Qfan, whenever you speak the truth, I will give you the praise that you deserve. And you are most certainly correct when you state that today's Republican Party has become so far-right on economic (as well as social) matters that they now make candidates for major office pass these stupid "purity" tests that even Ronald Reagan would have failed.

By the same token, Clinton's right-of-center economic philosophy would have been fought tooth and nail by the MSNBC/moveon.org wing of the modern Democratic Party (which dumped Hillary in favor of Obama--big time--back in 2008), if that wing had existed back then. In fact, I highly doubt that Clinton would have gotten the nomination in 1992 if the Democratic Party was as liberal then as it became in 2008.

Edited August 8, 201114 yr by Max

I loved George McGovern... the amercian people certainly made one hell of a blunder re-electing tricky Dick, didn't they? And to top it all off, we had to deal with his freaking 55 MPH speed limit for 20 damn years!

I think Max you can figure out why they picked Obama over Hillary. There are a lot of facts of life that are better off unsaid but are true anyway, and a less than one term senator with no legislative record of note to his name doesn't get elected President unless there are extenuating circumstances. I thought the party abandoned Hillary and she and Bill should have said "call us when you suffer buyer's remorse if we're still interested we'll get back to you" but that wasn't a realistic option for them.

I think Max you can figure out why they picked Obama over Hillary. There are a lot of facts of life that are better off unsaid but are true anyway, and a less than one term senator with no legislative record of note to his name doesn't get elected President unless there are extenuating circumstances. I thought the party abandoned Hillary and she and Bill should have said "call us when you suffer buyer's remorse if we're still interested we'll get back to you" but that wasn't a realistic option for them.

If this was "Facebook" - I would "LIKE" this comment... Instead, we're at SON so I will say this:

+1

I loved George McGovern... the amercian people certainly made one hell of a blunder re-electing tricky Dick, didn't they? And to top it all off, we had to deal with his freaking 55 MPH speed limit for 20 damn years!

McGovern was before my time. I honestly don't know much about him. The whole speed limit thing is annoying, but the government has used the commerce clause to do some good here and there. I think that is how we got seatbelt laws.

I watched Obama's press conference today and it's amazing how this guy says a whole lot of everything while saying absolutely nothing. I don't need my regular viewing interrupted only to hear he has faith in the American people to overcome economic "obstacles". If he can't provide a specific plan as leader to create jobs then he needs to STFU. He refuses to actually take a stand, formulate a plan and stick with it. He's too busy worrying about re-election and how he's perceived by Republicans. I have never seen a president literally scared to death of the other side.

This dude still thinks it's 2008 and he's riding the wave of charisma and bullshit.

AMEN! the military budget should be cut in half, and what about the corporations who make enormous profits with military contracts? Why can't the government hire their own people and build their own damn planes... cut out the middle man and save a buttload of money at the same time. The military isn't keeping us free, no country on earth is going to invade our shores, not when a large percentage of civilians are armed and can blow someone's head off before they get on the front porch. These SAME Republicans who bleat about responsible spending want to spend billions of taxpayer dollars to build a wall to keep all the "wetbacks" from coming in. Well, I have news for THEM... the government isn't hiring these illegal aliens, COMPANIES are. Find them... pass legislation, prosecute them, and if they are found guilty, sieze and liquidate all their assets, and use the funds to pay down the debt. If there are no jobs for them, they would stop coming. At the very LEAST, all these right wing pundits need to stop bumping their gums about BS, and do something worthwhile, like investigating, exposing, and organizing boycotts against companies that are hiring illegal aliens.

Immigration reform is needed and many don't realize that with immigration reform implemented it would actually help the economy. If Obama was smart he would connect the both. It's one of the many resources not being tapped into to create jobs. After all the promises made to them I do think they deserve a path to legalization.

Edited August 8, 201114 yr by Money

By the same token, Clinton's right-of-center economic philosophy would have been fought tooth and nail by the MSNBC/moveon.org wing of the modern Democratic Party (which dumped Hillary in favor of Obama--big time--back in 2008), if that wing had existed back then. In fact, I highly doubt that Clinton would have gotten the nomination in 1992 if the Democratic Party was as liberal then as it became in 2008.

This meme that NBC is somehow this ultra left network is a joke. This is the network that has David Gregory hosting their marquee talk show. The same David Gregory that never met a republican talking point he couldn't parrot and who only asks follow up questions of democrats. The same NBC that had Chris Matthews having an orgasm watching George Bush fly in in his little pilot costume in front of a Mission Accomplished sign, and the same network that invites right wing hacks night after night on their network to lie and bullshit their way through phony interviews.

Edited August 8, 201114 yr by quartermainefan

David Gregory is one of the few people on NBC whose not a left-wing hack. The same cannot be said about Lawrence O'Donnell, Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Brian Williams, and Chris Matthews (and Keith Olbermann, who spent eight years with the network). On one of his nightly "newscasts," Williams considered it news-worthy that Obama picked-up a crying baby (who was in a crowd of on-lookers on the White House lawn) from his mother's arms and then was able to suddenly make it stop crying. Of course, Chris Matthews will go down in infamy for saying (back in 2008) that he gets a "thrill" up his leg every time he hears Obama speak.

Not only is NBC biased against Republicans, they treated the Clintons with venom (normally reserved for the GOP) back in 2008. Here are some video reminders to show just how much they were biased in favor of Obama back then:

Here's the Matthews "thrill up my leg moment":

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/no9fpKVXxCc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Here's Matthews about to cry over the prospect of Hillary winning the nomination:

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/oDzcJUIY7DY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Here's Olbermann implying that Hillary's a racist and that she's "now" campaigning like a Republican:

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/OlBY6iB5DJ4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Here's Keith and Chris in "awe" just after Obama clinched the Democratic nomination:

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/N-rbr0MVtLM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Thus, there can be no doubt that NBC played a huge role in the nomination (and in turn, the election, since whoever the 2008 Democratic nominee was would have cruised to victory) of Obama. And we should all be so greatful, because the Dow tanked another 630 points today. Great work, Barry!

Edited August 8, 201114 yr by Max

Considering the Republicans and FOX were blatant in their racist attacks against Obama in 2008 I was actually glad that their was a network who viewed him favorably. The guy did not deserve all the nastiness they kept piling on him.

While it was a gush fest in 2008, MSNBC'ers are calling him to the carpet on his lack of leadership. Look at any show from any of those hosts, including Chris Mathews, from the past week and they're taking him to task on how ineffective he has become.

Obama definitely isn't living up to expectations but this country had no problem giving Bush another four years in office and he ran it in the ground. Americans have selective memories. He is no where close to Bush's destruction and yet people have zero tolerance for his presidency.

I watched Obama's press conference today and it's amazing how this guy says a whole lot of everything while saying absolutely nothing. I don't need my regular viewing interrupted only to hear he has faith in the American people to overcome economic "obstacles". If he can't provide a specific plan as leader to create jobs then he needs to STFU. He refuses to actually take a stand, formulate a plan and stick with it. He's too busy worrying about re-election and how he's perceived by Republicans. I have never seen a president literally scared to death of the other side.

This dude still thinks it's 2008 and he's riding the wave of charisma and bullshit.

Immigration reform is needed and many don't realize that with immigration reform implemented it would actually help the economy. If Obama was smart he would connect the both. It's one of the many resources not being tapped into to create jobs. After all the promises made to them I do think they deserve a path to legalization.

Agree with everything you've said here, Money...

While it was a gush fest in 2008, MSNBC'ers are calling him to the carpet on his lack of leadership. Look at any show from any of those hosts, including Chris Mathews, from the past week and they're taking him to task on how ineffective he has become.

At this point, even many partisan Democrats are admitting that Obama f*cked up. (Fox News was the same way in regards to Bush back in 2008.)

Obama definitely isn't living up to expectations but this country had no problem giving Bush another four years in office and he ran it in the ground. Americans have selective memories. He is no where close to Bush's destruction and yet people have zero tolerance for his presidency.

While I'm not excusing Amercians for re-electing Bush, you have to remember two things. First of all, the expectations for Obama were far greater than the expectations for Bush were. (So Americans weren't too surprised when Bush's first term was mediocre.) Second of all, Bush would probably have lost re-election had the Democrats nominated somebody other than the inept John Kerry (or the hot-tempered Howard Dean). (Similarly, Obama still has a good chance of winning re-election because the GOP may likely nominate an even worse politician.)

Edited August 9, 201114 yr by Max

Speaking of Bush, it's almost certain that his second in command Rick Perry is running for President. The media will fawn over him, I'm sure, especially once they realize their preferred choices (Romney, Huntsman, "T-Paw") are going nowhere and Bachmann finishes her freak show routine. I won't be surprised if Perry gets elected. Just keep an eye out for stuff like this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Perry#HPV_vaccine

Speaking of Bush, it's almost certain that his second in command Rick Perry is running for President. The media will fawn over him, I'm sure, especially once they realize their preferred choices (Romney, Huntsman, "T-Paw") are going nowhere and Bachmann finishes her freak show routine. I won't be surprised if Perry gets elected. Just keep an eye out for stuff like this.

Despite common belief, Bush and Perry were never close: in Texas, the Governor and Lt. Gov. are elected separately (as opposed to being elected on a ticket). During Bush's first term, the Lt. Gov. was Democrat Bob Bullock (with whom Bush had a very close relationship); Perry was only Lt. Gov. during Bush's second term (which, of course, only lasted two years; Bush didn't have much time to build a relationship with Perry because he spent much of those two years being away from Austin, running for president). In the 2010 Texas Republican Gubernatorial Primary, it was largely believed that Bush and his loyalists favored the more moderate Kay Bailey Hutchinson over Perry.

It doesn't matter all that much how close they are - they worked together when they had to. I know they aren't very close, I just used second in command because technically that's what he was.

I just hope we don't get a President who wanted his state to secede.

for all the talk about what a great speaker Obama is, the NY Times had an Op-Ed exposing his oratorical shortcomings.

In similar circumstances, Franklin D. Roosevelt offered Americans a promise to use the power of his office to make their lives better and to keep trying until he got it right. Beginning in his first inaugural address, and in the fireside chats that followed, he explained how the crash had happened, and he minced no words about those who had caused it. He promised to do something no president had done before: to use the resources of the United States to put Americans directly to work, building the infrastructure we still rely on today. He swore to keep the people who had caused the crisis out of the halls of power, and he made good on that promise. In a 1936 speech at Madison Square Garden, he thundered, “Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me — and I welcome their hatred.”

and all we have is this milquetoast who wants consensus and compromise.

The truly decisive move that broke the arc of history was his handling of the stimulus. The public was desperate for a leader who would speak with confidence, and they were ready to follow wherever the president led. Yet instead of indicting the economic policies and principles that had just eliminated eight million jobs, in the most damaging of the tic-like gestures of compromise that have become the hallmark of his presidency — and against the advice of multiple Nobel-Prize-winning economists — he backed away from his advisers who proposed a big stimulus, and then diluted it with tax cuts that had already been shown to be inert. The result, as predicted in advance, was a half-stimulus that half-stimulated the economy. That, in turn, led the White House to feel rightly unappreciated for having saved the country from another Great Depression but in the unenviable position of having to argue a counterfactual — that something terrible might have happened had it not half-acted.

To the average American, who was still staring into the abyss, the half-stimulus did nothing but prove that Ronald Reagan was right, that government is the problem. In fact, the average American had no idea what Democrats were trying to accomplish by deficit spending because no one bothered to explain it to them with the repetition and evocative imagery that our brains require to make an idea, particularly a paradoxical one, “stick.” Nor did anyone explain what health care reform was supposed to accomplish (other than the unbelievable and even more uninspiring claim that it would “bend the cost curve”), or why “credit card reform” had led to an increase in the interest rates they were already struggling to pay. Nor did anyone explain why saving the banks was such a priority, when saving the homes the banks were foreclosing didn’t seem to be. All Americans knew, and all they know today, is that they’re still unemployed, they’re still worried about how they’re going to pay their bills at the end of the month and their kids still can’t get a job. And now the Republicans are chipping away at unemployment insurance, and the president is making his usual impotent verbal exhortations after bargaining it away.

Impotent is a great word for Obama. And this op-ed is in the left wing NY Times.

oh here is the FDR speech in question. It is like he is talking about the Murdochs and Cheneys of today

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/D9yoZHs6PsU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Edited August 9, 201114 yr by quartermainefan