Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditPerhaps we still do not understand the current Obama backlash.
David Brooks caused a small stir on Friday by arguing that conservative radio hosts are, paradoxically, a lot like well-behaved children. They are seen – splashed across magazine covers and endlessly profiled – but not heard, politically, since they do not swing elections.
"The talk jocks can't even deliver the conservative voters who show up at Republican primaries," Brooks observed, reminiscing about how McCain's media detractors could not stop him in South Carolina last year.
After the summer of townhalls and what's shaping up as the autumn of Glenn Beck, however, it is hard to see things through Brooks' bifocals. Besides, as the top conservative at the Times and an alumnus of Rupert Murdoch's Weekly Standard, Brooks is peering out from within the conservative media ecosystem. He is, unavoidably, in direct competition for opinion leadership with the "talk jocks" he knocks. Which makes it especially odd for him to apply an electioneering metric to opinion media.
Even the proudest pundits would shrink from the notion that they swing elections. (Rush Limbaugh is probably the only exception.) Most members of the activist conservative media machine do not define their success by electoral results. And that is one reason they look so successful right now.
It is no accident that the two biggest forces countering the new President do not practice electoral politics. The opposition party may whither, but there is still the movement and the man. Both have the Obama administration's attention.
"We have something new in our political life," Michael Tomasky recounts in an excellent essay in the latest New York Review of Books, a "right-wing street-protest movement." The people who commandeered those August town halls and, feeling the thrill of direct action, gathered to create their own Washington rally in September – they are against something. Obama. Taxes. Government. Socialism. Treason. Nazism. Scan those signs they carried around the National Mall, and you see a bizzaro album of the people they detest and the threats, both real and imagined, that they fear.
There were few signs for alternative policies, let alone the alternative political party. The same is true, naturally, for their leader.
Glenn Beck has a long list of concerns about the country's direction. Yet since Obama's election, his most successful efforts have focused on attacking members of the administration and (putative) allies. He is trying to stop Obama, not jump-start the mid-terms.
Congressional Republicans have not exactly distinguished themselves for an enlightened posture towards the new President, but to be fair, even they do not share all of Beck's obsessions.
By his own count, Beck began assailing Van Jones on July 23 and continued for weeks, up until the September 6 resignation. Fox aired hundreds of segments on Jones. Congressional Republicans, however, were less interested. In the past 9 months, Jones' name has only surfaced on the floor of Congress in eight instances (according to the Congressional Record). Brooks argues, however, that "Republican politicians" follow Beck at every turn:
Everyone is again convinced that Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and the rest possess real power. And the saddest thing is that even Republican politicians come to believe it... They pay more attention to Rush's imaginary millions than to the real voters down the street. The Republican Party is unpopular because it's more interested in pleasing Rush's ghosts than actual people. The party is leaderless right now because nobody has the guts to step outside the rigid parameters enforced by the radio jocks and create a new party identity. The party is losing because it has adopted a radio entertainer's niche-building strategy, while abandoning the politician's coalition-building strategy.
It's true, there is definitely a cost to governing like an entertainer, as I argued when Republicans took heat for media attacks on Sotomayor:
The incentives for niche political programming... run counter to the needs of a political party trying to crawl from 40 Senate seats to a winning national coalition.
At bottom, however, Brooks misses what's really happening beyond the cost to the GOP. The Obama backlash is about now, not future elections. It is about attacking, distracting and delegitimizing the President to thwart his agenda. It is about ratcheting up the national "discourse," such as it is, and turning the banal to controversial. It is about framing and distorting the debate -- all to impact how both parties govern in real time. Shaping public policy when you're out of power is really quite an achievement. Sometimes, just being seen is enough.
--
Ari Melber twitters about news and politics at Twitter.com/AriMelber
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Weird! Think back on all the ATTACKS that other Presidents have made on media, just what makes the Obamanation administration attacks against political pundits, talk radio, and FREE SPEECH sooooo.......you know, acceptable? Oh, bias and hypocrisy! What is so cute is Nixon had an enemies list, but thanks to technology now the Obamanation and his followers have expanded on that to include private citizens on the internet! What progress!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/05/2009 @ 12:42am
Network TV pundits are from a different time. Nets give them airtime on Sundays but for the most part their dated comments are consistently wrong and most of them were lost by early GWBush years at the latest. They are still bloviating and continue to massively misinform the listeners. They think that the results of the virulent daily assaults on America by Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and that crowd will just evaporate but the damage to our Democracy will be tough to reverse. The Democrats, Obama and Rahm's ongoing fear and avoidence of confrontation with the GOP, Murdoch, Ailes and their mouthpieces has gone on much too long. Obama has lost his advantage waiting for even one Republican to play nice. I blame Rahm Emanuel he's playing off the same playbook he used as a Clinton aide. It's disasterously wrong for this time and this President. I think the stupidest thing I ever heard the brilliant Bill Clinton say was last weeks claim that he was attacked worse the Obama.
Posted by Plus15 at 10/05/2009 @ 05:23am
Essentially, Rush, Sean, and of course Glenn are about one thing...ratings. And getting the 20-30-odd% of the populace that is made up of...well...guys like RIO/Big Posture to tune in.
Mostly by telling them that they, and their Hard Right agenda (from banning abortion to eliminating the income tax) are "the REAL majority, despite what the Liberal Media ((and the elections)) tell them!"
And that's it.
Now, Limbaugh and Hannity will toe the Party line and nary a criticism of the GOP utter, all the while claiming to be an "independent conservative first, a Repubican second" (again see Rio/BP above)....
but Beck is different and what he does next summer will be telling. Right now, he does a "BOTH Parties are bad...even Republicans" schtick. But if he keeps that up after the GOP Congressional Primaries for 2010...it'll put him on the outside of the GOP-loyal Fox News and a good portion of his audience. Naturally, if he "forgets" that "Both parties are bad"...few of them will notice.
Posted by Mask at 10/05/2009 @ 07:23am
Posted by Mask at 10/05/2009 @ 07:23am |
Radio and OTA TV: free...and worth every penny!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo6wedCqM9Y
Posted by snowball777 at 10/05/2009 @ 08:15am
Radio and OTA TV: free...and worth every penny!
Posted by snowball777 at 10/05/2009 @ 08:15am
...but consult a physician if that leg-tingle lasts longer than four hours.
Posted by Mistral at 10/05/2009 @ 08:29am
Posted by Mistral at 10/05/2009 @ 08:29am |
If you have something that you didn't even notice was wrong with you until you saw our ad, please consult with your physician and mention Prescott Pharmaceuticals by name.
Posted by snowball777 at 10/05/2009 @ 08:51am
If you have something that you didn't even notice was wrong with you until you saw our ad, please consult with your physician and mention Prescott Pharmaceuticals by name.
Posted by snowball777 at 10/05/2009 @ 08:51am
Sounds like the old Monty Python satire of the magazine with a contest, "Describe a new part of the body and why it smells"
Posted by Mistral at 10/05/2009 @ 09:36am
Posted by snowball777 at 10/05/2009 @ 08:15am
Or in this case...
"Obama is Hitler....your mileage may vary!"
Posted by Mask at 10/05/2009 @ 09:42am
Posted by Mask at 10/05/2009 @ 09:42am |
I've got it...we need to marry the joy of bingo, death panels, and the XX million uninsured into a gameshow like the Firesign Theater "Beat the Reaper" bit.
Everyone gets an injection at the start, the winner gets the antidote and free healthcare for life, and the losers no longer draw on Medicare or the SSA.
It's really too bad that the name 'Survivor' is already taken.
Posted by snowball777 at 10/05/2009 @ 10:11am
Follow the money. Recall recent facts, as a tiny example - 'Beck loses so-called sponsors'. Another red herring, which The Nation gobbled up sashimi-style.
Does Beck get cut by one minute or one market? No, it's not what they claim. Follow the money, it wasn't what you thought it was in the first place. "But..." --NOT
Beck's market/success is not dependent on his "sponsors" anymore than 400 million $ Limbaugh has achieved market dominance or makes his Horatio Alger way with ads for mattresses and lumber liquidators. Anymore than Saddam was threatening Des Moines.
It wasn't what you thought it was in the first place. MSM myths. To have something is not necessarily to have earned it.
Fox and Clear Channel funnel huge $ to their propaganda blowhards and thereby manipulate competition, market share and ad revenue. This is an affront to the 4th estate which should result in an immediate injunction and lawsuit, ending if found guilty in a revocation of their FCC licenses.
The Nation is remiss for failing to expose this systemic cancer.
Posted by winyahn at 10/05/2009 @ 10:12am
I have to laugh every time some leftist calls David Brooks a conservative.
By his own admission, he began as a liberal before joining the Weekly Standard (which he no longer writes for).
He is pro abortion, accepts the right of teenagers to be sexually active, calls himself a "third wave feminist", is pro homosexual marriage. In 2006 he called for a new 3rd party of moderates led by John McCain and Joe Lieberman. And he is a support of Obama.
This guy has nothing to do with conservativism. But to the far left, he seems like a conservative in comparison to their radical leftist views.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/05/2009 @ 10:12am
Posted by antisocialist at 10/05/2009 @ 10:12am
Idiot. Go down the list. Supported W in 2000 CHECK and 2004 CHECK. Supported Bush govt expansion CHECK, corporate tax cuts CHECK. Supported the invasion of Iraq CHECK. Once in a while, try reality. The holy water's fine.
But we understand Reverend Happy, he's not neocon enough for you.
Posted by winyahn at 10/05/2009 @ 10:32am
nor do you, larry.
you're just nuts.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/05/2009 @ 10:32am
Posted by antisocialist at 10/05/2009 @ 10:12am |
Thanks for demarcating the line between the two remaining halves of the Pug party: the 'conservative christian' half and the 'pro-business and deregulation' half.
Posted by snowball777 at 10/05/2009 @ 10:46am
Idiot. Go down the list. Supported W in 2000 CHECK and 2004 CHECK. Supported Bush govt expansion CHECK, corporate tax cuts CHECK. Supported the invasion of Iraq CHECK. Once in a while, try reality. The holy water's fine.
But we understand Reverend Happy, he's not neocon enough for you.
Posted by winyahn at 10/05/2009 @ 10:32am
Just because for a period of time, he embraced some conservative causes does not mean he is now or even was a conservative. Most of the country supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
But to suggest that he is conservative when he holds polar opposite views on social issues and that he advocated forming a moderate left 3rd party, simplty shows you to be so far to the left that old fashioned liberals now seem like conservatives to you.
He no longer even writes for any conservative publications. he is with the NY Times, with Jim Lehrer, and with NPR
Posted by antisocialist at 10/05/2009 @ 10:49am
nor do you, larry.
you're just nuts.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/05/2009 @ 10:32am
For you to call me nuts is a badge of honor.
You denigrate anybody who believes in the US Constitution and who believes the Bible is the word of G-d.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/05/2009 @ 10:50am
Posted by antisocialist at 10/05/2009 @ 10:49am
Larry, by YOUR standard, Goldwater was a "Christian basher" and Ike was a "Commie".
Posted by Mask at 10/05/2009 @ 10:59am
"David Brooks caused a small stir on Friday by arguing that conservative radio hosts are, paradoxically, a lot like well-behaved children. They are seen – splashed across magazine covers and endlessly profiled – but not heard, politically, since they do not swing elections."
But,but,but I thought we on the right get our marching orders from Rush,et al, even when we don't listen to him(them)...so then if they have mno influence...how can we be mind numbed robots?
What about "Operstion Chaos'?
So, Mask, who is correct?
You or Brooks?
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/05/2009 @ 11:02am
I think Brooks makes an interesting point. Beck jumps the shark nightly leaving himself nowhere to go in the long run. While he and his ilk may not be really interested in electoral results, ultimately even his most rabid believers are.
Weepy, petulant and incoherent behavior initially gets attention, but gets old quickly. Eventually his crowd will look for the next new thing.
The 24 hour news cycle needs constant fuel and is far too concerned with who has the microphone-today-as if that is any substitute for reality.
Posted by PrefersCoffee at 10/05/2009 @ 11:07am
Looks like there's an antisocial troll on here who likes to hear/see him/herself talk. Nobody with half a brain would buy into any of his/her shit.
Posted by gamphd at 10/05/2009 @ 11:09am
Larry, by YOUR standard, Goldwater was a "Christian basher" and Ike was a "Commie".
Posted by Mask at 10/05/2009 @ 10:59am
BTW, I answered your Jefferson question on the End the War in Afghanistan blog.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/05/2009 @ 11:15am
Posted by gamphd at 10/05/2009 @ 11:09am
Mask?
Is he /he /it .....dissin' you?.....:)
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/05/2009 @ 11:17am
Larry, by YOUR standard, Goldwater was a "Christian basher" and Ike was a "Commie".
Posted by Mask at 10/05/2009 @ 10:59am
Typical for you.
Goldwater was a secular conservative. His father was a Jewish liberal and his mother was a liberal Espiscopalian.
It's not hard thus to understand his disagreement with Christians who are active in their faith.
But Goldwater was a very good man. His Conscience of a Conservative was a great book. His 1971 push to cut off all US funding for the UN was a highlight moment in his political career.
Likewise, Ike was a good and decent man who was a moderate Republican who stood between the Liberal Rockefeller Republicans and the conservatives. He most definitely was not a "commie". I simply disagree with those decisions he made that I consider to be liberal and not in conformance with the constitution.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/05/2009 @ 11:32am
But to suggest that he is conservative...
Posted by antisocialist at 10/05/2009 @ 10:49am
Supported NEOCON W in 2000 CHECK and more fantastically in 2004 CHECK!
Supported Bush govt expansion CHECK, corporate tax cuts CHECK. Supported the invasion of Iraq CHECK.
OK he's not same DNA as Coulter /Lindsey Graham/ 700 Club Reverend Pat who also:
Supported NEOCONs W in 2000 and more sickly in 2004 , lovin' that the invasion of Iraq CHECK they all were.
So Anti, break free of your negative idealism for once: who meets your criteria from this list (evasion defenses alert!):
Start with yes, no's on these--- yes, you don't watch them, blah, blah, but from what you do know of them! this is your game. Ambush, retreat, repeat!:
O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh, McCain, Palin, Lindsey Graham, James Dobson, Pat Robertson
What would you label each of these? Are any socialists?
WHO IS A SOCIALIST? Name some since this is your handle.
2- Over and aver, you ambush then hide. Still believe the fed should NOT regulate medications, civilian airspace, kid's toys, equipment safety?
3- Still believe I lied when I said: 1/3 of New Jersey Conservatives thing Barack Obama could be the anti-Christ.
By the way, I'm walking.
Not awaiting your dodge.
Posted by winyahn at 10/05/2009 @ 12:06pm
sometimes those guys just don't really have a lot to say...because there's just not a lot to say...but they get paid to say something...and most just start blabbulating what someone else who seems smart and conventional-wisdomy says (morning joe is especially bad here though at least they kinda dopey-ly try)...or they get desperate and go all glenn-becky or el rushboee...
poor bastards...
when i got nuthin' to say i just come here, tap out some inanity, and go about my day...
ain't nobody paying me for this steaming pile...though i sure am a lot better than most of them yappy yahoos at figuring out obvious crap. are they reading me?
but like i say...at least i ain't getting paid...
poor bastards...
they just gotta keep talking and talking.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/05/2009 @ 12:20pm
glenn beck and el rushbo remind me of the rock band, KISS...
you know...not so great at what they do, but they go paint their otherwise forgettable faces and dress up all funny and pretend to worship satan and...POOF!!!!
they got loots of nooky, money, and attention!!!
but their crap still stinks if you take a whiff...it just stinks out where everybody can smell it....
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/05/2009 @ 12:27pm
but honestly you could pick out about 5-10 of the more prolific posters here and set them in front of a camera or mike and get about as good or better quality analysis as some of the parrots and pontificating popinjays (yeah, i'm in a safire mood) that pull down six figures or more a year...
and they say there's nothing wrong with capitalism...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/05/2009 @ 12:40pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/05/2009 @ 12:20pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/05/2009 @ 12:27pm
Agreed and agreed.
Beck is clearly damaged goods.
With two bestselling books.
Scary.
Posted by ficheye at 10/05/2009 @ 12:41pm
Just because for a period of time, he embraced some conservative causes does not mean he is now or even was a conservative. Most of the country supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/05/2009 @ 10:49am
Larry, he (Brooks) self-identifies as a conservative, that's enough for me. The fact that it's not enough for you simply shows how much of a far-right wingnut you truly are.
Now, I don't agree with almost anything he ever writes, but he is trying to do something positive for the Republicans, instead of being part of the "party of NO!" which the Republicans have turned into. Instead of embracing that, you and other neocons attack him because his conservative blood isn't pure enough for you. And he's probably Jewish, too right? Pathetic.
It's all about the social issues for you, isn't it? You couldn't care less about the financial aspects of traditional conservatism; you agreed with every single expansion of the federal government under Bush because it was BUSH doing it, and he was your "compassionate conservative born-again Christian President" who hates gays, loves guns, loves unborn babies, can't stand children who need welfare and expanded the government willy-nilly after coming in with a budgetary surplus. Well, it's YOUR grandchildren who are going to have to pay off his debt.
Believe it or not, Obama is a slightly left of center centrist, which is why so many people on the left are as pissed at him as on the right. And while I would love to see him do a Bush and say something like, "You're either with us or against us" after gaining a TRUE electoral mandate, he's trying to reach out to thoughtful conservatives like Brooks and have a meaningful dialogue, but that means nothing to people like you who only want America to fail
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/05/2009 @ 12:47pm
Beck is clearly damaged goods.
With two bestselling books.
Scary.
Posted by ficheye at 10/05/2009 @ 12:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person
and they say there's nothing wrong with capitalism...
lol...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/05/2009 @ 12:49pm
Posted by winyahn at 10/05/2009 @ 12:06pm
Conflating the conservative issues that Brooks supported in past years does not equate to who he is now.
On almost every issue, and certainly nearly every social issue, he by far a social liberal. I know of few conservatives who consider Brooks to be a conservative. he returned to his liberal roots.
With the exception of O'Reilly who is a moderate and Graham who is a moderate on some issues, they are all conservatives.
Socialists: Sanders, the Democratic Progressive Caucus (members in the Democratic Socialists of America), Rachel Maddow, Katrina and the Nation staff, Union labor leaders I have previously cited, as just a few examples.
As to the Obama anti-Christ charge: Yes, you are still lying. You had to backtrack and change your charge because initially you said 1/3 of conservatives (not just New Jersey).
Secondly, here is the actual polling results.
8% of those polled in NJ said Obama could be the AC.
the breakdown of those polled included 29% who said they were conservatives.
18% of the 29% said Obama could be the anti-Christ.
Your claim is a lie.
Now try this one: 95% of conservatives think that everyone in NJ is nuts (informal poll, results not guaranteed to be scientific)
Posted by antisocialist at 10/05/2009 @ 12:50pm
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/05/2009 @ 12:47pm Wrong as usual. Social issues are tied with economic aspects of traditional conservativism.
You continue to lie about my supposed 100% agreement on Bush's expanision of the Fed even after I have refuted that with a number of examples (but then facts mean nothing to you). I criticized Bush and the Republicans on a number of isssues and am on record for that. I don't vote party line and only someone reacts as immaturely as you do would suggest that.
Your statements even about Bush who was moderate left on a number of social issues simply shows you would rather repeat far left lies and spin that debate facts.
Again, only the left considers Brooks a conservative which shows how far to the left you are.
I don't want meaningful dialogue unless it includes the genuine debate of differing views. A dialogue that is one sided is not a debate; it is merely affirming or surrendering to the opposing views.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/05/2009 @ 12:57pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/05/2009 @ 12:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person
you would certainly be one of the regular rightys on our "blog pit blabbulators of the nation" show, preacher.
we could do at least as well as morning joe...
just keep that barry25 guy away...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/05/2009 @ 12:59pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/05/2009 @ 12:59pm
thx Ibb
Posted by antisocialist at 10/05/2009 @ 1:02pm
that pull down six figures or more a year...
and they say there's nothing wrong with capitalism...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/05/2009 @ 12:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Speaking of 6 figures or more of income;
Doubt the leftist are aware that all the appointed CZARS appointed by the Obamanation ALL pull down that much or more with NO oversight or approval of congress, and with more POWER than cabinet members, but that is just fine with you?
Posted by BigPasture at 10/05/2009 @ 1:06pm
So, Mask, who is correct?
You or Brooks?
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/05/2009 @ 11:02am | ignore this person | warn this person
His triades are really funny, he can't explain how someones view track extremely conservative without input from the hated rightwing media they have NO access to so he just parrots the same lies over and over!
No dish, no cable, and rarely christian radio music seldom listened to but still he parrots the leftist shrill dialouge against the rightwing personalities he assumes all tune to.
"Values" voters, independent have not changed nor have they gone away and they don't follow trends or worldly personalities.
Posted by BigPasture at 10/05/2009 @ 1:14pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/05/2009 @ 11:02am
Any objective evidence that "Operation: Chaos" did what Rush claimed it did, Maasch?
I mean, besides "Rush said so and it got repeated in the MSM"?
BTW, there's a new sheriff in town...and his name is Crying Man. S'why Rush has gotten so hyper lately. Somebeck is cutting into his action.
Posted by Mask at 10/05/2009 @ 1:17pm
Posted by BigPasture at 10/05/2009 @ 1:06pm | ignore this person | warn this person
rich people run the world, rio - no duh, eh?
but i was showing my naivete earlier...7, sometimes 8 figgers is more like it.
but you would be there...you would blow in like cowboy curtis for a two minute tumbleweed rant of the right from time to time...
we could actually throw in a barry25 rant - prerecorded and heavily bleeped...maybe a one minute rant...maybe 30 seconds...
and we could have the subltly anti-semitic rant...and the knee-jerk old liberal rant...even a bizarre 30 second conspiracy rant...
but you would get a full two minutes - you need to develop your point to be fully appreciated...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/05/2009 @ 1:17pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/05/2009 @ 11:32am
Larry, I will, at some point in the future, QUOTE Barry Goldwater on the Religious Right....
and Dwight D. Eisenhower on military spending or on taxes...
and not cite the author.
And we'll have a pretty good idea of whether I was "over-the-top" in my description of your ideology and what you'd say about them.
Keep a sharp eye out next time I cite someone...might be some "leftist" or "Christian basher"?....
might be Barry or Ike!
Posted by Mask at 10/05/2009 @ 1:20pm
With two bestselling books.
Scary.
Posted by ficheye at 10/05/2009 @ 12:41pm
Yeah, but scarier is "MR I Hate Capitalism" ranting all the way to the bank...and he is a spokesman for the loon left..our one and only, limosine liberal in size 80 farmer bibbs...Michale Moore....
He is a bigger fraud thatn even Pelosi...
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/05/2009 @ 1:25pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/05/2009 @ 11:02am
Any objective evidence that "Operation: Chaos" did what Rush claimed it did, Maasch?
I mean, besides "Rush said so and it got repeated in the MSM"?
BTW, there's a new sheriff in town...and his name is Crying Man. S'why Rush has gotten so hyper lately. Somebeck is cutting into his action.
Posted by Mask at 10/05/2009 @ 1:17pm
I dont know and dont care. Has and had no effect on my life, believfs or opinions.
It doesn't matter..except to you, I guess.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/05/2009 @ 1:27pm
Posted by Mask at 10/05/2009 @ 1:20pm | ignore this person | warn this person
and now for our 30 second conspiracy rant from rese!
"9/11...inside job...greys..reptiloids..false flag...bildeburger..."
BARRY
"BLEEP BLEEP.........................BLEEPITY BLEEP!"
the subtly anti-semitic rants, like rio's tumbleweed anarchic neoconism, needs time to ripen into a truly pungent turd blossom to be appreciated fully...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/05/2009 @ 1:29pm
"I dont know and dont care. Has and had no effect on my life, believfs or opinions. It doesn't matter..except to you, I guess."----Posted by YourJomamma at 10/05/2009 @ 1:27pm
"What about "Operstion Chaos'? So, Mask, who is correct? You or Brooks?"----Posted by YourJomamma at 10/05/2009 @ 11:02am
Does the WHIPLASH of shifting suddenly from "Hey! What about Operation Chaos. Proves Rush is right, David Brooks is wrong!" to...
"I don't care...it doesn't matter except to Mask"...
ever cause you any severe neck pain???
Or is it just me pointing out such gear shifts?...LOL
Posted by Mask at 10/05/2009 @ 1:39pm
The old talk-jocks honed their "craft" during the Clinton era. They put the "impeachable offensive" talisman in their little boxes with sure confidence that it could be revealed to the masses at a later date & produce the same devastating effect.
Obama laid that strategy to rest & so now the 'isms are being bandied about with all their absurdity. The thought challenged have swilled this mix.
The newer faces are pursuing the "both parties are bad" line with the hope that in the end, hate, impotence & meanness will prevail in any election (translation: Repub victory)
Posted by Sorelish at 10/05/2009 @ 1:40pm
Your statements even about Bush who was moderate left on a number of social issues simply shows you would rather repeat far left lies and spin that debate facts.
Again, only the left considers Brooks a conservative which shows how far to the left you are.
I don't want meaningful dialogue unless it includes the genuine debate of differing views. A dialogue that is one sided is not a debate; it is merely affirming or surrendering to the opposing views.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/05/2009 @ 12:57pm
OK, so maybe you weren't 100% goosestepping with Bush, but I bet you agreed with him on at least 80% of his government expanding policies: namely keeping the costs of Iraq ad Afghanistan off the books, the creation of the largest government agency ever: Homeland Security, and the creation of the Office of Faith Based Initiatives (where 90% or so of the money went to Christian organizations).
1. Please tell me which social issues W was "moderate left" on.
2. Brooks calls himself a conservative. Who are you to question his self-identification? Oooops, then again, you call yourself a Christian but obviously aren't. My bad.
3. Dialogue can only happen with people interested in having a dialogue. The Republican Party in Congress has shown absolutely no inkling to have a dialogue; they (and you) simply want Obama to fail so you can supposedly win the next election. Is that "wanting a dialogue?" Obama is certainly much more open to dialogue that Bush EVER was for eight years.
And BTW, please continue to call me and my opinions immature. You make me believe I'm doing something right. Nyah Nyah Nyah!
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/05/2009 @ 1:41pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/05/2009 @ 1:29pm
Rese and the Ron Paul nuts were atleast consistant....they didn't surrender to Bush and Cheney are diabolical masterminds plotting a Presidency-for-Life and controlling (with AIPAC and the Mossad of course) all aspects of every event that occured....
but we're seeing a rapid shift on the Right AWAY from "Obama is a Kenya-born Hitler who is going to gather power unto himself in a Machiavellian plot to establish his socialist totalitarianism"....and few are seeing it (NONE of the ditto-head Right of course)....to
"Obama is a dolt....a mindless, incompetent puppet of OTHER ideologues. He's an empty suit doofus who can't walk without tripping and is failing at everything he's trying."
Why?....simple reason I think. "Obama=Hitler" was fine for the Tea Partyers. Got them fearful and angry...all you need with the Hard Right. But to sell anti-Obamaism to the squishy Right and the Independents?....you need to turn him into...
Dubya!
Posted by Mask at 10/05/2009 @ 1:45pm
Yeah, but scarier is "MR I Hate Capitalism" ranting all the way to the bank...and he is a spokesman for the loon left..our one and only, limosine liberal in size 80 farmer bibbs...Michale Moore....
He is a bigger fraud thatn even Pelosi...
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/05/2009 @ 1:25pm
Really has you scared does he? You should not be worried, he is only one. And you can choose not to watch him. I on the other hand often have no other options when driving but to endure either Christian Kountry 1240, or Rush, Beck, Insannity, Ingram, Denny Swiller, etc. At least you have a choice of movies to see, and I would wager this years income you have not seen nor do you intend to see Mr. Moores movie.
I realize that when someone in the media with an opposing point of view actually gets some airtime it frightens you, but really your side of the political spectrum has a much louder and broader voice in the media than anything the left could hope for. And don't give me the donkey vommit that the MSM is liberal. If anything they are center right, but of course that would be left of you.
Posted by Extraneous at 10/05/2009 @ 1:48pm
Conflating the conservative issues that Brooks supported in past years does not equate to who he is now. Posted by antisocialist at 10/05/2009 @ 12:50pm
And here I thought it was only when looney far right extremists that got exposed as such doing violence, that then automatically are magically fruit-loopedly transformed into liberals a la John Hinckley, Squeaky Fomme, ect... on the False Equivalency thread.
But now apparently, it's also all those really evil 'moderate' repubs exposed as wanting to bring sanity to their spinning around off the rim toilet bowl party!
Nice. Before we know it-- there will be no repubs remaining except for those on the talking freak shows....
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/05/2009 @ 1:49pm
"The newer faces are pursuing the "both parties are bad" line with the hope that in the end, hate, impotence & meanness will prevail in any election (translation: Repub victory)"----Posted by Sorelish at 10/05/2009 @ 1:40pm
I still think unless he's truly demented and egomaniacal.....Glenn Beck will drop the "Both parties are bad" line around Spring 2010. It won't be totally obvious....just "not there"...and his audience would never notice. (Never notice that Glenn would cut off or not allow any callers onto the radio show that keep saying it either!)
It'll be "Look at this DEMOCRAT and what they're doing" or more subtlely, just pointing out things done by Pelosi, Reid, etc. and hoping the zombies can figure it out for themselves and then claim "What? Glenn isn't partisan! He's attacked Republicans...in the past!"
Or even more subtlely, he might try just saying "Get out and vote" and rest on the fact, that there's no way in hell that his followers are going to vote "Natural Law" or whatever once in the booth.
Posted by Mask at 10/05/2009 @ 1:49pm
Michale Moore....
He is a bigger fraud thatn even Pelosi...
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/05/2009 @ 1:25pm | ignore this person | warn this person
how so?
you'd be there too. maybe a reg, maybe on rotation with LL...
you are an example of someone who is a basically intelligent, decent person who believes some kinda skewed stuff, in my opinion. you arent anyone famous are you? i suspect HAPPY is tom tancredo, which would make him a guest and not a regular at the "blog pit blabbulators".
but you know i'm getting into business, renewable energy - part owner now... and for me gubbamint not so bad these days...
lots of gubbamint gibbamint money to people who retool with distributed as well as centralized renewable energy.
personally, although the pay-off is big for the big jobs, we really want to push distributed generation, especially photovoltaic (no moving parts, technology is improving FAST)...
like i said, the combination of need, taste, ever cheaper more efficient technology, gubbamint gibbamint policies...
times, they are a changin'
i just want gubbamint to handle health insurance and portability of pensions and crap like that so i can concentrate on making money and jobs...and some extra taxes on income? better than getting soaked by parasitic middle men...
yeah i know, half the world are middle men and they don't take kindly to being cut out, but there still reaches a point where useful middle man transforms into parasite.
in my opinion parasites in the private sector are capitalism's biggest enemy by far, not some bugaboo gubbamint...
but i'm a progressive conservative, so...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/05/2009 @ 1:51pm
Dubya!
Posted by Mask at 10/05/2009 @ 1:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person
yeah, the old "no i'm not! you are!" strategy...
wow! they just get more and more cleverer!!!
hey - i LIKE that grayson guy. hope to see more of him.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/05/2009 @ 1:55pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/05/2009 @ 1:29pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You must have missed my point otherwise you wouldn't be so "mAsKian"
Weird! Think back on all the ATTACKS that other Presidents have made on media, just what makes the Obamanation administration attacks against political pundits, talk radio, and FREE SPEECH sooooo.......you know, acceptable? Oh, bias and hypocrisy! What is so cute is Nixon had an enemies list, but thanks to technology now the Obamanation and his followers have expanded on that to include private citizens on the internet! What progress!
So....lets attack huffpost, kos, and the nation spewing their billous black bile of buffonery and maskish marxist manure mucous!
(Would stay and play, but 90yr. mom needs her preprepared meal and daily mail, so gotta go be domestic.)
Posted by BigPasture at 10/05/2009 @ 1:55pm
Hi Anti, what do you think of Senator Lindsey Graham, he also called limbaughs and becks schtic a bunch of hooey, do you think he is a conservative?
Posted by Denise29 at 10/05/2009 @ 1:56pm
er, And here I thought it was only when looney far right extremists that got exposed as such doing violence, that 'they' automatically are magically fruit-loopedly transformed into liberals a la John Hinckley, Squeaky Fomme, ect... on the False Equivalency thread.
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/05/2009 @ 1:57pm
He is a bigger fraud thatn even Pelosi... Posted by YourJomamma at 10/05/2009 @ 1:25pm
I'm not a big fan of Pelosi.
As far as Michael Moore versus Glen Beck...
Michael Moore has a message which is correct, I feel.
However, as a messenger, he is flawed, as evidenced by his own personal demeanor and corporate investments. Which bear further research, of course.
Glen Beck seems like he has emotional and personal issues as well, not to mention that he gets his facts wrong (like the one about the Vancouver Olympics) and panders to an immature emotional substrate.
Posted by ficheye at 10/05/2009 @ 1:57pm
half the world are middle men and they don't take kindly to being cut out, but there still reaches a point where useful middle man transforms into parasite.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/05/2009 @ 1:51pm
Right on, Ibble.
Posted by ficheye at 10/05/2009 @ 2:03pm
Glen Beck seems like he has emotional and personal issues as well, not to mention that he gets his facts wrong (like the one about the Vancouver Olympics) and panders to an immature emotional substrate.
Posted by ficheye at 10/05/2009 @ 1:57pm
While I agree with the emotional and personal issues, from what I have heard Beck is just your common variety hater. He sits on the sidelines and criticizes, anyone can do it and it has no societal benefit, if anything the opposite. That said, I do have to defend the Vancouver comments as an honest mistake. Just like Obama's 57 states comment.
Posted by Extraneous at 10/05/2009 @ 2:04pm
(Would stay and play, but 90yr. mom needs her preprepared meal and daily mail, so gotta go be domestic.)
Posted by BigPasture at 10/05/2009 @ 1:55pm | ignore this person | warn this person
you are a good man, tumbleweed.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/05/2009 @ 2:05pm
Posted by ficheye at 10/05/2009 @ 2:03pm | ignore this person | warn this person
that's plagiarized pretty badly from joss whedon's "firefly" series. highly recomended - free on hulu, too...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/05/2009 @ 2:09pm
That said, I do have to defend the Vancouver comments as an honest mistake. Just like Obama's 57 states comment. Posted by Extraneous at 10/05/2009 @ 2:04pm
Fair is fair.
Posted by ficheye at 10/05/2009 @ 2:15pm
free on hulu, too... Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/05/2009 @ 2:09pm
I love hulu. With only basic cable I can at least get one freebie in this world without it being socialism. :)
Posted by ficheye at 10/05/2009 @ 2:17pm
Posted by mask at 10/05/2009 @1:49
I'm sure the Rapture Ready news site feels that Glen is on the righteous path. Wait for him to display a photo of Obama with horns & goatee, while he fulminates against the major parties.
Of course, you're right, his fans will point to his earlier non-partisan stance once he ultimately declares his rightwingnut political choice.
Posted by Sorelish at 10/05/2009 @ 2:19pm
Posted by ficheye at 10/05/2009 @ 2:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person
yeah - and the commercials are quick and tolerable too. check out the firefly thing, though - great tv and still hoping someone picks it up and runs with it a little more.
a friend shoed me some old "night stalker" episodes there the other day and i found the old rockford files too - a favorite of my dad and i when i was a kid.
basic cable can be a wasteland.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/05/2009 @ 2:29pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/05/2009 @ 1:55pm
More than jsut "I am rubber, you are glue", IBB.
They figure the Moderates and Indies turned on Dubya, atleast as much as rhetoric could turn them, due NOT to the "warmongering fascist" stuff...but the "He's a dope" stuff.
hence, they'll try it with Obama.
Even our own Rio/BP will likely fall into it. "Easing away" from his "Obama is a modern Hitler" stuff into
"Obama is a nincompoop and utter failure at everything he does"....totally contradicting the "He has a sinister plan to kill your granny and feed her corpse to his ACORN minions" Be Afraid, Very Afraid stuff.
Posted by Mask at 10/05/2009 @ 3:01pm
"At least you have a choice of movies to see, and I would wager this years income you have not seen nor do you intend to see Mr. Moores movie. .."....
"I realize that when someone in the media with an opposing point of view actually gets some airtime it frightens you, but really your side of the political spectrum has a much louder and broader voice in the media than anything the left could hope for. And don't give me the donkey vommit that the MSM is liberal. If anything they are center right, but of course that would be left of you.
Posted by Extraneous at 10/05/2009 @ 1:48pm
Tell me your personal email and I will tell you where to send your check. I will donate it to the libertarian candidate whomever it is, or better yet, to the widows and children of Iraq and Afganistan soldiers killed or wounded in action.
I have seen all his movies...on HBO..I refuse to directly pay him for them.....:)
I admit the Right dominates the AM airways and it appears FOX eats everyones lunch on cable....but in the bigger picture of all media..these guys ARE THE alternative to the liberal media, and especialy today, where the MSM has become the cheerleading section of the Democratic Party. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the ACORNand the Czars scandals...along with the rest.....and never did cover the real story of the Olympics "sacrifice" trip to Copenhagen....it should be investigated..I am sure the Machine in Chicago wants a quiet sitdown with Obie...they must have lost Billions in scam constructions alone that will not be coming home to Daleys coffers.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/05/2009 @ 3:02pm
Posted by Sorelish at 10/05/2009 @ 2:19pm
Yep....oh and go see that Public Policy poll from New Jersey on "Obama? Anti-Christ?"....Larry's figures aren't exactly right IF you look at the Cross-tabs and see how "those who voted for McCain" pan out.
Posted by Mask at 10/05/2009 @ 3:05pm
Beck is a strange fellow, but his chart and connections to Tides, Acorn, and much of the union thugs is interesting..and a little scary to me.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/05/2009 @ 3:08pm
these guys ARE THE alternative to the liberal media, and especialy today, where the MSM has become the cheerleading section of the Democratic Party.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/05/2009 @ 3:02pm
The only liberal media on television is MSNBC and then only in the evening. You just think everything else is too, because it is not as far right as you are. But in reality, it is smack dab in the middle. Cheerleading section? Your kidding right?
As far as ACORN, I am sorry but who cares. And to be honest, I really don't even know what happened. Other than BillO was on at my gym and was spewing some nonsense about an underage sex scandal of somesort. I really don't see how that is any more telling about ACORN than the murder of the Graduate student at Yale was about Yale employees. I don't even know if the video BillO was showing was real.
Posted by Extraneous at 10/05/2009 @ 3:18pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/05/2009 @ 3:02pm
Hey, Maasch....why is it Michael Moore is a phoney for "making tons of money off bashing capitalism"....
but Sarah Palin ISN'T a phoney for still promoting abstinence-only sex education...when her own daughter proves it doesn't work???
Posted by Mask at 10/05/2009 @ 3:19pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/opinion/05krugman.html?ref=global
...try this one on for size. I like his tone, he is measured but to the point, and certainly not stupid, is he a lefty, I don't know, he cetainly seems to be a person with a conscience which is more than one can say for most of the hooligans who are shouting from the cube, tube, box. And he has a Noble Prize.
Posted by marilynm at 10/05/2009 @ 3:30pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/05/2009 @ 2:29pm
Remember Spenser for Hire?
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/05/2009 @ 3:33pm
"...accepts the right of teenagers to be sexually active..." Antisocialprick
Golly, what a liberal that Brooks is, trying to impose on our PERSONAL FREEDOME!!
Posted by MATTMAN at 10/05/2009 @ 3:35pm
free dome... freedumb, whatever
Posted by MATTMAN at 10/05/2009 @ 3:43pm
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/05/2009 @ 1:41pm
The reason for not putting the conflicts in the regular budget was the fluidity of the military actions. I have no problem with doing it either way since these were not hidden budget items. Quite the opposite.
Homeland Security dept was proposed by the Democrats
<Democratic ad reminds voters: Bush opposed creating the Homeland Security department before he supported it. Summary
A Democratic National Committee radio ad released Aug. 12 says President Bush opposed creation of the Department of Homeland Security "for almost a year after 9/11." In fact, he opposed creation of a new department for less than nine months.>
http://tinyurl.com/cc9848
Moderate Bush issues:
Medicare prescription drugs (I opposed)
Amnesty for illegals ( I supported)
Civil unions for homosexuals (I concurred)
Increased Child tax credit from $600 to $1000 (I opposed)
No Child Left Behind -Sponsored by Sen Kennedy (I opposed)
A person can call themselves whatever they wish, it is their actions; Brooks in the past 3 years has been entirely on the left in his actions; even calling for Obama's candidacy prior to Obama declaring.
You'll let me know when the Democrats in Congress ever decide to debate. And it has been the standard practice of both parties to work against the majority for decades. Don't try and suggest it's only Republicans. And we are nowhere near the partisanship of the 1800's in American politics.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/05/2009 @ 4:38pm
Is the Bible too left for the right!?!?!
1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias.
2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity.
3. Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level[3].
4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;[4] defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".
5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots";[5] using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census.
6. Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.
7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning.
8. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story.
9. Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/05/2009 @ 4:39pm
10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."
http://tinyurl.com/yb67fog
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/05/2009 @ 4:40pm
Found this on the article's blog:
"turn the other cheek" becomes..
"turn the other cheek..... so you can look to see if a gun's handy".......
by StillweRise
Can't wait for anti, Gland Peck, to justify, er, testify...
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/05/2009 @ 4:46pm
http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/05/2009 @ 4:50pm
God News for Liberals...!!!
Flash...
"ARAB STATES LAUNCH SECRET MOVES WITH CHINA, RUSSIA, FRANCE TO STOP USING DOLLAR FOR OIL TRADING... DEVELOPING..."
Congradulations to Obama and company...you have killed off the dollar with your economic policy and your printing press.
Govt health care should help..
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/05/2009 @ 5:09pm
Congradulations to Obama and company...you have killed off the dollar with your economic policy and your printing press.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/05/2009 @ 5:09pm
Funniest thing I have heard all day! Since it is football season it makes me think of a game in which a quarterback allows the team to fall behind 0-35 and then late in the fourth when the coach pulls the quarterback and puts in the backup, who is able to score, but not enough to win.
YJ is the guy who blames the backup for the loss. Must be a form delusion.
Posted by Extraneous at 10/05/2009 @ 5:35pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/05/2009 @ 10:49am
Larry, by YOUR standard, Goldwater was a "Christian basher" and Ike was a "Commie".
Posted by Mask at 10/05/2009 @ 10:59am | ignore this person | warn this person
And don't forget pinko Trotskyists Cronkite and McNamara.
Mighty small tent.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/05/2009 @ 6:11pm
that pull down six figures or more a year...
and they say there's nothing wrong with capitalism...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/05/2009 @ 12:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Speaking of 6 figures or more of income;
Doubt the leftist are aware that all the appointed CZARS appointed by the Obamanation ALL pull down that much or more with NO oversight or approval of congress, and with more POWER than cabinet members, but that is just fine with you?
Posted by BigPasture at 10/05/2009 @ 1:06pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Same feeling about the Federal Reserve Board private banking consortium? How long has that been in business, and have you bitched about THEIR nice salaries?
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/05/2009 @ 6:14pm
Come on Jomomma, your going to blame only Obama? Hmm, whats wrong with this picture? They were talking about not using the dollar way before Obama was in office. I don't know how to cut and paste like most on the nation, but I KNOW people were mentioning this all over the blogs at least a couple of years ago. For crimmanys sake just google it.
Posted by Denise29 at 10/05/2009 @ 6:20pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/05/2009 @ 4:38pm
The reason Bush left the war out of the budget is because he didn't want to let the American people see the true costs of the war; the SAME reason they banned taking photos of the returning dead soldiers. Americans have a thing about dead soldiers: they don't like to see them, so the Pentagon's reaction to that was to not show them, and not show the cost to the People, either.
Homeland Security: So Bush was a flip flopper? wow...amazing to hear you say it.
"Moderate Bush issues: Medicare prescription drugs (I opposed) Amnesty for illegals ( I supported) Civil unions for homosexuals (I concurred) Increased Child tax credit from $600 to $1000 (I opposed) No Child Left Behind -Sponsored by Sen Kennedy (I opposed)"
Medicare Prescription Drugs: Bush lied to the People about the costs of THAT, too. $400B to Congress just before it passed, then suddenly $1 Trillion after it passed. (I opposed)
Amnesty for Illegals: (I supported) and still do. It was the far right wing which stopped that.
Bush did not support Civil Unions for homosexuals. He didn't support any expansion of rights for gays.
Increased Child tax credit was showing his support for families... that's neither Liberal nor conservative, unless you're saying conservatives don't like families.
No Child Left Behind was all Bush's idea. Just because Kennedy co-sponsored it in the Senate just goes to show what a stand up kind of guy Kennedy was. Bush then showed his true support for it by not paying for it. Mandate it, then don't pay for it: should be Bush's epitaph.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/05/2009 @ 6:23pm
Come on Jomomma, your going to blame only Obama? Hmm, whats wrong with this picture? They were talking about not using the dollar way before Obama was in office. I don't know how to cut and paste like most on the nation, but I KNOW people were mentioning this all over the blogs at least a couple of years ago. For crimmanys sake just google it.
Posted by Denise29 at 10/05/2009 @ 6:20pm
I dont have to google...maybe you should to compare the spending drunks...
Tell me, if you check book is $10k in debt...do you think spending $50k you dont have, haven't earned and will not earn..is going to fix the check book or the problem on being broke?
Those who know me know I blame the start with Bush...the first one.... and each president after that spent more and added more debt...until Congress, who spends the money, stopped the spending in 94...then Bush 2 came along and spent more and now Obama and company are spending sooooo much more that it isn't even thought about seriously as part of the problem...
yeah, If Bush spends $1 tillion , I blame him and if Obamas spends 10 times that much in 1/8 the time...I blame him 10 times more...
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/05/2009 @ 7:31pm
Bush did not support Civil Unions for homosexuals. He didn't support any expansion of rights for gays.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/05/2009 @ 6:23pm
On October 26,2004 he told Charlie Gibson on ABC's Good Morning America that he supported civil unions.
<Gibson: They could be born that way. If that's the case, just for sake of argument, that's an unalterable characteristic for them. That's like being black or being a woman. So, how can we deny them rights in any way to a civil union that would allow, give them the same economic rights or health rights or other things?
Mr. Bush: I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's when a state chooses to do so.>
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=207#
You seem incapable of honesty including admitting you were wrong.
For each item I furnished that answered your denial, you simply throw out an insult.
No child left behind was Kennedy's idea and he took it to Bush if you ever bothered to read. It was funded. It was just not funded to the level the Dems wanted.
You just reveal yourself over and over as someone not willing to admit your'e wrong.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/05/2009 @ 9:27pm
"Doubt the leftist are aware that all the appointed CZARS appointed by the Obamanation ALL pull down that much or more with NO oversight or approval of congress, and with more POWER than cabinet members, but that is just fine with you?"
there is no approval needed for "czars", and there wasn't under reagan (who created the very first czar), the first bush, or the second bush. no oversight is required either, and this isn't unique to obama.
bigpasture = intellectually-deficient
Posted by darladoon at 10/05/2009 @ 9:51pm
"You just reveal yourself over and over as someone not willing to admit your'e wrong."
that's pretty funny mr. "i can't define socialism but am certain most of europe is socialistic"
Posted by darladoon at 10/05/2009 @ 9:55pm
the breakdown of those polled included 29% who said they were conservatives. 18% of (this) 29% said Obama could be the anti-Christ.
Your claim is a lie.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/05/2009 @ 12:50pm
1- Not my claim, straight up poll data which I dare you to check out with someone you know that doesn't have your sort of learning disorder. You're saying the figure for "could be AC {which means total of those who believe he is AC and those who are not sure"} of NJ conservatives is about 6% (18% of 29% ) when it's FIVE times this.
HINT: You're getting the 29% figure confused. BTW Maddow may be a socialist in your mind but she does check her facts, hence the TITLE of the piece:
2- *Yes I accidentally left of "NJ" way back on one of my first posts* but it is reasonable to speculate that the percentage of conservatives elsewhere is generally the same or higher. For example, the figure might be higher, could be 35% in Texas. And I've already pointed this out.
Listen I don't want an apology. You're just strange in so many ways. Just didn't think these would include middle school math analyses. --> Just ask anyone if they agree with you - I dare you.
3- Actually I agree that Brookes' changed after helping Cheney - Bush win in '04. But boy does he have blood on his hands. Same for O'Reilly & Graham. I can't stand Brookes and his bogus history professor persona. He's evil.
Posted by winyahn at 10/05/2009 @ 10:00pm
Posted by darladoon = intellectually-deficient at 10/05/2009 @ 9:51pm
no argument
Posted by BigPasture at 10/05/2009 @ 11:03pm
bigpasture,
my argument was clear: czars are not unique to obama, and in fact, reagan created the very first czar.
no czar is subject to congressional approval or oversight.
if you are so, so opposed to czars, then why weren't you up in arms with bush or reagan's czars?
oh, i forgot: you're a pathetic, republican stooge.
Posted by darladoon at 10/05/2009 @ 11:19pm
Little bit of difference between 3 in 8yrs, 14 in 8yrs and Obamanations 34 czars in just six months already! How many more are coming down the pike?
Here we have people reporting only to the president making 6 figure incomes for dubious jobs by appointment and they are people who may have a lot of power who are not being held accountable when they should be because there isn't a Senate confirmation process.
Glad the leftist have no problem with big pay, no oversight, and unlimited power! Now that is either pathetic, revealing of minimal intelligence, or just letting the leg tingle flow freely out of sheer idiocy!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/05/2009 @ 11:42pm
Glad the leftist have no problem with big pay, no oversight, and unlimited power!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/05/2009 @ 11:42pm
We are glad to hear it comrade! You will play an important part in our new establishment!
Shall we refer to you as 'comrade pasture'?
Posted by ficheye at 10/06/2009 @ 01:32am
2Sentence-It was and always has been about money. The first American millionaires came out of the thievery of war suppliers during the Revolutionary War. Your support of the monied gentry class goes back to this time period. Which group of money men do you support from the time period.How about Robert Morris ,head of procurement for Congress from 1775-1777. Is Alexander Hamilton who's Bank of the United States A favorite. Perhaps I am a radical liberal but you are an unrepentent conservative who is at all times supporting people historically who wanted to squash common Americans. I don't buy your b.s.
Posted by whatozz at 10/06/2009 @ 08:07am
You seem incapable of honesty including admitting you were wrong.
You just reveal yourself over and over as someone not willing to admit your'e wrong.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/05/2009 @ 9:27pm
If there's one thing I am always willing to do, it's admit my mistakes when presented with proof. I am more than willing to admit I was wrong. OK, Bush said he was for civil unions to Charlie Gibson. Yippee! Did he DO anything about it? No. Why, because he was a f*cking hypocrite, that's why! No wonder you love him and Cheney so much.
No Child Left Behind wasn't funded to the point of where the TEACHERS needed it; they were the ones complaining. Conservatives don't like public schooling (or public anything...you call it socialism), so why should Bush have done ANYTHING to ensure that it's adequately funded? The only thing he adequately funded over eight years was war.
As for whether Kennedy thought up the idea or not, why then does Bush tout it as one of HIS major accomplishments? Bush needed bi-partisan support on NCLB and the only way he could get it is to get someone with as much clout as Kennedy behind it from the beginning, otherwise it would have failed (and eventually did fail) as badly as the rest of his miscarriage of a Presidency.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/06/2009 @ 12:44pm
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/06/2009 @ 12:44pm
BTW, Stephen, when Larry calls out somebody as "somebody who is unwilling to admit he is wrong"....show him this-
"Simple way to determine that, Eric... how many times have you heard them say "I hope I'm wrong..."?"---Posted by Mask at 03/03/2009 @ 12:02pm
"There is no possibility of being wrong when a president engages with his Democratic partners in crime in Congress to bankrupt the nation with the most massive illegal take over of the nation and theft of the people's money in our history.---Posted by antisocialist at 03/03/2009 @ 2:48pm
Posted by Mask at 10/06/2009 @ 1:22pm
Bush said he was for civil unions to Charlie Gibson. Yippee! Did he DO anything about it? No. Why, because he was a f*cking hypocrite, that's why! No wonder you love him and Cheney so much.
No Child Left Behind wasn't funded to the point of where the TEACHERS needed it; they were the ones complaining. Conservatives don't like public schooling (or public anything...you call it socialism), so why should Bush have done ANYTHING to ensure that it's adequately funded? The only thing he adequately funded over eight years was war.
As for whether Kennedy thought up the idea or not, why then does Bush tout it as one of HIS major accomplishments? Bush needed bi-partisan support on NCLB and the only way he could get it is to get someone with as much clout as Kennedy behind it from the beginning, otherwise it would have failed (and eventually did fail) as badly as the rest of his miscarriage of a Presidency.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/06/2009 @ 12:44pm
1. Bush didn't push for civil unions because as he noted, it's a state action, not a federal one.
2. NCLB-BS, tell me when a teacher EVER believes they have enough funding. Secondly, who originates funding, the president or the House?
3. Every president touts legislation as if it were their own. Where have you been all of your life. That's politics.
You are simply making up your last paragraph out of your hatred of Bush. There is no evidence to back up what you stated.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 1:58pm
the breakdown of those polled included 29% who said they were conservatives. 18% of (this) 29% said Obama could be the anti-Christ. Posted by winyahn at 10/05/2009 @ 10:00pm
I wonder if a stockholm syndrome type of thing happens where the teabaggers will start dressing up like the devil in red tights and pitchfork like some did running around with swastikas at the rally?
Some polls indicate that the numbers are moving up for those ok with socialism, a la logic if Obama is a socialist and Obama is ok, then socialism must be ok too...
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/06/2009 @ 3:07pm
Glad the leftist have no problem with big pay, no oversight, and unlimited power!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/05/2009 @ 11:42pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Big Posture, never saw you in these hallowed blogs protesting the existence of the omnipotent Federal Reserve Bank consortium, which has been ruling your life and everyone else's since about 1913 throughout Administrations Republican and Democrat. Where's the outcry?
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/06/2009 @ 4:11pm
No one really cares about what they say. Most people have already formed their opinions and vote them. The so-called influential people in media are really just telling people what they want to hear. Thom Hartmann is a good example for my own claim to this effect. If I was in a coma I would want people to simply cut and paste everything he says about politics in lieu of my own words. He hasn't changed my opinions about much of anything, some legal points perhaps, but that is more about him educating me about facts about our legal system.
Posted by Milhaus at 10/06/2009 @ 5:38pm
Posted by Mask at 10/06/2009 @ 1:22pm
Mask,
I adore you but I don't keep such great notes like you do and don't want to step on your mojo by feebly attempting to do what you do so well: pointing out the incredible hypocrisies of our conservative brethren time and time again.
So, while imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, I would never want to imitate you; I would probably fail and be called "maskian" by the yahoos out there.
See? You've even become an adjective! :)
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/06/2009 @ 6:21pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 1:58pm
I believe there are more people who would agree with me when I say "George W. Bush was the worst President in modern history, if not all time" than would agree with you when you say (whatever to the opposite effect).
Let's take a poll. Oh yeah, Bush didn't "believe" in polls although his brain, Mr. Rove, was CONSTANTLY polling.
And you're right. I did hate Bush. Not as a man; I am sure he's a hell of a lot of fun at a barbecue and being from Texas, I would love to meet the man.
But as President, he directly lied to the American people about many things, not the least of which was why we were going to war. He didn't "prevaricate," he didn't "dissemble," he didn't "stretch the truth for the sake of political expedience," all of which are forgivable and sometimes even necessary in the course of modern politics.
He flat out lied.
And in my opinion, that sir, is a treasonous offense, punishable by death, or at the very least, impeachment followed by a trial in the Senate and found guilty of Crimes and Misdemeanors against The People.
(and you say we liberals don't read the Constitution)
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/06/2009 @ 6:32pm
But as President, he directly lied to the American people about many things, not the least of which was why we were going to war. He didn't "prevaricate," he didn't "dissemble," he didn't "stretch the truth for the sake of political expedience," all of which are forgivable and sometimes even necessary in the course of modern politics.
He flat out lied.
And in my opinion, that sir, is a treasonous offense, punishable by death, or at the very least, impeachment followed by a trial in the Senate and found guilty of Crimes and Misdemeanors against The People.
(and you say we liberals don't read the Constitution)
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/06/2009 @ 6:32pm
Too bad he didn't lie. I and a number of other bloggers have repeatedly proven that Bush did not lie. But I know that wont get in the way of your conclusion.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 8:38pm
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/06/2009 @ 6:21pm
Actually, that was my whole goal from the start...
to get my own adjective!....heheh
Posted by Mask at 10/07/2009 @ 07:13am
I have to laugh everytime some neocon calls Brooks and some rightist mouthpiece a liberal. Yeah, he's a lib sure sure... and there are little green men following you. Watch out!
In their paranoia, there's not a left and right on PBS. There's a left and socialist left of that. And on Clear Channel, there's just reasonable folks with a balanced view and no agenda.
Katy Couric and David Letterman are going to destroy the fabric of 'Merika. Birther, Muslim, Celeb, Racist, Resistributionist in Chief Obama is the Anti-Christ.
An Anti-Christ by the way that's big into big earthly government.
Their socialists don't advocate 'the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole'.
But who cares about history and definitions and reality - they have their gut and their gut's upchucking red white and kill brown people endtimer, random Beck insanity. Can you believe how few have spoken up against Beck. There was a time when conservatives had basic table manners.
Who happily own cars, appliances, computers, cell phones manufactured by private companies, are patrons of service sector companies, restaurants, hotels, etc.
The word has no meaning just used to incite, inflame. Sorry, your denied, projected hate and anger is yours to deny and project - unless of course you manage to grow up.
----------------------------------------------
Neocons believe few democratic politicians run as "socialists" while many ACTUALLY are.
Posted by winyahn at 10/07/2009 @ 3:04pm
Network news needs to ignore the marginalized 1%(Limbaugh Republicans) and focus on the issues. The GOP is fighting to stay consequential and it isn't working.
Posted by LarryB at 10/07/2009 @ 3:12pm
The GOP is fighting to stay consequential and it isn't working.
Posted by LarryB at 10/07/2009 @ 3:12pm
Really, now? Has the Health Bill been signed into law while I was out vacationing?
Are Beck, Rush and Hannity voting members of Congress or the Senate?
Posted by Happy at 10/07/2009 @ 7:08pm
Really, now? Has the Health Bill been signed into law while I was out vacationing?----Posted by Happy at 10/07/2009 @ 7:08pm
Wait a minute, HAPP.....I thought the talking point was "We Repubs don't hold any majorities. Your problem with passing Obama-care is your own Blue Dog Democrats!!!"....
now you're saying the Republicans DO matter?!??!??
Posted by Mask at 10/08/2009 @ 07:45am
Wait a minute, HAPP.....I thought the talking point was "We Repubs don't hold any majorities. Your problem with passing Obama-care is your own Blue Dog Democrats!!!"....
now you're saying the Republicans DO matter?!??!??
Posted by Mask at 10/08/2009 @ 07:45am
Repubs ALWAYS matter in the real world....not the Hopey and Changey world of dreamers and loons!
The problem YOU and the Libs have, is that some Dems also live in the "real world"!
BTW, I've thrived as a `minority' in just about every way....like the Repubs for most of my life......in my own case, becoming a stay-at-home Dad long ago and (very astutely) investing with the `minority' mindset (aka against the herd)!
Posted by Happy at 10/08/2009 @ 09:47am
BTW, to back up a bit...ALWAYS love this-
"You seem incapable of honesty including admitting you were wrong. ....You just reveal yourself over and over as someone not willing to admit your'e wrong."-----Posted by antisocialist at 10/05/2009 @ 9:27pm
Can anybody remember the times where Larry fully, completely, and without snarkiness or caveats...
admitted he was wrong about something?
Posted by Mask at 10/08/2009 @ 2:59pm
Posted by Happy at 10/08/2009 @ 09:47am
Nice little rant, HAPP....doesn't answer the question-
What's the hold-up on health care reform?
"Fighting among you Dems"...or Republicans in Congress?
Posted by Mask at 10/08/2009 @ 3:01pm
What's the hold-up on health care reform?
"Fighting among you Dems"...or Republicans in Congress?
Posted by Mask at 10/08/2009 @ 3:01pm
Question Mask, why haven't the Dems who completely control the House actually voted on HR3200?
Republicans can't stop them-so who is at fault?
Posted by antisocialist at 10/08/2009 @ 3:48pm
Droopy in other words you are a proud slum lord .Hip,hip,hooray you are sticking it to people you despise. When you go talk with your buddies you just have to smirk.
Posted by whatozz at 10/08/2009 @ 7:03pm
Even a guy who subscribes to Thievery Quarterly or the insurance term explainer would be puzzled by the health care bill. Let's get off the high horse of double triple speak and write a bill that is easy and understandable. I suppose the four year insurance boondoggle window will really allow the term transparency to be used.
Posted by whatozz at 10/08/2009 @ 8:03pm
Republicans can't stop them-so who is at fault?-----------Posted by antisocialist at 10/08/2009 @ 3:48pm
Exactly my point, Larry.
Now, get Happy to explain to us whether the Repubs matter or don't matter....he's said both.
Posted by Mask at 10/09/2009 @ 07:37am