The Democrat Thread

[southsider2k5]

So, last Friday we were treated to Robert Gibbs making a big deal about the fact that Senator Shelby had basically shut down the entire Senate in order to get a couple of his earmarks inserted into the budget for this year in an unprecedented use of the Senate's rules. Thankfully, the media is on the Democrats side, as 2k5 just noted, so they clearly went crazy about it on the Sunday talk shows.

 

* NBC's "Meet the Press" ignored the story.

 

* CBS's "Face the Nation" ignored the story.

 

* ABC's "This Week" ignored the story.

 

* "Fox News Sunday" ignored the story.

 

CNN actually gave it mention. And their reporting of course defended the Republicans and was flat-out incorrect by going with the "The Dems did it too" when the facts, of course, disagree.

Thank God the Media is on my side. If it wasn't, then they might have covered that matter even more incorrectly.

 

OMG THEY MISSED A STORY I AM VINDICATED!!!!

[lostfan]

They know they like the idea that they can say anything they support is included in the constitution and everything they don't support is unconstitutional and likely communism.

This Onion article sums up a lot of those people perfectly, especially considering it's a satire article.

 

Area Man Passionate Defender of What He Imagines Constitution To Be

[StrangeSox]

This Onion article sums up a lot of those people perfectly, especially considering it's a satire article.

 

Area Man Passionate Defender of What He Imagines Constitution To Be

 

It's the same thing people do with religious texts -- project their own ideals and beliefs into the documents for justification of them.

[bmags]

I think Obama is finally realizing that people dont pay attention to news, and has to show up and put on tv any negotiations with republicans, because people sure as hell had no idea that the gang of 8 was negotiating for 4 mos. while all republicans in it were never going to vote yes.

[Balta1701]

I think the White House liked the Q & A session so much that they're going to try to score a similar moment focused solely on Health Care, if I am reading the subtext of this article correctly.

[BigSqwert]

John Murtha died.

[lostfan]

Really wasn't my favorite, but R.I.P.

[Rex Kickass]

First Vietnam combat veteran elected to Congress.

[BigSqwert]

The Tea Partiers vs Ron Paul

 

Yep: that really is illuminating. One might imagine that no one would be able to compete with Ron Paul's small government credentials, his resistance to almost any government spending, and his uniquely consistent fiscal conservatism. But the Dallas Morning News (hat tip: Weigel) reports he has three "Tea Party" primary challengers. Three. Paul, remember, was by some measures the first Tea Partier, raising a vast amount of money for his presidential campaign online on the 234th anniversary of the original Tea-Party.

 

But he doesn't measure up any more:

John Gay, Paul'

s

third opponent,

s

aid he ha

s

attended

s

everal Tea Partie

s

and related meeting

s

. Both Wall, a machine

s

upervi

s

or, and Graney, a former

s

mall-bu

s

ine

s

s

owner, have helped organize local rallie

s

.

 

Tea Party a

s

s

ociation

s

a

s

ide, many of the challenger

s

' critici

s

m

s

echo concern

s

of Paul'

s

pa

s

t opponent

s

: that he i

s

too focu

s

ed on hi

s

national ambition

s

; that hi

s

view

s

are too extreme; that he doe

s

n't

s

upport the war

s

in Iraq and Afghani

s

tan; that he vote

s

"no" on everything, including federal aid for hi

s

di

s

trict after Hurricane I

k

e.

So these tea-partiers want more federal aid, and support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you believe for a second that they are real fiscal conservatives, you're hallucinating.

[lostfan]

The tea partiers think Ron Paul is too extreme? WTF? These guys don't have any idea what they actually want whatsoever.

[GoSox05]

The tea partiers think Ron Paul is too extreme? WTF? These guys don't have any idea what they actually want whatsoever.

 

 

They want to yell and be angry about stuff.

[BigSqwert]

They want to yell and be angry about stuff.

He might not be homophobic or racist enough for their tastes. And he hasn't asked for Obama to provide a birth certificate.

[lostfan]

For as many things that Ron Paul believes that I don't agree with, at least his governing philosophy is coherent and consistent and he can actually explain it to you. Tea Partiers, not so much.

[HuskyCaucasian]

For as many things that Ron Paul believes that I don't agree with, at least his governing philosophy is coherent and consistent and he can actually explain it to you. Tea Partiers, not so much.

Ron Paul has some sound logic behind his policies. Agree or disagree, he has facts and thought out ideas. It's a little different than "taxes... boo!!! Down with Muslim presidents!"

[lostfan]

Even if some of his ideas are completely absurd, like going back to the gold standard, at least he knows what he actually stands for.

 

I think these guys are just like modern Republicans, they just want to TALK about saying "no" and then when they see something they like, completely bend over and blame Democrats for any adverse effect (especially concerning the deficit)

[Rex Kickass]

Even if some of his ideas are completely absurd, like going back to the gold standard, at least he knows what he actually stands for.

 

I think these guys are just like modern Republicans, they just want to TALK about saying "no" and then when they see something they like, completely bend over and blame Democrats for any adverse effect (especially concerning the deficit)

 

Great article in Slate yesterday, talked about how the new "populism" is essentially being for and against every issue at the same time.

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2243797/

 

There's nothing wrong with changing your mind, of course, but opinion polls over the last year reflect something altogether more troubling: a country that simultaneously demands and rejects action on unemployment, deficits, health care, climate change, and a whole host of other major problems. Sixty percent of Americans want stricter regulations of financial institutions. But nearly the same proportion says we're suffering from too much regulation on business. That kind of illogic—or, if you prefer, susceptibility to rhetorical manipulation—is what locks the status quo in place.

[DukeNukeEm]

He might not be homophobic or racist enough for their tastes. And he hasn't asked for Obama to provide a birth certificate.

Dr. Ron has not made himself immune from being called racist.

[Jenksismyhero]

Great article in Slate yesterday, talked about how the new "populism" is essentially being for and against every issue at the same time.

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2243797/

 

I disagree with a lot of that. I don't think that the majority of Americans are idiots (for watching Idol over Beck for example), and I don't think they are for/against the very same issue. The problem is that government and government's mouthpiece, the media, have taken MAJOR issues and dumbed them down to two word phrases. He's arguing we're all for healthcare reform (true) but against specific policies (true) as if that doesn't make sense. Well of course it does! The idea that we can reform the system for the better is something we want, but the proposals set forth weren't good ones to a lot of people.

 

Same with the other issues he raises:

 

One year ago, 59 percent of the American public liked the stimulus plan, according to Gallup. A few months later, with the economy still deeply mired in recession, a majority of the same size said Obama was spending too much money on it.

Because he said it was needed at that very second otherwise we'd all be in bread lines, but that didn't happen, we've slowly grown, and 90% of the money hasn't been spent yet. So yes, most people have changed their tune on that issue because we woke up and found out, "f***! that's a lot of money to spend!"

 

Sixty percent of Americans want stricter regulations of financial institutions. But nearly the same proportion says we're suffering from too much regulation on business.

Two different issues I think. Too much regulation on small businesses isn't the same issue as regulating the financial industry.

 

We want Washington and the states to fix all of our problems now. At the same time, we want government to shrink, spend less, and reduce our taxes.

Not all of us agree with that first part.

 

Nearly half the public wants to cancel the Obama stimulus, and a strong majority doesn't want another round of it. But 80-plus percent of people want to extend unemployment benefits and to spend more money on roads and bridges.

Again, people can be in favor/oppose major issues without agreeing on specific parts of it.

 

I DO agree though with his point that the popular candidate is one that speaks out of both sides of his/her mouth. But that's not exactly a new thing in politics.

 

 

[Rex Kickass]

But I think he has a point about it.

 

For example, the stimulus plan is about half tax cuts and half spending, the bulk of which are for infrastructure projects. Every specific project within the stimulus plan enjoys broad support. But the overall plan doesn't.

 

The part about this article that I don't agree with is that it basically absolves the politicians. Politicians have taken advantage of the fact that the media doesn't really cover issues anymore, they cover horseraces instead. The stories are never about the policies themselves and whether they work, but about how popular the unexplained policies are.

 

So its really really really easy to simultaneously support and oppose the same piece of legislation and get away with it. Because unless your John Kerry and literally say "I was for it before I was against it," nobody will really notice anymore.

 

[kapkomet]

But I think he has a point about it.

 

For example, the stimulus plan is about half tax cuts and half spending, the bulk of which are for infrastructure projects. Every specific project within the stimulus plan enjoys broad support. But the overall plan doesn't.

 

The part about this article that I don't agree with is that it basically absolves the politicians. Politicians have taken advantage of the fact that the media doesn't really cover issues anymore, they cover horseraces instead. The stories are never about the policies themselves and whether they work, but about how popular the unexplained policies are.

 

So its really really really easy to simultaneously support and oppose the same piece of legislation and get away with it. Because unless your John Kerry and literally say "I was for it before I was against it," nobody will really notice anymore.

 

And that's the worst part. No one can be straight forward enough about what's really going on with anything anymore.

 

I mean, if you're Obama (Democrats) you can't say that you have billions in there for SEIU and NEA paybacks. If you're Republicans, you can't say that there's "tax cuts" in the bill. It goes both ways, and it runs deep. And it just flat out sucks. Everyone's trying to get their special interests covered without being accountable to anyone but their lobbyists.

[Rex Kickass]

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/0...n-seeking-cash/

 

Whod'a thought interesting journalism coming from the Moonies at the Washington Times?

Sen. Christopher S. Bond regularly railed against President Obama's economic stimulus plan as irresponsible spending that would drive up the national debt. But behind the scenes, the Missouri Republican quietly sought more than $50 million from a federal agency for two projects in his state.

 

Mr. Bond was not alone. More than a dozen Republican lawmakers, while denouncing the stimulus to the media and their constituents, privately sent letters to just one of the federal government's many agencies seeking stimulus money for home-state pork projects.

 

The letters to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, expose the gulf between lawmakers' public criticism of the overall stimulus package and their private lobbying for projects close to home.

 

"It's not illegal to talk out of both sides of your mouth, but it does seem to be a level of dishonesty troubling to the American public," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

 

In a letter to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Mr. Bond noted that one project applying to the USDA for stimulus money would "create jobs and ultimately spur economic opportunities."

 

He and other lawmakers make no apologies for privately seeking stimulus money after they voted against it and continue to criticize the plan: "I strongly opposed the stimulus, but the only thing that could make it worse would be if none of it returned to the taxpayers of Missouri," said Mr. Bond, who is retiring.

 

But watchdog groups say the lawmakers' public talk and private letters don't square, highlighting a side of government spending largely overshadowed by the "earmarking" process. While members of Congress must disclose their earmarks — or pet projects they slip into broader spending bills — the private funding requests they make in letters to agencies fall outside of the public's view.

[Balta1701]

I don't know whether to laugh or be offended by the man in his position doing this.

 

His list says "Eggs, milk, bread, hope, change".

[Rex Kickass]

I don't know whether to laugh or be offended by the man in his position doing this.

 

His list says "Eggs, milk, bread, hope, change".

 

I think its kind of funny.

 

But he probably shouldn't do that.

[BigSqwert]

Isn't he paid by taxpayers?

[bmags]

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/0...n-seeking-cash/

 

Whod'a thought interesting journalism coming from the Moonies at the Washington Times?

 

Since the mooneys have been in crazy divorce mode there's actually been some strangely good stuff coming out.

 

There WERE good journalists at WT, but the editors clearly made the theme.