Politics, Everyday, All day... morning, noon and night....

[Elderberry]

Finally, in case you hadn't noticed, the challenge to get off oil HAS be laid down. And we're trying--but, and I'll say this slowly, we need to t r a n s i t i o n.

We need to make the switch gradually, without major impacts to our oil based infrastructure.

No, the challenge really hasn't been laid down; only given lip-service. I do agree that we need to transition, but I don't agree that the switch has to be all that gradual. The reason people have been sold on the 'gradual' transition is all of the vested interests are lobbying hard to stay in business and make as much money from oil as possible -- then transition. And that is bull shit.

If we had put the same amount of money down on the 'challenge' that we had to dump into this bailout, or that fucked up disaster in Iraq, that would have been a commitment.

Now I'm done with this. Any further comment would be lost in an abyss of futility.

JK

[can't sit still]

Here's a big note of consolation;" During today’s press briefing, White House press secretary Dana Perino suggested the Bush administration would oppose any effort to extend jobless benefits — a stance the White House has taken before. She explained their position by saying, “we want people to be able to return to the workplace as soon as possible" http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/08/per ... mployment/
I'm sure that this message is great consolation to the 160,000 people who lose their job every month.

[Elderberry]

Here's a big note of consolation;" During today’s press briefing, White House press secretary Dana Perino suggested the Bush administration would oppose any effort to extend jobless benefits — a stance the White House has taken before. She explained their position by saying, “we want people to be able to return to the workplace as soon as possible" http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/08/per ... mployment/
I'm sure that this message is great consolation to the 160,000 people who lose their job every month.

Ahh yes, compassionate conservatism at its finest.

JK

[can't sit still]

Is that the same as "tough love" or just.... tough luck

[Ugly Dougly]

Tough luck you aren't a CEO.

[dr.placebo]

OK, if you want to vote your economic interests, see Paul Krugman's op-ed:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/20/opini ... an.html?em

where he ends with

I don’t want to suggest that everyone would be better off under the Obama tax plan. Joe the plumber would almost certainly be better off, but Richie the hedge fund manager would take a serious hit.

But that’s the point. Whatever today’s G.O.P. is, it isn’t the party of working Americans.

And if you think that McCain is a maverick see Frank Rich's piece:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/opini ... ch.html?em

[Elderberry]

It's interesting how most people think about this tax thing...and it has a lot to do with the "American Dream". Most people in this country would benefit from Obama's tax plan. However, even though those people would benefit 'now', they don't like the plan because 'when' they do start making over $250K they will have to pay taxes! Of course, the odds of them ever making over $250K are pretty slim, but for them to admit that, they would have to admit that for them, their "vision" of the American Dream does not exist and will never be achieved.

So I guess it's better to continue to believe and have hope, than to admit the truth. Hmmm...now that I'm thinking about it, isn't this the same convoluted thinking used by religious people and why they believe in God? Interesting.

JK

[littleflower]

And if you think that McCain is a maverick ...

thank you for all of the liberal opinion pieces, dr, placebo... my reaction to them is about the same as yours would be if i continually posted stuff by faux news.

none of these articles touch on something the more conservative posters around here have said repeatedly ... that we do not like mccain. we don't like *either* candidate. to be perfectly honest, i probably would vote for obama if the congress and senate were both looking red ... but they aren't. i can't remember a time when both the legislative and executive branches were in the solid control of ONE party, much less the extreme wing of that one party.

i think that this will be a pretty big factor in the election when you come right down to it. and it is an aspect that the mainstream press is totally ignoring ... for obvious reasons ...

[Elderberry]

And if you think that McCain is a maverick ...

thank you for all of the liberal opinion pieces, dr, placebo... my reaction to them is about the same as yours would be if i continually posted stuff by faux news.

none of these articles touch on something the more conservative posters around here have said repeatedly ... that we do not like mccain. we don't like *either* candidate. to be perfectly honest, i probably would vote for obama if the congress and senate were both looking red ... but they aren't. i can't remember a time when both the legislative and executive branches were in the solid control of ONE party, much less the extreme wing of that one party.

i think that this will be a pretty big factor in the election when you come right down to it. and it is an aspect that the mainstream press is totally ignoring ... for obvious reasons ...

Didn't the REPUBLICANS have control of the Presidency and the House and the Senate for most of the LAST EIGHT YEARS!!!!!

If for no other reason; the democrats need the same privlidge to help undo all bad legislation the republicans have enacted during the Bush administration. If nothing else, we just need to reverse all of GWB's signing statements.

JK

[littleflower]

Didn't the REPUBLICANS have control of the Presidency and the House and the Senate for most of the LAST EIGHT YEARS!!!!!

If for no other reason; the democrats need the same privlidge to help undo all bad legislation the republicans have enacted during the Bush administration. If nothing else, we just need to reverse all of GWB's signing statements.

JK

yeah, yeah, i shoulda looked, the republicans had the whole thing for 4 years, 2004-2007. it just seemed like they were deadlocked on an awful lot of stuff.... it was, after all, pretty close most of that time...

what bad legislation would you like to see undone first?

[lurker]

The Republicans are really crappy at lockstep. They could lock up the big three branches, the governorships and even all the mayors and still not get anything done.

The Republicans 'big tent' is full of little tents that can't see the bigger one around them.

[Apollonaris Zeus]

I'm trying to find the Republican Senator that wants to test all congressman to weed out socialists. McCain is just sucking up all this negative campaigning as the only way he can win strategy.

Is McCain the beginning of the New McCarthy Era politics.


AIIZ

[Ugly Dougly]

The Republicans are really crappy at lockstep. They could lock up the big three branches, the governorships and even all the mayors and still not get anything done.

The Republicans 'big tent' is full of little tents that can't see the bigger one around them.

They're all busy being Mavericks.

[Elderberry]

I'm trying to find the Republican Senator that wants to test all congressman to weed out socialists. McCain is just sucking up all this negative campaigning as the only way he can win strategy.

Is McCain the beginning of the New McCarthy Era politics.


AIIZ

I don't think it was a Senator, if we are thinking about the same person it was a congresswomen from Minnesota Michelle Bachmann, quite a piece of work she is too.

She wants the media to carry out an investigation to 'take a look at the people in congress to see if they are pro-american or anti-american...'

JK

[Elderberry]

what bad legislation would you like to see undone first?

The Patriot Act would be the first on my long list.

JK

[dr.placebo]

And if you think that McCain is a maverick ...

thank you for all of the liberal opinion pieces, dr, placebo... my reaction to them is about the same as yours would be if i continually posted stuff by faux news.

none of these articles touch on something the more conservative posters around here have said repeatedly ... that we do not like mccain. we don't like *either* candidate. to be perfectly honest, i probably would vote for obama if the congress and senate were both looking red ... but they aren't. i can't remember a time when both the legislative and executive branches were in the solid control of ONE party, much less the extreme wing of that one party.

i think that this will be a pretty big factor in the election when you come right down to it. and it is an aspect that the mainstream press is totally ignoring ... for obvious reasons ...

I like to link to pieces that I find informative and germane. I've posted links to articles by conservatives as well. As a thinking liberal it bothers me not at all to link to both the New York Times and the National Review. As a thinking person it would embarrass me to be associated with FOX (faux) news.

Clearly a number of conservatives don't like either candidate. I understand that, and I'm not faulting you for that reaction, although I'm not about to agree with it. I just don't believe that gridlock is going to be an appropriate answer.

The last time that the legislative and executive branches were in the solid control of a single party was 2001-2006. In 2007-2008, with a bare Democratic majority in Congress, we had had gridlock (largely due to nonstop vetos or cloture votes), and that has been so successful, right?

I find the image of the MSM as leftist boogeyman to be amusing, since so many papers and networks are in the hands of relatively conservative corporations. I mean, seriously, GE (owner of NBC) is run by the liberal elite? Maybe Clear Channel, which is partly owned by Bain Capital Partners (Mitt Romney's VC firm), is a Commie front? Let's get real, folks. The MSM (which includes FOX) leans to the right of center, based on ownership. You can get hot under the collar about a few influential newspapers, but you really should not worry about the MSM turning socialist.

[Apollonaris Zeus]

I'm trying to find the Republican Senator that wants to test all congressman to weed out socialists. McCain is just sucking up all this negative campaigning as the only way he can win strategy.

Is McCain the beginning of the New McCarthy Era politics.


AIIZ

I don't think it was a Senator, if we are thinking about the same person it was a congresswomen from Minnesota Michelle Bachmann, quite a piece of work she is too.

She wants the media to carry out an investigation to 'take a look at the people in congress to see if they are pro-american or anti-american...'

JK

I though all those Norwegians were socialists anyway!

[Apollonaris Zeus]

October 18, 2008 12:38 pm

I live in MN and she has quite a record here. In 2005 Bachmann was photographed lurking behind a bush as she tried to identify people at a GLBT rally in support of gay marriage. At the time she was running for congress. Then she was pictured at the State of the Union address in 2007 as she was practically dragged down the aisle hanging on to Bush. From one bush to another.

Posted from:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008 ... s/?apage=2

[Elderberry]

October 18, 2008 12:38 pm

I live in MN and she has quite a record here. In 2005 Bachmann was photographed lurking behind a bush as she tried to identify people at a GLBT rally in support of gay marriage. At the time she was running for congress. Then she was pictured at the State of the Union address in 2007 as she was practically dragged down the aisle hanging on to Bush. From one bush to another.

Posted from:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008 ... s/?apage=2

Hmmm, why doesn't that surpise me in the least.

Here, I just found this link in your link:

http://www.censurebachmann.com/

JK

[littleflower]

I find the image of the MSM as leftist boogeyman to be amusing, since so many papers and networks are in the hands of relatively conservative corporations. I mean, seriously, GE (owner of NBC) is run by the liberal elite? Maybe Clear Channel, which is partly owned by Bain Capital Partners (Mitt Romney's VC firm), is a Commie front? Let's get real, folks. The MSM (which includes FOX) leans to the right of center, based on ownership. You can get hot under the collar about a few influential newspapers, but you really should not worry about the MSM turning socialist.

honestly ... i am amazed that people do not believe that the MSM leans left. ownership is one thing (ted turner owns how much of time warner?) ... but the image of some board of directors - who may or may not be republicans - perusing thousands of articles, telling hundreds of journalists and editors what to write ... i do not buy it. polls of the news divisions show that 80-90% of those journalists and editors are democrats ... also that 97% of republicans, 66% of independents, and 23% of democrats believe that the press favors the left (pew foundation research). my own take is that the MSM favors democrats, rather than leftist ideology... most MSM crap i see is devoid of meaningful ideology anyhow... it rarely goes that deep.

but the very fact that you would use the term "thinking people" to describe those you agree with shows a certain degree of closed-minded arrogance, IMHO. i know a great many "thinking" people on both sides... and i listen to both ... including some very extreme ones (on both sides). i rather enjoy trying to figure out why they think the way they do ... the influences, the moral dilemmas, the hopes and fears. but suggesting that people are "thinking" while others aren't, based primarily on political affiliation or support of a certain candidate, is absurd. you simply do not have enough information.

this sort of arrogance can be a conversation stopper.......

which leads to gridlock ... there is a huge problem right now with the parties, and i am not sure what the problem is. i've often read that congressmen and senators used to talk to each other, socialize, &c ... and they worked together, across parties, to reach agreements. but now they are at each other's throats. will obama fix washington? maybe. will obama and reid and pelosi screw up so bad that the dems lose the congress and senate in 2010? perhaps. i would like to just see everyone talking again ... and i do think things are shaking right now ... it will be an interesting 4 years...

[Elderberry]

honestly ... i am amazed that people do not believe that the MSM leans left.

Anyone that believes what you just said has fallen for the prapaganda of the right wing conservatives. For the most part, the MSM is fair and impartial. There was only one MAJOR exception to this general rule, from which they have learned their lesson, which was their coverage of the lead up to the Iraq war. They fell for the right wing prapaganda hook, line and sinker. That was actually a huge wake-up call for the media.

As the right was so successful at manipulating the media at the beginning; when they (the media) finally realized what was happening; the began to investigate and started publishing the truth. Prior to that the NYT (for example) was considered one of the best newspapers in the country for fair and impartial reporting--until they started to question the 'party line'.

The republican response to this was to demonize the media as left wing and biased. They didn't like the message so they try to discredit the messenger; and the gullible public fell for it.

The McCain campaign does the same thing.

The only stand-out biased media outlet is FOX news. (I'm not counting some of the left leaning specialty programs like Keith Oberman or Rachel Maddow, but even those are 'neutral' compared to FOX.)

JK

[dr.placebo]

Littleflower, I don't believe that a conservative cannot be a thinking person, but I do believe that a thinking person should be embarrassed to be associated with FOX news. If that's a leftist bias, then so be it, but it does not apply to a variety of respected conservative journals. I suspect that you did not read what I wrote with an eye to detail.

You see a Democrat bias in the MSM, and I see a Republican bias. We are simply not going to agree on that. Taking a poll of the public in this case shows, again in my opinion, that the fable about "liberal" bias has been well disseminated. An interesting study on the subject is reported in
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/talkbias.htm

The right-wing ownership bias is most clear for Fox (obvious) and Clear Channel (less obvious, but take a look at the artists they have banned, such as the Dixie Chicks). The other networks trend toward the center. Talk shows overwhelmingly drift to the right.

Newspapers do endorse more D than R, although that is a modest recent trend, since it used to be the other way around. But even there they tend to cancel each other out. As a recent example, the Miami Herald went for Obama and the Tampa Tribune for McCain.

Overall, if you count all of the media with significant audience, I still think that the lean is to the right, although it's not huge, and it has a lot to do with where you think the center is.

[Apollonaris Zeus]

honestly ... i am amazed that people do not believe that the MSM leans left. ownership is one thing (ted turner owns how much of time warner?) ... but the image of some board of directors - who may or may not be republicans - perusing thousands of articles, telling hundreds of journalists and editors what to write ... i do not buy it. polls of the news divisions show that 80-90% of those journalists and editors are democrats ...

It because demcrats are the only people that can read!

If the people at those McCain/Palin rallys are really the Joe-6-packs, it proves that lower class republicans are the most stupid people in the fucking world.

Proof!

"Share the Wealth!" is a form of communism to them, but what they don't fucking know is the Joe-6-packs are the benefactors proper taxation.

But anyone to have voted for Bush Twice is proof that these people lie below the Bell Curve of intelligence just like GWB

AIIZ

[lurker]

Bush's SAT score was 1206 (566 Verbal, 640 Math). See the upper-left
corner of his Yale transcript:
http://www.iuptown.com/YaleProtest/bush ... script.htm

This web page offers a theoretical conversion of pre-1974 SAT scores to IQ:
http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/Pre1974SAT.html

Based on that conversion chart, Bush's IQ would be about 129.

Food for thought.

[Elderberry]

Bush's SAT score was 1206 (566 Verbal, 640 Math). See the upper-left
corner of his Yale transcript:
http://www.iuptown.com/YaleProtest/bush ... script.htm

This web page offers a theoretical conversion of pre-1974 SAT scores to IQ:
http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/Pre1974SAT.html

Based on that conversion chart, Bush's IQ would be about 129.

Food for thought.

I guess you can't trust IQ scores. I wonder who took the tests for him? I have never met the man, but I have heard him speak for the last 8 years--he is not the brightest bulb in the lamp.

JK

[littleflower]

Littleflower, I don't believe that a conservative cannot be a thinking person, but I do believe that a thinking person should be embarrassed to be associated with FOX news. If that's a leftist bias, then so be it, but it does not apply to a variety of respected conservative journals. I suspect that you did not read what I wrote with an eye to detail.

i saw what you wrote, in detail. you read respected conservatives, but post links that look to me pretty much shallow left... certainly no better than shallow right stuff i sometimes see on fox (i refuse to pay for cable, and so have no access to fox at home). i also suspect that your idea of a respected conservative corresponds with my idea of a moderate... based on the stuff you have posted, of course.

i agree that we will not agree on this... and that's fine ... but what really gets me is this "thinking person" thing. you do realize how arrogant that sounds to people who don't agree with you? i hear it all the time from my leftist friends ...i am a closet conservative, pretty much... and it really bugs me. it just sounds so condescending, and coupled with very mainstream left opinions, seems absurd... the very term makes me want to dismiss those who say it as quickly as you dismiss fox news.

[littleflower]

I guess you can't trust IQ scores. I wonder who took the tests for him? I have never met the man, but I have heard him speak for the last 8 years--he is not the brightest bulb in the lamp.

JK

are you suggesting that eloquence is the only possible indicator of intelligence ???? ie, that it is not possible to be intelligent AND a lousy public speaker?

conversely ... does every smooth-talking politician necessarily have a serious, deeply thoughtful mind?

[lurker]

Of couse eloquence is the sole arbiter of intelligence--take that moron Stephen Hawking--he can't speak at all--what an idiot!

Obama is mellifluous. Therefore, he is a genius. Like Ronald Reagan. And Rush Limbaugh. Those are eloquent people, thus, they are the pinnacle of intellect.

[Elderberry]

Of couse eloquence is the sole arbiter of intelligence--take that moron Stephen Hawking--he can't speak at all--what an idiot!

Obama is mellifluous. Therefore, he is a genius. Like Ronald Reagan. And Rush Limbaugh. Those are eloquent people, thus, they are the pinnacle of intellect.

Hey, call me shallow. And trust me on this--Stephen Hawking IS ELOQUENT when he speaks.

JK

[chiefdanfox]

Pat Paulson when asked if he was left wing or right wing said (and I paraphrase from memory) he was middle of the bird. Too much left wing, or too much right wing keeps you flying around in circles.

This country has a very long history of the media being dominated by conservative interests: Spanish American War, the Yellow Scare, The Socialist movement, WWII, the McCarthy Years, Vietnam, Where are the WMDs? Where is the connection of Iraq to WTC 1993, 2001? So now we torture? The recent manipulation of the Justice Department, etc.

If the media is liberal, then what is meant is that we get liberal (copious) helpings of pap. The press is free those who own one.