Cable news and Rush Limbaugh are an Obama Administration foil. Today, the White House continued to signal that the dumb things that get said by administration critics on right-wing radio and cable news networks will be used by the White House as fodder for "look how irrational our critics are."
Robert Gibbs relished the opportunity to lay some wood to the cable barkers today, specifically that CNBC reporter Rick Santelli "doesn't know what he's talking about."
Yesterday, as discussed here and elsewhere, CNBC's Santelli ranted that Obama's home forclosures plan unveiled Wednesday in Phoenix would not help deserving homeowners and instead help those who bore responsibility for the foreclosure crisis.
Today, it was Gibbs' turn, and he took a big whack back. First, he implied Santelli was out of touch; "I'm not entirely sure where Mr. Santelli lives, or in what house he lives, but the American people...."
Naming Santelli directly in his first answer five times, Gibbs found a way to return to his foil later for a direct shot:
"I also think it's tremendously important that for people who rant on cable television to be responsible and understand what it is they're talking about. I feel assured that Mr. Santelli doesn't know what he's talking about."
Pointing out that home values drop significantly just by virtue of being in the same neighborhood as a foreclosed house, Gibbs suggested to Santelli that it would be helpful to actually read the plan, even inviting him to the White House for a cup of coffee while he read it:
"I would encourage him to read the President's plan and understand that it will help millions of people, many of whom he knows. I'd be more than happy to have him come here and read it. I'd be happy to buy him a cup of coffee -- decaf."
The significance in all of this is not so much the particulars of any individual fight, but the willingness on the part of the White House to confront its critics directly, but picking and choosing the specific targets with forethought. The theme that has emerged, from the Rush Limbaugh dustup over "I want (Obama) to fail" on the stimulus plan, to Santelli's CNBC rant, that the White House is rational and is empathetic to what is really going on in America -- the phrase "Main Street" is uttered hundreds of times by Obama and his aides -- and the critics are set up as some combination of ignorant, out of touch, non-suffering elitists who want craven political gain and not to do what's right in a crisis.
When Obama first responded to Limbaugh, the reaction on cable news (I'm thinking of Chris Matthews in particular) was one of, "What's Obama doing? Doesn't he realize this just gives Limbaugh what he wants, elevates him to Obama's equal? Isn't that a bizarre miscalculation?" The way it's always been done is, don't give oxygen to your critics.
Well, the White House is clearly comfortable going after individuals as props, as foils, for its own arguments. It's aligned with the brand of Obama as problem-solver-in-chief, calling out specific instances and individuals to say, hey look, see what I mean about a petty political culture? By keeping examples fresh, the White House is betting that Americans will side with it, and marginalize the "people who rant on cable television."
In essence, tone implies substance. If you're "ranting," you have an agenda, you're contributing to an unhelpful public policy climate. You might attract wide attention, as the Santelli incident did (Gibbs confessed he'd been watching it over the previous 24 hours on cable). By contrast, the highly popular Obama is seen as calm, thoughtful, nuanced and deliberate. Whereas Bill Clinton probably wouldn't have been able to pull this personality contrast off (he was seen as more ebullient and combative in his personality), it works effectively for a popular Obama.
In other news from the White House today, Gibbs sent a clear signal about Roland Burris that requires a brief mention:
"I think it might be important for Senator Burris to take some time this weekend to either correct what has been said and certainly think of what lays in his future."
Gibbs insisted that wasn't a resignation call, but... it was a resignation call, with a timeline.
Let's translate. "This weekend" = we better not see your ass at Tuesday's joint session.
"[T]hink of what lays in his future," because late-night bargoers hear it all the time:
Dear Roland, you don't have to go home, but you can't stay here.
2.20.2009
Santelli Smackdown Shows White House Foil Strategy
@ 6:38 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
168 comments
So basically, agree with Obama or shut the hell up.
Socialism is the least of our worries. We're headed toward facism.
Not all Grog. More like, act like a pompous, juvenile, right wing fool, and the administration is more than happy to make you the voice of the Republican party. The more guys like Santonelli and Limbaugh are seen as the face and voice of the Republican Party, the better for Obama because they are so disliked and lacking in credibility. If the Republicans were smart, they'd actively disassociate themselves from these clowns. But, as a practical matter, they can't because the base (but not moderate Republicans or independents) would cruxify them, as they did to the Georgia congressman who mildly criticized Rush and then was made to crawl back to kiss his fat a@@. It's a beautiful strategy for Obama; he probably needs to just avoid overdoing it and he can continue to use it for years to come.
Yeah Grog, you better shut up or the stormtroops are coming to get you and deport you to Guantanamo where Obama is going to torture you all by himself.
Grog appears to be our new Republican-apologist, Slackjaw and Inanity-talking points spewing Mule Rider. He can take any reasonable position, distill it to a couple of sound bites, make his argument look silly and demonstrate that he is an idiot.
Nate - we need an ignore button for PeteKent, Jack-Be-Simple and this new idiot.
So now we don't distinguish between someone who disagrees with Obama and known terrorists. Fasicm.
So basically, agree with Obama or shut the hell up.
Not even close.
It is about shutting up those morons that lie just to spread FUD.
Obama and his team will be more than happy to debate intelligent and informed opposition. Something that few republicans can do anymore.
Calling out and mocking liars is fine. It is not censorship of any kind.
Sean wrote this...
Grog, firstly I don't believe Gibbs told anyone to shut up. Its possible to disagree with someone without telling them to shut up. What Gibbs and Obama are doign very well is setting themselves up as the spokesmen for 'Main Street' whilst leaving the GOP to look like out of touch, or underinformed fools.
Sean, well done for pointing out the Burris comment, haven't seen that reported in too many other places and seems very significant really. Remember this is Obama's old seat so lots of symbolism and it seems increasingly like Burris is becoming distanced from his own party. So Burris has a choice really. Protect whatever legacy in public life he has and step aside, or continue to feed his own ego by being Senator Burris. He can do himself, and the Democratic Party in Illinois a lot of good by doing the right thing, it seems to me.
Just a quick point, and this is gonna sound odd, but I wonder, especially in those first few weeks and months of the Clinton administration, if it was a calculation to not respond to the likes of Limbaugh, or a lack of courage? To me it seems one of the crucial differences between Obama and Clinton is Obama does seem more prepared already to take hard choices. [Though I do agree with President Clinton that the nation could do with some assurance from President Obama that things are going to turn out ok. Personally I think his address on Tuesday needs to be the inaugural he didn't give on 20th January- a redux of the high rhetoric of the campaign, the 'yes we can' type of language. Something a long the lines of the Iowa Caucuses speech.
However, the criticisms of Obama are gaining force as, let's put it bluntly, Obama's first 30 days have been a massive disappointment to his supporters. Frankly, the most realistic estimate of his first month is an abysmal failure. Obama could do nothing wrong for two years on the campaign trail but given the legion of problems in his first month, it is clear that he was not ready for prime time.
Santelli is no partisan hack and NBC is the most Obamaphile network (MSNBC/CNBC) so his criticisms are not to be dismissed lightly. For Obama to reclaim his stature, he has to throw Pelosi and Reid overboard. These two 'leaders' have approval rates that are 1/2 of what Bush had and they will only taint and corrupt Obama's grand plan. I hope Obama learned his lesson from Bill Clinton as continued policies like this housing plan fiasco will resurrect the Rethuglican party much like Hillary's bloated health care plan did in 1994 which gave us Bush.
Here is the problem with everything you have noted above:
We really do have too much housing capacity. That really is caused by an expectation that home prices would rise and keep rising. Any form of stimulus that is designed to keep home prices from dropping rewards people who purchased homes they cannot currently afford.
Renters are getting screwed. Responsible home buyers gain somewhat in that their own home is propped up, but lose somewhat in that they are being asked to foot the bill for other people's mortgages. It is unclear if the transfer of wealth from the renters to the underwater home owners is enough to make it a good deal for responsible home owners.
Home prices must drop for the market to clear. We cannot repeal the laws of supply and demand. Gibbs can dance all he wants but the substance of Santelli's rant is true.
How can Obama throw Reid and Pelosi out of the positions that they bungle?
It is up to the senate and house to fix this problem.
The so called "Fairness Doctrine" is all about censorship. Talk radio is the only form of media that has any conservative slant whatsoever, and that will soon be gone. Maybe no one has actually uttered to words "shut up", but that's what it's all about.
Probably the worst article ever written on 538.
And this little gem...
the critics are some combination of ignorant, out of touch, non-suffering elitists who want craven political gain and not to do what's right in a crisis
...I'm one of those critics, and I know hundreds more personally, just like me. And I'm sure there are millions around the country.
Ignorant, out of touch, non-suffering elitists? I'm smack dab in the middle of middle class and very much feeling the effects of the current economic downturn, and I'm seething with anger towards this administration.
I find it grossly insulting that any critic of this administration is immediately stereotyped as an elitist douchebag ignorant jerk who's only out for political gain and will be castigated and called out so as to be humiliated for being so brash as to think he/she should be able to criticize the policies of this administration.
I think GROG said it well above. Forget socialism. That's not an issue anymore. We're moving towards full-blown fascism.
As a renter, how am I getting screwed? The substance of Santelli's rant is BS. If we let 5 million more homes foreclose this year, our banking system will cease to exist. Heck, if the banks hadn't made such bad bets regarding these "AAA" rated vehicles, it wouldn't be as bad to let housing come down, but they did, and since they did, they could probably take the country down with them at this point. Renters benefit because it's not another 4 million out looking to rent, stabilizing prices, other homeowners benefit because their homes don't plummet due to foreclosures and we all benefit because people with homes and money by things, which creates jobs...I love judging a president on 30 days who came into a nightmare, it's like people expected him to walk in and cure everything...He's been everything I expected and I thank god we have someone who is rational and thoughtful guiding us through the mistakes of many many people. Sorry guys on both sides, allowing the banking industry and home prices to just collapse to prove one of your sides in not an option.
First few lines from wikipedia on "fascism"...
Fascism is an authoritarian nationalist ideology focused on solving economic, political, and social problems that its supporters see as causing national decline or decadence. Fascists aim to create a single-party state in which the government is led by a dictator who seeks unity by requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of the nation or a race.
My God, that describest what's going on now to a tee. This is no longer just serious. It's frightening. I hope my state (and neighboring ones) have a contingency plan should this country collapse to where we can establish a new confederacy of states willing to uphold the values afforded by the Constitution and preserve our liberties.
I find it grossly insulting that any critic of this administration is immediately stereotyped as an elitist douchebag ignorant jerk who's only out for political gain and will be castigated and called out so as to be humiliated for being so brash as to think he/she should be able to criticize the policies of this administration.
You think his outright FUD should be treated with respect?
You seem to be very confused about what is happening.
Any critic is not being called elitist douchebags. It is critical with whom logic, facts, and intelligence are foreign. i.e. Rush, Coulter, Santelli, etc
It is even more amusing how you righties cheered on torture, lies that lead to the deaths of thousands, domestic spying without warrants, etc, yet now are crying fascism; meanwhile you are throwing out histrionics because the new administration is calling out the liars. The term irony doesn't seem to cover this enough.
Judging from responses here, it is fascism to state someone is wrong on a subject and to then offer to sit down with them and present them the proposal (because their response appears to be way off from it) they misrepresented...My Italian relatives who lived under mussulini are rolling over in their graves. Warrant wiretaps: AOK, offering to talk to your critics: Fascist dictators...glad I know, because knowing is half the battle
The so called "Fairness Doctrine" is all about censorship. Talk radio is the only form of media that has any conservative slant whatsoever, and that will soon be gone.
LOL
Yeah, giving time to the other side is the very definition of censorship. If you wonder why the right wing is so marginalized, you should take a close, critical look at what you write.
Home prices must drop for the market to clear. We cannot repeal the laws of supply and demand.
That's it in a nutshell. Two sentences to sum it all up.
It is even more amusing how you righties cheered on torture, lies that lead to the deaths of thousands, domestic spying without warrants, etc, yet now are crying fascism; meanwhile you are throwing out histrionics because the new administration is calling out the liars. The term irony doesn't seem to cover this enough.
I never cheered on any of that. And Sean is insinuating that anyone who criticizes the administration is an out-of-touch elitist jerkoff. Don't give me your moralizing when you don't even know what I stand for....I have one major beef with this administration, and that's their desire to drive the economy off a cliff...so stop with the red herrings. We're talking about economic policy and being critical of it...we're not talking about wire-tapping, torture, etc. I don't support those things.
Until you get a clue, STFU!
Average Citizen,
Seeing that definition of fascim in writing is chilling.
Befuddled - Don't get defending America confused with fascism.
The Obama Plan is so lacking in detail that I cannot offer an intelligent comment on it. It is unclear if he is advocating rate reduction which most people support or government funded cramdowns that many people don't support. The announcement says that speculators and the irresponsible will not be allowed to participate, but doesn't define those terms or offer examples.
It did say that second mortgages would not be included. Personally I think that second mortgages that funded renovation or upgrade should be included. No, I don't have a second mortgage and I'm nowhere near underwater.
My God, that describest what's going on now to a tee.
Geez, play into the right wing fundie stereotype why don't you.
Obama is doing what he can to fix the mess the republicans(and some dems) left.
The mess we are in is directly related to trickle down and deregulation.
How is fixing the mess and marginalizing liars fascism?
You mean like:
"You are either with us or the terrorists?"
"Dissent is treason"?
You guys crack me up.
Nice to see the White House sassin' right back. Mr. Nice Guy is no longer operative...
Nate/Sean: What's the latest on the Secretary of HHS? Here is one option I would love to see come to pass.
Befuddled,
Are you going to demand equal time in print media, TV media, and hollywood elite media? The right has ONE source of a voice and it's AM talk radio. Big deal. And that scares the heck out of the left.
Until you get a clue, STFU!
More irony from the right.
OMG you are a facist!!!!!!! Just like Obama!!!
OMG!!!!!
The Obama Plan is so lacking in detail that I cannot offer an intelligent comment on it. It is unclear if he is advocating rate reduction which most people support or government funded cramdowns that many people don't support. The announcement says that speculators and the irresponsible will not be allowed to participate, but doesn't define those terms or offer examples.
Are you serious?
Have you read the details? It is chock full of specifics, bordering on information overload.
Yeah, giving time to the other side is the very definition of censorship
I love how it's always pacified this way...the truest way of sneaking the most sinister of policies.
Like telling a girl you're about to do anal, "I'm only going to stick the head in." And then you ride her ass like the Lone Ranger rode Silver.
Look, if someone wants to hear Rush Limbaugh blather for two hours solid uninterrupted with no opposing point of view - as wrong as he may be - then that is their right as an American. It's not up to the government to decide what's an opposing point of view. It's up for the press to report accurately and for the citizenry to make the most informed decision they can.
Stop trying to play God and control what everybody hears, sees, feels, and thinks.
Do you want to be forced to have Ann Coulter give a 5-minute spill at the conclusion of every Rachel Maddow show in the name of fairness? Okay, so maybe you don't think Ann is a good example because she's an uncredible wacko righty...so what about a David Brooks or George Will? You still interested?
I bet no...because you only want to listen to your bullshit the same way other people want to listen to theirs...
Befuddled - Don't get defending America confused with fascism.
I am suffering from irony overload.
Getting into a tizzy and calling this fascism is doing a disservice to your country and apparently you party.
We just suffered through 8 years of fascistic leanings and now you are sounding the alarm?
It might play if you weren't an obvious fundie nutbag shill, if not an outright nutbag yourself.
You guys quoting wikis on fascism reminds me of the washed-up punks in The Big Lebowski being nihilists.
"Yeah, Lebowski, we believe in the state, Lebowski."
Just you wait until Obama drops a marmot in your bathtub.
"I never cheered on any of that. And Sean is insinuating that anyone who criticizes the administration is an out-of-touch elitist jerkoff. Don't give me your moralizing when you don't even know what I stand for....I have one major beef with this administration, and that's their desire to drive the economy off a cliff...so stop with the red herrings. We're talking about economic policy and being critical of it...we're not talking about wire-tapping, torture, etc. I don't support those things."
If you supported the previous "administration", then you supported those things. If you don't support a truth commission to go after the war criminals who committed torture *in our name*, then you supported those things. Pretty much if you voted republican for the past eight years (and before), you supported those things. Trying now to say hey, it was more nuanced than that, I wasn't one of them, means you supported those things.
The only people who didn't support those things are the people who were criticized for being "un-American" for pointing out that the previous "administration" was committing war crimes.
Stop being a revisionist. Stand up for what you really are--a republican stooge.
Man oh man, am I loving me some Robert Gibbs right about now. Go get 'em tiger.
Are you going to demand equal time in print media, TV media, and hollywood elite media? The right has ONE source of a voice and it's AM talk radio. Big deal. And that scares the heck out of the left.
Given that there are tons of right wing tv and newspapers I am not sure what you are whining about.
The majority of the MSM is owned and controlled by right wingers.
Ever wonder why Bush got a free pass over his abuses, why Gingrich got a pass for his womanizing while condemning Clintons, why the republican delagation gets more airtime then dems, while Clinton got roasted in the media over lies about a blow job?
You people live in fantasy land.
Again, your unintellectual approach to everything and your constant histrionics is what led to your marginalization.
Enjoy it, you earned it!
Socialism is the least of our worries. We're headed toward facism.
Responding to your critics, and doing so in an effective manner, is "fascism"? Wow, you're really terrified of Democrats who fight back, aren't you? Well, Grog-o, get used to it.
I love how it's always pacified this way...the truest way of sneaking the most sinister of policies.
I realize facts turn you fundies stomachs.
No matter what you think Nate it still doesn't change the actual argument.
Here are the facts. Most foreclosures are occuring in either
A. areas with vulnerable people who were too stupid to understand what they were signing
B. super hot real estate markets
The A types are overwhelmingly minorities and lower class who as it so happens vote Democratic in droves = Obama is buying votes
The B types deserve to have the markets crash on them for speculating.
The majority of actual homeowners in their primary residence have seen relative stability because they are in existing stable neighborhoods. Additionally for the few primary resident homeowners in heavy foreclosure zones they have nothing to fear because they aren't going to sell anytime soon anyway. In fact there property taxes are going down.
Let me close by saying Nate you are a smart guy. I greatly respect most of your work. I wish you were part of the right instead of the left often :-p. But sometimes you are a bit too transparent in letting your partisanship get the best of you.
Cheers
You mean like:
"You are either with us or the terrorists?"
"Dissent is treason"?
You guys crack me up
I love how pond scum like Befuddled assume (incorrectly) that because I criticize Obama or his administration, that is proof/evidence I supported/endorsed everything Bush did for 8 years.
Have you seen me say ANYTHING that was an endorsement of Bush's presidency? Anything?!
Seriously, you are a laughingstock with your inaccurate ad hominem attacks - i.e. "you righties", "oh the irony", etc. - I'm simply a critic of bad policies of Barack Obama...I AM NOT A RIGHTIE OR A BUSHIE, SO PLEASE REFRAIN FROM USING THAT LIE.
No matter what you think Nate it still doesn't change the actual argument.
Nate didn't write this.
I AM NOT A RIGHTIE OR A BUSHIE, SO PLEASE REFRAIN FROM USING THAT LIE.
You obviously are since you are equating the democratic administration standing up to FUD as "fascism".
How about moron? That fit better?
If you don't think the mainstream media in this country is in the bag for the left, it's a lost cause. "Equal time" Apparently that's the American way now. Everyone has to be equal. Welcome to fascism.
One of the next right-wing blowhards about to get a smack-down could be Richard Perle.
See:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/19/AR2009021903332.html?hpid=sec-politics
k that make more sense writing was emotional instead of factual
@publius (aka LIAR)
If you supported the previous "administration", then you supported those things.
I didn't.
Pretty much if you voted republican for the past eight years (and before), you supported those things.
No and no. I didn't vote for Bush or any other Republican and never have previously.
Trying now to say hey, it was more nuanced than that, I wasn't one of them, means you supported those things.
No, I'm saying I didn't support Bush. I didn't vote for him. It doesn't get any more nuanced than that.
Stop being a revisionist. Stand up for what you really are--a republican stooge.
I'm not. Stop being such a f***ing liar. You're the one being the revisionist because you're the one calling me a "republican stooge" simply because I criticize the current administration.
I think I know why that is, though. It's because your pea brain can't get around the fact that there might be people out there who - and I know this might be a shocker - don't like BOTH PARTIES or more specifically, don't like BUSH OR OBAMA. I know you can't fathom such a thing, as in your warped partisan mind, it's all mutually exclusive. You're either "for us or agin' us"....right?!!
Nope, and I hate to break it to you but there are millions of us out here who despised both men, both parties, both administrations, etc.
We will (I hope) fight to take back this country from the crooks who are and have been running it.
You can sit around making partisan wisecracks all day, calling all Obama critics "bushies" and "righties" or whatever, but that's okay. You'll be the first we run over with a large piece of construction equipment as we storm Pennsyvlanis Avenue and Capitol Hill and pull those politicians out in the streets by their ears and beat them within an inch of their life.
You obviously are since you are equating the democratic administration standing up to FUD as "fascism".
How about moron? That fit better?
Glad you enlightened me on your line of reasoning. Now I know you're a know-nothing hack and a f***ing tool, to boot.
If you think everybody who criticizes Obama now or in the future is/was a Bushie, rightie, etc., then you're in for a big surprise. You are irrelevant.
"You'll be the first we run over with a large piece of construction equipment as we storm Pennsyvlanis Avenue and Capitol Hill and pull those politicians out in the streets by their ears and beat them within an inch of their life."
A well-reasoned argument indeed.
The sad thing is, I was rereading this thread and realized I'd called the wrong guy a republican stooge, and was going to apologize.
But now you've made that kind of difficult.
Anyway, the original point Nate made is that the current administration, unlike, say, Jimmy Carter's, is not afraid to fight back. That will make things very challenging for the right-wing loonies, because now when they blurt out some ill-informed, logically inconsistent, provably historically incorrect piece of gibberish, they'll get called on it, and in a gentle sort of way that just kind of, you know, once again makes the right-wing loons look like fools.
And that's not suppressing well-reasoned political dissent. That's just calling a fool a fool. The way to avoid being called a fool is to not act like one in the first place.
NJ_Moderate said...
However, the criticisms of Obama are gaining force as, let's put it bluntly, Obama's first 30 days have been a massive disappointment to his supporters. Frankly, the most realistic estimate of his first month is an abysmal failure. Obama could do nothing wrong for two years on the campaign trail but given the legion of problems in his first month, it is clear that he was not ready for prime time.
Santelli is no partisan hack and NBC is the most Obamaphile network (MSNBC/CNBC) so his criticisms are not to be dismissed lightly. For Obama to reclaim his stature, he has to throw Pelosi and Reid overboard. These two 'leaders' have approval rates that are 1/2 of what Bush had and they will only taint and corrupt Obama's grand plan. I hope Obama learned his lesson from Bill Clinton as continued policies like this housing plan fiasco will resurrect the Rethuglican party much like Hillary's bloated health care plan did in 1994 which gave us Bush.
For a consumnate bullshit artist, that is quite possibly the biggest pile of bullshit you've posted yet. Where to begin???
Obama has achieved more in his first 30 days than any president in living memory. FACT. Both the the President and Vice President reiterated that today while addressing America's mayors.
As for his supporters, you're not none of them, so present clear evidence of his supporters being massively disappointe, or STFU.
I'm a supporter who's been critical of his recent attempts at bipartisanship. And yet, those wasted efforts have proven critics like me wrong. It's pretty hard for someone like me to argue with polls showing 65% of the American people crediting Obama with acting in a bipartisan manner, while congressional Republicans continue to slide.
Obama could do nothing wrong for two years on the campaign trail
That's fucking hilarious. 99% of your posts during the election were critical of Obama and his campaign. You also said he wasn't ready, that Hillary should have been the nominee and that PUMAS would bite Obama in the ass if he didn't pick her for VP.
For Obama to reclaim his stature, he has to throw Pelosi and Reid overboard. These two 'leaders' have approval rates that are 1/2 of what Bush had and they will only taint and corrupt Obama's grand plan.
Harry Reid should be punted because he can't even outmanoeuvre a fuckit like Mitch McConnell. Nancy Pelosi and congressional Dems, on the other hand, are a few points off their the best ever approval rating. They're exceeding expectations at this point. Also, Steny Hoyer, who is no favorite of the liberal blogs, has been getting good write-ups recently on DailyKos for various statements he's made, and apparently for rediscovering his balls.
BTW, nice attempt at covering your arse at the end there. "Rethuglican Party" LOL
I think Gibbs is even a worse press secretary than McClellen. He is the worst. He hems and haws, then can't put a sentence together. What a dunce. I think it is time to put out a Gibbs watch...You know, a countdown to being thrown under the bus. He is just terrible.
@ Statler
Does it come in a maximum strength fumigator version? Because that dude's more persistent than a bedbug infestation.
The right wingnut trolls, being unsuccessful everywhere else, are now infesting this site. I wish we could get Gibbs to chase them away after embarassing them. But they're doing a fine job on their own.
Let me just say it so that all you trolls can understand. And then go back to your local wingnut politicians and tell them:
The only reason the Republicans got their arses whipped in 2006 and 2008 (and will get whipped once again in 2020) is because you guys are just NOT CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH.
There, I've disclosed the secret. But your elected officials in the house and Senate are trying to become even more conservative. GREAT JOB!! KEEP IT UP!!
Remember, trolls, and that means NJ, Jack-Be-Simple, Grog, Average Citizen (who appears to be a less manic Mule Rider) and PeteKent - in order for your party to win in 2010, its candidates must be MORE CONSERVATIVE. MORE OPPOSED TO EVERYTHING DEALING WITH HELPING THE MIDDLE CLASS.
Weekly President, Democratic and Republican approval ratings
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/2/20/82015/5165/40/699666
Average Citizen may or may not have a past. Hey, Average Citizen. Care to link to a comment somewhere (under whatever name) where you were critical of the previous administration even once in the years 2004, 2005 or 2006?
NJ_Moderate, on the other hand, does have a past. Check out this comment from 11/2/08. Take a look, in particular at the second paragraph and the comment that follows the New Jersey prediction and then take a look again at the comment above.
In regard to the linked comment, Nate was closer to the vote percentage difference in 39 of the 50 states and overall. Nate was wrong about the winner in Indiana. NJ_Moderate was wrong about the winner in Florida, Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio. Nate was off by more than 5% on the percentage difference in 11 states. NJ_Moderate was off by more than 5% on the percentage difference in 16 states. NJ_Moderate got New Jersey and South Dakota right. Nate went to tenths of a percent so he was right to that degree nowhere, but was within .5% either way in Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire and South Dakota.
Knowing NJ_Moderate and reading the Ohio comment again, I wouldn't be surprised if in some earlier comment NJ_Moderate wrote that whatever vote fraud there might have been in 2004 (not that there was any,) it didn't affect the outcome. Obama carried Ohio by 4.54% (Bush carried it by 2.11% in 2004), Obama carried Massachusetts by 25.81% (so much for the African-American governor effect) and Obama carried Minnesota by 10.24% (so NJ_Moderate called it on 11/2—Senator Al Franken.) When you're right, you're right NJ_Moderate.
One more thing. NJ_Moderate is, no doubt about it, a Democrat.
A Zell Miller Democrat, at best.
+ Additionally for the few primary resident homeowners in heavy foreclosure zones they have nothing to fear because they aren't going to sell anytime soon anyway. In fact there property taxes are going down.+
You've clearly never lived in a middle class neighborhood. When I lived in Tacoma, WA (house I bought for $135K), and the house on the block behind was closed as a meth house, that impacted my resale value true, but more importantly the boarded up house made the neighborhood feel less safe and less stable for everyone else. It doesn't take many foreclosures to destroy a neighborhood for everyone else.
NJ_Moderate is, no doubt about it, a Democrat.
In that case, NJ Moderate should head over to the Confluence to lick his/her wounds instead of moping around here.
@ Jack-be-nimble:
"I think Gibbs is even a worse press secretary than McClellen. He is the worst. He hems and haws, then can't put a sentence together. What a dunce. I think it is time to put out a Gibbs watch...You know, a countdown to being thrown under the bus. He is just terrible."
Your concerns have been duly noted.
I've admired Gibbs ever since he completely pwned Sean Hannity -- turned him into a stuttering mess -- during the campaign.
way to cherrypick
thats assuming that person would sell. Only a idiot would sell in this environment.
Real estate runs in cycles
Rewarding either A stupidity or B greed is not what America is about.
Franken: "We're Going To Win Soon"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/20/franken-were-going-to-win_n_168659.html
You already won, just get your arse seated. This should have been sorted before President Obama's address to congress.
OMFG, Bobby Jindal is one ugly bastard.
Forget the fact he looks like a sweaty suicide bomber, the guy is just plain unnatractive. Presumably the guy can string a sentence together. But what exactly are his talents, or appeal, outside the conservative nutbase? At least Mooseburger has nice legs.
Here's why Santelli et al. doesn't matter:
Chatting with the Republican mayor of my small Indiana city the other day, he told me how the state was going to give the city stimulus funds to pay for a "shovel-ready" road project. That road project was gonna happen anyway, so no jobs will be created. Meanwhile, he'd love to get funding to run a sewer line out to a proposed industrial park, so that he could get new businesses and more jobs. Dang Democrats and their money-wasting, he implied.
Yeah, money's getting wasted, I replied, but you're from the party that gave $18 billion to pay for Wall Street bonuses. He didn't really have an answer to that one.
"Rewarding either A stupidity or B greed is not what America is about."
You're joking, right? That's pretty much all the previous "administration" did the whole time they were driving this country into the ground, except when they rewarded *both* stupidity and greed.
So now that a sane man is in office, and he has to clean the previous clown's drunken barf off the coffee table that is America, you criticize his plan. Got a better one? I didn't think so.
The problem with rabble-rousers like Santelli is that even when they have a point (and he does, clearly), the effect of his words is to merely inflame those who agree with his single point. As with almost everything involving politics, a viable solution must involve the reconciliation of several (not all) differing points of view. This is not to say that there is no fault to determine or injustice to address here. There most certainly is--and starting at the top. But unless your goal is to get people to go burn up some buildings or kill somebody, Santelli's rhetoric is just so much ranting. That's Rush's job (and Coulter's, and O'Reilly's, and Hannity's, and...) and if you agree with him you've sacrificed your brain already.
If politics or economics were simply a question of who was able to get the largest number of folks angry, we'd all be much worse off. Hitler was great at getting people mad, and it wasn't even that he didn't have a point at all (same with the Taliban, Al Quaeda, etc., etc.). It's that he took a partial truth that resonated with the German people (their unjust humiliation and brutalization after WWI), ignored everything else (the humanity of the Jews, for instance), and dragged the world into war.
There's a good reason why the word "mad" has the double sense of "angry" and "insane". If you're angry enough, even at a real offense, you're probably not making sense. That's why crime victims don't get to sentence criminals.
There's a difference between venting anger and working for justice. Santelli's on the wrong side of that divide, regardless of his point. He totally ignores, for example, the absolute fact of predatory lending and the fact that many upside-down homeowners are unsophisticated enough not to fall victim to such predation.
Radical reform is probably needed in many ways, but the level of anger of the spokespeople is not an indicator of the validity of their cause.
That's something Obama's got going for him, and Santelli doesn't.
Having voiced my namby-pamby let's-be-friends opinion, I have to say that anybody called GROG (all caps) is likely to have a paleolithic take on things he or she might take a couple more chromosomes to understand.
Further, anybody who refers to him/herself as "Average Citizen" is presuming to speak for so many people they don't know that it amounts to arrogance of a kind that a real "average" (whatever that means) person would be embarrassed to display. How about just speaking for yourself, OK? Same with PK--talking about how everybody else feels about everything is just another form of megalomania.
Fascism is where we've been heading for the last eight years--an unholy alliance between gov't, business and the military. Obama's no fascist.
Average Citizen,
Sean is insinuating that anyone who criticizes the administration is an out-of-touch elitist jerkoff.
Actually I think Sean was pointing out the absurdity of trying portray the anger (fear?) of the investor class as a populist revolt.
I have one major beef with this administration, and that's their desire to drive the economy off a cliff
Do you really believe that the Obama administration has a desire to drive the economy off a cliff? Isn't it possible that they simply don't share your view of economics?
If you want to argue that the real goal is to destroy the economy rather than to save it, you'll need to explain why many of the country's most prominent economists are generally supportive of the steps the administration has taken (even if they may quibble with some of the details).
There is a difference between a debate where each side is debating the facts than when one side rants, is irrational and spewing lies. All the Republican arguments are lies and worse they are hypocritical like calling the stimulus package wasteful spending when a Republican president and congress put us trillions more dollars in debt. It was obvious Santelli never read the plan or even made the connection between foreclosures and home values.
nova_middle_man,
The A types are overwhelmingly minorities and lower class who as it so happens vote Democratic in droves = Obama is buying votes
The soft bigotry insinuated in your statements sums up perfectly why the right has such a difficult time attracting minority voters.
Obama ran on a platform that including helping the working poor and the middle class and when he follows through he's only buying votes?
>>However, the criticisms of Obama are gaining force as, let's put it bluntly, Obama's first 30 days have been a massive disappointment to his supporters. Frankly, the most realistic estimate of his first month is an abysmal failure.<<
I love how frantic Obama-haters like NJ_Extremist think they speak for supporters. The first 30 days have exceeded the wildest expectations of most Obama supporters. The biggest infrastructure bill in American history was just passed. For heaven's sake, tell me what you think I think all you want, but it doesn't change the reality of what I actually think, just as the delusional analysis of conservatives doesn't change the fact that polls show that Americans prefer Obama 2-1 over the Republicans in Congress.
Santelli is a nonstop talker who thinks he knows everything. That's pretty much true of the whole crew at CNBC.
Basically, their world is crashing around them there. Eight years of mismanagement of the economy. Irrational exhuberance. Banks and major investment firms going broke. Dow and Nasdaq plunging.
But all they can propose is to fix the banks and cut taxes, especially investment taxes so that risk taking will be rewarded (protected) and the economy will grow again. They never utter the idea that nobody is going to build new plant capacity or produce more product if consumers are unemployed or strapped for cash. It almost doesn't occur to them that in order to sell things there must be buyers.
Every once in a while they bring in a sane person, including Warren Buffet (whose Berkshire Hathaway ain't doing so hot right now, but Buffet is strategically buying properties now despite that).
But they ultimately can't get themselves to admit that the economy is in a true man-made crisis, and that the dogmas for how to grow the economy duirng normal times do not apply when everything is going under, including state and local budgets, employment generally, the financial system, even g.d. peanut butter.
>>. These two 'leaders' have approval rates that are 1/2 of what Bush had and they will only taint and corrupt Obama's grand plan<<
Ah, NJ_Extremist, are you psychologically incapable of telling the truth? Pelosi's individual national approval ratings are nearly double those of Bush. The reason Congress's approval ratings are low is due to the presence of the GOP. Congressional Democrats currently receive fairly positive scores, but their Republican counterparts' number are abysmal, dragging the overall Congressional approval down.
But, by all means, continue your delusions. It's not hurting us Dems.
GROG said...
Socialism is the least of our worries. We're headed toward facism.
You know ... sometimes I wish McCain had won and continued the Bush policies and lack of policies straight to hell ... just to shut you up once and for all. If the current financial meltdown isn't enough of a near-death experience to snap you out of it, you're truly hopeless.
Actually, I should take what I said back -- at least a bit. This morning they were discussing the fact that the seemingly heroic consumer, who kept on spending after 2001 despite the stagnation in real wages, was only able to do this because they were using home equity growth -- which was a product of the housing bubble -- as a bank account or credit card.
So, they remarked sadly, all of the seeming growth in "income" in the present decade was due to the housing bubble. And now that that bubble has burst, and prices continue to sink, the consumer is tapped out. A whole decade of "income growth" lost, they said.
But what did that mean in terms of policy prescriptions? They have no clue except to criticize Obama's rescue plan.
Statler: you're right, unless we count the neocon foreign policy agenda. And look where that got us.
wv: trayf (so now it's revealed, the Great Wordverificator is Jewish)
Wow, what a misappropriation of the word 'Facism'.
Especially considering how close to facism we came in the past 8 years.
This is a very interesting essay on the very subject, I suggest both the right and left take a look.
http://cursor.org/stories/fascismintroduction.php
We are one month into the Obama administration and he is already making the American people see just how ridiculous and irrational the right wing whack-o broadcasters are. I can't hardly wait to see what he is doing to the right 2 years from now!
It feels so good to have a President that is a brilliant strategist. What's even better is that the rabid right (i.e. the repub party) still doesn't get it! They continue to play into his hands! And now, the nut-case governors in the deep south have been stupid enough to beat their chests and say they aren't going to accept the stimulus money. What a bunch of clueless morons!
HA HA HA HA, this is so much fun to watch, all while Obama is getting things done for this country and setting us in the correct (can't use the word "right" there, sorry) direction!
@ Drowzee:
Its typical. The right just starts using words without any regard for what they really mean. They repeat them over and over and over again (and even get the MSM to begin parroting their phrases) and hope that people will actually take what they say as fact.
Anyone calling Obama a socialist/communist/fascist are listening too much to FOX and Rush. A lot of right wing commentary is focusing on this nonsense and I think they are hurting themselves and their party.
Obama's first month has not been smooth by any means but it has to be seen in context. In 30 days Obama and his administration had to:
1.pass a nearly trillion dollar stimulus bill as their first piece of legislation with a trillion dollar deficit in the backdrop. All the while having to get into the age old argument of tax-cuts vs. spending against a wounded GOP itching to reclaim its "Small government" cred. Lets not forget the junk Pelosi put in the Bill which allowed the GOP to go on a Jihad against the bill.
2. Get nominations through congress and staffed up. (Some self inflicted wounds here)
3. Get the rest of the Tarp money from congress and some how find a way to use the remaining $350 billion to plug a 2 trillion dollar problem all while the public outrage over wall street grows every day. Geitner - who's charged with solving the problem - hasn't had time to staff the department with which to lead and every day the market drops another 200 points while our treasury secretary seeks to fix a problem using means nobody knows will work.
4. Fix a housing problem with 80% of the countries mortgages under water, millions in foreclosure and millions more on the way through institutions that have failed with no consensus how to fix it and even if there was consensus theirs no money.
5. Two wars. One winding down the other we're losing and the public is getting war fatigue. Iran and its nuclear weapons program. Israel just elected a far right government intent on using an aggressive approach in Gaza. North Korea seems hell bent on shooting missiles and the Russians are up to their old tricks. Did I mention Pakistan?
6. I nearly forgot - The car companies are bankrupt and Obama needs to bail them out in which case they may need further help for a few years and maybe never become solvent. Or let them fail and pile another 2-3 million job losses on the current 3 million.
7. Oh yeah, we now measure our National deficit in trillions per year and at some point, our debtors may stop buying.
This is going to be a long, deep recession and I think Obama can kiss the midterm elections goodbye. The economy will not be turned around by then and my guess is voters will have become impatient and Obama's approval rating will be below 50%. Maybe by 2012 there will be enough recovery that Obama can show some results but many economists believe unemployment may still be around 7-8%.
These are the circumstances this administration faces. If Obama can get the country out of this mess, he deserves an FDR style 4 terms.
At least two of the Republican apologists sloppily ditto-heading each other in this thread are sock puppets. Check their IPs.
Reducing the size of government until it was small enough to drown in a bathtub (as Grover Norquist famously advocated) is about as close to a plan as the neocons could get.
Republicanism as it now exists seems little more than a synonym for greed, bellicosity, intolerance, hypocrisy and ignorance. Until they accept responsibility for the blood they've spilled and the suffering they've caused, they will exist in a hell of their own devising. Speaking from such depths, they are valuable as negative role models, not credible advisors.
We liberals need to get the word out to the trolls here:
The reason why the Republican Party has taken such a beating these last four years (setting aside the brilliant leadership we got from The Decider) is that Republicans haven't been conservative enough. Not enough tax cuts for the rich, not enough regulation of personal behavior which goes beyond the missionary position between husbands and wives. And too wishy-washy a position on prayer in schools. (We need to roll that back, too, since the Constitution only prohibits Congress from establishing religion. As Justices Scalia and Thomas have pointed out, the States are free to have state-sponsored religion. Which, of course, is Christianity, but not just any old Christianity, but a mainstream brand. Seventh Day Adventists and Mormons are SOL.)
So, remember, if the Republicans were only a lot more conservative, and a little more pure, they'd be back in the saddle with a winning strategy.
Let Rush Slackjaw and Sean Inanity lead the Republicans back into the White House in 2012. Listen to them. Respect them. Repeat what they say. Follow them. And do not criticize any Repubilcan who toes the line.
That, my friends, is the winning strategy. In other words, more of what the Republicans have done for the last month. I pray to G-d they keep it up.
Exactly STepper.
According to the wingnuts, Chimpy and Cheney were too liberal.
Senator Man on Dog was too liberal.
Tom Delay was too liberal.
George Felix Allen was too liberal.
Norm Coleman was too liberal.
Katherine Harris was too liberal.
Dennis Hastert was too liberal.
Trent Lott was too liberal.
Sarah Palin was too liberal.
Rumsfeld was too liberal.
What a fucking joke.
Stephen Colbert sums up the bankruptcy of the GOP is this tight video:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/216000/january-19-2009/tribute-to-the-bush-administration---christine-ebersole
Stephen Colbert sums up the bankruptcy of the GOP is this tight video:
http://snipurl.com/ccigt
Average Citizen said...
I didn't vote for Bush or any other Republican and never have previously.
and
I'm saying I didn't support Bush. I didn't vote for him. It doesn't get any more nuanced than that.
Unaverage foreigner,
You didn't vote for Bush. Correct?
Is that because you weren't/aren't old enough to vote? That might explain some of the extreme juvenile comments you've made on these pages.
Maybe you're not a citizen? Maybe that would explain why you didn't vote, and some of the comments you've made that, if enacted, would mean the destruction of the US economically.
Folks, I know. DNFTT.
I just wanted to get some observations out about possibilities of why the Unaverage Foreigner might be posting the piles of male bovine droppings he's leaving here.
STepper, Jenny,
Do you think Alan Keyes just might be conservative enough for the GOOPers?
Maybe if the GOOPers follow his lead, they will self-exterminate themselves in half the time-frame they're shooting for right now.
Speaking of Alan Keyes. He is likely to be the next target called out by name for spewing vile and over the top nonsense.
Happy to see it, in part because it is essentially the strategy I advocated almost 3 years ago:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Ann_Coulter_Republicans_0622.html
"Republicans have been extraordinarily successful in casting large swaths of the Democratic loyalists as lepers. Democratic leaders have largely concurred in that diagnosis, and have been running away from their own supporters for more than a decade. As Stanford linguist Geoffrey Nunberg recently pointed out, the Democrats are so cowed they have acquiesced in the demonization of the word "liberal," which now battles for lead pariah status with the dread acronym "ACLU." In short, the greedy, venal wing of the Democratic Party has been cut loose from its only source of strength and differentiation from the greedy venal wing of the Republican Party. The cleavage has been devastatingly effective. Yet no serious attempt has been made to create a similar schism between fringe Republicans and those who stress fitness for polite company."
sorry Sean, but Gibbs was another over-reaction that does give credence to Obama not having tolerance for other points of view
Gibbs is an embarassment [I hate to say I agree with Jack on something...]
even since day one he comes across as self-rightteous, smarmy, snarky & insincere. I would love to wipe that fake grin off his face because he seems like a Bushie from the podium - how3ver as a press flack, he is no Tony Snow...
go after Rush - fine, especially directly from the big one... but to lower yourself so publicly to counter-attack a low-level CNBC reporter that few [except the cons & elites] watch - well this who spat is petty & vindictive & trifling
BUT obviously it was meant as a 3 card monty to distract from the BIG picture rather than as substance
see ? we are commenting on it now... BUT if Santelli was really worth attacking [and Gibbs did attack him 'personally' rather than rebut him generally], then Gibbs & Obama missed the boat & the public knows it and says 'meh'
engage - not character assasinate
I am embarrassed by Gibbs on this & in general he is a smuck & worse - he is a HACK
same as he was on the campaign trail when Gibbs slagged on Dean in 2004 - he should be a GOPer attack critter because he makes the progressives look petty & unable to stand up to any criticism
now Santelli is an idiot, do not think I am defending him - but Matthews gave him lots of face time today on Hardball, so now he will be a MSM 'star' for the GOPers [and he admitted he voted for McCain]
the entire affair is just an intentional distraction from team Obama hoping noone will notice that the stock market is still plunging
SEAN - you are better than this sophmoric playground hijinks
Re Burris from the NY Times:
The governor asked Illinois lawmakers to give him the authority to name a temporary replacement to the Senate seat until a special election can be held, and he said he would seek someone who was not interested in running for a longer term.
With every single Democratic vote in the Senate of vital importance (remember having to fly Senator Brown back from his father's wake for the 60th vote?),I cannot understand why Governor Quinn would risk losing a Democratic seat in a totally unnecessary special election.
It was sad today to see some of our brightest and best posters not only feeding the trolls but answering every one of their baited posts.I can hear the excitement in the troll cesspool community as the word spreads that there's "all you can eat at 538"!
Opus - Quinn has a well earned reputation for putting spectacle ahead of accomplishments. Don't expect him to worry about what makes good sense at a national level - he's trying to make nice with the state legislature, who want Burris gone for a variety of reasons.
Right now, by the way, it looks like he won't be letting go of anyone not mentioned by name in Blago's impeachment trial, even though there were whole divisions and organizations (such as the Central Management Service and Gov. Office of Mgmt & Budget)accused of malfeasance in many of the subjects of the trial. Good news for a lot of people who hadn't done anything wrong and were afraid they'd lose their jobs, but not so good for the cause of sweeping reform.
DCM - I seriously don't know of a press secretary who wouldn't meet your description. Can you name one who came across as honest, sober, sincere and competent? I can't - Perino was an airhead, Snow was a Fox spouting head, McClennen just seemed lost, and Fleischer was an arrogant prick. The Clinton press secretaries all the way back to Dee Dee Myers were one or more variation on those themes.
The common characteristics seems to be they all engage in cat and mouse with the press and the conventional wisdom is that you have to treat the press with a measure of disdain to avoid getting killed in a scene out of "The Lord of the Flies." Press secretaries think of themselves as under attack, to the point where the symbol of the office is a flak jacket. At least (unlike most of the Bushies) Gibbs appears to have a functioning brain and not just a mouth wired to the talking points of the day. I can't say I really mind him, but I can see why he ticks people off. Then again, when I think of someone like Howard Wolfson or any of McCain's various surrogates in the same job, he seems pretty mild.
Grog makes some very good points. Not that they're valid, but they certainly show us the different between those passionate for change, and those hell bent on maintaining the failure of the status quo.
There IS conservative radio, yes. There is also conservative television (FOX), conservative news (WSJ) and a million conservative sites on the web (far too many to list.)
Just because something is said, it doesn't mean it's true. Outright lies work well on the conservative base (specifically the Christian right, long known for their unrivaled capacity for self-deception,) but when you're yelling to cool-as-cucumbers rational thinkers, you're not going to come out ahead, regardless of volume.
Don't feel bad about it though. Your detractors don't mind you being so obvious with your O'Reilly talking points. We almost prefer it. It sure as heck makes it awfully easy to spot you guys.
I'm conflicted on the idea of an IGNORE button. As much as these shills annoy me, I appreciate their input. It prevents groupthink and someday they might actually come up with a novel, constructive idea. If they're blocked, we'd never know.
Can't we work together, my conservative brothers?
Okay, who invented Grog and Average Citizen? Someone must have made them up to be the perfect clowns for satirical purposes. No one could be that delusional and still operate a computer, right?
Can't we work together, my conservative brothers?
Brian,are you feeling ill?
@ Bear
I should have been clearer.
It's not the fact that Quinn is calling for Buriris' resignation that bothers me,it's his desire for a special election instead of just a gubernatorial appointment.
I'm convinced that a certain sick variety of "conservative" (more neo- than paleo-) is the product of a dysfunctional family dynamic.
Rush and Dubya come readily to mind in this regard. Consider the following about Rush:
His father was a lawyer and a World War II fighter pilot who served in the China-Burma-India theater... His family is filled with a number of lawyers including his grandfather, father and his brother David. His uncle, Stephen N. Limbaugh, Sr. is a Ronald Reagan appointed federal judge in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri and his cousin, Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., is Judge on the Supreme Court of Missouri. Rush Limbaugh, Sr., Limbaugh's grandfather, was a Missouri prosecutor, judge, special commissioner and served on Missouri's state House of Representatives from 1930 to 1932.[5] Limbaugh's grandfather was very well respected as one of the "patriarchs" of the Cape Girardeau community. Rush, Sr., died at age 104, and was still a practicing attorney at the time of his death. The Federal Courthouse in Cape Girardeau is named for Limbaugh's grandfather. Limbaugh began his career in radio as a teenager in 1967[6] in his hometown of Cape Girardeau, using the name Rusty Sharpe.[4]
Education
Limbaugh graduated from Cape Central High School, in 1969. His father and mother wanted him to attend college, so he enrolled at Southeast Missouri State University. He dropped out after two semesters and one summer; according to his mother, "he flunked everything", even a modern ballroom dancing class.[4] As she told a reporter in 1992, "He just didn't seem interested in anything except radio."[7]--Wikipedia
In other words, little Rush couldn't live up to the expectations of his family, needed attention and approval he couldn't get from them, and got it by reaching out to a public that couldn't see him and by faking the power and authority that his male relatives clearly must have wielded.
It's both a creative and a pathetic solution, and one might reasonably suspect that dittoheads share the sense of repressed shame, mistrust of authority and intellect that Rush developed as his defense. Indeed, it's easy to imagine that little Rush's childhood was intolerably oppressive, and that under slightly different circumstances he would have become something of a leftist-hippie kid. Instead, he ended up out-fathering his own father in a way that ultimately proved attractive to others with perhaps similar family issues.
Would Dubya's case not be similar ? "His father was a lawyer and a World War II fighter pilot..."
Sad, sick, scary...
Sorry for the length of this post. It's late.
Statler and Waldorf said
Now, this is just the thing that amazes me. The Republicans have managed to wander so far to the right that all of their own party's historical figures would be, by the modern party's definitions, extreme liberals.
Lincoln-showed open disdain for religious leaders that attempted to influence politics.
Roosevelt-Anti corporation, pro-environmentalist
Eisenhower- restrained the military industrial complex
Nixon- advocated for nationalized healthcare.
Goldwater-advocated allowing GLBTs to serve openly in the military.
----------------------
I am no lover of the GOP, but SNW's list shows exactly what is wrong with the GOP right now it seems to me. It used to be that the GOP genuinely was a big tent. Thats how come Goldwater and Rockefeller could coexist. Somehow, its turned into a party that reflexably looks at a narrow list of issues to judge a candidates viability.
(Incidentally, it would be wrong to claim that TR was an environmentalist, he was a conservationist, a small difference, but none the less important.)
the repubs are run by Rush and Hannity. Steele will try but fail to expand the tent.
Obgama more heroic than Jesus, Hillary as herois as God:
http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0209/bigger_than_jesus_141aff9d-dadf-4cb0-8f0e-075b5c57a6b9.html
Palin so anti-gay she cringes at the mention:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/20/palin-cringed-gay-book/
Irony of ironies. There is so much dittohead groupthink here I don't even know where to begin. Most of your arguments are pathetic. I doubt most of you have any grasp of real economic policy.
The biggest one is guess what Bush isn't president Obama is. I am talking about his policies only. Bringing up Bush is a strawman and shows how intellectually pathetic most of you are.
Second, 80% are underwater are you kidding me? Its around 20% and for the last time the vast vast vast majority are in hypermarket areas that saw insane increases in real estate prices. This is a correction which anyone could have seen. Also for the people too dumb enough to understand their loans sorry but there is this thing called taking responsibility for your actions. I respect Obama because he actually has mentioned this in relation to the underclass and the need for parents to actually be parents. However this policy is get out of jail free card for very irrrational behavior.
As an anology imagine the uproar if Obama decided to start refunding investors in the stock market.
Its the same principle to try and keep stock prices from following further. That would be an insane illogical policy. Its the same thing with this housing polciy excpet most stock investors are Republicans and most foreclosure victimms outside the investors are democrats.
Here is some more tough medicine. Propably at least 1/3 of the country shouldn't own a home. Bottom line they can't afford it.
I don't have time to go through all of your "arguments" Think for yourselves if you don't this administration will suffer the same fate of the last one by appealing to the base instead of the country.
The fear that the left has for Limbaugh and Hannity is unbelievable. If they were irrelevant, they wouldn't be brought up in every discussion on this site.
markymark,
You're a voice of reason, intellect, and character. I enjoy reading your posts.
I find it interesting that Sean does not imply above that by taking this tact, the WH is better able to ignore more intellectually honest conservative voices (they do exist) or criticisms more moderate in tone, and how that is not necessarily a good thing, although electorally, it clearly is.
GROG said...
The fear that the left has for Limbaugh and Hannity is unbelievable. If they were irrelevant, they wouldn't be brought up in every discussion on this site.
Absolutely, GOG. We liberals are terrified of Slackjaw and Inanity. After all, those guys have the real pulse of the American public. They are brilliant strategists, and they called everything right throughout 2008. If only McCain had listened to them in 2008 he would have won.
So, we are terrified, quaking in our boots, that the Republicans will actually follow their absoilutely brilliant advice in 2009 and 2010. If so, the Republicans will pick up maybe 10 seats in the Senate and at least 60 in the House.
Slackjaw and Inanity know that Republicans haven't made enough ad hominem attacks, nor have they been conservative, anti-abortion, pro-religion and pro-guns enough. If only . . .
Sean,
Great post but this sentence doesn't make sense. "The significance in all of this is not so much the particulars of any individual fight, but the willingness on the part of the White House to confront its critics directly, but picking and choosing the specific targets with forethought." The word but twice there doesn't work.
STepper,
You're proving my point. I'll add infatuation to fear.
GROG said...
STepper,
You're proving my point. I'll add infatuation to fear.
What do you mean? Of course I'm proving your point. You're absolutely right, And we liberals are infatuated with Slackjaw and Inanity, too. Their perceptive and persuasive powers are so great, an order of magnitude higher than anything we puny liberals could muster. Combined with their sheer strategic brilliance, we liberals are completely in awe of these magnificent human beings.
As a result, we have decided to encourage listeners of Slackjaw and Inanity to follow their advice to the letter. Goes for Republican candidates, too. Slackjaw and Inanity are the road to salvation (and a return to power) for the Republican Party. In other words, if you are a Republican in office or running for office, tell your constituents that you hope America goes into the toilet, to the extent it wasn't already there as a result of the unfortunate incidents on November 4, 2008. Maybe they can also throw in that we are at the end of days and that we should all read Revelation. We are, after all, a Christian Nation, right?
Long live Slackjaw and Inanity!
Gibbs' statement about Burris was very poorly constructed. I haven't yet heard Gibbs speaking, so I don't know differently, but if this is how Gibbs speaks, than the usage of the English language by him, and the governing body he represents, seriously diminishes both standards of quality. First of all, it's lies, not lays. Lays isn't even a word. (Lay's is a chip manufacturer.) Secondly, I'm not sure of the point of either in this sentence, seeing as how it is not followed eventually by an or, but it seems certainly is used instead, and this usage completely muddles, and almost completely contradicts the meaning of either.
After a terrible disaster there is a outpouring of support for the victims. After a while the group thinking changes to Stage Two... "we can't help everyone". The third and final stage is basically save yourself. The truth is this disaster has yet to unfold. Clearly the government is in the first stage of acceptance. Some of the country is already in the second stage. Obama is in deep do do. This is not a hundred year flood, this is more like a 500 year flood. One you can't plan for, or remedy because there is nothing you can compare it to.
It's great how liberals believe that anyone who doesn't think it's a good idea to help poor people stay in homes they can't afford is elitist, insensitive, and in favor of giving all the extra money to people on wall street.
In talking to people about the "stimulus" plan and mortgage plans, I have heard only two reactions. First, extreme anger is the most common, not unlike what was expressed in Santelli's rant. The other is essentially some variant of stating that Bush put tons of money into Iraq and it's better to spend the money here than there.
You need to understand that not everyone who disagrees with Obama's plans was a huge Bush supporter. Most of my conservative friends lost all faith in Bush long ago. None of us are claiming that we should be spending money elsewhere.
You should also understand that there are basically two factions of the Republican party right now: (1) the pro-big-business Bush/Cheney/Romney types, and (2) the small-government conservatives. I believe more of the public falls into #2, whereas more of those actually in power fall into #1. The liberals got their "stimulus" bill passed, propping up the poor and paying for their pet projects. The big-business Republicans got their "stimulus", propping up all the wall-street types. It's the small-government conservatives that are the one's complaining about Obama's plans. And we're the same ones who were writing our Republican congressmen and congresswoman opposing TARP#1.
Stop thinking that simply because some of us oppose Obama's plans, we must have also supported 8 years of Bush's.
Matthew,
You're exactly right in your two factions of the Republican Party explanation and I think this "stimulus" plan is going to lead to the rebirth of the Republican Party and the conservative movement. This is why so many liberals are scared to death of Rush and Hannity and the like. So much that they're trying to censor what we hear on the radio.
Matthew said...
It's great how liberals believe that anyone who doesn't think it's a good idea to help poor people stay in homes they can't afford is elitist, insensitive, and in favor of giving all the extra money to people on wall street.
It's funny how everyone who supports Obama is a "Big government Liberal." This mess happened because of "Small government" ideas like "The Market knows best".
Conservatives are not fiscally conservative. If it comes to balancing the budget or giving a tax cut, they choose the tax cut. Small government doesn't mean small deficits, and it doesn't mean small government.
Reagan spent on defense like a drunken sailor and exploded the deficit. Bush spent on everything and was the first President not to raise taxes in a time of war. He actually cut them which led to our budget problem.
The only Fiscal conservative in the last 30 years was Clinton. If Obama does tackle Medicare and Social security then he'll have done more for fiscal responsibility than any conservative.
The priority now is fixing the economy. Even a deficit hawk like myself can't be so obtuse as to cry about spending during this mess.
The idea that offering some help to home owners who would otherwise be able to stay in their home except for the collapse of their homes value is absurd. You help out those who can be helped for the good of the country.
We have a political system that's broken. Our politicians are more interested in getting re-elected than solving problems or saving money. Congress won't cut any government programs for fear of public backlash and their lobbyist friends lining their re-election campaigns. Conservatives won't allow any tax hikes and don't consider military spending to be spending. And democrats place fixing health care and education above deficit reduction, and they may be right.
The system is set up to grow government. Clinton raised taxes, balanced the budget and had a great economy. It can be done. We have to wait and see how Obama handles entitlements.
As the trolls on this site aptly demonstrate, it impossible to have bipartisanship when one side of the argument consistently refuses to offer up constructive ideas.
All republicans ever do is spout a constant stream of vitriolic name calling. Whenever possible they take 1% of an argument and distort it in an effort demonize. Whenever there is nothing for them to distort, they simply make up lies to fill in the void. Do these people stand for anything other than religious law?
Are there any republican ideas for fixing the shortfalls in social security (if so, what are they)? Do they have any ideas about reigning in exploding healthcare costs - or ensuring that more than the lucky few in our society have access to adequate care? Do they have a plan for balancing the budget deficit? What is their preferred approach for stabilizing our financial industry? What is their preferred approach for stabilizing the housing market (or do they think we can let housing crater without falling into a true depression)? Do they think we have a shortage of supply in this economy (calling for Reagan style trickle down tax cuts), or do they think we have a shortage of demand? Do they think our education system is adequately preparing the next generation to compete in the global marketplace - if not do they have any ideas for improving that system beyond standardized testing? . . . . . . . . . . . and on and on and on it goes.
In short, republicans, who are almost universally trolls, never have anything constructive to add to any discussion on any topic. All they have to offer is ideology and hate. The American Taliban indeed.
Quinn - weren't you in the White House smoozing with Obama recently? If I am wrong, I apologize.
Second - I recall that I and my fellow Democrats were angry when Republicans attacked Peter Jennings, who was one of the few media professionals with the courage to question the war. Now, it's cool for the President of the US -- or his Staff - to single out a person in the media for condemnation. I think that is awful unethical. It does not violate any law, but I think this is a dangerous path. Using the power of the presidency to criticize critics.....why not bring back sedition laws? They are just as effective, I imagine.
This is absoultely pathetic, and it shows just how far progressives will depart from our principles in order to support Obama. When he abandoned progressives on FISA and the death penalty, people kept smiling. Now, he passes an inept stimulus package riddled with inexplicable portions to lure 3 power hungry centrist Republicans. He continues rendition, and supports indefinite detention, broad use of state secrets privilege, and his CIA will mimick Bush and "seek" harsher interrogation methods "if necessary." There is a dangerous pattern that any rational person could predict starting with the primaries. Obama is beyond "legitimate" criticism. Calling the reporters comments a "rant" does not delegitimize them. Olbermann rants more than anyone else in the media. Is he a "troll" too?
John - it's not a stretch to see how the policy does not reach enough Americans. Renters are having difficulty paying their rent, but the government is not going to renegotiate their leases. And so many homeowners will not qualify for relief. I do not agree with all of the Republican criticism of the proposal, but that does not make it beyond critique. Nor does it reduce people who criticize it to the status of awful "trolls." This blog used to have a lot less inflammatory partisan rhetoric. I'm even uncomfortable with it as a lifelong progressive......
Any idea is as good as any other to conservative Republicans. They love money + control, period. There is no morality whatsoever in this equation, just a means to an end. It's like trying to reason with my personality disordered ex-girlfriend -- what did Jefferson Airplane dude say about cocaine, it's an IQ test: If you take it, you have failed!
The media has become the Save the Republicans charity, because they are so addicted to the money + control go-round -- any GOP idea, works for us! I guess a little tough-love is in order, but the afflicted/paranoid can't see it as anything but Fascism. Oh well.
Keep love in your hearts, people, but be ruthless with these Narcissists (they'd show no kind of deference to you) so that their irrelevency gets them to where they ought to be. The more they squawk, the more you know the medicine is starting to work. Media loves them some hissy-fits and train-wrecks, so maybe the revolution will be televised...
In short, republicans, who are almost universally trolls, never have anything constructive to add to any discussion on any topic. All they have to offer is ideology and hate. The American Taliban indeed.
It really is too bad - Nate's an extremely bright guy, but without any firm hand on the pulse of their conversation, any discussions simply descend into the very worst kind of Kosser v. Freeper filth.
Why does anyone try to persuade others via the comments section of a blog? Who has ever changed their mind about anything ever b/c of some unfalsifiable, anonymous blog comment? If you like Obama, you'll see all his ideas through that prism, if you don't, you won't. If a guy you like takes office, you'll like his ideas, even if they borrow heavily from the guy you don't like. Tribalism is alive and well. Jeez, go outside and do something fun instead of mentally masturbating on a blog. And yes, I get the irony of commenting on a blog to criticize blog commentary.
A very profound quote from Juan Williams.
"If his presidency is to represent the full power of the idea that black Americans are just like everyone else -- fully human and fully capable of intellect, courage and patriotism -- then Barack Obama has to be subject to the same rough and tumble of political criticism experienced by his predecessors. To treat the first black president as if he is a fragile flower is certain to hobble him. It is also to waste a tremendous opportunity for improving race relations by doing away with stereotypes and seeing the potential in all Americans.
Yet there is fear, especially among black people, that criticism of him or any of his failures might be twisted into evidence that people of color cannot effectively lead. That amounts to wasting time and energy reacting to hateful stereotypes. It also leads to treating all criticism of Mr. Obama, whether legitimate, wrong-headed or even mean-spirited, as racist.
This is patronizing. Worse, it carries an implicit presumption of inferiority. Every American president must be held to the highest standard. No president of any color should be given a free pass for screw-ups, lies or failure to keep a promise."
"Are there any republican ideas for fixing the shortfalls in social security (if so, what are they)? Do they have any ideas about reigning in exploding healthcare costs - or ensuring that more than the lucky few in our society have access to adequate care? Do they have a plan for balancing the budget deficit? What is their preferred approach for stabilizing our financial industry? What is their preferred approach for stabilizing the housing market (or do they think we can let housing crater without falling into a true depression)? Do they think we have a shortage of supply in this economy (calling for Reagan style trickle down tax cuts), or do they think we have a shortage of demand? Do they think our education system is adequately preparing the next generation to compete in the global marketplace - if not do they have any ideas for improving that system beyond standardized testing?"
Dude, haven't you been paying attention? The republicans have an answer for *everything*. Here, I'll give you their answers to your questions:
Q: Are there any republican ideas for fixing the shortfalls in social security (if so, what are they)?
A: Tax cut.
Q: Do they have any ideas about reigning in exploding healthcare costs - or ensuring that more than the lucky few in our society have access to adequate care?
A: Tax cut.
Q: Do they have a plan for balancing the budget deficit?
A: Tax cut.
Q: What is their preferred approach for stabilizing our financial industry?
A: Tax cut.
Q: What is their preferred approach for stabilizing the housing market (or do they think we can let housing crater without falling into a true depression)?
A: Tax cut.
Q: Do they think we have a shortage of supply in this economy (calling for Reagan style trickle down tax cuts), or do they think we have a shortage of demand?
A: Tax cut.
Q: Do they think our education system is adequately preparing the next generation to compete in the global marketplace - if not do they have any ideas for improving that system beyond standardized testing?
A: Tax cut.
Do you see now the wisdom of their ideology? It keeps you from every having to *think*. You can be utterly, completely, *dangerously* full of sh*t, but with two magic words, you look like an effing genius, at least to others of your kind.
GROG, who was talking about Obama's race here? Your obsession with his skin color says more about you than it does anybody else.
sorry Sean, but Gibbs was another over-reaction that does give credence to Obama not having tolerance for other points of view
LOL, these other hacks are amateurs. DCM continues to be the best troll on this site. I don't think Barry's done a single thing that DCM hasn't found a way to spin as the single greatest disaster in American history.
So by damatijo's logic, it's "unethical" for the White House to respond to criticism. Good job pretending to be a progressive there, buddy, but your complete failure of logic gives you away. As always, GOP'ers think people responding to their attacks is "suppression of criticism," but their [over]reaction is just an indication of your own fascist tendencies. You want to attack without giving others the right to respond. Vile hypocrites...
Obama is beyond "legitimate" criticism. Calling the reporters comments a "rant" does not delegitimize them.
LOL! Have you even read the comments? It was incoherent red-baiting, nothing more. The fact that you think that amounts to "legitimate criticism" puts the lie to your claims to being a "lifelong progressive." If you thought the mortgage plan was equivalent to turning this country into Cuba, as Santelli babbled, you're not a progressive.
Losers like damitajo1 were among those predicting things like "Bush will declare martial law on 1/20/09." They simply cannot live without the fantasy of fighting "the man," so they conflate rendition/extraordinary-rendition and act like a response to a McCarthyite attack amounts to the sedition act. What a joke. You don't speak for progressives, damitajo1. Don't assume that you do.
While W sent this nation off to war on fake intel, while he bankrupted this country paying for that fake war, while he wiped his ass with the rule of law, while he sent millions of dollars to his friends in oil and defense contracts, Americans were told that disagreeing with the President was treason and gave comfort to the enemy.
So, suck on it, you hypocritical Republicans. You and your "don't tell us what to do" attitude is what got this country where it is. You refuse to take responsibility for it, you refuse to admit it even exists, and you refuse to help out and fix it. Get lost.
themarvelousape,
Juan's comments are very relevant in a discussion about critical analysis of Obama's presidency.
If that makes me obsessed with race, fine.
Juan's comments are very relevant in a discussion about critical analysis of Obama's presidency.
It's not relevant at all. It's a red herring. Nobody says you can't criticize the president. Your problem is that people respond to criticism. You only want "freedom of speech" to go one way, and when someone challenges that, you point at Obama's flesh color and act like it somehow backs up your fascist desires.
It's pathetic.
To put it another way:
You and Juan need to man up and stop whining like little bitches whenever someone disagrees with you.
Also, despite what Juan Williams thinks, Obama supporters aren't exclusively black. What a fucking moron that guy is...
Hey Nate, can you give us a new thread? This discussion has gone off the deep end!
thatmarvelousape ape said:
"LOL, these other hacks are amateurs. DCM continues to be the best troll on this site. I don't think Barry's done a single thing that DCM hasn't found a way to spin as the single greatest disaster in American history."
"Good job pretending to be a progressive there, buddy, but your complete failure of logic gives you away. As always, GOP'ers think people responding to their attacks is "suppression of criticism," but their [over]reaction is just an indication of your own fascist tendencies. You want to attack without giving others the right to respond. Vile hypocrites..."
"Also, despite what Juan Williams thinks, Obama supporters aren't exclusively black. What a fucking moron that guy is..."
"It's pathetic."
Who's "whining like little bitches" here?
Obama to cut deficet by two thirds by end of first term. Read article here
GROG-
You are an idiot. Rush and Hannity have a nutball few who slavishly follow them. They are great to this 30% of the populus - the repubs problem is Hannity and Rush are viewed as bigoted haters by the majority - and that is great for dems! The repubs will remain the minority southern party they are now as long as these idiots are the dominant force in the party. I hope you keep following the addict for years to come...
Who's "whining like little bitches" here?
There's a big difference between whining and calling it like it is.
It hinges on the fact that I don't pretend that those folks, as moronic as their opinions are, are violating my rights by expressing them. It's the marketplace of ideas, brother. I may not like what you say, but I'll fight to the death to preserve both your right to say it and my right to call you a fucking dipshit for saying it.
GROG said...
The fear that the left has for Limbaugh and Hannity is unbelievable.
Fear?
Nay, the opinions of the liberals for Lush Rimbaugh and Insanity are complete and total disdain. And that disdain extends to O'Lielly, Manthrax Coulter, Faux News and all their hangers-ons.
And, grog, it might help ir you understood the concept of ascerbic sarcasm.
I posted these points on an earlier thread and really didn't want to repeat it, but (as predicted) apparently no one paid attention to the follow up.
Gibbs' criticism was that Santelli wasn't informed. Guess what? Santelli admitted he didn't know what he was talking about after Gibbs called him out. The mid-day talking heads at MSNBC came back to him (in the same pit, next to the same "moral hazard" screamer). He first blathered about how any government intervention is evil because it slows market reactions (which really is all you need to know about the guy - standing on the floor of a regulated industry and saying all gov't action bad - and goes a looong way to explain how we lost control of meaningful regulation in the last 15-20 years). When Gibbs' specific comments were mentioned, he said he was "happy" to hear "detail," and be "invited to the White House." Never mind that all Gibbs said was read the darn document.
See, this is the joy of being any kind of pundit/talking head - never having to let information in the way of your screed. Ehen the contrary facts are explained to you again, slowly and with small words, you can spin away from your demonstrable ignorance and declare "victory" because someone was forced to listen to you. Of course, if you are such a wingnut people have to rub your nose with information before you'll acknowledge its existence, not sure why anyone is listening to you in the first place.
Also, let's all take a deep breath before we accuse anyone of facism, socialism of totalitarianism because the President's spokesperson actually engages in the exchange of ideas and uses people's names. Those without historical perspective have no idea how mild this is, compared to:
1. Arresting critics, which is what Pres. Adams, Jefferson (first Sedition Act), Lincoln (suspension of habeus corpus)
2. Destroying the entire opposition from the inside and outside, such as by use of informants and raids with flimsy pretexts - see Harding/Coolidge/Taft (Alien & Sedition Acts), McCarthy/Hoover's communist and counterculture witchhunts(implicitly endorsed by Eisenhower, JFK and LBJ)
3. Engage in illegal activity to dig up dirt on them and/or use it to marginalize them (Nixon & GWB, for example).
And that's nothing like what true totalitarian regimes do to dissidents - unless you think Santelli's up there with Nelson Mandela, Eduard Solzhynitzen, and the tens of thousands of dissidents executed or exiled in WWII Germany, Italy, Stalinist USSR and Maoist China and much of the rest of the world today. Think Santelli could criticize Putin and just get called out - ask the family of the dissident whose killers were just given a pass in Russia.
Please save the hyperbole for somewhere that isn't at least trying to be guided by facts or logic.
thatmarvelousape -- well, if you would actually read what I posted, rather than responding as Obama's defense attorney, perhaps you would have a better response. I never said that the White House should not respond to criticism. I said that the White House should not single out an individual journalist to rebuke. That goes over the edge in my book -- especially given the manner of the response (implying that the journalist had not even read the policy proposal). That's immature and unethical. But maturity left the Democratic Party when the Youtube/Paris Hilton generation found its voice.
Publius wrote:
Anyway, the original point Nate made is that the current administration, unlike, say, Jimmy Carter's, is not afraid to fight back. That will make things very challenging for the right-wing loonies, because now when they blurt out some ill-informed, logically inconsistent, provably historically incorrect piece of gibberish, they'll get called on it, and in a gentle sort of way that just kind of, you know, once again makes the right-wing loons look like fools.
Well put.
Ridicule is not suppression of dissent. Demonstrating the falseness of another's statements is not suppression of dissent. Showing another's previous statements indicting the diametric opposite of what they are now stating is not suppression of dissent.
The definition of fascism that was quoted sounds very much like the Bush Administration. Accusing a dissenter of a capital crime (i.e. treason) is suppression of dissent. Essentially, this is saying to a dissenter, "Do you realise that you could be executed for what you just said?".
Is anyone even indirectly threatening Santelli with imprisonment for his rant? Or are some in the Administration simply saying that he is uninformed and unhelpful?
I think it an excellent strategy to build up a few individuals into "heroes" and "spokespeople" of the Right, and then knock them down rhetorically. Republicans have completely failed to grasp that we live in the age of YouTube, Tivo, and cell-phone video cameras - and that all of their "base appeals" are available to the public at large. The more that they try to consolidate the "base" with crazy and outrageous stuff, the more they alienate the other 70% and lose credibility.
It is, in fact, very challenging for the right-wing when people pay attention to them. The artificial bubble world that many Republicans have tucked themselves away in for a decade or so is coming apart at the seams, and that isn't Obama's fault.
Look, a year ago the Republicans were strenuously asserting that the threat of Islam was the "pre-emininent threat of the century". Islam hasn't gone away, and it's still the same century, but that whole talking point has simply evaporated. Never mind. It never happened. Look, it's something shiny.
Likewise, "success" in Iraq isn't nearly as vital and critical to our security as it was in November, at least to Republicans. Who is still chanting, "Drill, baby, drill!"? Nobody. Just forget that ever happened, okay? Socialism is the new thing - try and keep up. Nobama. Get it? Knew you would. Har, har!
damitajo1 --
Is Santelli an actual journalist? He may be, but I do not have that impression.
damitajo1 said...
"I recall that I and my fellow Democrats were angry when Republicans attacked Peter Jennings, who was one of the few media professionals with the courage to question the war.
Now, it's cool for the President of the US -- or his Staff - to single out a person in the media for condemnation. I think that is awful unethical. It does not violate any law, but I think this is a dangerous path. Using the power of the presidency to criticize critics.....why not bring back sedition laws? They are just as effective, I imagine."
excellent comparison from a fellow progressive democrat [small 'd'].
I refuse to march lockstep & support bad strategy & compromising tactics.
Obama taking on Limbaugh directly ? fine & in fact welcomed
but Gibbs going out of his way with premeditated intent [which he admitted to] in an effort to slag Santelli [in the name of Obama] is just wrong whether you are a real progressive or a centrist or conservative.
bad public policy & demeaning to service - this is hyper-partisanship in action the way Gibbs did it from the podium
Gibbs [and by extension Obama] should have avoided this red meat & laughed Santelli off as an idiot [which he is btw]
the admission by Paterson in NY that he had authorized his staff to contest Caroline's version of events was also very timely & telling as per the Gibbs rant vs Santelli
Paterson claims he never told them to go make it personal - and I would 'hope' that the same applies to Obama with Santelli
assumably he approved the direct rebuttal of this CNBC reporter - but I sure hope that Obama never intended Gibbs to make such a silly fuss over such a non-event
otherwise, as I said it was meant as a 3 card monty to distract the MSM going into the weekend from the real problems of the day - but grow up - the campaign is over & it is time to govern with class, not fight 24/7 over the petty stuff just because your team admitted it lost 'message control' during the congressional stimulus debate
that is what this is all about - Obama doesn't want the meme on the stimulus & mortgage bailout to be controlled by the CONs, so they went nuclear/hardball at the first opportunity imho
Reality has a well know Liberal bias!
Nate,
I usually agree with you 100% (even if I didn't realize it until I read your post). In this case, however, for the first time in many months, I strongly disagree.
Greed and poor policies have created a housing glut. This glut is crashing. Propping up a market glut with price fixes is bad economic policy.
Yes, not propping up the glut will hurt. The pain is necisarry, however, and we're better off letting things work through the system.
In this case government price support also creates future morale hazard and is unfair to responsible individuals and renters.
The billions are better spend on providing better education, infrastructure or health care.
I guess I am having a problem with the comparisons here with Santelli and Peter Jennings, an actual journalist. I can understand the comparison of Santelli and Limbaugh.
I think Gibbs was right to challenge Santelli to whether he had actually read the plan, which Santelli later admitted he had not at the time. Are we supposed to cheer on a former derivatives trader who goes on an ill-informed rant on national tv? Why should the administration suffer fools gladly? Call them out, I say.
Mike in MD,
"And, grog, it might help ir you understood the concept of ascerbic sarcasm."
You mean acerbic? That's OK. I butchered fascism.
>> Renters are having difficulty paying their rent, but the government is not going to renegotiate their leases.
I'm not sure if anyone has pointed this out since the above comment was made but renters having troubles making payments ARE included in that $50 billion housing plan.
Dwight said...
[quoting damitajo1] >> Renters are having difficulty paying their rent, but the government is not going to renegotiate their leases.
I'm not sure if anyone has pointed this out since the above comment was made but renters having troubles making payments ARE included in that $50 billion housing plan.
At least Santelli (later) admitted that he had not read the Stim bill.
I'm sure that 'damitajo1' didn't read even one paragraph of the Stim, and that the only information he has on it is the [supposed] info filtered through Lush Rimbaugh, Bill O'Lielly and Faux News. Any that I missed, joe the idiot?
Why Santelli for a 'smackdown' ???
comeon, ask the question - why him who know one knows or cares about ?
now IF the stunt was pulled by Mitch or Johnny Mac or Lindsey - then they are fair game since they can be obstructionists on an 'equal' level in the political playground... but it should be done by Obama, not a hack like Gibbs
keep some rational perspective on what constitutes a legitimate smackdwon - this is a silly PETTY & embarrassing trifle of a PR stunt meant only to distract
a semi-automatic against a peashooter [Santelli] - not even a fair fight which reflects poorly on _________
just sayin';, truth to power [without the blinders on like most on here these days]
First of all, I'd like to introduce myself as a leftist liberal Obama lover, since that seems so important to the discussion at hand.
Two points I'd like to make,
Matthew said...
It's great how liberals believe that anyone who doesn't think it's a good idea to help poor people stay in homes they can't afford is elitist...
I think 'poor people' is wrongly used here. Even if someone 'only' makes USD20K a year, perhaps 'poor' by US standards, that person is still rich by any global or international standard and is a valuable member of our economy. Especially given our climate of economic competition with China, where GDP per capita is under USD5k, I think we should realize that a 'poor' American is actually a upper-middle class Chinese, in terms of economic value.
Also, 'homes they can't afford' is a misleading term as well. First of all, it's not the home, but the mortgage or debt that they can't afford, and secondly, the idea is to help out home owners through a rough stretch right now and that they will be able to indepedently pay their mortgages later.
The realities that support this logic is the fact that Americans, not just 'poor' ones, lost 600K jobs in the last month of the Bush presidency and therefore will have difficulty paying there mortgages until the economy and its jobs recover.
What Obama is trying to do is hold everyone over until the economy rebounds from the mess that Bush and the congressional republicans led us into. Just like nobody will benefit from AIG going under, nobody will benefit from individual homeowners going under in unprecedented numbers.
One more thing, private banks have already prevented a lot of houses from foreclosing of their own private free market volition. In other words, Obama is not messing with the free market, he is following the free market action's as marked by private lenders actions.
In short, all this talk of the 'free-market sky is falling" is completely unfounded. Santelli is an idiot, (at least an economic idiot, he does seems to be a successful showman), and he should realize that the very i-bankers he claims to represent work for companies that have halted foreclosures privately and freely in complete compliance with market principles.
Also, I don't think some people realize how seriously troubled our economy is right now. The talk of nationalizing our banks is not for nothing. The single worst month of job creation was this past January and I don't see how the housing market can recover if we are still losing jobs. In other words, we are nowhere near a bottom, we are in complete economic free fall at the moment, notice that the DJIA closed at a six-year low this past week.
We need this stimulus bill, our economy is in dire straits. We need it and tax cuts won't help.
And finally, one more thing about tax cuts...
When the government is already deficit spending, tax-cuts actually equals bigger government. In other words, Bush's USD1.3 trillion stimulus bill, which was 100% tax cut, was borrowed money! Bush borrowed 1.3trillion for the US taxpayer!!
What's worse to the fiscally conservative small government republican? Getting an invoice bill from uncle sam (taxes), or getting a credit card bill from uncle sam (tax-cuts)
As a future looking citizen, I'd rather eliminate the entire tax cut portion of Obama's stimulus and just borrow that much less money...
Oh yeah, and Obama is such a great compromiser... when bush had his stimulus it was 100% tax cut and proved entirely inefficient if not outright wasteful, but Obama, despite having the congressional majority on his side allowed 1/3 of the stimulus to be tax cuts... I think you guys (tax-cutters) should happy with what you got...
Also, first thirty days equals impressive start in my book...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601213&refer=home&sid=ab4hyMC6aJf0
Luxury homeowners are falling behind on mortgage payments at the fastest pace in more than 15 years, a sign the U.S. financial crisis that began with the poorest Americans has reached the wealthiest.
Not exactly poor people who can't afford their homes...
>> Why Santelli for a 'smackdown' ???
Because he shot off his big fat mouth. Maybe nobody knew who he was before, maybe this was his 15 minutes, but the Whitehouse is addressing what is out there in the public eye. I heard about his stunt before the Whitehouse mentioned it, he's in the public eye and he quite consciously and purposely put himself there. Of course that makes him fair game.
Just a comment on what this thread was originally about. Rick Santelli while on Hardball Friday - admitted he voted for John McCain. Do we really need to examine this any further? The guy is a right wing hack willing to do or say anything that will give him some extra face time. How about - Joe The Stock Broker. Is it starting to make a little more sense now?
NEXT......! Alan Keyes....
Obama and his henchmen typically go for the ad hominem attack so trying to discredit Santelli personally and seeing this as a narrow thing focussed on him rather than dealing with the real and negative sentiment he represents is to be expected.
Recall how expertly Joe the Plumber was taken apart when he became something of an icon for asking a question that drew Obama out on his desire to re-distribute income and make plain the philosophical underpinnings of Obamanomics in a way that no one else had done to that point.
There is something disturbingly Orwellian about Obama's message discipline. And while vaunted and fawned over in the election campaign it cannot be used to paper over the real flaws in his political and economic plans.
Read Maureen Dowd's latest collumn: She is not buying it.
I see that the moderator of this site thinks its alright to have Gov Jindal compared to a suicide bomber. Nice.
I'd be willing to bet that 99% percent of you had never heard of Rick Santelli. He makes one exceptionally cogent criticism of Obama's mortgage plan, and now he's Ann Coulter. Perhaps Nate et al would like to defend the specifics of this idiotic plan. Start by looking up "moral hazard".
Finally, it only on this increasingly insular blog that this plan is understood to be a politically winner. 200 million struggling tax payers have to bail out 6-5 million broke home owners? You do the math.
More and more the nightmare world that Ayn Rand described in her iconic novel, Atlas Shrugged, is coming to pass.
Obama uses the same Owellian doublespeak described in the novel so that the government can take from the once powerful and productive to aid the supposedly weak and disadvantaged.
With all of these bailouts those who have played by the rules and have created the wealth and the economic infrastructure of society are being asked to give more and more to those who have lived profligate lives, heedless of their own ruin under the assumption that their actions would have no negative consequences.
Obama seems hell-bent on creating a "dependency" society where every social and economic ill can be cured by government. Of course this comes down to taxing and burdening the successful more and more to help the unsuccessful.
As folks realize that indolence will be rewarded and that there is a safety net underpinning their bad judgments they will become lazy and careless.
Eventually we will run out of people to tax.
The lunatic fringe on the left as exemplified by the Daily Kos crowd knows this, but they don’t care. Their goal is class warfare and the destruction of those who were formerly successful. They will rely in government to support and nurture them while destroying the rest of us.
You cannot repeal the law of supply and demand. This was and has been Santelli's explicit point and he has not supported government intervention in finding market clearing prices irrespective of the president or plan.
The only purely rational argument would be that a housing stimulus bill will freeze the bubble until such point reality (wages, GDP & inflation) catch up. This is a very risky proposition.
Further, when someone loses a house, that house isn't blown up with a keg of dynamite. Ownership is transferred - at a price - to a new owner. One persons loss is another persons gain. (For example, a renter frustrated that housing prices moved irrationally and, instead chose to save and invest money rather buy a home. Now, the real price of homes will not be allowed to fall to a real price, but instead propped up to artificial levels.)
Lastly, if you remove cash-out home equity from the GDP since 2000, our rate of GDP growth is a paltry 1-2%. Assuming cash-out home equity was primarily used to buy cars, pay down credit cards, etc - current homeowner's used leverage (for consumerism) to substantially 'grow' the economy. Now, as with the banks, it is time for peoples personal balance sheet to be delevered or we run the risk of prolonging the pain.
We need a pragmatist in office (Dare I say it: Clinton I?). Not someone answering to kowtowing to constituencies. (This was the problem with the Bush regimes.) Usually the prescription is either for demand stimulus or supply stimulus given the current economic 'problem'. The diagnosis for this ailment has the real possibility to become terminal and both cures need equal administration. However, the housing bailout is the first real bailout proposed and bailouts aren't prescriptive - they are pain management.
I support government spending on infrastructure or other tangible economic benefits. I support tax cuts to jolt business development & jobs preservation. I support public investment in healthy private companies to circumvent (too) frictional economic transactions that would occur under normal business situations. However, what I do not support is the wholesale transfer of money to one class of citizen from others e.g. from renters to homeowners.
And please do not give me the bogus schtick about a neighborhood whose home values get depressed when a house is foreclosed upon. Depressed from what? The all time HIGH!
Lets say you bought a 150,000 home and 7 years later it is worth 300,000 (10% per year). If the price drops to $210,000 in 3 years later, did the homeowner lose $90,000 (11% per year for 3 years) or gain $60,000 (3.5% per year over 10 years)?
I love how you people don't argue the plan, but the people involved.
Can anyone provide a rational defense of the housing bill?
Sorry, meant to link to
http://finance.senate.gov/press/Bpress/2008press/prb040208.pdf
Now tell me how this bill helps! ;-)
So Santelli is the hero for the Reich-wing because he yelled out against the housing bill.
Bravo.
Except...
Santelli admitted he hadn't read the bill.
Santelli admitted he voted FOR McCain (versus voting against Obama).
Santelli is a clueless hack for the Reichwingers to quote, another Joe the Plumber for the GOOPers.
WSJackass said...
Sorry, meant to link to
http://finance.senate.gov/press/Bpress/2008press/prb040208.pdf
Now tell me how this bill helps!
And this bill is relevant how?
BTW - is was not a bill, but an amendment to a bill - there IS a difference, and if you don't know what that difference is, it proves you are just cutting and pasting GOOPer talking points from some other dufus GOOPer site that does not know what it is discussing.
Checking at thomas.gov, it appears that the proposed amendment to H.R. 3221 apparently was not even introduced, let alone becoming a part of the bill.
It's like this. I'm a Kansan. I live in the same state as the loudmouthed idiots at the Westboro Baptist Church, the Phelpses. Every time I see them with their "God Hates Fags" signs or their "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" signs, I know that the message of tolerance is being spread more effectively than 1000 pride marches. When Rush opens his big, fat, drug-addled mouth I know that the voice of reason will triumph because the more he pushes toward the extremist edges, the more the center will recoil from him. (Please note the same thing happens with the extremist left.)
Post a Comment