Covering Coverage

[At Home 0]

Election 2006 says it all about taking full responsibility for things which have been ineffective. Republicans paid for the war. Similarly, the Democrats would have to pay for a bad economy.

 

The Democrats don't have to own anything.

 

Republicans were in charge of the war when that went bad, so they got blamed. Republicans were in charge of economic policy when the economy went bad, so they got blamed.

 

If things don't get better, the Democrats just need to claim "things are worse than we thought, we need more time to undo all the damage the Republicans did."

 

They don't have to own anything, but the voters have entrusted the Democrats to fix the problems. Like one journalist noted, "Obama voted against the war, but he's inheriting the responsibility to end it." It's not about owning anything, it's about whose responsibility it is to fix it.

[NoCalMike 0]

You forfeited your stretch card when you said the Republican Party tried to hide the bad economy until January 20th.

 

 

Did you miss the part where I said it was a conspiracy theory? I never said I BELIEVED it. It was just the ying to the right's yang.

[At Home 0]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/28/h...p_n_170796.html

 

Golden.

 

"Democrats wanna take my gun"

 

My favorite part though is the immediate, knee-jerk white person reaction to rap: gently swaying back and forth and shaking their head as if they really understand the plight of this guy. I was half-expecting him to say "uh," "what," or "yeah" after each line.

[NoCalMike 0]

The guy's ability is decent, but the content sounds like a best of Michael Savage show, rather then thought-out personal experience related to why he believes the policies he does.

 

And what is with the "socialist" term being thrown around. Is this just the latest(well it has been going on since the campaign) desperate attempt from a party that has no ideas on how to fix the problems we are facing? Isn't Obama just looking to restore tax rates to what they were under the Clinton years? I mean I hardly see/hear anyone, including conservatives looking back on the 90's as a sad socialistic period in our history.

 

 

[Guest Vitamin X]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/28/h...p_n_170796.html

 

Golden.

 

"Democrats wanna take my gun"

 

My favorite part though is the immediate, knee-jerk white person reaction to rap: gently swaying back and forth and shaking their head as if they really understand the plight of this guy. I was half-expecting him to say "uh," "what," or "yeah" after each line.

No, the best part was:

 

"10 minutes of listening to Michael Savage and my whole views on the world changed."

[BruiserKC 0]

Election 2006 says it all about taking full responsibility for things which have been ineffective. Republicans paid for the war. Similarly, the Democrats would have to pay for a bad economy.

 

The Democrats don't have to own anything.

 

Republicans were in charge of the war when that went bad, so they got blamed. Republicans were in charge of economic policy when the economy went bad, so they got blamed.

 

If things don't get better, the Democrats just need to claim "things are worse than we thought, we need more time to undo all the damage the Republicans did."

 

They don't have to own anything, but the voters have entrusted the Democrats to fix the problems. Like one journalist noted, "Obama voted against the war, but he's inheriting the responsibility to end it." It's not about owning anything, it's about whose responsibility it is to fix it.

 

 

And if things don't improve, we will reach the point where no one will want to hear about how it's the Republicans' fault. The way things are right now, Obama pretty much has enough votes in Congress and enough political capital right now to get things done. Blaming the Reps might work for a little while, but in the long run we need to see progress or things will get ugly.

 

[NoCalMike 0]

Election 2006 says it all about taking full responsibility for things which have been ineffective. Republicans paid for the war. Similarly, the Democrats would have to pay for a bad economy.

 

The Democrats don't have to own anything.

 

Republicans were in charge of the war when that went bad, so they got blamed. Republicans were in charge of economic policy when the economy went bad, so they got blamed.

 

If things don't get better, the Democrats just need to claim "things are worse than we thought, we need more time to undo all the damage the Republicans did."

 

They don't have to own anything, but the voters have entrusted the Democrats to fix the problems. Like one journalist noted, "Obama voted against the war, but he's inheriting the responsibility to end it." It's not about owning anything, it's about whose responsibility it is to fix it.

 

 

And if things don't improve, we will reach the point where no one will want to hear about how it's the Republicans' fault. The way things are right now, Obama pretty much has enough votes in Congress and enough political capital right now to get things done. Blaming the Reps might work for a little while, but in the long run we need to see progress or things will get ugly.

 

True to a certain extent. The only frustration is that, take the stimulus package for instance. The version that was signed into law is very different from the one originally proposed. Now, some would say "hey that's compromise" but others would say that the version signed into law is not enough and that in order to really help the economy, we needed the bill in it's original form. I can respect bi-partisanship on some level, but the last two elections kind of served as a mandate in my opinion that the american people were not happy with the economic polices that led to the current situation(among other things such as the war in iraq) and when it comes to things like economic policy, the fact is that both parties have a completely different philosophy on what makes the economy go. If the last two elections said anything, it was that the american people wanted a big change from the policies that were in place, and compromising on something as essential as the plan for economic recovery is not something the new majority should be willing to compromise on so much that it renders the bill a lot less effective if not completely useless.

 

Of course with how poor republicans are polling overall, I also call into question why the Dems weren't willing to fight it out a little more to keep the original bill intact.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Election 2006 says it all about taking full responsibility for things which have been ineffective. Republicans paid for the war. Similarly, the Democrats would have to pay for a bad economy.

 

The Democrats don't have to own anything.

 

Republicans were in charge of the war when that went bad, so they got blamed. Republicans were in charge of economic policy when the economy went bad, so they got blamed.

 

If things don't get better, the Democrats just need to claim "things are worse than we thought, we need more time to undo all the damage the Republicans did."

 

They don't have to own anything, but the voters have entrusted the Democrats to fix the problems. Like one journalist noted, "Obama voted against the war, but he's inheriting the responsibility to end it." It's not about owning anything, it's about whose responsibility it is to fix it.

 

 

And if things don't improve, we will reach the point where no one will want to hear about how it's the Republicans' fault. The way things are right now, Obama pretty much has enough votes in Congress and enough political capital right now to get things done. Blaming the Reps might work for a little while, but in the long run we need to see progress or things will get ugly.

 

True to a certain extent. The only frustration is that, take the stimulus package for instance. The version that was signed into law is very different from the one originally proposed. Now, some would say "hey that's compromise" but others would say that the version signed into law is not enough and that in order to really help the economy, we needed the bill in it's original form. I can respect bi-partisanship on some level, but the last two elections kind of served as a mandate in my opinion that the american people were not happy with the economic polices that led to the current situation(among other things such as the war in iraq) and when it comes to things like economic policy, the fact is that both parties have a completely different philosophy on what makes the economy go. If the last two elections said anything, it was that the american people wanted a big change from the policies that were in place, and compromising on something as essential as the plan for economic recovery is not something the new majority should be willing to compromise on so much that it renders the bill a lot less effective if not completely useless.

 

Of course with how poor republicans are polling overall, I also call into question why the Dems weren't willing to fight it out a little more to keep the original bill intact.

 

The answer to that is Harry Reid is an absolutely terrible Senate majority leader who is completely spineless and cowers at the the mere threat of obstruction from the Republicans. Instead of actually forcing the Republicans to really filibuster a bill (by reading War and Peace on the Senate floor or something similar), he allows them to get away with procedural filibusters by calling for a cloture vote every time one is used.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

The answer to that is Harry Reid is an absolutely terrible Senate majority leader who is completely spineless and cowers at the the mere threat of obstruction from the Republicans. Instead of actually forcing the Republicans to really filibuster a bill (by reading War and Peace on the Senate floor or something similar), he allows them to get away with procedural filibusters by calling for a cloture vote every time one is used.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/t...e_n_169117.html

[At Home 0]

And if things don't improve, we will reach the point where no one will want to hear about how it's the Republicans' fault. The way things are right now, Obama pretty much has enough votes in Congress and enough political capital right now to get things done. Blaming the Reps might work for a little while, but in the long run we need to see progress or things will get ugly.

 

Votes in congress and political capital only go so far until you run into problems with how long things take. Restoring confidence into an economy doesn't take the same amount of time that a vote would take, obviously. We're talking massive, grandiose things happening, and things that take time.

[SuperJerk 0]

This is gold.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

"Democrats wanna take my gun"

 

I didn't watch that rap, because I'm sure it's horrible, but the democrats actually haven't been that aggressive about gun control since they took hold of congress and the presidency. There's the Blair-Holt bill out there, but it doesn't have much chance of passing, and is basically a measure focusing on licensing. It goes overboard with some of the particulars, but whatever.

 

I'm still getting a tactical AK with my tax check, just to be safe. This is a great time to buy a gun. The entire right-wing (re: every gun store owner ever) shit their collective overalls when Obama got elected, and dropped prices. Check out gun sales stats in the past six months. It's pretty interesting.

[snuffbox 0]

Barack Obama doesn't have the same kind of gun/ATV roundin' up skills that we would have seen from John Kerry.

[SuperJerk 0]

David Frum wrote an interesting piece on hy Limbaugh is bad for the Republican Party.

 

http://www.newsweek.com/id/188279/page/1

 

Notice that Limbaugh did not say: "I hope the administration's liberal plans fail." Or (better): "I know the administration's liberal plans will fail." Or (best): "I fear that this administration's liberal plans will fail, as liberal plans usually do." If it had been phrased that way, nobody could have used Limbaugh's words to misrepresent conservatives as clueless, indifferent or gleeful in the face of the most painful economic crisis in a generation. But then, if it had been phrased that way, nobody would have quoted his words at all—and as Limbaugh himself said, being "headlined" was the point of the exercise. If it had been phrased that way, Limbaugh's face would not now be adorning the covers of magazines. He phrased his hope in a way that drew maximum attention to himself, offered maximum benefit to the administration and did maximum harm to the party he claims to support.

 

Then, exacerbating the wound, Limbaugh added this in an interview on Sean Hannity's Jan. 21 show on Fox News: "We are being told that we have to hope he succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles, bend over forward, backward, whichever, because his father was black, because this is the first black president." Limbaugh would repeat some variant of this remark at least four more times in the next month and a half. Really, President Obama could not have asked for more: Limbaugh gets an audience, Obama gets a target and Republicans get the blame.

 

[Jobber of the Week 0]

And what is with the "socialist" term being thrown around.

Socialism in it's true form includes state ownership of industry and almost no wealth inequality. What is constantly shot at here as "socialism" is Social Democracy.

 

We are so married to Reagan that "the government does something" is now considered socialism.

 

Barack Obama doesn't have the same kind of gun/ATV roundin' up skills that we would have seen from John Kerry.

To be fair, most of these sales are being done now under the assumption that the "Assault Weapons" Ban is going to be reinstated. However, when you read the news and see "sales of guns have multiplied since the appearance of Barack Obama on the campaign trail," you can't help but tease the thought that it's the nation's racists arming themselves to the teeth.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

They're already armed to the teeth. This is the mainstream catching up with them.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I couldn't find a good pic of it, but the latest cover of Newsweek is pretty hilarious.

[ZGangsta 0]

Cue apology from Newt Gingrich directed to Rush Limbaugh in 5...4...3...

[SuperJerk 0]

I'm noticing a clear pattern:

 

Stage 1: Rush says something controversial.

 

Stage 2: Famous politician says something critical of controversial statement made by Limbaugh or of Limbaugh (though not by name) for saying it.

 

Stage 3: Limbaugh lashes directly out at the person by name for saying it, and criticizes the person for not being as great as he is.

 

Stage 4: Person apologizes to Rush for the misunderstanding.

[Art Sandusky 0]

I'd totally gain some respect for Gingrich if he stuck to his guns. As much fun as it may be to watch the Republicans squabble like this, and as nice a sideshow it's provided for otherwise gloomy news everywhere, it's genuinely sad to watch. What happens when the Christian Conservative wing of the party disagrees with Rush? Now THERE'S the ultimate shitstorm. Come on, Huckabee! I'd love to see the religious right realize it's in league with demons and bring its full fury to bear. Not that they'd all magically become Democrats, but Jesus was kind of a namby-pamby liberal if you think about it. Only a socialist would emphasize helping the less fortunate and tolerance, amirite?

 

I think it was somewhere in this very thread where I said that it was pathetic to give people like Rush and his ilk (on the left too, Michael Moore as an example) the title of "controversialist," because it made them far more important than they had any right to be in terms of dictating policy and whims of the people. Now the GOP is reaping what it's sewn since the Reagan Revolution. Call me crazy (and it probably is), but 2012 might see another meaningful third party candidate like in 1992, except this one will take multiple states.

[Guest]

I'm pretty sure Newt will do the right thing here.

 

100% positive he will not make nice.

[Nightwing 0]

I think this is a calculated move by Gingrich. After watching the embarrassing apologies that have come out recently, I think the period of "accidentally" talking bad about Rush is over. He's doing this to not only look like he has a pair, but trying to gain some support from the Independents who abandoned the Republican Party this last election period. He also has the benefit of not being an active Republican politician during the Bush Administration.

[Guest Czech please!]

I think the actual Republicans should realize they're aligned with toxic Christian nutballs, not the other way around.

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

Pretty much everyone left in that party is a toxic nutball of some sort.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Dick Lugar's alright.

[snuffbox 0]

I like several Republicans.

 

Newt Gingrich isn't one of them. But I'm glad he's not apologizing to Rush Limbaugh.

[NoCalMike 0]

Rush Limbaugh the 400 million dollar man....is looking out for the interests of the "everyday man"

 

Why some people believe this is hilarious. It's one thing to say you agree with Rush on social issues, but why people think Rush would preach economic values that don't favor growing his already outrageous wealth over the everyday guy's plight is ridiculous.

[jester 0]

Rush Limbaugh the 400 million dollar man....is looking out for the interests of the "everyday man"

 

...and the first person to call someone "elitist." 400 million and an entire political party in your back pocket sounds pretty elitist to me.

[SuperJerk 0]

Being rich and powerful isn't what makes Rush an elitist.

 

Considering yourself God's gift to AM radio and attributing others' differences of opinion to jealousy over your fame...THAT makes you an elitist.

[AndrewTS 0]

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/...it/?ref=opinion

 

‘Going Galt’: Everyone’s Doing It!

By Eric Etheridge The right has a new hero to lead the Tea Party revolts Rick Santelli started: John Galt.

 

According to the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, sales of Atlas Shrugged hit an all-time high last year, and have “almost tripled” in the first seven weeks of 2009 against last year.

 

Michelle Malkin is the Norma Rae of this Galt moment, walking the virtual shop floors of the country’s “wealth producers,” but instead of “Strike!” her sign reads “Going Galt!”

 

In her syndicated column this week, Malkin explains:

 

While they take to the streets politically, untold numbers of America’s wealth producers are going on strike financially. Dr. Helen Smith, a Knoxville forensic pathologist and political blogger, dubbed the phenomenon “Going Galt” last fall. It’s a reference to the famed Ayn Rand novel, “Atlas Shrugged,” in which protagonist John Galt leads the entrepreneur class to cease productive activities in order to starve the government of revenue. (Not coincidentally, Rand’s novel sales are up and John Galt references punctuated many of the Tea Party demonstrations.)

 

Yes, at first I was happy to be learning how to read. It seemed exciting and magical, but then I read this: Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of shit, I am never reading again.