Ron:

Great post to start the week. I was thinking along the same lines over the weekend watching some of hte Regan stuff on the news.

Lately we keep hearing more and more about President Regan and his “Conservatism”. By today’s GOP/Tea Party’s litmus test it would appear that he would not pass the test so why the idolization? Conservatives continue to idolize him as their way to deny the decline in the American Middle Class.

ThinkProgress has compiled a list of the top 10 things conservatives rarely mention when talking about President Reagan:

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/05/reagan-centennial/

1. Reagan was a serial tax raiser.

2. Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit.

3. Unemployment soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts.

4. Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously.

5. Reagan did little to fight a woman’s right to chose.

6. Reagan was a “bellicose peacenik.”

7. Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants.

8. Reagan illegally funneled weapons to Iran.

9. Reagan vetoed a comprehensive anti-Apartheid act.

10. Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden.

From the above article it is a fact that Mr. Regan while governor of CA. instituted the largest tax increase in history up to that point in time. While President of the USA, he increased taxes seven out of the eight years he was in office everything form gasoline, individual to corporate taxes. His only tax cut that he did in his first year resulted in huge drop in government revenues (he then followed it up with tax increases to try and offset the loses, which did not totally work) and during the Regan years the National Debt rose to almost 3 Trillion dollars. An increase larger than the first 80 years of the century combined. This is proof that President Regan was neither an anti-tax supporter nor that tax cuts increase revenues, just the opposite. In fact many of the tax increases were on the backs of the Middle Class and the economic divide has been increasing every since and that tax cuts reduce the revenue stream, hence increase the deficit (National Debt).

President Regan did not make the federal government smaller or decrease their spending in fact it had a dramatic increase. Also President Regan gave “amnesty” to over 3 Million Immigrants that came into this country prior to 1982 and lets us not forget the sales of Arms and Intelligence to Iran through Pakistan, which was illegal at the time, and ultimately lead to the rise of Osama Bin Laden.

Much ado about nothing!

Here’s some facts about St. Reagan conservatives fail to mention:

1. Reagan was a serial tax raiser.
2. 2. Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit.
3. Unemployment soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts.
4. Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously.

5. Reagan did little to fight a woman’s right to choose.

6. Reagan was a “bellicose peacenik.” He wrote in his memoirs that “[m]y dream…became a world free of nuclear weapons.”
7. Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants.
8. Reagan illegally funneled weapons to Iran.
9. Reagan vetoed a comprehensive anti-Apartheid act.
10. Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/05/reagan-centennial/

No doubt Ronnie’s rolling over in his grave at the antics of what’s passing as ‘conservative’ today!

Jelly Bean anyone?

Navy and Feisty:

Thanks for the back-up support. We were looking at the same article. Your comments are spot-on as well.

Good morning Feisty I hope you don't mind my taging along since I was gonaa say the same exact thing you, Ron Indiana and Navy. You guys know I posted those 10 things in the Week Ahead thread Staurday.

I like licorice jelly beans but not a Reagan-poolza.

No Tie(s)

Today Dick Cheney’s lament about the dictator Murbarak being a good friend of the United States and the Muslim Brotherhood to probably be a main talking point.

Never mind that the Egyptian people think otherwise and want him gone. In fact, Shahira Amin was a deputy head and a senior correspondent for Nile TV — a government-owned channel quit.. Multiple journalists for state-owned or government-aligned media have resigned or have refused to work after the government put pressure on them to sanitize the news or to not report on violence against demonstrators, several CPJ sources said. Shahira Amin, an anchor on the state-owned Nile TV channel, said on the air: “I refuse to be a hypocrite. I feel liberated.

Shahira Amin she also joined the protestors in the streets. Dick Cheney’s lament is typical since he defended the use of waterboarding on prisoners at Guantanamo Bay

Thinking, dang I missed the Bill O'Reilly interview yesterday, I probably wouldn’t get to see it without Fox-i-factions. You know how Fox likes to slash and dice the original content of things they don’t like to suit their slanted agenda. I was, however, able to find it online

I was very proud of our President. Bill tried to be courteous; however, that inherent bullying nature of his manifested. The President, being the No Drama Obama he is, would not allow Bill to raise his voice at him outside of retorting back in his usual classy manner. Oh, the willingness to intimidate. ; The politics of to intimidation. The President kicked Bill O’s butt right in front of Billo’s nose. Enough with that weak stuff wonder how Bill O liked that left jab. It’s simple the President is against the continuance of gross social and economic inequalities through institutionalized thievery

Also, the President forced Bill into admitting only 50% of the people aren't happy with the current HCR reform law totally contrasting Fox Noise’s always persistently telling the Fox-bots that the vast majority of Americans don't like it. I especially remember President Obama explaining that illness should not cause bankruptcy.
Certainly Bill thought his Fox Noise" tactics would work. Good on you Mr. President for taking the time to educate and clear up a lot of lies and distortions in an elegant manner.

Can you believe over in the reverberation machine at FOX NOISE they are all in a flutter because the President didn’t wear a TIE?

The righties will probably all plant their collective robotic lips on FOX NOISE’s @aa after reading or viewing this video because it’s ah, what’s that word again oh yeah, it’s racist. Indeed it is. So that's just the way it is.

[snip]

If you need any evidence of how Fox plans to report on this interview, just take a look at how Fox Nation is already framing it. Their "Pic of the Day" is a snapshot from the interview with a caption that says only "No Tie?" Apparently that's the most important thing that the Fox Nationalists derived from the interview. O'Reilly must be so proud. And just to tie a bow around the vile community that Fox cultivates, here is what they are saying about him in the comments section:

coinguy1945: Wha a pathetic looser Omammy is an illegal n-^#*r that need to be assaniated by a good patriot.

http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/

So When Glenn Beck rants about the economy and climate fueled by the Charles Koch and his brother, David have invested in think tanks and electoral politics it is a vast right wing conspiracy to take away freedom from the American middle and poor cases.

And when Sarah (™) compares President Obama to President Johnson it lets you know why there is a problem here. President Johnson gave us Medicare, Medicaid and the Civil Rights Act; Thank God!

The FR lefty liberals must be puking with all the coverage of Ronald Reagan’s 100^th birthday in the news for the last couple of days. And then Barry goes on Rill O’Reilly’s Fox News show. And today, Barry is going to hop into his really tricked out ride and motor on over to the Chamber of Commerce to give a speech. And, according to the Weekend WSJ, former PA governor and Philly mayor and DNC Chairman Ed Rendell is going to cash in on Wall Street by joining an investment banking firm as a senior advisor on public-private partnership deals.

OUCH!!!!

Looks like three of us read the same article.

Ron, Navy and Redhead...you have to get your act together. It seems that you are all wearing the same clothes.

Aren't you the same guys who complain about dittoheads and fauxnews talking points? I guess you've been outed.

Ron, Navy & Bev!

Great minds - think alike! ;o)

Why Alan, having a problem with the truth?

Joe in Albany,

Normally I ignore you mindless drivel, but today this caught my eye....The DNC Chairman is NOT Ed Rendell, but Tom Kaine, former Governor of Virginia. This type of posting makes the rest of what you have to spout suspect.

Good morning John B, Des Moines, IA

Alan usually does have a problem with the truth and so do his buds.

@Joe in Albany

The FR lefty liberals must be puking with all the coverage of Ronald Reagan’s 100^th birthday in the news for the last couple of days.

Of course, at least I am sick of the righties trying to white wash this man who had Alzheimer's while in the Oval Office and nearly tripled the deficit. Don't forget his propping up the Evil Empire, his support of apartheid and the Iran/Contra gate.

And then Barry goes on Rill O’Reilly’s Fox News show. And today, Barry is going to hop into his really tricked out ride and motor on over to the Chamber of Commerce to give a speech. And, according to the Weekend WSJ, former PA governor and Philly mayor and DNC Chairman Ed Rendell is going to cash in on Wall Street by joining an investment banking firm as a senior advisor on public-private partnership deals.

Why doesn't all in the fraud committed in the Right's fervent desire to continue to bloat the budget with no cuts in military spending including bombing Iran and keeping 1.3 trillion in Egypt.

Feisty:

I knew it would not take long for someone to ding us for reading the same article. They are just upset that their "Messiah" is not what they try and make him out to be. He was not the great "Conservative" President as they keep trying to portray him as.

Great post, Ron. Republicans have suffered budget deficit disorder since Reagan; deficits don't matter unless a democrat is president. Conservatives believe in tax cuts but unlike Reagan no longer understand that unless those tax cuts are temporary or result in spending cuts we are left with a country mired in debt. Reagan understood that in economic recessions, Government must deficit spend. President Obama understood that as well in 2009. Reagan was a pragmatist as is Obama; both men knew that to get things done, there must be a meeting in the middle. Reagan reached out to democrats; Obama reached out to conservatives. Compromise is a dirty word to today's conservatives so that "reaching out" was met with obstructionism and I doubt Reagan would have approved of the GOP from 2009 through 2010. Reagan would approve of President Obama's handling of the economic crisis, and foreign affairs. With the exception of George W. Bush, most democratic and republican presidents have had much more in common than not.

And, according to the Weekend WSJ, former PA governor and former Philly mayor and former DNC Chairman Ed Rendell is going to cash in on Wall Street by joining an investment banking firm as a senior advisor on public-private partnership deals.

Happy now, GBM??

"Aren't you the same guys who complain about dittoheads and fauxnews talking points? I guess you've been outed."

Now, THAT'S FUNNY.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Excellent, Ron, and good morning.

I have no problem with you reading the same article. I find it funny when you add no original thoughts to it, while at the same time decry the same behavior from posters who regurgitate Fox News.

It also funny because it looks like you are using Reagan to justify come of the actions of the Obama administration. Only last year you were using Bush as the justification. I am more interested in you explaining the administration's policy in Egypt and how we are going to reduce the deficit with no tax increase for the middle class and no cuts in SS/Medicare or defense rather than some lame top 10 list on an administration that occurred 30 years ago.

I can understand the marking of Reagan's' 100th birthday, but as I posted earlier I wish republicans would stop having to claim his mantle just as liberals should stop looking for the next JFK.

We are in a different time with different issues. It's time for us to come up with solutions that match the times, not hanker to the past.

Good Morning Anna Molly:

Congratulations on those Packers!! It's OK to celebrate in the endzone without penalty.

LoL Ron. That's about the only penalty they got yesterday.

Don't worry -- I assure you I'm celebrating in my own way, and thanks.

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

3. Unemployment soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts.

Navy, had to comment on the unemployment from 1981, there were 2 things that happened that caused the rate to shoot up that year, first the tax cuts he gave, the businesses that got them use the money to move jobs of the US to Japan and South Korea, middle wage jobs. steel workers, Auto workers. south works Mill on the south side of Chicago employed 2thousandworkers in 1979 by 1893 the mill was closed and the pension funds broke, along with mills in northwest Indiana, Pittsburgh, Ohio. like i said navy these jobs have NEVER COME BACK!!!

Second we should have leaned then that tax cuts don't create jobs, the cuts were passes in 1981, the rate peaked to 9.7% in 1982, did not get below 7% which was still high till 1986. Navy we sat with unemployment rates above 8% for 3 years but no one wants to remember that, Reagan was re-elected with unemployment above 8% in 1984. that was the highest rate in a election years since 1936when a incombent won re-election the rate was 16.9%.

Every body want to know why we have fallen so far in education, it was Reagan, he stopped providing the same funding levels every Republicans president since Hoover did. republicans before himknew the value of a strong public education but with Reagan beating the Russians was more important that how well johnny could read.

Gingerbread Mamma

I believe Joe said former DNC Chairman and I think that is correct. 2000 Presidential election.

Those who support the president and hate the late Ronald Reagan may be missing something very important about president Obama...he is a true FAN...

President Obama hailed former President Ronald Reagan on what would have been the Mr. Reagan’s 100th birthday. In an op-ed in USA Today, Mr. Obama said credit is due the Republican president for the steps he took to end the cold war, but he focused most on Mr. Reagan’s general outlook: “At a time when our nation was going through an extremely difficult period, with economic hardship at home and very real threats beyond our borders, it was this positive outlook, this sense of pride, that the American people needed more than anything,” Mr. Obama wrote.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/07/best-political-quotes-of-the-weekend-3/?partner=rss&emc=rss

...But as the conversation progressed, it became clear to several in the room that Obama seemed less interested in talking about Lincoln's team of rivals or Kennedy's Camelot than the accomplishments of an amiable conservative named Ronald Reagan, who had sparked a revolution three decades earlier when he arrived in the Oval Office. Obama and Reagan share a number of gifts but virtually no priorities. And yet Obama was clearly impressed by the way Reagan had transformed Americans' attitude about government. The 44th President regarded the 40th, said one participant, as a vital "point of reference." Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan's diaries and attended the May dinner, left with a clear impression that Obama had found a role model. "There are policies, and there is persona, and a lot can be told by persona," he says. "Obama is approaching the job in a Reaganesque fashion."

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2044579,00.html

President Ronald Reagan, who would have turned 100 on Sunday, has long been a hero without equal among Republicans. But the 40th president has more recently been adopted as a kind of patron saint by the country's leading Democrat.

President Obama has immersed himself in Reaganalia: He's written a USA Today op-ed praising Reagan for understanding the American people's hunger for change. He read Lou Cannon's biography of Reagan over Christmas break. And on Jan. 25 he gave a State of the Union address that many thought echoed the optimistic vision of the Great Communicator himself.

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/04/133499514/what-obama-is-learning-from-reagans-example

I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3263

I have tempered my assessment of the Reagan Presidency, but President Obama seems to have always held him in the highest esteem.

Jeff 154...:

Thank you for making it clearer for me, I appreciate the feedback and the facts well said.

In other words, according to the list of Reagan's accomplishments you guys list, Reagan, as a former Democrat, obviously held alot of his liberal ideology crap close. I dont know what you guys are complaining about then.

I do no like the fact that "young conservatives" look to Reagan as inspiration. Yes, Reagan provided a jolt to the Republican base but over time, conservatives were less than enamored over Reagan's policies.

The liberals here complain that the Republicans acted too much like the left in the big government expansion since Reagan. Then complain when the Tea Party comes along to correct this. Whats it gonna be?? I have never seen a bunch of people as wishy washy and today's liberals.

Of course, at least I am sick of the righties trying to white wash this man who had Alzheimer's while in the Oval Office

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

I thought that was true too...but it is not. Here is Reagan speaking at Oxford University in 1992 TWO YEARS after leaving office...

http://c-span.org/Events/Ronald-Reagan39s-1992-Address-at-Oxford-University/10737419324/

Gingerbread Mamma

Joe in Albany,

Normally I ignore you mindless drivel, but today this caught my eye....The DNC Chairman is NOT Ed Rendell, but Tom Kaine, former Governor of Virginia. This type of posting makes the rest of what you have to spout suspect.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

FYI-

Edward Gene "Ed" Rendell (pronounced /rɛnˈdɛl/; born January 5, 1944) is an American politician who served as the 45th Governor of Pennsylvania. Rendell, a member of the Democratic Party, was elected Governor of Pennsylvania in 2002, and his term of office began January 21, 2003. He was recently a member of the Democratic Governors Association Executive Committee, and also served as General Chairman of the Democratic National Committee during the 2000 presidential election. Rendell is also a football analyst on Comcast SportsNet's Eagles Postgame Live, hosted by Michael Barkann.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Rendell

A number of good posts de-bunking the Reagan myths. I followed that weasel throught his political career and as one of the righties above said, probably Joe in Albany, I indeed puked at the obsequies Sarah Who? and the others delivered about the MOST CORRUPT PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY, RONALD REAGAN.

Reagan's corruption took flight after the devastating Republican losses of 1976. He toured the country for years, making alliances with the fundamentalist Christian right, tying up with Libertarian economists, resurrecting old friendships with ultra-right Goldwater Republicans and making peace of sorts with the proto-anarchist John Birch Society. Over those years, Reagan made promise after promise that he didn't keep - and his erstwhile election allies of 1980 came to despise him for failures to stick to his so-called "principles." This is the person Sarah Who? emulates?

During the 1979-81 Iranian hostage crisis, Reagan violated American law and honored custom by secretly making deals with the Iranians for arms and aid if they would kindly prolong and worsen the crisis at least through the November, 1980, elections to improve his chances of success. This was open treason and betrayal of trust.

An hour after Reagan completed his Inauguration on Jan. 20, 1981, the hostrages landed at a North African airport. As time later showed, in violation of the law and Constitutional restrictions on his authority, Reagan paid off the iranians. And he kept paying off terrorists despite American law and the obvious failure of his tactics.

Within weeks of the inauguration, his National Security Advisor was discovered lobbying for some former overseas clients - and ultimately was imprisoned, only the first of many high-level White House officials and Cabinet members who earned vacations at the Gray Bar Hotel in the Reagan Administration. The President's long-time political advisor, Lyn Nofziger, ultimately joined that sorry stream of Reagan Scoundrels, too.

One of the most horrible of all of Reagan's many vile legacies to this nation was his de-regulation campaign. This ultimately set up the savings & loan scandal - and vastly expensive bailout of retirees ruined by it, for the sake of an election victory - the WorldCom and Enron scandals, the ruin of independent trucking as a viable business in America, the dismantling of major components of the American energy infrastructure, collapse of some of the oldest and best-run airlines in history, and at base, the global economic crisis yet afflicting us all.

A major reason that health care costs have ballooned over the decades while overall quality of medical care delivery has declined is Reagan's restructuring of that sector beginning in 1981.

And who of us watching the stock market in 1988 can forget the day the market crashed? It was, until the George W. Bush Regime sought to out-do Reagan in terms of imcompetence and arrogance, the worst single day in the history of Wall Street since the Great Crash of 1929.

Not a day goes by, now, that America doesn't feel yet the legacy of Ronald Reagan. The country will be decades undoing the wreckage of his happy-face presidency, the one with a smiling mask over a corpus of rot.

Yes, President Obama admires Ronald Reagan for much but he always stated he disagreed with most of his domestic policies. I liked Reagan but hated his domestic policies; I found his demonization of Government hypocritical since his policies were pro-big government. In addition, it was Reagan who began the systematic demonization of worker unions and also the decline of the middle class--Reagan's domestic policies were not good for America's long-term future; his policies were short-sighted.

As for Altzheimers, his testimony before Congress about Iran Contra was proof that he had the beginnings of it. In fact, it was subject of discussion by the media back then. We often saw little glimmers in public when he seemed confused and words failed him. Altzheimers does not suddenly make a person forget everything. It is gradual with temporary memory loss and occasional confusion followed by long periods of normal behavior. This accounts for Reagan's occasional lapses, such as one of his last campaign debates where he seemed unable to communicate his thoughts yet the next debate he did great.

Ron,

As I have stated before, I enjoy your comments, today's comments again represent the best of the left.

And as you you no doubt know, I have a slightly different perspective.

Reagan did and Obama does dream of world peace. Reagan however believed in peace through strength, Obama believes in appeasement. Reagan called the Soviets the Evil Empire and thought a nuclear policy of mutual destruction was asinine. He called for Star Wars, a missile defense system. Obama not only unilaterally diminished our capability, he compromised our ability to defend ourselves as well as sold out our best and oldest ally, the UK. Reagan would have been abhorred by this. (Honesty check - the Republicans that voted for START are every bit as culpable.)

I think historical perspective is very important in several ways when discussing the two Presidents. The old sayings about; that those that ignore the past are condemned to repeat it; fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice shame on me.......

Reagan made mistakes; from spending to the Marine barracks bombing to amnesty...... but I feel he learned from these mistakes - I don't have the feeling that Obama has learned and is ignoring history's lessons. Amnesty for illegals is the perfect example. It was mistake, the can was kicked, and we have 4 times the problem now. You can frame the debate by the military/education "work" path to citizenship (very small part of the problem / the camels nose), but Obama wants the Hispanic vote locked up and every camel and his mother knows amnesty is the ultimate goal. Reagan would not fall for this nonsense again.

History also applies to the liberal refrain and disparagement of Reagan of helping the mujaheddin. That was a different tim with different circumstances. Funny, the left never marginalizes FDR for all the support to the Soviet Union during WW II.

We can go on and on, they were/are both great communicators and even somewhat of political romanticist, but they were fundamentally and ideologically at different ends of the spectrum.

Obama came out during the financial crisis and said only government can fix the problem, he believes that government can fix all of our ills, that government is the solution .....

Reagan believed that government was not the solution to the problems, it was the source of the problems....

Considering that big government brought us the financial crisis, can not fix the crisis; the housing market, GM take-over to push cars that sell for $41,000 while costing $40,000.00 and giving rich corporations $7,500.00 of tax payer money to buy them; paying rich corporations to grow corn for Ethanol dreams that even Al Gore doesn't believe in while driving the cost for FOOD through the roof; the wanton destruction of our energy industry which will sky rocket the cost of everything and cost jobs for some nebulous dream that has an absurd notion of benefit somewhere in the future......

Pretty big difference. BTW - Reagan is right about the role of government.

Thanks for your comments Ron.

Gotta Love the Hate on this blog.

Jody - thanks for picking up that bit about Obama and Reagan. There had been considerable analysis on this last week, in advance of the centenary. In fact, it is really pretty consistent with Presidential traditions since FDR that the present officeholders both look back upon, and then are influenced by, their predecessors. Specifically, both Obama and Reagan looked not just to recent predecessors, but the man who set the style for all of them - Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

William Leuchtenburg, In the Shadow of FDR, makes a detailed and illuminating study of the phenomenon.

Leuchtenburg was especially fascinated by the way in which Reagan looked to Roosevelt for overall approaches to political management and public expression. It appears, at least from this study, the "Great Communicator" was in effect just a "Great Imposter," for he lifted methodology almost wholesale from Roosevelt.

Obama, in examining the style of Reagan, is also in fact learning from Grand Master Roosevelt.

So here's the irony: Reagan's policies sought to unravel the achievements of the New Deal and later progressive administrations. President Obama today is restoring many of them and making them relevant to current social, economic and political circumstances.

Joe In Albany -

"Puking" about all the coverage of Reagan? Hardly. As a history fan, I happen to think the 100th anniversary of just about anything is kind of interesting, and a good point at which to look back and gain some perspective. Admittedly, "perspective" often tends to get lost in the current 24/7 news cycle or in the political blogosphere where we all love to shoot first and then read up on what we were yapping about later, but I think it still has a lot of value. Do you plan to be puking in a few years when it's JFK's 100th birthday? Or will you just enjoy it for what it is - a chance to look back and re-examine the myths as well as the facts?

As for Ed Rendell, I'm not sure how much time he'll really have to be an adviser in an investment banking firm, since he will also be working as a political consultant for NBC and MSNBC, he's in the process of writing his autobiography, he's rejoined his old Philadelphia law firm as a partner, he's also going to be consulting for some non-profit groups, and according to the Philadelphia Inquirer, he's also has taken a part-time job as a visiting fellow with the Brookings Institution, the Washington-based think tank. And oh, yeah, he's going to be writing a weekly sports column for the Philadelphia Daily News. And even at that, I'm sure he'll find time to speak at any event that includes free hoagies, cheesesteaks and Tastykakes. None of this is news to anyone in the Philadelphia area, where he wasn't known as "Fast Eddie" for nothing. I guess I'm just not sure why his taking on yet another part-time job "news" anywhere else, either.

P.S. - President Obama also did an interview with O'Reilly in addition to whoever this "Barry" guy is you mentioned. So I guess that means we can expect John Boehner or Sarah Palin to be interviewed by Rachel Maddow any minute, right?

Bob:

You make a good point about historical perspectives and indeed these are different times. In a not so subtle way I wanted to point out that President Reagan was not that conservative and President Obams is not a socialist. It seems to me what has changed the most is the sharp right turn taken by the GOP/TP. It does trouble me when ideology trumps working for the good of the American people.

To Maggie and Dangerfield,

Joe of Albany's post was poorly written. I am well aware who Ed Rendell is and that he is not the current Chairman of DNC as the sentance indicated. Joe 'writes' so poorly I usually dont read his posts but as phrased, it read the opposite of what he intended.....rather like his usual postings unintelligble, he keeps rambling about some Barry person, none of it makes sense.

"In several ways Obama is more conservative than Reagan. Wonder what it would be like if Obama were a Republican?"

Ron- It'll never happen. Couldn't happen. Obama couldn't EVER be a Republican! After all, Obama is a......well.......er.......you know- comunity organizer!

Drive by:

There you go again...Thinking.

Ron,

Speaking of historical perspective and terms such as conservative / socialist, funny the founding Dads, the principles of which are held so strictly and dearly by conservatives, were actually the liberals of their day.

Socialist? It's pretty relevent also. The reality is that America has become somewhat of a socialistic democracy. The conservatives want to typically push back, liberals want to push it forward. Obama? He was graded to the left of Bernie Sanders (an avowed socialist) in 2007. Did he change his core values and beliefs - I don't think so, but maybe it is just me.

GOP/TP? I think the GOP has drifted quite a way from the principles of Reagan / founders, McCain is the perfect example. He was always a centrist, he moved to the right after 2008, got re-elected in 2010, and has already moved back to the left. McCain is a professional politician.

In your last response to me, (sorry I wasn't able to get back to you, and thanks for responding) you mentioned capitalism and the inherent problem of greed. That is very true. But, the definition of greed is the overwhelming desire for more of something, such as money, but also applies to power, stature, etc. In this sense, I think it also applies to politics. The greed of power and stature.

The problem with big government is this power. It feels good, as politicians, to change things, to make it a better world, to be important as opposed to just managing, care taking. The financial crisis is the perfect example. As politicians it felt great to be able to put more Americans in homes, realize the American dream and they tried to socially engineer that while ignoring the realities of economics. Never works when that happens.

There are fundamentals, principles. The Constitution. When the right stays close to those unique principles that built the country, they do better and I believe the Country does as well.

Sharp right turn? I believe Reagan would embrace the TP more than the McCains and Grahams of the GOP.

Just one opinion. Thanks for the exchange Ron.

GBM: Have you considered that my "poor writing skills", are really your poor reading comprehension skills?

Bob (long number) wrote:

Speaking of historical perspective and terms such as conservative / socialist, funny the founding Dads, the principles of which are held so strictly and dearly by conservatives, were actually the liberals of their day.

Socialist? It's pretty relevent also. The reality is that America has become somewhat of a socialistic democracy. The conservatives want to typically push back, liberals want to push it forward. Obama? He was graded to the left of Bernie Sanders (an avowed socialist) in 2007. Did he change his core values and beliefs - I don't think so, but maybe it is just me.

GOP/TP? I think the GOP has drifted quite a way from the principles of Reagan / founders, McCain is the perfect example. He was always a centrist, he moved to the right after 2008, got re-elected in 2010, and has already moved back to the left. McCain is a professional politician.

Bob, although some of the Founders were indeed the "liberals" of their day, most historical analyses in general consider the American Revolution's leadership relatively conservative businessmen for whom the struggle was a means of protecting their self-interest. Of course, in Charles and Mary Beard's "New History" school of thought that was especially so, but they were almost Marxists and had quite a biased opinion.

When you look at the original Articles of Confederation, which set governance of the country in 1783, you in fact see the antecedents of the Confederacy, as well as many of the points expressed by Libertarians and the Tea Party today.

But lessons from the failure of that government went straight into the drafting of the Constitution. So, also, and more significantly, did the perspectives of men who were of their age - the age of British colonial imperialism. Their formative years were spent working within that system, and it both taught them vital principles, as well as what they did NOT want to replicate in the new government.

Consider: Britain of 1688 - 1776 was the world's most advanced development ground for a modern nation-state. When the "Glorious Revolution" set William II and Mary on the throne as co-regents, it was with express agreement for a Constitutional monarchy with many powers reserved by Parliament, especially that of public finance. Within 10 years, Britain had a new, and immature but developing, system of state finance built on a permanent national debt administered both by the government and by nits leading creditor, the new Bank of England. That system succeeded in financing a full century of warfare without bankrupting England (as the same era of warfare ultimetely destroyed Spain and France, financially and politically).

In that same era, from the religious policy-driven conflicts between Establishment Chuch Tories and dissenter privilge-promoting Whigs grew political parties allied not only by concepts of state ties to churches but also to different business factions. At the same time, while functional national policies supporting a mercantilist economis system reigned supreme in Great Britain through at lest the American War of Independence, there arose at the same time a new vision of government and business relationships named "liberal" by Edumnd Burke. It emphasized that a state supporting interests of capital at home and abroad, with much freedom of action by the business interests, was more productive than a hevy-handed state control of business as practiced in France. And there was much, much more at work ian the UK and the colonies that influenced the founders - including the growth of a concept that a franchise existed apart from the hereditary aristocracy and nbility.

Why, then, a Republic? Why, then, a system that specifically rejected any form of hereditary aristocracy?

Part of the answer is that when the social and political divide began turning critical, after the wars of the 1750's, the aristocrats were the arm of authority from the Mother Country, while the dissidents were of the merchant class, protecting their interests and joined by the laboring classes. This was an expression of the same discontent felt in the United Kingdom by their social and economic counterparts, many of whom sympathized with the rebellious colonists, in opposition to the upper-class nobility.

Something to keep in mind is that the Founding Fathers were, at best, relcutant Republicans (not the party, the pirnciple). They worried extensively about the belief of the time that republics were only suitable for small countries (such as Switzerland or Holland, which had at the time of the Revolution devolved to a constitutional monarchy on top of an oligacrhic republic). Republican sentiments among British subjects of the 1700's were fulfilled by the evolution of the state appartus below the king, and tainted most thoroughly by memories of the Cromwell interrgnum.

When the Constitution was under construction, the fathers looked over their shoulders at the British system, in which a court system operated mainly to suppress the lower classes, punish criminals and debtors, and silence critics. The highest court of appeal was the aristocracy sitting as the House of Lords. That parliamentary system represented a "fusion of powers" of the separate estates of government.

But several of the founders were well-informed about the leading Enlightenment and Encyclopedia political theorist, France's Montesquieu, who had written at length about a government with "separation of powers." He emphasized a completely independent judiciary.

The vagueness of the Constitution was intentional. As opposed to the ideology of strict literalists, the argument of a fairly open framework for the Constitution allows for development adaptable to circumstances or embraced by custom. One other person who posts here often has observed that nowhere does the Constitution actually tell the Supreme court to rule on whether any standard is Constitution - it was a position asserted in the Marshall Court in Marbury vs. Madison. After all, at some stage there must be an ultimate arbiter of Constitutionality. If each separate branch has unrestrained powers to individually interpret and apply the Constitution, then the Constitution itself loses its authority over the branches.

We saw this under Reagan and G.W. Bush. Bush simply interpreted things to favor himself and ignored legislation he had just signed into law.

The Founding Fathers had no problem using state intervention in the economy, a la the mercanlistic state. Much of the Constitution reflected the requirements of a large, spead-out nation with no speedy communications, few improved roads, and transportation limited to muscle power or sailing vessels. The concept of citizen participation still leaned on a man of property, answering to the leadership of local opinion-leaders, usually successful business persons. This is detailed wonderfully in Michael Schudson's fine study, The Good Citizen: A History of American Civic Life.

Formal capitalism slowly emerged to become a more mature economic conept by the time of Andrew Jackson. His laissez nous faire principles were the principal working philosophy of American public institutions until the late 1800's when American government and private industry became more entiwined under President William McKinley. Again, the fundamental political vision of Libertarians and the Tea Party ideologues looks back to jacksonian Democracy with longing, and a promise of ultimate frustration since their romanticized vision is not a view of the ctual reality of those times.

bob, your comments about the drifts between right, center and left are interesting. I observed between 1970 and 1988 a marked shift to the right, even if Reagan did not necessarily keep all the promises he made to the Christian Right and the Libertarians running up to the 1980 election. While the reality was different, the rhetoric was straight out of their playbooks, and influence overall public attitudes. What is "left" to many today was "center" before Reagan.

As for socialism, in my view we are a long, long way from a "social democrat" political posture. Actual "socialism" does not exist here. It's far too much to now add a discussion of Medicare, Social Security, or even general relief and what is left of welfare to the post - but they aren't "socialism." They are not, by reason of definitions inherent in the programs and in the fundamental concept of "socialism." Only by the lights of those who see things as "I've got mine, go get your own and let me be," could any of those programs be even considered tainted with "socialistic" aspects. Since those persons opt out of membership in a national community, there is no discussion with them anyhow.

Bob and Ron...excellent analysis of what a right vs left discussion should be. I should take heed also and temper my criticisms of some people on here and be more argumentive and less insulting.

I know people are complaining about the cutting affecting pivotal programs that many Americans have come to rely on. But I dont see us having any choice. I feel we either do it now while we still have choices or be forced to engage in serious austerity later.

I particularly dont understand some on the left who complained about the Republicans acting more like yourselves in the past (such as the criticisms of Bush expanding government, and thats a very valid criticism I share as well). Then they complain when the Tea Party urges on the GOP to actually reverse course.

Also I do not understand the left saying Europe has this and Europe has that so we should, like the healthcare issue. America was founded on this great idea that was unlike any others at the time. We rose to prominence doing our own thing. We never did feel we had to follow other country's leads on anything. We got where we are doing it our way. Now all those countries are failing and we are supposed to do what they are doing? I'm sorry but I just flabbergasted at what some people are pushing us to be.

I would figure if we are going to learn anything from these countries, its what NOT to do.

John A.,

Thanks for the time and effort - really interesting stuff.

I will certainly look for your comments in the future and pay more careful attention. Thanks again.

AZCHzhd,

Yea, it is kind of fun to get away from the usual stuff. Ron used to lead off more often in the past, Louis and others aren't quite in the same league and wish Ron and John A. would take lead more often.

You mentioned the tempering of criticism. it's easy for it to get out of check, huh. Yea I try too, actually just try to give the beneift of doubt, skip a bunch of stuff and reserve it for those that ask for it. Hard to do.

Enjoy your comments, pretty much a ditto most of the time.

Thanks for your comments.

And thanks again to Ron - maybe we can turn some of this around.

Bob and AZChzhd - thanks to both of you, too. I have no trouble getting into a flaming political battle, had very early training in that when growing up with a fractious family. However, this kind of exchange is more productive, especially if we avoid "code words" that tend to obscure communication.

AZ, your remark about not emulating things European is echoed often around the country. It was probably best articulated by G.W. Bush, who basically flipped Europe the bird in 2002. I offer a more pragmatic opinion for your consideration.

Here are some examples:

- Before Ronald Reagan took on "trickle down" economic policies, led by huge tax cuts (in 1981) for the wealthy, Germany had done the same thing. It wasn't long before those cuts were eliminated, because Germany found out that the savings realized were not employed in building up businesses or expanding payrolls. They were used for luxury goods and other means of adding to personal wealth, instead.

In this matter, Germany was an experimental test bed for identical policies advocated by Reagan, and both Bushes. The lesson was available for free - that policy does not work. But instead, we said, "The heck with what Europeans do, we always know better than they." Oops, that was a costly and unfortunate expression of "pride in our own ignorance."

And please note, that in this matter there is no functional difference between doing something "the European way" and a different "American way." It isn't a matter open to the cultural, social, political, or ethical influences of the different places. So that's one kind of topic that Americans could look to if the Europeans have already tried and either succeeded or failed.

- Health care insurance or its equivalent is almost universal in European countries, each with its own version of implementation. In this subject area, both government systems and political environment, along with the structure of individual national economies, makes a very, very big impact on how each health care program is carried out. So to raise your question, why bother looking at Europe? Just do it ourselves the American way!

At the moment, truthfully, there IS no "American way" for offering virtually universal health care. The closest we have gotten in our entire history is Medicare, but that's been limited to seniors, the disabled, and a small select additional group of people in demonstrated need. Under the ACA enacted last year, the country is staggering forward, but almost everyone agrees that adjustments are necessary as that program unfolds. To the extent that the current form of the ACA is "the American way," almost everyone agrees it just ain't there yet.

(NOTA BENE: There is a segement of the population that thinks "the American way" is what we had prior to passage of the ACA and that no change was justifiable or needed. As noted in another context, for those who feel no change was supportable, there is no dialogue here, they have opted out of the discussion.)

So peering across "the pond" to Europe, are there any potential hints or examples that have been successful that might be adaptable to our specific political, economic, cultural and social conditions? Can we profit from others' experience without somehow demeaning ourselves or admitting we're not so dang clever, after all?

I rather believe that it is more clever of Americans to cherry-pick any useful information we encounter anywhere - there might even be some really helpful hints for folk now frozen in the upper Midwest, if they care to look at how the native peoples of Tierra del Fuego survive the near-constant winter of that region.

In the case of the various European health care programs, we can quickly see that neither England nor France actually offer us useful models. Their systems are structurally too different from that of the U.S. They offerexamples in some cases of what NOT to do, but honestly overall they should suggest to thoughtful people that a universal health care program makes sense on many levels.

On the other hand, Germany again may prove quite helpful. The German program involves the services of private insurance companies. It maintains a private health care delivery system. iI covers every person in the country - citizens or not, as long as they are legally there, with very few exceptions. It has been developed and adjusted over a long time. I worked in West Berlin in 1966, a factory hand then, and got very sick while there (eventually hospitalized near death). The German health care program applied to me, even as a temporary worker in the post-war wirtschaftswunder, or "economic miracle." So I know from personal experience that program delivers. And from recent study I believe the more-evolved current German structure for implementing health care coverage is highly-congruent with American requirements.

AZ, if we can abvoid costly, time-wasting experiments of our own because of the experiences of others, heck yeah, let's lift those ideas. A famous American capitalist long ago said, "The best ideas are always worth stealing."

"American exceptionalism" has been a hobble on this nation for a long time. Bush pursued it proudly and it has cost America billions and thousands of lives in wars. Even in WWII, it cost this country dearly, for at least in tactical terms Americans refused to adopt many of the lessons learned by our Allies in prior years of war. That cost us ships, sailors, supplies, aircraft, soldiers, and prestige. It prolonged agony. And it was an unnecessary act of arrogance - we had learned precisely the same lesson when the doughboys reached the bloody battlefields of France in WWI.

There's nothing wrong with being so clever that we let someone else pay the price of hard lessons and then go on to improve on their experience.

Don't forget that it's also been a long-term strategy of Conservative Republicans to introduce measures they KNOW won't pass, or if passed won't be found constitutionally valid. Many of them have no real intent to do much of anything about abortion. If they did it wouldn't be there to whip the Social Conservative base into a one issue frenzy.

John B.;

Very good point, thank you.

Enjoyed your post, US Navy. Reagan was not pro-women or pro-worker for that matter.

First of all, not to disrespect Regan, but he is not 100 yrs old, this would indicate that he is still alive. Aren't people remembered on the from the day that they pasted away.I think Christan's call this a mass.

Secondly, truce my @ss, this country has always experienced sectionalism. Good luck, trying to fix something that can't be fixed.

Thank you Nate - when you pass on from Planet Earth, you are dead.........life stops as does age.

Sectionalism has always been around and always will be around. It is politics - it is what keep 535 people, their staffs and lobbyists working. If 535 people decided one day to correct problems, they could. Some people may not like the results, but life would go on.

There are many items that can be fixed in government, but first we need to look our legislator in they eye, and laugh to deflate their self-improtance. Then let's get down to business.

Louis J

Very true, and now the WMD'S. Are we going to see aerial views of suspected tankers again. Same old same old the media playing on the fears of the masses to push an agenda.

Rather boring post Louis. I am amazed at how you place value to your opinions. But your minions concurr your believe structure.

Many stood with Barry Obama, and now they are falling.

Absolutely, Navy: what excuse can there possibly be for Ginni Thomas and her lobbying, and Clarence Thomas with his refusal to list his wife's lobbying salary on forms that require it? Where is the outrage about this? If you are asked for spouse's income on a form, and you put zero or ignore it, what is that but a lie? It is time to look at impeachment for Thomas if he does not recuse himself. But that would require honesty from the House Republicans, something we know they are incapable of. If you would be outraged about this if a more liberal judge and his wife were involved in these activities, you have to be equally outraged about this.

I guess I'm not the only one to notice that the "appearance of conflict of interest" standard only applies to Liberals these days, while Conservatives like Thomas, Alito, and Scalia feel free to openly sneer at those who would seek to apply the same standard to Conservatives.

I'm waiting for our right wing friends to be honest about it, John B.

NDD:

I agree. You point out a very important point in that the rules (what ever they may be) are selectively applied by the politicians and pundits. Cut Spending and reduce the deficit was their campaign rhetoric, but then give a massive tax break that does nothing to stimulate the economy nor does it create substantially any jobs, to the top 2%.

NDD.....we know that is not going to happen...honesty, ethics, etc. that doesn't apply to them. This latest news on Ginni Thomas and her ethically challenged husband is so egregious. Time for him to step down, he has never had any usefulness other than to side with Scalia.

And if there is any honesty on the right, Gingerbread Mamma; they have to admit how bad this situation is.

Gingerbread Mamma

This latest news on Ginni Thomas and her ethically challenged husband is so egregious. Time for him to step down, he has never had any usefulness other than to side with Scalia.

I think Clarence Thomas' wife Ginny, the stallion of the Tea Party, has put Uncle Thomas in a mental strait jacket.

He is in a bind and like you said honesty and ethics does not exist.

Poor Justice Thomas

Thomas has a choice, and he has thus far refused to make it. He and his wife come to some agreement that her activities cause trouble for him and any appearance of impropriety that he has an obligation to, or he compromise and start recusing himself from those cases that might benefit them as a couple by remuneration. He has done neither, and if the House Republicans had any honesty and long term concern for the respect that the Supreme Court should have in this country, if Thomas does not step down, he should be impeached.

I consciously did not watch MTP this week because I didn't want to watch Peggy Noonan lionizing Ronald Reagan. One of the things I personally remember of the Reagan years was the incredible increase in homelessness. All of a sudden, it seemed like there were armies of people sleeping in the streets and the pop culture was full of references to volunteers handing out sandwiches to panhandlers. I don't ever remember such a thing before Reagan took office and cut social services. We have grown used to the idea of homelessness, but, before Reagan, I don't remember there being such high numbers of destitute people.

I agree NDD, anything in regards to issues, he rules on will be suspect. A supreme court justice should be above reproach no matter what his political leanings, otherwise it is just a farce. This branch of government is the final arbiter of many very important issues that will impact all our lives, and we are illserved when final decisions are made by a justice who is less than honest in doing so.

Honesty does not appear to be Clarence Thomas's strong suit, that alone is evident from his not disclosing over a period of six years his wife's a six figure salary she received from conservative groups she worked for. It is disturbing to me that so little was made of this by the so called MSM and now she has announced she will be a lobbiest for conservative causes. I guess that only happens when a Dem slips up. Talk about a double standard.

I, for one, want him off the court and failure to do that, he should be impeached. Justice Roberts amazes me that he is willing to let this charlatan sully the good name of the Court.

Great point, Navy, the GOPTP cannot have it both ways. Senator Hatch is playing to the TP, afraid of a primary challenge. It seems these guys simply cannot tell the TP and other right-wing extremist groups where to go--fear, it permeates the GOP.

Citizens United case, Justice Thomas did not recuse himself despite his wife's lobbying efforts just prior to the decision, coincidence? Not likely. As for Justice Roberts, he is part of the problem.

They cannot help themselves, Bill. They are caught in the Svengali-like thrall of Obama's awesomeness.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/48940.html

The author seems to think that the poor, misguided fools who comprise the Fourth Estate are helpless victims of machinations they are too innocent to even suspect.

Somehow, I give them more credit. I think they know full well what they are dealing with, and are willing conspirators.

Do they fully comprehend the end result of this administration's failures? Nope. They live in the same ivory tower, where reality never intrudes.

The restmof the country pays the consequences.

Bill, Farfax VA:

Smell test? So tell us FR, where are the jobs? Dow 12,0000? Check. Big corporate profits? Check. Robust job growth? Nope. Why are companies sitting on so much cash and not deploying it and thereby creating jobs? Could a teeny tiny reason be that corporate America views Obama as anti-business?

Webster's Dictionary could use the above paragraph as a perfect example of a non sequitur -- a conclusion that does not follow from the premise. The stock market surged and the big corporations made huge profits, therefore President Obama is anti-business. Uh, huh. Sure.

Bill, Fairfax VA

So tell us FR, where are the jobs? Dow 12,0000? Check. Big corporate profits? Check. Robust job growth? Nope. Why are companies sitting on so much cash and not deploying it and thereby creating jobs?

Why do you ask FR a question and then answer it with your own lying right wing slant?

Perhaps, Bill, it's because they believe that Obama can't be re-elected unless unemployment goes down, and they want to defeat him a lot more than they care about creating jobs. They've figured out how to make money without creating jobs, and they have no incentive to do it.

You have, Bill, and perhaps unwittingly, exposed the great repubican lie: handing the rich large sums of money does NOT create jobs. And since they have no other ideas for job creation, we can expect things to stay pretty much the same.

Thanks, Bill, for reinforcing so neatly exactly what I've been trying to say for the past two weeks.

And while we're savoring the penetrating insights provided to us daily by FR, let's chew on this one:

Of course, she [Palin] does what many partisan media critics do: use some outlier opinion/activist media slight to attempt to define the entire practicing MSM.

So tell us, would FR qualify as an "outlier" operation? After all, you guys make a lot of hay by going out of your way to bash Palin. Or would the allegedly professional journalists at FR prefer to characterize themselves as being part of the MSM? Just askin'.

And while we're savoring the penetrating insights provided to us daily by FR, let's chew on this one:

Of course, she [Palin] does what many partisan media critics do: use some outlier opinion/activist media slight to attempt to define the entire practicing MSM.

So tell us, would FR qualify as an "outlier" operation? After all, you guys make a lot of hay by going out of your way to bash Palin. Or would the allegedly professional journalists at FR prefer to characterize themselves as being part of the MSM? Just askin'.

Bill, why are you here then??? Just asking.

no joe, no bo, nj

I was thinking last week how you often accuse me of having a "Tiger Beat" crush on Obama, and I must admit, guilty as charged.(I actually teared up when I got his family's New Years card and it said "from my family to yours.") I put the Obamas' picture up on my refrigerator next to my own adorable nephew's photo-card. Is it silly? Yes, kinda. My co-worker went to one of his rallies and she posted photos of him on her facebook from that rally. The pictures are really captivating, in a Tiger Beat kind of way, the man is handsome, graceful and expressive and I just enjoy the fact he is OUR President. I had eight years of hating of President Bush, mind you, and that takes a toll on a person. If you loathe President Obama as much as I loathed Dick Cheney, I feel very, very sorry for you. It's not fun to hate your leader. But, if you want to cheer yourself up, you can always google Paul LePage, Maine's own Tea Party governor, and his Republican majority legislature. It might make you happy to read all about the environmental protection laws he is proposing weakening to make the state more "business-friendly."

Bill, Fairfax VA

Bill, if the Dow was at 8 thousand, instead of 12 thousand you would say Obama is Anti business, with the dow at 12 thousand and he still being anit business you arguement can't pass though the toilet let along the smell test.

Hey No Jo, Tell your Governor Blow Hole, that Mitsubishi will invest $45 million to produce a new Outlander Sport crossover at its Normal plant beginning in 2012. So No Jo what happened to Jersey, Indiana and wisconson stealing business from Illinois because of our tax increase. We are still waiting, as well as the feds are waiting for there 271 million as well, things just keep getting better for jersey.

I, too, am proud of President Obama and yes, I am a huge fan and supporter. I did not hate President Bush or VP Cheney, I hated their policies, I hated their lies, their torture, their hypcrisy, I hated what they did to the country, the economy, their unnecessary Iraq war but not them personally. Therein, lies the difference between what comes from the right-wing media today. I have no problem with FOX cable having conservative guests, hosts, etc. but I do hate that they abuse the public trust of their viewers by misleading them, by fueling the fears of some. FOX cable is a disservice to republicans because they do not discuss real policies but rather ficticious ones; they demonize not with facts but personal attacks and lies. Shep Smith does a better job on FOX than most of his counterparts and he deserves credit for his efforts. MSNBC's evening hosts present facts and their own liberal view but they do not make up what they present.

Anna Molly:

Perhaps, Bill, it's because they believe that Obama can't be re-elected unless unemployment goes down, and they want to defeat him a lot more than they care about creating jobs. They've figured out how to make money without creating jobs, and they have no incentive to do it.

I've suspected the same thing. Corporations are making big money during Obama's presidency. But they could make even MORE money if they could get rid of Obama and the odious financial and environmental regulations he wants to impose on them in order to give the public some minimal protection of their physical and financial health.

Psychologists have shown that money is like a drug to some people: No matter how much theyhave, they always want more. The corporate greedheads have built up a tolerance to the level of profits they're already making and Obama stands in the way of them getting a bigger fix, so Obama has got to go.

Hey, maybe that's just a conspiracy theory but it makes a heck of a lot more sense than Bill's non sequitur.

Bill: Why are companies sitting on so much cash and not deploying it and thereby creating jobs?

Why indeed! The conservative trickle down mantra for the past several months has been to give tax breaks to corporations because THEY are the ones that create jobs. What happened?

Bill, why are you here then??? Just asking

Mamma - to lift the veils of ignorance from folks like you. Thanks for askin'.

Indeed, fielden. They got their tax breaks, they got Republican control of the House.

Where are the jobs?

To lift "veils of ignorance" from anyone Bill, you cannot be ignorant yourself. Which you have shown us time after time.

John B,

Why does everyone on here keep posting "where are the jobs?"

I am guessing that you all have a problem with the unemployment rate dropping by .4% last month. I would have thought that was good news. Or did you all on the left think that once the republicans took office that the unemployment rate would drop to under 5% in a month.

I am just shocked that on here you keep calling for jobs when something must have happened, considering that once the GOP took over in the house, the unemployment rate dropped by .4%. I am guessing that since you all seem to blame Bush for everything that went wrong, you aren't going to credit the GOP since things are going correct:)

But then again perception is 90% of what people think, they perceive that unemployment rate going down under the GOP. Perception is a female dog isn't it?:)

"Bill: Why are companies sitting on so much cash and not deploying it and thereby creating jobs?"

Uh, Bill- does JoAnna know you are peddling this on here????

Bear-

the "where are the jobs" thing is a kind of toung-in-cheek refrain. You may not remember it, but before Obama could put in Day One, all kinds of folks on the right plastered this on these boards quite often.

Looks like some of us found out that turnabout IS fair play....

dbo is right, but by the same token--what has the new, Republican House majority done to improve the economy? They made big promises, haven't delivered on anything, and have already broken a number of these promises.

When are they going to stop criticizing and actually do something useful?

Which promises have they broken to their voters? Did they repeal HC--yes!

Jobs--must have done something--unemployment rate dropped .4% in the first month. Gee if that keeps up, June will see us at lower levels than when our President took office, and November will see us at 5%.

Now do I think that will happen, no, but at least you all should quit whining for at least a month. And preferably write & email your representative, and tell him to fix the tax code, to cut the wasteful spending, where ever it is, and most of all, to keep supplying us with jobs to keep that unemployment number going down.

BigBear62,

I was kind of expecting this idiotic conservative "logic" to show up soon. According to you, somehow, the election of a Republican majority in the house has "magically" reduced the unemployment rate even though they haven't done anything. It couldn't possibly be that the drop is due to ongoing Obama policies that are now starting to really "kick in" could it? The truth (can you handle it?) is that the Republican minority chose to do NOTHING to help reduce unemployment for the last 2 years. Now that they are in the majority, you want to give them the credit for something the Democratic majority produced. Unemployment drops are due to ongoing efforts, not some kind of Republican "fairy dust" as you suggest.

If the Affordable Care Act has been repealed, why is it still on track for a showdown in the Supreme Court? Because they had a symbolic vote that accomplished nothing, that's why.

If they did anything to reduce unemployment it must have been to vote against funding of unemployment insurance...thus artificially reducing the numbers counted while taking away the only income from people who desperately need the help.

If you'd like to point to something they've done other than take the safety net away from Americans who want jobs I'm willing to listen.

C'mon, Big Bear. The House voted to repeal the Health Care Law.

Is it repealed?

NO.

Why isn't it repealed?

The vote to repeal FAILED in the Senate. The HCR law is still the law of the land... so how did the House Repeal it?

The HCR Law is set to be looked at by the SCOTUS... so why on earth would the SCOTUS take the case of a law that has already been 'repealed'?

The fact is that this Law has NOT been repealed. The only way to repeal a law is for Congress to do so, and from what I see, the 'repeal' vote failed in Congress.

The President has NOT signed the repeal for Health Care either.

The House Republicans are playing you - and all other 'supporters' - for fools, Big Bear. They have done NOTHING since they have been sworn in.

Not one DAMN thing.

That was certainly a tough loss Steeler Fan . . . but still a season to be proud of! :o)

P.S. I didn't see the O'Reilly interview because I was prepping for our Super Bowl party . . . sounds like I didn't miss much.

Oh, I think you did, Nash. It was a classic, viral YouTube moment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6HyXCHndmk

In my opinion, O'Reilly will never live this down.

Steeler Fan-

I was taken aback by Bill O'Reilly's interview with President Obama yesterday. It seemed to me that he did not treat the President with the respect due to his position. I was impressed with the President holding back---part of me wanted him to blast O'Reilly as well he could, but I think he showed himself to be the bigger person by responding to O'Reilly's questions and being cordial.

I think the President was classy by taking the high road.

I don't know if you had time to read my post. What I found amazing is hoW the FOX Viewers were more concerned about the President not wearing a TIE. Also, the hate e-mails and assassination suggestion Fox allowed to stand.

Here I'll repeat it for you....

coinguy1945: Wha a pathetic looser Omammy is an illegal n---ger that need to be assaniated by a good patriot.

http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/

Fox has a responsibility to stop fomenting these violent suggestions and hate.

BTW: I was crushed I wanted the Steelers to kick Green Bay's butt.

Steeler Fan:

My sincere condolences...

Bill O' the clown was disrespectful. His comment about why some people hate the President was uncalled for...unless he was speaking on behalf of NJ.

Did you notice President Obama face at the end of the interview when Bill O" the clown talked about being fair and honest? I think the President showed considerable class by not verbally responding, but his facial comments said it all.

I agree, Steeler Fan... O'Reilly should have just said "I hate you & how do you feel about that?"

I truly hate what our media has become. When Eqypt erupted, Gibbs was asked if foreign aid would be withheld... His response was 'that hasn't been discussed'... Headline later that day? "US to cut off Aid to Eqypt"... A total, blatant lie!

Last Week Gregory was smacked twice - 1st by Hillary for trying to 'put words into her mouth', and then by McConnel when he told him 'I'm not going to debate you about policy, I'm going to debate the administration'.

This Sunday Gregory is telling his guest from Eqypt that our President wants Mubarak out NOW - and the guest replied "No, your President is saying it's up to the Eqyptian people".

Gotcha Gregory is a disgrace to Meet the Press.

Thanks for the kind words, Nash. You were better off cooking or cleaning or whatever---better on the blood pressure than watching the interview!

When O'Reilly asked him how he feels that people hate him (not just dislike him), I wanted him to say---well, if Fox News didn't spread lies about me every day, maybe people would get to know the person I really am and see that I'm not a bad guy. I understand why he didn't say that but I would have been tempted---another good reason why I'm not a politician!

Congratulations on your season, Steeler Fan, and thank you for a great game. It will, of course, take weeks to grow my fingernails out again, but it was an excellent Super Bowl.

Steeler Fan...As a Ravens fan, I obviously root against the Steelers. But I respect them and I think they are a classy team, with a classy coach, and some classy fans. Kudos on a good season and I look forward to our teams duking it out at the top again next season!! :-)

Anna Molly:

I just watched the interview on the link you provided . . . Bill O came across as a small minded bully. I thought it was particularly weird at the beginning when he kept saying that Mubarek "knows bad things" about the U.S. and he might "go off the reservation".

I thought an interview was about asking questions, not presenting your own editorial in the comments.

Bill O was running through those questions like demon forced to sit through church . . . lol . . . and what was going on with his makeup?

Thanks for sharing the link Anna Molly . . . it trully was must see TV! :o)

Should have stocked the fridge with IC

Thanks to all for the kind words---sorry we didn't win but it was an exciting game and we had a chance. People here are so down today---we truly love our team and are sorry they lost. Plus our baseball team is so bad that we can't get excited about spring training---we only root to break our record of consecutive losing seasons! And the Penguins lost one of their best players, Malkin, with a knee injury, so that is a concern.

I was waiting for O'Reilly to ask the President to show him a birth certificate. It was clear to me that it was the David Gregory brand of "gotcha" journalism---O'Reilly wasn't interested answers to the questions--just hoping to trip up the President. It would take more intellect than O'Reilly has to do that, for sure.

When Bill-O asked the president why (some) people hate him, Obama did mention that what they hated was really an image of him distorted by the fun house mirror. Of course, by "fun house mirror" he was making an indirect reference to Fox News. That comment went right over O'Reilly's head and the tiny little pinheads of the average Fox viewer.

Both teams have a long football heritage and the Steelers will always have a good team. The pirates have been jinked since Sid Bream slid across home plate and won the playoffs for the braves. I have the news paper form Pittsburgh from the day after. My only question is what has happen to the great college football program at Pitt State.

Salt Grass--I don't know if the Pirates will ever be competitive. It is sad to see the decline of Pitt football and the recent debacle over the coaching transition didn't help but maybe they will have a new start. The Pitt basketball team is nationally ranked, though---maybe this will be their year!!

1982 Pitt State broke my heart at the Sugar Bowl. A game I will never forget. Both teams had great coaches and a couple of all time great college players.

Jody:

Very well writing. We should remember the good he did as well as the not so good and accept him for that. Too many politicians and political pundits like to exaggerate the actual historical record, just like they do with most facts and figures, to further their agenda. They then use their version of history to promote their ideology knowing full well it is based and half-truths and exaggerations.

Great post, Jody. Why is it that people have to be one-dimensional? No one is perfect but somehow Reagan is being made to seem as if he could do no wrong. You put it well to remind us that it is a crafted legacy built on myth.

Jody, I think the right is using Reagan as a platform for their attempt to capture the WH especially since the President Obama speaks well of him.

The truth is if Reagan were to run today the tea baggers would ouster Reagan.

Reagan Would Have Been Thrown Under the Bus Today

June 7, 2010
By Dan Chmielewski

http://www.theliberaloc.com/2010/06/07/reagan-would-have-been-thrown-under-the-bus-today/

When Sarah (™) compares herself to President Reagan it's a joke.

Notice I used the Trademark symbol because she has a patent. I didn't want to call her wench so that's why I used the symbol.

"We should remember the good he did"

I don't often disagree with you, US. Navy, but I can't say I personally remember a whole lot of "good" that Reagan did. He was a likeable enough guy, I'll give him that. I remember that time period as the "Alex Keaton" years, when people like Donald Trump were writing books about getting rich playing with real estate, and we looked up to people making money on the stock market. That was the whole start of the rich getting richer by playing with money, instead of actually creating stuff. I remember the beginning of outsourcing and manufacturing going overseas. As I said earlier, I remember the sharp increase in homelessness. Reagan seemed to exist in a Hollywood version of America, to me. He was not reality based and he didn't "do" much beyond smiling and waving, in my memory of him.

Amy:

Thank you for your feedback and you make a valid point. I was never a fan of his politics and I just do not understand why so many on the right are putting him on some pedestal.

Navy---I think the right puts Reagan on a pedestal because he is the best they can come up with for the pedestal---who else since President Eisenhower could they revere? And they can't revere Ike because he wouldn't be conservative enough today.

Amy, good points; others, too. Reagan's legacy is more myth than fact. I've read many accounts about how unfocused he was during meetings, he was quick to tell stories and change the subject but had no interest in substance. I do think we credit him where credit is due. You are right about the homeless. Reagan's policies also turned mentally ill people onto the streets, increased poverty while concentrating wealth into ever smaller percentages. I do, however, think he was a good president but I disliked his policies; I do not think he comes close to being a "great" president. I believe as time passes, history will put to rest the myth of Reagan and get to his real legacy which will not resemble what the GOP paints today. I agree, the GOP needs Reagan; he's all the have since Eisenhower and they need him to be promoted as great.

Republicans "revere" Reagan because he won elections. They are always trying to replicate his success without understanding it's basis: he had a sunny personality and didn't appear to be particularly partisan. Reagan didn't go out of his way to make enemies. In other words, the opposite of today's foaming at the mouth, right-wing nutjobbers. Will the Republicans ever learn? No, they will never learn. They are actually eager to get rid of a 'RINO' like Sen. Snowe - who won her last elelection with 75% of the vote. Today's Republicans are ideologues, and nasty ones at that.

Amy--I think that is the best explanation of Reagan that I have read---he did seem like a nice guy and wasn't overly partisan. In fact, I think that is what people thought they were electing in George W. Bush. He also had that quality of not being engaged or intellectually interested but seemed nice (people wanted to have a beer with him) and his history in Texas had some bi-partisanship. If we hadn't had 9/11 he might have muddled through OK.

Bill,

Just a couple additional facts about job creation:

Average jobs created per year:

Bush 43 = 0.4 million, Clinton = 2.9 million,

Bush 41 = .06 million, Reagan = 2.0 million.

Bush 43 created fewer than any president in the last 60 years which is pretty sad considering the population growth over that timeframe.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=CES0000000001&output_view=net_1mth

But Dennis, he has a really good excuse!

Another inconvenient fact--the post-2001 recover was the ONLY one since the Great Depression in which median income hadn't recovered to pre-recession levels before the beginning of another recession. That's right, the "Bush recovery" wasn't even sufficient to get us back to the inflation adjusted earnings experienced during the Clinton years...unless you were a member of the top 2%. Those folks made out very well.

John B:

Touche', the numbers are 100% dead on. In fact the whole Regan administration never fully recovered after his first and only Tax Cut. By that time the damage was already done, pretty much like what we are seeing today.

John so glad to see you around today. Gives me a chance to respond to these little nuggets you dropped on Friday:

Just pointing out that it's ridiculous for you to claim the Administration believed or claimed that unemployment would never go higher than a point that it had already exceeded when the [ARRA] bill passed.

the unemployment rate was ABOVE 8% when the [ARRA] act passed

As you may know John, the unemployment rate for the prior month is reported on the first Friday of the current month. On February 6, 2009 the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the unemployment rate for January was 7.6%.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02062009.pdf

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was signed by the president on February 17, 2009. At that time, the most recent unemployment rate issued by BLS was the 7.6% number reported for January.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ5/pdf/PLAW-111publ5.pdf

That was also the most recent unemployment number when on February 26, 2009 Christina Roemer, the Chair of Obama's Council of Economic Advisors made this statement in a briefing announcing the president's FY10 budget:

"Now, even with the comprehensive recovery package, the unemployment rate is forecast to rise in the first half of 2009, just simply because output is continuing to fall. We anticipate that it will average just over 8 percent for 2009 as a whole."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Press-Briefing-by-OMB-Director-Peter-Orszag-and-CEA-Chair-Christina-Romer/

So, the facts are that the official unemployment rate contemporaneous with both the passage of ARRA and Roemer's ill-fated forecast was 7.6%. According to my math, that number is lower than 8%. Who was it who said, "you're entitled to your own opinion but you're not entitled to your own facts?" That wise man must have had you in mind.

P.S. The unemployment rate for February 2009 as reported by BLS on March 9, 2009 was 8.1%. But surely John, you're not clinging to that slender reed to justify your misguided comments…or are you? Inquiring minds want to know.

Bush Jr., only created 1 Million jobs in 8 years, go see FactCheck, Washington Post, CBPP, NYT, WSJ etc. President Obama is being giving credit for exceeding that number in just 2 years. You can break out little slivers of data all you want, but on the whole President Bush Jr., was one of the worst Presidents when it came to job creation and that is a fact.

O'Reilly was so flustered, blustery, and befuddled that I was almost embarrassed for him.

Almost.

GB2, worst President in the history of the United States. Hands down, no competition he holds the title.

If he were the President of any place OTHER than the US both he and the VP would be prosecuted for war crimes and "crimes against humanity."

That's because they've become Chambers of Commerce for India and China.

@ Anna Molly

I hope you're not too angry at me for wanting the Steelers to win after the liking the packers gave the Bears :)

Anyhow we'll meet Again next season.

Or you could also say that Reagan was more intelligent than the airhead the current Spending Party has installed as the leader of this administration.

You cannot compare Barry Obama to Ronald Reagan. No matter what you may feel about conservatives, Reagan had the ability to sell any product he desired....carismia. Barry unfortunately hasn't anything left to sell - many are not happy with his policies, whether they are conservatives, the far left of the Spending Party, or the rest of the 20% in the Spending Party.

Barry Obama hasn't created anything of value yet. Let's hope that he may one day.

I recognize libbienuts will never give a conservative his actual spot in history, but Reagan did have accomplishments recognized by even Spending Party leaders and the low-rated media outlets.

Safecracker,

Name one.

Let's see, how about ending the cold war with the Star Wars ploy. What would have Barry Obama done, given the Russians Chicago not to be bad guys?

Safecracker,

Read some history. Don't limit yourself to Glenn Beck college for the low IQs. You may learn about what ended the cold war. Regarding anyone paying a ransom. Obama had the pirates killed to rescue an American. Obama doesn't do ransoms. Reagan was the one that paid the ransoms. Again you have to read history.

One of the myths of Reagan is that he stuck with his "trickle down" economics. He did not, he recognized it didn't work and took steps to correct it; unfortunately, the damage had been done. One part of trickle down he stuck with was not taxing the rich. America is still paying a heavy price for Reagan's voo doo and the GOP still hasn't figured out even Reagan dumped most of it.

Actually, Moderate Independent---most of the liberals I've seen posting today have enumerated many positives about President Reagan; we just wonder why none of the negatives are acknowledged. In contrast, rarely do I see a conservative acknowledge anything positive about President Obama.

Moderate Independent. Try reading what most liberals wrote--there's nothing wrong with pointing out the bad that was Reagan as well as the good.

Steeler

There are Conservatives who do respect the Presidency. Some Democrats as well. I would love to see an article and posts that pointed out the good quality of our Presidents we have had. Over the last few years it seems we have left the country without one good president, for all we point out is their faults supposedly to make the party of republican, or democrat look better.

As a result, our children and others around the world hear from society all leaders of the past are bad in the USA. We need to spend some time pointing out the good as well, for what we say of our leaders reflect upon the people of that nation, for the majority of us voted them in over the last 220 years.

Either people attack you for your comments or they skip by them. I look forward to them, they are very insightful.

Thank you.