patrick.net

Mort Zuckerman walks back Obama speech claim

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39679.html

You lied about that before, and you'll lie about it again, Ray.

This is because you are a liar.

he got his priorities badly wrong, sacrificing the need to help create jobs in favor of his determination to pass Obamacare

A common complaint but the Republican argument is that goverment is already too involved in the "free market".

To "help create jobs" requires socialism. But you don't like socialism.

Unless you're talking about reducing regulations. Funny thing, that was already done under Bush II, Clean Skies, Healthy Forests, and all the other regulatory rollbacks. Did that result in a more efficient economy?

The Affordable Care Act itself is highly conservative -- Bob Dole, Alan Simpson, Mark Hatfield, Ted Stevens, and Orrin Hatch cosponsored a very similar proposal back in 1993, and of course RomneyCare is very similar to it too.. It's just been demagogued all to hell. Congratulations on continuing to fool some of the people all of the time on that.

As for the criticism, Obama's only done an OK job. He was handed a flaming bag of poo by the Bush team, and his advisors and his instinct went for doing everything he could to preserve the existing status quo -- save GM and the domestic auto industry, save the money-center banks, save the investment houses, save the S&P 500.

Obama is so far the second-best Republican president of the 21st century (Clinton is first).

I said from the beginning, that before Obama's first year would be up, people would appreciate Bush in comparison. I had no idea, I actually would be one of those idiots.

But damn it, if Bush said something on that podium, even if it scared the T-total living snot out of you, and made you terrified to the bone, you better respect, what is said, was how it was going down.
Bush was not a "ima gonna do this and ima gonna do that." Then a bunch of nothing or the opposite happened.

The only people still impressed by Obama are California Liberals, they are waiting for Ricardo Mantaban to come around on his SeaPlane and take them to that Socialist paradise in the Caribbean sky.

Tenouncetrout says

The only people still impressed by Obama are California Liberals, they are waiting for Ricardo Mantaban to come around on his SeaPlane and take them to that Socialist paradise in the Caribbean sky.

lmao ... right on!

I personally feel as if the progressive/liberal/socialist left on the coasts of California is still enjoying a one-way love affair with me .. from behind .. and not very gentle.

Ever wonder why Republicans never have to "Push", but they get every thing passed they want(For the most part) yet the Democrats run Washington, and claim they "Push" everything and nothing never happens. And it's all the Republican's fault.

Troy .... using your "logic" (for lack of a better word), Hoover must have been a "GREAT PRESIDENT" right up until the stock market crash of 1929. What was he the day after the crash?

RayAmerica says

Hoover must have been a “GREAT PRESIDENT” right up until the stock market crash of 1929. What was he the day after the crash?

Hoover was in fact a decent guy. Ahead of his time. An honorable (ie honest) conservative. Rather unlike you in that respect. Overall kinda like Obama actually. His advisors were the bad actors who advised him to do too little instead of too much.

I really don't understand your point though. Hoover (1929) and Obama (2009) both inherited utterly compromised and busted economies, economies that were broken by massive fraud, speculation, and asset valuation/land bubble bursts.

You simply aren't intellectually equipped to see what's coming at us. It ain't pretty, and all the free market bullshit you and your ideological comrades spout here isn't going to help anyone. But yourselves, which is why you post all the bullshit here you do.

This Krugman piece (below)was written before it, but seems like a response to Zuckerman, who sounds more stupid than usual. I'm sure Zuckerman had a deadline and all, but too bad he couldn't come up with some real insights.

Yes, Obama got the usual midterm election effect. Interesting that Zuckerman seems to think that Obama could have done better with the economy. Meanwhile most Teabaggers ran on the idea that Obama did too much (with stimulus spending).

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/05/opinion/05krugman.html?src=me&ref=general

yawn.

RayAmerica says

Troy …. using your “logic” (for lack of a better word), Hoover must have been a “GREAT PRESIDENT” right up until the stock market crash of 1929. What was he the day after the crash?

Why is it always the CURRENT presidents fault......didnt Bush inherity certain nasty's from the Clinton administration?.....I think we all agree that Clinton helped to kick start all this will passing of the GRAMM-LEACH-BLILEY.

marcus says

Yes, Obama got the usual midterm election effect.

Think again - this wasn't the "usual midterm effect". Even Obama called it a "shellacking". What planet do you live on? One can pontificate about the outcome in the senate and the lack of wins due to the kooky tea party candidates - but Obama and the Democrats go their asses handed to them in the house. Period. End of story. Stating that is was just the "usual midterm effect" is ridiculous.

We can now sit back and watch the Republicans screw up and do the opposite of what the sheep elected them to do. If the Democrats are smart, they will jam through the middle/lower class tax cuts and let the upper end expire during the lame duck. Either the Republicans will capitulate and piss off the tea party or they will fight for the rest of the tax cuts and look like a bunch of loons to the rest of the country. It's a win-win for the Democrats. I can't figure out why they didn't do this prior to the election.

marcus says

I’m sure Zuckerman had a deadline and all, but too bad he couldn’t come up with some real insights.

Let's hear your "insights" Marcus. Try to keep it "real." LOL

EightBall says

marcus says

Yes, Obama got the usual midterm election effect.

Think again - this wasn’t the “usual midterm effect”. Even Obama called it a “shellacking”. What planet do you live on? One can pontificate about the outcome in the senate and the lack of wins due to the kooky tea party candidates - but Obama and the Democrats go their asses handed to them in the house. Period. End of story. Stating that is was just the “usual midterm effect” is ridiculous.
We can now sit back and watch the Republicans screw up and do the opposite of what the sheep elected them to do. If the Democrats are smart, they will jam through the middle/lower class tax cuts and let the upper end expire during the lame duck. Either the Republicans will capitulate and piss off the tea party or they will fight for the rest of the tax cuts and look like a bunch of loons to the rest of the country. It’s a win-win for the Democrats. I can’t figure out why they didn’t do this prior to the election.

The democrats don't have enough votes in the senate to get the cuts passed.

They aren't getting anything done during the lame duck session.

Kevin says

The democrats don’t have enough votes in the senate to get the cuts passed.

They didn't have enough for the health care bill and they passed that - wouldn't they only need one or two crossovers to get this done without resorting to "the nuclear option"?

Tenouncetrout says

I said from the beginning, that before Obama’s first year would be up, people would appreciate Bush in comparison. I had no idea, I actually would be one of those idiots.

You gotta be kidding.

Bush started a war in Iraq for no good reason, and it was his eight years in office that led to all our current economic problems.

No one with a brain could possibly miss Bush.

It's a kind of karmic justice that the people who voted for Bush are exactly the ones now suffering the most from his policies.

It’s a kind of karmic justice that the people who voted for Bush are exactly the ones now suffering the most from his policies.

Dunno. I presume most very rich voted for Bush.
And, as we hear everyday, they have become even richer thanks to his policies.

Well sure, the very rich knew exactly what they were doing. They were perfectly happy to help Bush poke the lizard-brain buttons of fear and hate via Fox News so they could skim all that money off the other Bush voters without any objections.

So I should have qualified it. There were two kinds of people who voted for Bush:

1. The very rich, who were given permanent open hunting licenses on the working poor.

2. The working poor idiots who voted to screw themselves royally, and still don't get it.

EightBall says

Think again - this wasn’t the “usual midterm effect”. Even Obama called it a “shellacking”. What planet do you live on?

Settle down there Timmy.

I live on the planet where when a president has the house and the senate, he usually loses one or both at the midterm. It was a shellacking, and it was what everyone expected, and it is the usual midterm effect given
house and senate both controlled by the same party as the president.

That is, this effect is expected even if we weren't in a depression.

Kevin says

If the Democrats are smart, they will jam through the middle/lower class tax cuts and let the upper end expire during the lame duck.

The best strategy, if they can do it is to let them all expire, asking the house (republicans) to take the lead on what the new tax cuts will be that replace the previous ones. And then fight the republicans on the cuts for the rich. This emphasizes the republican position.

The democrats should be able to succeed in letting all the cuts expire.

Then fighting for the middle class cuts alone is easier.

EightBall says

Kevin says

The democrats don’t have enough votes in the senate to get the cuts passed.

They didn’t have enough for the health care bill and they passed that - wouldn’t they only need one or two crossovers to get this done without resorting to “the nuclear option”?

They had enough to get past the filibuster, barely, before the GOP felt empowered.

They do not have 60 votes for the tax issue. The GOP is of one mind on this issue, as Boehner, Cantor, and McConnell have all said -- the only "compromise" they're willing to accept is Obama agreeing to exactly what they want.

They'll hold the whole country hostage to placate their base.

Fisk says

It’s a kind of karmic justice that the people who voted for Bush are exactly the ones now suffering the most from his policies.

Dunno. I presume most very rich voted for Bush.

And, as we hear everyday, they have become even richer thanks to his policies.

The "very rich" did not necessarily support Bush. Once you get into the "I never have to work again and neither will my children or grandchildren" crowd, you'll find a very different split in demographics. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet were both Obama and Gore supporters (dunno about Kerry), for instance, but the Koch's and Walton's were solid Bush voters.

Yeah, that's right, the self made people vote Democrat, the people who inherited their wealth vote Republican.

Kevin says

They’ll hold the whole country hostage to placate their base.

When Obama & the Dems refuse to compromise with the GOP, what do you call that?

Kevin says

They had enough to get past the filibuster, barely, before the GOP felt empowered.

IIRC they actually used the reconciliation trick to get past the Party of No.

Troy says

the Party of No.

What are the Democrats the "Party of" when they oppose just about everything a GOP administration puts before them?

RayAmerica says

What are the Democrats the “Party of” when they oppose just about everything a GOP administration puts before them?

The Party of Responsibility, dumbass. Too bad the Dems couldn't have blocked the Iraq War, huh? That has cost us about $1T, making all the other alleged waste since FDR look pretty small really.

Anymore softballs, Ray?

RayAmerica says

Kevin says

They’ll hold the whole country hostage to placate their base.

When Obama & the Dems refuse to compromise with the GOP, what do you call that?

What "compromise" has Obama and the Dems refused? The party in power isn't the one that compromises -- they're the ones who start the bidding.

Which Bush policy did the democrats not "compromise" on?

- Tax cuts? Check
- Two wars? Check
- Creating the most powerful new government agency since the IRS? Check
- No Child Left Behind? Check
- Medicare expansion? Check

Really, every major bush legislative victory went through without much of a fight at all. Democrats didn't have to compromise -- they didn't even bother fighting.

The Dems were largely out of power 1995-2006, when the Congress did most of its damage.

"Liberal" Dems have always been less than the full contingent of Dems in Congress. This was more pronounced in the 1970s but also in the 80s Reagan had a willing coalition of Southern Dems to go along with his stuff.

Unlike today when all Obama can get is tepid support from the two princesses from Maine and not a single Republican vote for the healthcare reform act that was basically the same goddamn thing Bob Dole, Orrin Hatch, and a dozen other Republican senators co-sponsored in 1993.

What I find interesting (or scary actually) is that the moderate republicans I know, for the most part, have so embraced the "us against them" political dynamics, that they can't see that the country has drifted too far to the right. They would have been fine with the health care plan in 1993, if it had come from the republicans then, because that would have been a victory over Clinton (and Hilary). It would have been their policy. Same thing if it had come from Romney, had he been elected.

Many moderate republicans and or true conservatives had real problems with Bush. They should have had far more problems with Bush than they do with Obama. But again it's that our team against their team emotion. It's scary, and will probably be our undoing. It works the other way too, but it's not nearly as bad, because of who the republican coalition is, and the way they can be manipulated.

We still hear from republicans, who would be moderate and happy if our government was center left instead of center right (right wing actually), who say that the problem is too much spending on entitlements. This whole argument about liberals deciding what charities they are forced to give to is a total straw man. That's not the issue anymore (if it ever was). The huge spending of the stimulus was mostly helping states to continue to function and tax cuts and some investment.

Police, fireman, teachers, and care for the severely disabled ? These are now entitlements ?

The republicans have no choice. It's "that's my story and I'm sticking to it." What's the alternative ? Saying, "ummm the country has changed, and the republicans no longer represent me. I'm jumping ship." If they do, they can't go with those terrible (far center) communist democrats. So we end up with this billionaire and corpoarate controlled Tea Party as the party of rebellion. But it's not really. Ultimately it's a further to the right (with respect to spending and taxes) sub group of the republicans.

When are the actual people going to stand up ? And will they be able to get enough idiots, racists, homophobes and religious nuts to go along with them to be significant ?

Troy says

Too bad the Dems couldn’t have blocked the Iraq War, huh?

Are you attempting to say Democrats didn't vote FOR the War in Iraq?

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

Anymore softballs, Troy? LOL

Troy says

That has cost us about $1T, making all the other alleged waste since FDR look pretty small really.

The Democrats continued to fund the war, even after they took the House & Senate in spite of the FACT that Pelosi and the Dems PROMISED to end the wars IF the election resulted in a Dem majority, which it did. Just another one of many Democrat lies.

Anymore softballs, Troy? LOL

marcus says

When are the actual people going to stand up ? And will they be able to get enough idiots, racists, homophobes and religious nuts to go along with them to be significant ?

You sure understood the message of this election. With continued thinking along your lines, it's a guarantee it gets even worse for the Dumocrats in 2012. LOL

10% of this country is doing well enough not to need government.
25% is Christianist and want to make this country a theocratic shithole like Iran
20% are militarists and/or coopted by the national security state
10% are neocons with higher allegiances than to the US
20% are Angry White Dudes

There is substantial overlap but these people are ~40% of the country and aren't going away.

Troy says

Anymore softballs, Ray?

Rayray's got no balls. He's proven that over & over.

Damn, I'm funny.

RayAmerica says

You sure understood the message of this election.

One message was the youth vote stayed home. More people NOT voted than voted for either side.

But yes, the propaganda of FOX basically won this election. You would be proud about that, but the election is going to quite possibly screw this country up again.

Because that's what Republicans do. They are, collectively, demonstrably as stupid as you.

Not necessarily innately, but because their ideologies and bigotries and ignorance and miseducation and religious brainwashing all combine to make them stupid.

Troy says

More people NOT voted than voted for either side.

What else is new for midterms?

Troy says

But yes, the propaganda of FOX basically won this election.

ROFL !!!!

Troy says

Because that’s what Republicans do.

Funny thing. GOPers are in the minority, yet they (because FOX was brainwashing them LOL) won the election.

Anymore softballs, Troy? LOL !!!

RayAmerica says

Funny thing. GOPers are in the minority, yet they (because FOX was brainwashing them LOL) won the election.

It seems you have a very fundamental lack of analytical ability.

Seniors outnumbered the youth vote this time around. Seniors are FOX's bread and butter and the propaganda outlet has put all sorts of stupid beliefs in their heads. Seniors don't need the Affordable Care Act because they already have Medicare -- a similar attempt at "socialism" from 50 years ago now -- so making them fear it was good politics.

Clearly Republicans are 40% of the electorate. They proved that in Delaware with the O'Donnell vote.

Republicans also dominate the bible belt and anywhere else where there are either more livestock than people or where you can shoot a rifle randomly and not worry about hitting anything or anybody.

This allows the Republicans to dominate elections where there is a lack of smart people and/or an outright overabundance of stupid people.

But this cycle republicans got 52.4% of the vote in the House, and 52.4% of 40% is ~20%. One in five of the electorate is no mandate.

FWIW, I don't expect things will get any better for the Dems in 2012. The stupidity here is just too strong. Given the number of Dem seats up I think they will lose the Senate. Obama himself is perhaps 50/50 at this point. I think Palin will boost a Huckabee run, and I think Huckabee can win this.

Troy says

This allows the Republicans to dominate elections where there is a lack of smart people and/or an outright overabundance of stupid people.

What an incredible statement from a blowhard wannabe elitist. Let me guess, Troy. When Obama was elected, did you get that "tingly" feeling up your leg?

Not really, no. Keeping Palin out of government and knowing that the Dems being able to nominate Justice Stevens' replacement were the major bright spots.

But other than that the Dems have very little to offer me as a 40-something semi-retired white guy who wants to move the hell out of this place.

I truly believe people get the government they deserve and feel lucky that I was able to enjoy the last of the good time of the US in the 1970s and 80s, back before Prop 13 and tax-cutting started destroying everything. UCLA, my alma mater, was $432/qtr when I enrolled. Now it's $4,000.

It's going to really suck for a lot of people this decade, but that's not my problem. It didn't have to be this way, but stupidity has its price.