described as a "Regional party". 12 months ago, Americans were swooning anytime Obama graced us with another one of his wonderul and historic speeches. 12 months ago, people still believed in "Hope and Change".

Today, Democrats are comparing Obama to , . . . . . Reagan? Go figure.

Mixed Bag, you mean that you don't think insulting voters will work for him? Really?

When they are blind and insensitive enough to reject his magnificence? When they are too wracked with fear to appreciate that 9.6% unemployment and an additional three trillion dollars of debt is good for them, and proof that his policies are working?

Gee, Mixed Bag. Maybe you don't deserve to have Obama be your president. Speaking as another unworthy, I'm hoping he feels the same way.

And runs for the exit.

Is Huey Freeman still a terrorist?

Yes, JoAnne...it's hard to see much of President Reagan's trademark sunniness in President Obama's current anxiety-mongering posture.

Time to cue Al Gore:

"They played on our fears!"

The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Amusing, right wingers. The party that has been preaching fear for 30 years is troubled because President Obama questions the wisdom of putting the car in reverse. It is the GOP who speaks of eliminating social security, medicare and unemployment benefits, public education--the TPers have actually spoken the truth about their agenda and now the repubs accuse the President of using fear. You also fail to realize that Pres Reagan was a pragmatist, a compromiser just as is President Obama; today Reagan would not meet the conservative enough test.

no joe-

Absolutely.

The left's preemptive assault on the electorate has already begun...we've heard it from everyone from Eugene Robinson to Joe Klein.

The voters are about to throw a monumental, completely unjustified temper tantrum.

Nevermind that blaming the voters is a thoroughly discredited gambit in an election.

The alternative is to hold the party in power responsible for its governance.

Can't have that...now can we?

Who knew...?

Yet another First Read "Reagan Democrat" weighs in.

Yesterday it was Da Noid.

Today it's Jody.

Now THAT'S amusing.

MB, is this the modern manifestation of the domino effect?

Perhaps, E.D.-

But, the extolling of the virtues of Ronald Reagan from the usual suspects here at First Read should be regarded with at least a fair amount of suspicion.

This looks like expediency under stress more than anything...about as reliable as your average deathbed conversion.

The irony of statements made by the POTUS concerning people not thinking clearly in moments of duress is suddenly rather crushing, isn't it?

@mixed bag...

So... what color alert is this, anyway? How afraid should we really be? This is beyond funny- the more you paint Obama to resemble Bush (and that would take a lobotomy, a couple of whacks with the ugly stick, and a LOT of titanium oxide), the more you hate him...ROFL... So now, Obama is "Darth Bush"... too freakin' funny.

They don't want to Steeler Fan. They are benefiting from all these anonymous donation also.

"The love of money is the root of all evil."

Me, too. Would very much like to see FR and the media stop giving us the republican spin and start doing some of their own investigating. Trouble is, they've been giving us the GOPer spin for 20 months, then they wonder why democrats can't get their message out; hard to hear above the din of GOP talking points.

samatheist;

Good post, short and to the point. I agree in that the political machine is broken. We need a few good mechanics willing to get their hands dirty and fix what is broken. I really do not care who they be as long as they get the job done. In my opinion the only one that seems to be doing anything to help the Country is President Obama, the republicans, to date, have been "No Shows" or "Obstructionists", neither of which helps us Americans at all.

Oh, I love that song! No wonder I voted for Obama. 8E

I can't add to that, Nash. Well said.

Thank you, Nash, for the truth and the reminder of why we voted for President Obama. Well, said.

But how many of them have identified as "meat popsicles?"

Bill Fairfax,VA: The leftists who come here and crow that most economists agree the fiscal stimulus succeeded in turning the economy around are a real hoot. That's absolute nonsense

Try telling the 10% unemployed the stimulus succeeded. Tell the 25% under-employed the stimulus succeeded. Tell the hundreds of thousands of people getting thrown out of their homes because of foreclosures that it succeeded. A point-headed academic saying the "stimulus worked" doesn't help soothe the fears of nearly a third of the population. The stimulus was supposed to stimulate growth of the private sector. It didn't. Instead it was used to keep state government workers afloat with another year of pay.

The stimulus stimulated nothing.

Bill:

Well, we know for SURE that voodoo economics, unpaid for tax cuts, and deregulation doesn't work and we the sane people are not going back to that crap.

We know for sure that the stimulus has created more jobs in 20 months that the Bush Administration did in 8 years.

We know that unemployment was steadily growing before the stimulus was passed, and that it has leveled off now.

We know for sure that the stock market was in the toilet under President Bush's "leadership" and it has rebounded under President Obama's.

So all your high fallutin' economic double talk is just more smoke and mirrors attempting to tell us that up is down and black is white.

P.S. Ironic that Joanna is following you around the board and giving you high fives . . . I though ya'll despised folks "high fiving"? Curious.

Hey JoAnn and Bill, what about all those republican congressmen and women who keep sending letters asking for more stimulus money saying it is creating jobs in their districts. I'm guessing in your minds your congress people don't count. You keep saying it didn't work, but yet you keep taking stimulus money to improve your state and district. Please explain if you can.

Every State has gotten stimulus money to help create jobs. Fact

Here's the kicker, Bill. The 'second shoe' of Keynesian economics is inflation, which the fed has begun to introduce into the economy by weakening the dollar. Keynes 'L' graph "proves" that high inflation and high unemployment are mutually exclusive.

That theory was blown up in the 1970's, when an entirely new economic phenomena, stagflation, was born as a result of this very policy.

Obama ignored that evidence. Did not fit his thinking.

Ipso facto, it must not exist. For his remaining cult members, the stimulus worked. For those who deal in reality, the truth is obvious. So, when the real impact of this flawed theory are felt in this country, I'm taking bets that the only votes he wi. Get for re election are his own, his wife's, and a couple of people on this board.

Not all of them, though. Some of them will have had enough when their grocery bills are double what they are today.

P.S. Ironic that Joanna is following you around the board and giving you high fives . . . I though ya'll despised folks "high fiving"? Curious.

LOL Nash! Seems Bill has stepped in 'it' and JoAnna is busy cleaning off his shoes!

Really, Bill? Ronald Reagan's chief economist, the chief economist at godman Sachs, and Paul Krugman are all in agreement that the biggest issue is not ENOUGH stimulous spending. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43219.html In fact it's hard to find legitimate economists who take the standard GOPTP line that the stimulus was a dismal failure without spinning it hard. http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/02/abc-cant-find-economists-who-think-the-stimulus-failed/ Even the Conservative American Enterprise Institue agrees. http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/aei-says-stimulus-boosted-economy-4

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good talking point, though. Carry on.

Yep, Bill and no joe are just everyday common Americans . . . whenever I go to my local grocery, a debate about Keynsian economics breaks out.

Oh brother.

Bill,

Perhaps it is because our manufacturing base and export business were 3 times what they are today (% of GDP) making growth and recovery much easier during the Reagan administration?

The competition for jobs in the world economy is also making recovery more difficult.

President Reagan did a great deal of spending also as the national debt (% of GDP) nearly doubled and the deficit skyrocketed during his administration.

John, weren't you spouting off about Enron last week?

You DO know that Paul Krugman was heavily involved with that comPany, do you not?

That is one more reason there are a lot of economists who do not take his Keynsian ravings seriously.

If we see stagflation again, I'm going to vault myself (with torch and pitchfork in hand) over the White House fenceline while sporting a cape sewn from $100 bills.

...that or Valero receipts.

A reminder for the right. President Ronald Reagan in less than one year turned the USA into the world's greatest DEBTOR nation. Since 1914 America had been a creditor nation. It only took a republican less than a year to destroy that and put this nation on a course of greed and debt. That's not a liberal talking point, Bill and the other defenders of the GOP, that is pure fact and anyone can use Google to find out.

Sorry, Jody, that talking point, like the "Reagan would not be conservative enough for today's republican party" is pure, unadulterated tripe.

Yes, as a percentage of GDP, debt increased during the eight years of Reagan's presidency. From 1981, (his first full year as president; it is unfair to include 1980, even though that would bring down the average, as he was not sworn in until 1981), debt as a percentage of GDP was 4.3%. It was 4.05% for his last four years.

However, here is a little statistic you will not mention: from 2001 to 2005, the first four years of G.W. bush's presidency, debt to GDP ratio was 1.78%. For his second term, it was 2.33%.

Now, we get to Obama: 9.91% for his first year in office. It is projected to be 10.64% this year.

I was among many who decried Bush' spending in his second term. Obama's spending is so much worse that it boggles the mind.

I hope and pray this country can ever recover from this disaster.

Unadulterated? Such adjectives! Good job there "big guy".

Interesting rewrite of history to say he was "heavily involved", NJ. As a part-time consultant for 3 quarters in 1999 he's no doubt responsible for EVERYTHING wrong with the economy now. All answered here http://www.pkarchive.org/personal/EnronFAQ.html in his own words, BTW, which is significantly more up front than your vague smear, presented with no details and no back up. Your statement consists only of "Paul Krugman did SOMETHING that had to do with a BAD company at SOME TIME." Weak tea.

Your knee-jerk rejection of Keynesian stimulus, perfectly workable and effective in the correct circumstances, in favor of "all tax cuts for the rich, all the time", even when it's been a dismal favor, shows your faux-intellectual discussion as the rank partisanship it is.

Or maybe your Nobel Prize is shinier than Krugman's.

oops

Therein lies the crux of it it all: does the current economic climate include the 'right circumstances,' John?

Really John?

Please explain to me how anything you said refutes the central argument of my post that "most economists" actually do not agree that the stimulus turned the economy around.

Please explain to me how anything you said obviates the FACT that the current economic recovery whether measured by GDP growth or unemployment levels is anemic compared to previous recoveries from steep downturns, most particularly the Reagan recovery after 1981-82.

And oh BTW, anyone who cites Krugman and/or ThinkProgress as sources for their position isn't exactly relying on unbiased sources, so it's really hard to take people like you seriously. As for the AEI source you cited, all they did was acknowledge the same modest bump in GDP that I did in my post. The real issue is where is the robust growth? The answer is there is none, so it's hard to make a case that the economic stimulus did anything more than pad some government payrolls that ultimately showed up in the GDP numbers.

And oh BTW2, the low interest rate policy and quantitative easing by the Fed arguably did immeasurably more to stop the bleeding than Obama's fiscal policies. In fact, they did such a good job that they ought to be in the mode of beginning to raise interest rates rather than embark on QEII. Because bigtime inflation may well be in our future unless they start withdrawing liquidity soon.

But don't let reasoned argument question your faith in leftist fantasies. Carry on.

Facts, John?

You mean like the fact that Krugman was an economic advisor to Enron? That he resigned only because his continuing to serve was in violation of the New York Times conflict of interest policy?

Or the fact that he has received criticism for writing articles glowing with praise for Enron, before it collapsed? In particular, there was the article written for Fortune magazine, entitled "The Ascent of EMan", in which he made the case that Enron's energy trading was illustrative of the rise of the stock market. Oh, sure, he identified himself as a former economic consultant for that company; it only gave the article more credibility. A lot of folks who got snookered into buying stock on that "advice" registered complaints against Krugman, whose response was "who, me? What did I do wrong?"

The man is not just an ideologue. He is a snake.

If you are known by the company you keep, and those you admire, I have serious doubts about you, John. Serious, serious doubts.

If you don't like the message, destroy the messenger. Good Conservative technique NJ.

All of which is just an attempt to deflect from notice the real point, that the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer. Tax cuts don't fit every situation. Tax cuts don't fix every problem. Tax cuts can even be bad for the economy http://www.alternativesmagazine.com/25/beaton.html but you're too far down the ideological path to acknowledge that. Round after round after round of tax cuts geared toward the top have put us on the edge of a new era in America which more closely resembles an aristocracty. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116849172911973577.html You completely refuse to acknowledge the limits of your supply side religion http://zfacts.com/p/318.html while sneering at the tools that got us out of the Great Depression and prevented this most recent recession from becoming a mirror image. http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/End-of-Great-Recession.pdf?L=HPADV2&C=ZANDIBLINDER&P=LEARNMORE

And all of it without citing any facts whatsoever.

John, dismissing the facts I use does not render them"non facts".

I have already stated that individual tax rates today are as low as they can be; however, only a complete moron would raise taxes in this economy. We shall wait, with bated breath, to learn if Obama is a complete moron, or only partially Moronic.

Earlier, you referred to my 'knee jerk' rejection of Keynes and his disproven economic theory. That is truly interesting, since I spent ten years getting my degrees.

You, on the other hand, are armed with your mantra that "Obama is magnificent. Obama is brilliant. Obama has all the answers", which, of course, confers on you the expertise necessary to conclude that weak growth, high unemployment, and the coming high inflation are actually indicative of a good economy.

If the stakes were not so high, I could laugh at the sheer idiocy. As it is, I weep for my country.

Bill, I just read your last post.

The bad news is that the Fed has no intention of raising rates. Yes, they know that if they don't start pulling back, inflation is going to come storming back.

However, there is more bad news. The consensus of the governors is that there is not enough inflation, which is why the recovery is stalled.

The lessons of the 1970's? These governors did not learn them.

Things are about to get even worse. A lot worse.

A weak analogy if there ever was one. The two situations are in no way similar, and therefore call for different solutions. In the 70s we had an established and stubborn inflation rate but insisted on keeping interest rates low. Now we have an inflation rate that is almost nonexistent and it hasn't budged in spite of an extended period with inflation rates effectively near zero. In those days stimulus spending was seen as the fix all for every situation, therefore it was used in a situation where inflation was already trending upward. The recent economic stimulus was weak, much weaker than many economists felt necessary. Tax rates were MUCH higher then, so adjustment in tax rates was a much more effective supply side tool. If anything this situation is like Japan's lost decade http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88156284 in which government inaction caused the economy to stall in a state of inactivity with sufficient inertia that it became almost impossible to restart...very similar to the early years of the Great Depression, when President Hoover did all the wrong things. All the same things, in fact, that Conservatives wish to do now.

Your position reminds me of a Glenn Beck monologue from a few months ago. Beck spent 20 minutes spinning a tale for his radio audience of the Weimar Republic in Germany and told his listeners it would be a year, 18 months at most before it takes a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread HERE.

The next morning the Fed announced (and the economic community agreed) that the bigger danger was deflation, that inflation was virtually a zero risk.

In the intervening months it doesn't even take a bucket of money to buy a loaf of bread, let alone a wheelbarrow.

Amy you have to remember Chuck Todd is fighting for the all mighty advertising dollar from the Us chamber and Karl Rove. It really is that simple. Their not journalists any more their advertising salesmen.

Amy, Chucky T. is an Arrogant piece of Crap, who still has'nt publicly Apoligized for calling President Obama "Stupid" several months ago. His ego is as broad as his A$$, which he sits on trys to tell Americans, How bad the Dems are gonna Lose.

Until an Apology is Publicly acknowledged, he'll get No Respect from me.

Unless Dieabold has the returns already, NOOne, especially Egotistical Chucky T. knows what'll happen on Nov-2nd.

Savanah Guthrie outta just backhand em every 2-3 minutes, just to keep his Ego in Check.

Freepress for Sale, Used, Best Offer: The United States Chamber of Commerce (USCOC) is NOT your local Chamber of Commerce.
Imagine huge figure seated on one end teeter totter, and a thousand other small figures on the other end. The odd thing about this is while the small figures are left dangling from a precipice the huge figure sits there laughing. Come to papa little ones I’m hungry.
Sometimes being indirect is the part of understanding that being direct could buy you.
The USCOC is not as much collegial group as they are as they have always been is as representatives of big business. It a matter of history that the building in Washington was built where it was, that it is the size it is, and whom it was that paid for it and who saw to it that it was built.
The USCOC was built by big business as a counter weight to executive power, a way for big business to purchase representation from the other branches of government.
The creation of USCOC could have been done differently, had it been possible to alter the Constitution, but by having the means, the Constitution can be brought effectively through laws and court macerations.
Another branch of government has barged its way in, multiplicities of huge corporations were not common in the 18th Century, but the founders were very much in concerned about banks which of that time were a corrupting influence, you could say that British Capitalism was well started at the time. That was long time ago, but present form of the USCOC resulted from the outgrowth of the epoch of corporate gigantism.
When the political punditry (talk show) ply’s its trade, its most effective communication tools are engaged to spread whatever message it thinks it should broadcast. The public just has to forget that the media’s conveyance is the road sign of omnipresent political punditry, and the media and the political punditry is supported by corporate spending money for endless advertisements. If ever the public was to notice that product advertisement paid the media’s bills, then, maybe, just maybe, the public could jump to the conclusion that the political punditry was also a purchasable community. The political punditry exists in a hall of mirrors with ceiling and floor all the same, echoing light and sound in endless cycle.
Just calling the journalist’s kettle green, runs counter to the journalist credo, that free speech is its primary protective. And free speech is our primary protective; if it was not already then it would have to be reinvented to perform that role. While reinvention brings novelty, it also provides cover for the political punditry hide beneath. Consider what would happened to political punditry if there was only one party, called the Money Party, it would field a team, just one, put one team on the field, there would be no need to have the other team at all. This political punditry would die due to lack of interest. Naively presented the political punditry serves itself and the interest of the two party systems and the media corporations and the advertizing corporations and the collective power of the USCOC. Never mind crushing the pesky little people and their pathetic representation in their government. Lastly the idea of having only one party, is somewhat like having something that is universally agreed upon, but is subject to constant reinjection, in advertizing it called new and improved product XYZ, in politics is called motherhood and apple pie, updated political version is called ‘family values’. It is like one sided playing cards, where the 52 cards are all same and printed only on one side, who on earth is campaigning against ‘family values’ only God and the republicans know.
It simple enough to extend the helplessness of the individual citizen, to the small business world interested in itself, these people have been tirelessly working to advance their corner of the world hoping to join the big players, this is convenient myth, but unrealistic. These small business men do indeed need the support of their peers and so form or join a local chamber of commerce, slam a decal on the door and stay focus on local matters. The local chamber of commerce becomes the unwitting stooge of the USCOC; because of the diversity of the local chambers provide cover for the USCOC. The USCOC just has to leverage the multitude of small business to its cause and what? Just how is subscribing to USCOC from the local level of any benefit to the local chamber? Nothing, the USCOC listens to Congress persons when the call; saying they hear these complaints from small businesses. The Congress then asks USCOC what changes they’d like to see, and a USCOC shows to with a package to the door and Congress proposes the amendment and waits till the next election. Works perfectly, except that lost in the translation was all the concerns of the small businesses. This happens because USCOC does not really represent small business, and has no incentives to do so. In fact having small business do all the complaining is just plain smart politics. Word choice is important, if I were to say that big businesses supports small business out of the good grace of their heart it sounds like mush schmoozing, if I were to say that rich businesses supports poor businesses, it beings to look like a marriage on the rocks. The size of the capitalization matters, rich is comfortable with getting richer, the poor concerned with getting richer, and the rich only move into action when they see the chance of getting less rich (USCOC swings into action). Today’s USCOC horrible strategy of plying the air waves, from secret donations, from uncertain sources, from obviously tainted money to downright sabotage result in huge distrust. The Rovian/Nixonian/Buchannan political warriors are always willing to seed distrust, as they are willing to exploit distrust, and are most likely to both plant the seeds and use distrust as the one in the same strategy. The angry public is too blind to see that if Congress is bought and paid for, to see that the Omnipotent Senate can block anything and everything for years on end, to see that the House of Representatives are running willy-nilly attracted to money like rats are to cheese. The public is also blind to seeing that revenues from corporations feed the Media and that all donations to campaigns, secret or documented by law feed the media. The journalist political punditry ultimately defends only free speech and do not see themselves as participants and presume a objective status as matter of self preservation.
Who then is left to fight the good fight? It is through this anger that the public is incapacitated, running as fast as they can, and spinning out of the mortgage wheel over the adjacent cliff. What else could big business want except to be rid of customer with no income to spend?

Well said, Pat. I really enjoy Lawrence O'Donnell's show. Last night's interview was excellent. It is nice to see a political show be different in style and content just as Countdown is different from Rachel Maddow. They each are very different but all are informative, humorous and factual. MSNBC's Lean Forward philosophy and ads are terrific.

Dear Jody: I couldn't agree with you more.

You bet I will vote Republican this time around. Haven't voted Repub since Bush Senior did his famous Read my Lips. Many of my fellow workers who voted for Obama have a change of heart. They call themsleves independents. They are also voting Repub this time.

Terrific post, American Joe, especially about the slave labor, etc. I will vote and vote democrat. We cannot go back to the policies that failed the American people; the GOP has not changed, they have not "seen the light" about deficit spending, their new Pledge is the same old pledge.

Independent? Yeah Right!

Kinda like listening to the violins while the ship sinks. Good job their "Mad Max"