Putting the "partisan" in "bipartisanship"
If there was any doubt that the news media have a badly skewed understanding of "bipartisanship" -- one in which no number of concessions from Democrats is enough and no number from Republicans is too little -- the reaction to Judd Gregg's decision to back out of becoming Barack Obama's commerce secretary should put the matter to rest.
Even before the Gregg announcement, the flaws in the media's fetishization of bipartisanship had been on display for weeks.
Most striking has been the bizarre notion that bipartisanship is an essential end in and of itself, rather than a means to an end. When the House of Representatives passed a stimulus bill two weeks ago, ABC's The Note led not with an analysis of the content of the legislation, but with President Obama's purported failure to win a single Republican vote. (Note that the failure of bipartisanship was not portrayed as a bipartisan failing; it was Obama's alone. But we'll get back to that shortly.)
That was typical of reporting in the days before the vote, which was at its most absurd when NBC's Chuck Todd asked White House press secretary Robert Gibbs if Obama would veto a bill that lacked Republican support. In the midst of an economic crisis unlike any we've seen in decades, the news media think the most important thing is not that the government take strong, successful action to help the economy -- and the millions of Americans who are struggling -- recover. No, they think the most important thing is for Democrats and Republicans to play nicely together.
Which leads to the other problem that was evident during the stimulus coverage: Reporters always seem to think it is the Democrats' responsibility to reach out to the Republicans -- and that if Democrats reach across the aisle only to draw back a bloody stump where their hand used to be, it's their fault for not reaching further.
Just look at the stimulus debate in the House. The Democrats included billions of dollars' worth of tax cuts in an effort to appeal to Republicans, and they dropped provisions the Republicans objected to, like funding for contraceptives. The Republicans, on the other hand, offered an alternative that consisted of nothing -- absolutely nothing -- other than tax cuts. And keep in mind that government spending on things like unemployment benefits and food stamps is far more stimulative than tax cuts, according to economist and McCain campaign adviser Mark Zandi, among others.
Now, given all that, you might assume that when House Republicans responded to Democratic concessions by unanimously opposing a stimulus bill containing a mix of tax cuts and spending, voting instead for one that contained only tax cuts and would provide less of a boost to the economy, they would be portrayed by the media as intransigent partisans.
But that's not what happened. Instead, Obama and the Democrats were portrayed as insufficiently bipartisan. Time's Mark Halperin, for example, blasted Obama for failing to "go for centrist compromises" and compared him to George W. Bush.
But the public saw things much more clearly than the pundits and journalists. A CNN poll released this week found that "[t]hree out of four poll respondents said that Obama is doing enough to cooperate with Republicans in Congress, but only 39 percent feel that congressional Republicans are cooperating enough with the president." Just imagine how lopsided the results would have been if not for Halperin and The Note and Chuck Todd and all the rest suggesting insufficient bipartisanship on Obama's part.
So, that brings us to Judd Gregg. The conservative Republican senator was Barack Obama's choice for commerce secretary, and the third Republican Obama had named to his Cabinet, along with Robert Gates and Ray LaHood.
Gregg's behavior since news first broke that Obama was considering him hasn't exactly reflected a desire to put partisan politics aside and work on behalf of the administration he was about to join. First, reports indicated that Gregg agreed to take the job only on the condition that New Hampshire's Democratic governor name a Republican to take his place in the Senate. Then, Gregg announced that he would not cast a vote on the stimulus package -- the equivalent of voting no, since Senate rules required 60 votes in order to invoke cloture, regardless of how many senators cast votes. That meant that the man who was about to be Barack Obama's commerce secretary could have been responsible for the failure of Obama's stimulus package. Not a great way to start off a new job.
So maybe it shouldn't have come as much of a surprise when Gregg abruptly announced yesterday that he didn't really want the job after all, essentially explaining that he belatedly realized that he is a conservative Republican and Barack Obama is a Democrat.
For a moment, it seemed like this might finally make reporters realize that if anyone is falling short of their precious bipartisanship, it's the Republicans. After all, here's a situation in which Barack Obama asked a conservative GOP senator to become the third Republican in his Cabinet -- and after accepting the job and then working against Obama's stimulus bill anyway, the senator decided that on second thought, he didn't want to serve in Obama's administration.
It's pretty hard to see that as anything other than Obama reaching out to the GOP, only to have his overture rebuffed. And having seen the public strongly disagree with their assessment that it was Obama who was insufficiently bipartisan in the stimulus negotiations, you'd think reporters would at least hesitate before again suggesting the president made inadequate efforts at bipartisanship.
But many of them rushed to portray Gregg's reversal as indicative of a failure by Obama.
An unintentionally hilarious Politico article disclosed that congressional Republicans "applauded boisterously" when they learned of Gregg's withdrawal. Why were they so excited? Because, Politico explained, Gregg's decision reinforced "an emerging GOP case against Obama and the ruling Democratic Party: Strip away the new face, the lofty rhetoric and the promises of post-partisanship and you'll find the same big-spending party of old, bent on politicizing government to consolidate its hold on power."
Got that? Republicans applauded a Republican's decision not to work with Obama because it reinforced their contention that Obama's "promises of post-partisanship" are nothing but "lofty rhetoric" designed to conceal attempts at "politicizing government."
Now, a slightly more ... sane take might be that in offering Gregg the job, Obama was making a sincere effort at bipartisanship, and in applauding Gregg's decision to back out, House Republicans were demonstrating their lack of interest in working with Obama. But such an assessment was nowhere to be found in the Politico article.
Not only that, Politico -- like many other news outlets -- indicated that a key factor in Gregg's decision was the White House's reported plan to directly oversee the Census Bureau.
Politico reported that "Gregg breathed life into Republican charges of a White House power grab over a critical Commerce Department function."
Now, first of all, the White House doesn't need to execute a "power grab" over a Commerce Department function; the White House is ... well, it's the White House. Does Politico really mean to suggest that traditionally, the Commerce Department doesn't do what the president tells it to do?
Second, Politico probably should have noted that during his bizarre withdrawal announcement, Gregg repeatedly downplayed the importance of the census story, saying, "The census was only a slight catalyzing issue. It was not a major issue." And "I don't need to elaborate. I know it was a slight issue. ... It wasn't a big enough issue for me to even discuss what the issue was."
Rather than breathing life into the GOP's census attacks, Gregg's comments would seem to let the air out of them.
Finally: The Republicans' claims to be shocked -- shocked! -- that someone like White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel might have some influence over how the census is run ring more than a little hollow. The White House is always going to have influence over what happens at the Census Bureau. See, the president works at the White House, and he's kind of in charge of the executive branch.
But even if it were somehow the case that the Commerce Department had previously existed in a vacuum, conducting the census all on its own, without any input from the White House, it's important to keep in mind some of the people who have served as secretary of commerce in recent administrations.
George W. Bush's first commerce secretary was his campaign chairman, Don Evans. Bill Clinton's commerce secretaries included his campaign chairman, Mickey Kantor, and Ron Brown, who was chairman of the DNC when Clinton first ran for president. George H.W. Bush gave the job to Bob Mosbacher, finance chairman of his 1988 campaign.
I don't remember any Republicans complaining that Don Evans or Bob Mosbacher might be in charge of the census. In fact, you could easily conclude that by insisting that a Republican be in charge of the census, Republicans are guilty of politicizing the process.
And yet reporters take seriously the Republicans' complaints that Rahm Emanuel might have some influence over the census.
Other reporters found even sillier ways to pretend Gregg's withdrawal said something about Obama's insufficient bipartisanship. Discussing Gregg's withdrawal, Chuck Todd claimed that unlike Ray LaHood -- the longtime Republican congressman whom Obama chose as his transportation secretary -- Gregg is a "real Republican." So now it isn't enough for Obama to keep his Republican predecessor's Republican defense secretary and to choose a longtime Republican congressman for transportation secretary -- in order to be truly bipartisan, his nominees have to pass Chuck Todd's "real Republican" litmus test.
After quoting Robert Gibbs on Gregg's abrupt reversal, Politico's Ben Smith complained that " 'bipartisan,' in the White House definition ... doesn't mean you make friends with the other side, or play nice."
Huh? Obama offered Judd Gregg a Cabinet position, which Gregg accepted ... then decided he didn't want to work with Obama after all. And it's the White House that has a phony definition of "bipartisan"?
No, it's the media.
And with the media rigging the game this thoroughly, it's no wonder that Obama's attempts at bipartisanship have brought little in return from Republicans.
Jamison Foser is Executive Vice President at Media Matters for America.
I wonder if this census move was the result of inside knowledge that Bush employees were trying to politicize it? Something caused this sudden need for oversight.
Jamison Foser said "Which leads to the other problem that was evident during the stimulus coverage: Reporters always seem to think it is the Democrats' responsibility to reach out to the Republicans -- and that if Democrats reach across the aisle only to draw back a bloody stump where their hand used to be, it's their fault for not reaching further."
Marriage counselling won't work if one person won't cooperate with the effort. It's not the fault of the cooperating spouse that the uncooperating spouse won't cooperate. It's not Barack Obama's fault that the Republicans won't try to act in a bipartisan way.
He's demonstrated that he's willing to do it, despite the fact that he's pulled back a few bloody stumps already from his earliest efforts.
This is just more evidence of the gutter behavior of the right for the past 20 years.
I'm gonna call BS on this- when the Republicans aren't included inthe formulating of the bill, exculded from committe meetings and then handed an 1100 page porkfest document and expected to vote on it in less than 12 hours, that cannot be bipartisanship endorsed by the left. sorry.. ain't buying it one little bit. This is more typical hypocrisy and blame shifting that the left always engages in.
Yeah. Like when the republic party released the Patriot Act at 3am, then demanded a vote on it that morning at 9am. Do you mean stuff like that? And just for your information, repubs WERE asked to help in writing the bill. They were asked for input, refused to give any, then complained they weren't included.
Kinda like when the senate was held open for hours on end so cheney and delay could strongarm gop members who already voted to switch their vote? Or when they threatened a nuclear option so they could unconstitutionally force passage of bills without 60 votes? Something smells like BS alright, and it started with your post.
Miss Dee, I watched some of the House committee meetings on C-Span, and I saw Republicans offering amendments and changes. They were, iirc, for the most part voted down, altho' one or two were passed. In the end, Repubs who offered the amendments which passed voted against the bill, for which there could be lots of reasons. That is their right and duty to their principles, if on the whole the bill is something they cannot support.
But, it defies reality-based observable facts that Repubs were prevented from offering their ideas.
I would have preferred that there be more time for Repubs, Dems, and the public to review and understand the bill -- but it was Repubs who played slow down games in the Senate.
But, clearly, Repubs did have a chance to offer proposals; they were voted on; it's how our system works. But maybe Repubs don'l like representative democracy, especially if they're not in the majority.
MissDee, do you ever think your posts more than a little ironic?
If you stop the question there, the answer is a resounding "NO!"
I'm gonna call BS on your statement. Boehner called for, and got, 100% opposition to Obama no matter what, remember? That's pure partisanship. It didn't matter what was in the bill, they opposed it no matter what.
speaking of partisan... <tee hee!>
Religious Right rebrands itself as ’socially conservative evangelicals.’»
Christianity Today reports that some “politically conservative evangelicals” no longer want to be referred to as the “religious right.” According to social conservative leaders like American Values President Gary Bauer, the term “religious right” and others like it have “become synonymous with extremism“:
So guys, why are you ashamed to wear that title anymore? (this is gonna be real fun throwing those same comments back in your faces!)
Is this similar to the liberals who prefer to be known as "Progressives"??
Yes, except for that whole "reality" thing.
Liberals are running from a term that was incorrectly branded. The religious right is running from a term that was correctly branded.
Like I said, payback is heck!
Nope. Liberalism and "progressivism" are two different things. The "liberals" who would like to be known as "progressives" are actually just progressives that ignorant conservatives call liberals because they believe in cockamamy things like human rights and labor laws.
I would like to be known as an american first, democrat second, republican never. Pass the brew, we need a meeting.
Butter,
Please give your definition of what constitutes a liberal and how that is different than a progressive.
Thanks!
ps. Wolf... I like to think of myself as simply another American who likes discussing politics.
Liberals are people who:
1. Hate America
2. Work to destroy the fabric of the family
3. Are anti-Christian
4. Work to harm or destroy capitalism and freedom (which are the same thing)
5. Are anti-life, anti-military, and pro-affirmative action.
Liberals stand against anything that is good and decent and right. Therefore, I am a progressive instead.
And then there's this difference as explained by Dvid Sirota:
"The answer, in my opinion, is no - there is a fundamental difference when it comes to core economic issues. It seems to me that traditional "liberals" in our current parlance are those who focus on using taxpayer money to help better society. A "progressive" are those who focus on using government power to make large institutions play by a set of rules."
Thomas Jefferson is weeping rivers in his grave " what has my country become ? "
so is Washington.
wow i pray that you are being satirical here
and here is why im praying your being satirical.....
because here is the counter:
Neo Conservatives are people who
1. Hate non white, non english speaking people who live in america
2. tries to a theory of what a family should be on others weather they want to or not
3. are as extreme in their religion as those they say are against them
4. have harmed this nation for decades to come
5. are anti-inclusive, anti intellectual, and anti-everything that they do not agree with
Neo Conservatives stand against anything that will benefit people other than the rich that bankroll them.
and when i say Neo conservatives i am speaking of the current incarnation of the Republican Party.
if your not being satirical then take this as a counter jest. if your serious then i can't help you
I'm going with satire. From that POV, it's a brilliant post. I love it!
ps. Wolf... I like to think of myself as simply another American who likes discussing politics.
i know that and that is fine. I just need to change your mind about guys that think like me. Maybe a few beers and a bbq is all that is required. Right below this post is a description of liberals, that i think is counterproductive and absolutely a pile of rubbish.
ooops three p[osts upward
Yeah, cause I know you weren't talking about me, dawg, were ya? :)
Thanks for your genuine interest in the subject.
Here's what I mean, in detail:
They have different histories that DO occasionally intertwine, particularly in American politics, but they're distinct, even though they oftentimes agree. Theodore Roosevelt, somebody whom I doubt would like to be called a liberal, was the founder of the American Progressive Party, which attempted to create sweeping socioeconomic reforms at the start of 20th century. Those aforementioned "human rights and labor laws" were a big part of this. So, too, were the regulatory institutions and anti-trust laws they created as ways to temper corporate hegemony, and are generally agreed by liberals and conservatives alike as a "good thing". It's more of a dynamic movement focused specifically on social progress-hence "progressivism", but it also had, and still has, strong religious roots and has, at times, had something of a puritanical bent. Prohibition was a big progressive cause, for example.
To contrast, liberalism is a much more "political" philosophy with clear ideas about economics and social progress based on a static, ideological construct. Social change in the manner I described can, and usually is, very important to the liberal, but there's a driving economic philosophy that is really at the core of liberalism. That, of course, being the concept of the social safety net. This is where progressivism and liberalism can disagree strongly, as many progressives argue for lower taxes on both individuals AND corporations, and tend to be pretty skeptical of government-run programs, although, of course, they believe in a basic level of income redistribution, health care and unions.
If anything, in the U.S. at least, "liberals" are a re-branding of "progressives" and not the other way around, although I can see why a lot of people on the left might run from a term like "liberal", which has been given a negative connotation, toward "progressive" which sounds nicer and has a robust history.
funny thing is that even his own party hated TR. perfect example Mark Hanna said this" That damned cowboy is president now"
TR did what was right and used goverment in a positive way. sure he did some blunders but he took on the establishment and left them all behind.
is he were still alive today he would have beaten to crap out of cheney and then go after bush
or like those CEO's no longer receiving bonuses but receiving " retention awards " ? The english language is so full of stuff !
wolf,
I had to laugh at that one myself.
I have started calling my toilet a bird bath.
PETA shall hear of this...;-)
People for Eating Tasty Animals?
Yum!
According to social conservative leaders like American Values President Gary Bauer, the term “religious right” and others like it have “become synonymous with extremism“:
Doh...! ;>)
Irony,
What do you consider so extreme about the religious right?
You think the KKK aren't extremists?
They're trying to limit peoples' autonomy; they're just like the Taliban.
And if you're not a true "believer", (or gay or liberal) you're damned for eternity.
terry shaivo...
that we should use military power to smite muslims.....hmmmm why does that sound a bit familiar tome
how about that creationism ONLY should be taught in schools.....
Each paragraph of this article is like a bullet from a machine gun blasting holes in the media's credibility (which of course is a 15+ year old corpse already). I only wish Foser was free to use stronger language.
And yet MMFA says that it seeks to improve the media. Sorry, but a neurological disease can't be improved by counseling.
the only bipartisanship the republicans will accept is their way, and their way alone. obama was apparently supposed to just let gregg do whatever he wanted. the questions really should be directed at him, not obama. why seek and accept a job when you knew exactly what obama was in favor of? what gregg did was dishonest on the face of it. he knew the scope and extent of obama's program, it's been out there for a long time, he agrees to be his commerce secretary, and then he will not even vote for the package. and it's obama whose motives get questioned. what the republicans want, like limbaugh, is for obama to fail. they're not interested in the country. they want to hammer obama in 2010 like they did clinton in 1994, with the help of druggie limbaugh.
earlier this week there was the jonah goldberg column in usa today, in which he offered "proof" of the liberal media by quoting cnn's john king saying that the press had a pro obama bias. and that is proof how? you accept as gospel the word of someone who works for a network that gave two hours of prime time every weekday night to right wing propagandist glenn beck?
If you were to actually listen to the Glenn Beck program you would see that he hammers conservatives as much as, if not more, than liberals. Mr. Gregg did an admirable thing by,at first, accepting the cabinet position offered to him, as an extension of good will but when the Nancy Pelosi/Nancy Reid porkulus package was exposed for what it eventually became, he realized Mr. Obama was not in charge and could not do the bidding of a behind the scenes president. Nancy and "Nancy" composed this "stimulus" package and Obama is left to sell it to the increasingly wary public.
Hey numbskull...the cultist call all stimulous "pork" because its government spending.
SPENDING IS STIMULUS STUPID. The bill is as Obama wanted it minus the concessions made in good faith to get some Republican support.
Timmee,
I agree. Spending is "stimulus stupid" especially pork spending.
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/stimulus_bill_pork/2009/02/14/181864.html
Newsmax? What will it take for you to use credible sources?
Typical.
Never mind that, unlike more ignorant tax cuts, all those projects will put actual Americans back to work building things.
The Newsmax article says the bill contains tens of billions of dollars in spending that republicans consider pork but when you add up all the things they mention it's about 7 billion dollars.
Why are conservatives in favor of anything that benefits corporations and the wealthy but against anything that benefits society and average Americans?
I consider spending on Amtrak,education, and alternate fuel vehicles good investments. The definition of "pork" has become much too broad. Wonder how that happened?
I think the definition has largely remained the same. Anything that betters society is considered pork to republicans.
It happened because the American public is not as stupid as the democrats were led to believe, the leaders being Nancy Pelosi and Nancy Reid.
because Rich execs will donate money to PAC's
"According to Michael Steele"? Is that the only source for that?
Do you have another source for the "salt marsh mouse" bit? That's been disputed more than once here, so I'd like to know where it's coming from.
Why are we complaining about computers for community colleges?
Why the hell are we complaining about digital converter boxes? Television advertising is a huge driving force of consumer spending, isn't it?
Do you have another source for the "golf carts" besides the Washington Times?
$200 million for a low-pollution, coal-fired power plant in President Barack Obama’s home state of Illinois.
This is interesting. I thought Obama was some kind of jackass in the election for not supporting clean coal "enough". How is working on the energy crisis not conducive to helping the economy?
$200 million to provide computers to community colleges.
Because poor people learning about computers on modern equipment isn't conducive to economic success? I guess they should all just be satisfied with those wonderful jobs George W. Bush created at Taco Bell, huh? And it's liberals who are elitist and don't understand America?
Over $650 million in coupons to help consumers buy digital TV converter-box coupons.
The fact that millions of low-income people are going to be effectively cut off from the flow of information doesn't bother you at all? Geez, if anything is going to facilitate Barack Obama's rise as the fascist dictator you would all have him be, it'll be that.
$1 billion for educational programs, including courses on sexually transmitted diseases.
Because education isn't important? Because teaching people how to prevent unwanted pregnancies and STD's aren't conducive to the economy? Do you have any idea how actual people live?
A reported $300 million for hybrid vehicles and electric-powered cars. According to the Washington Times, this item will include buying golf carts for federal workers.
Again, solving the energy crisis won't help the economy? Or is it the golf cart thing you expect us to all be dumbfounded by? Since you didn't supply any info regarding how much would be spent on said carts, and given the credibility of your source, I'll need something before I go "OHMYGOD!!! GOLF CARTS!!!! PORRRRKK!" Which I'm sure you did as soon as you read this.
$50 million for the National Endowment of the Arts.
Yes, a fraction of the bill spent on keeping American art and culture alive is unconscionable. If only they'd spend that money on building a big wall to keep all the Mexicans out. Then we wouldn't have to worry about it at all.
We are not even close to the existence of anything that could remotely be called "clean coal." Those who say that we are are coal companies.
That's the biggest load of B.S. I have ever heard. Clean coal technology is here and getting better each day. You must have an Al Gore pull string doll.
here's someone who disagrees about "clean coal".
http://www.counterpunch.org/blair01232007.html
umm whats the problem with giving colleges better computers and getting the federal government hybrid vehicles.....
How many millions to study marsh mice in San Francisco? You're an idiot, timmee!
That's...interesting. How do you know this? Did Judd Gregg tell you this personally? And what, pray tell, does Beck "hammer" conservatives for? Being too far right-wing? I admit, I tend to stay away from Glenn Beck because he's a rare breed of moron, but if his "equal opportunity" hammering is anything like O'Reilly's or Savage's or anybody else who conservaties like to put forth as an "equal opportunist", then he's probably just mad because they aren't rabidly right-wing enough. And that's not really "hammering conservatives...just as much as liberals" is it? Also, you have no idea what the word "stimulus" and "pork" mean.
I have no idea what pork and stimulus mean? Is that your way of elevating your nefarious position? Simply stating the oposition doesn't know what something means? How moronic!
Mr. Gregg did an admirable thing by,at first, accepting the cabinet position offered to him, as an extension of good will...
yada yada yada. First, he didn't graciously accept it, he lobbied for it. Then he turned around and rejected it when he discovered that he'd be working for a DEMOCRAT and his party friends gave him trouble over it.
boo hoo.
Obama tried. The Republicans lied.
How the hell does accepting a position, and then backing out and embaressing your potential employer consistitute an "extension of good will?" Was Gregg showing "good will" to the woman slated to replace him in the Senate?
Gregg is just an ass, and sigtek is just a moron apologist for idiots like him.
Mr Gregg did not accept the position offered to him but actively sought the position and pres Obama, after conferring with aides , accepted the man for that positioon. The fact that Gregg was for it before being against it could not have been foreseen by anybody, including the geniuses at FOX.
Are you sure Gregg actively sought the position? Or could it be you've accepted at face value, the word from the White House.
Apparently Harry Reid proves otherwise.
"The New York Times, meanwhile, reports "the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, had recommended Mr. Gregg for commerce secretary. The White House accepted Mr. Reid's suggestion, in part, because the president had said he wanted his cabinet to be filled with a variety of viewpoints." The Washington Times notes "Reid spokesman Jim Manley confirmed to The Washington Times that Mr. Emanuel asked for suggestions for the commerce post and that Mr. Reid suggested Mr. Gregg."
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_090213.htm
Reid suggesting Gregg for Commerce (and whassup with that, Harry?) does not preclude Gregg offering himself for the position to the WH/Obama.
Do you have any evidence that the WH is lying in its response to Gregg pulling out of the deal? T/U.
Are you sure Gregg actively sought the position?
It appears that Harry Reid was not alone in wanting Judd Gregg for Commerce. Judd Gregg wanted himself for Commerce as well!
Transportation Secretary and GOP Cabinet member Ray LaHood gives Rachel Maddow a no-nonsense response about Judd Gregg's withdrawal from consideration as Commerce Secretary: "I think it's very odd."
"I think it's very odd. I know that Senator Gregg went to the administration, went personally to several members of President Obama's team and asked if he could be appointed to the cabinet. And they acceded to his wishes, and appointed him to the cabinet. And then all of the sudden to change his mind I think is very peculiar, and frankly I don't understand it."
"I would have thought when you ask for a job, and when the President gives you a job, that you were willing to roll up your sleeves and go to work. It's a pretty odd set of circumstances, and I don't understand it."
LaHood does say he has no reason to believe his former Capitol Hill GOP colleagues pressed Judd Gregg to pull his name, but he's got no reason to disbelieve it either.
siggy, how do you know that i haven't "actually listened" to beck? the fact is i've listened to both his tv and radio show. not on a regular basis, but enough to know what he's all about. your contention that he hammers conservatives more than liberals is nonsense. and the size of this package was discussed well before obama taking office. i don't have problems with anyone criticizing it, just be honest about it.
Yeah and I browse through the dictionary and pick up a couple of words every now and then. That makes me knowledgable? I listen to all of the talking heads on a regular basis. It helps to form a better position.
maybe you forgot what we were talking about. you said to me at 1031pm friday that if i were to "actually listen" to glenn beck then i would know that he bashes conservatives more than liberals. i said i have listened and your claim is nonsense. but thanks for your non response.
Quoting Glenn Beck as though he is a serious politial commentator is the same thing as asking Bozo the Clown what he has to say about bipartisanship. Or perhaps Pee Wee Herman, or Weird Al Yankovic, or Emo Philips, or Sponge Bob Square Pants or Ann Coulter . . .
I would have much more respect for the opinions of everyone on your list (except Coulter) over Glenn Beck. They each at least have a chance of providing an opinion that isn't clouded by a failed ideology.
....or Al Gore.
porkulus? how did one os Lord Rush's sheep escape his pen?
Yuk yuk, you is funny.
beck's hammers include calling people he doesn't like Communits. yeah great moral figure there
just how loonie are you. gregg hadn't done anything yet. if bush had said that karl rove was going to oversee the census do you believe that would have gone unmentioned?
if the Dark Lord of the Sith Rove had been placed in charge of the census then only about 20 people would be counted and it would be rove and those he deems worthy to be counted.
Did you mention the part where Gregg had ASKED to have his himself considered for the job of commerce secretary?
10 years after wanting the position abolished?
why whould he do that? didn't expect to be picked? then they could cry "partisan" politics..? surprised to get picked? drops out to embarass Obama?
about the census:he's against it being accurate because it would identify too many peole who need help
There are so many things wrong with the fact that Chuck Todd is MSNBC's White House correspondant. The man teamed up with Keith Olbermann to assasinate Hillary Clinton over the first six months of last year, absolutely dripping with sexist loathing of the woman each night. Once she was knocked down, it was inevitable that Todd would turn on Obama. The man has only one principle- rip down the liberal at the top. I don't imagine that he and Keith will remain buddy-buddy much longer.
I'm not so sure about your last statement. I heard K.O. called Chuck and arranged a meeting, something to do about packing fudge or something. I think they will remain friends.
the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist
program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without
knowing how it happened." Norman Thomas (1884-1968) six-time U.S. Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America Commrades, Welcome to the USSA!
Bring on socialism.
But you must remember, in wing-nut world anything but unfettered and unregulated capitalism is considered socialism.
Whatever. Conservatives have fought progress every step of the way.
Liberals brought us safe food, clean water, living wages, paid vacations, 40 hour work weeks, dignified retirement etc. and were fought by the corporate totalitarian conservatives every time.
Liberals actually work for family values, while conservatives talk sh*t about them. Anyway, your conservative philosophy is dead. People are looking at government as an asset to harness and put to work for the good of all of us. The yo-yo (you're on your own) society has done nothing but create a dangerous environment of radical economic inequality. It pits neighbor against neighbor in bitter competition for well-being.
It pits neighbor against neighbor in bitter competition for well-being.
Kind of puts the kibosh on that Love Thy Neighbor passage. Not very Christian at all.
Please do not equate your own definition of socialism (which I suspect is akin to communism) to what will eventually emerge.
We already have socialism here, and it is necessary. We socialize our military, our highway construction, our police and fire; etc.
Then there is social security and medicare. These programs work well. What socialism, capitalism, or any ism can devolve into involves human greed....a cabal taking total control. That's what we need to prevent no matter what the "ism." It's up to us.
Mary59,
My definiton of socialism is the 'state' controlling aspects of our lives. I fear socialism because as this control creeps forward, we lose the benefits that liberty and freedom affords.
The greed in socialism, like capitalism, is about money and power. The difference with capitalism is that the individual has to opportunity to make their own way. Individuals in free society have that choice. I can choose to buy from another company, work for a different employer or read another newspaper.
But the incidious power of socialism is that there is only one way, the states way. I can't seek a different pathway because those options have been taken away. With socialized medicine, if the health board that this stimulus bill has created, deems some procedure not cost effective, well then too bad. Just like Dashele said, the old in society need to understand the consequences of age and not to expect the same level of care. It's a waste of money and resources to give the elderly care that extends their lives. So what do you do then? You have no options.
Certainly our health care system, like other entities that presently operate under the principles of capitalism can be improved. But not by limiting choice, rather emphasize the individual's responsibility and ability to secure and guard their own health care. That's the standard that I believe would get the best results. Years ago when Jack Kemp was Senator Dole's running mate, he talked about giving all individuals vouchers for health care insurance. They would seek the best bang for their buck for general health care and emergency care as well. If the insurer didn't offer a product to your liking, move on to another that would fit better. I am afraid that the steps we have taken in socialized/nationalized medicine now, will give us less liberty to forge our own path.
I fear the mentality of socialism, the one that says 'I can't do this on my own' or 'take care of all my needs' and eventually enslaves the individual's psyche. In Christianity, we plead those sentiments before God and our Savior, but the follow up to that recognition of sinful powerlessness is our greater understanding of now the need to act each day to recognise the gift of salvation that we have been given. It's empowering! But with socialism, there is no spiritual awakening that goes beyond our position of weakness that encourages us to improve, to act and become ambassadors of the faith. To be permanently enslaved to an ideology that says, 'the state can meet your physical needs better than you can for yourself', is dehumanizing and demoralizing to the individual.
I know that I was chastised by others when I marvelled that Henrietta from Ft. Myers would be willing to wait for 2 years to find adequate housing. I called this enslavement.
I don't know her personally but because of the work that I do and my volunteering work over the years, I think it is fair to call her predicament enslavement by a system that has created a mentality that makes individuals incapable of even seeing, let alone believing that they have the power to do things on their own. We may see it, but their own experience is so limited to the state's control financially of their lives is the only one they know. I have seen wonderful responses to assistance given through charity to people who truly needed help. The Salvation Army has great programs, yes some with government money, to get people back on their feet. But they also recognize that with help come responsibilty to respond and move forward. They will not turn anyone away who asks for help, but if that individual continues to act powerlessly, and continues to await a handout, the Army will not give aid endlessly and wastefully. Also, with an inner city mission that volunteer with, I noted the same thing. There were great stories of people responding to take responsiblity for their lives. They used the charitable assistance wisely, found work, treatment, a place to live and often gave back to the mission that helped them. But many who came, for a variety of reasons had no inclination to change. Often these were ones who never believed that they were capable of handling the challenges of life. Again, life histories were tragic and experiences overwhelming, but we would strive to give people the tools to make it on their own. But their spirit and souls were empty.
Mary, I do relate socialism to this kind of life experience. It creeps forward, claiming only to help and show what's best but it will sap the heart of this country, equalizing misery in the guise of caring. Correct politics never saved anyone's soul, but I do believe that in a human sense, the individual freedom that capitalism and the social fabric around it provides, gives humans the best chance for persuing happiness as they individually determine.
God's peace. <><
Like the state trying to force a loving husband to keep his vegetative-state wife alive through artificial means? Republicans did that.
Like the state trying to force women to bear children rather than have abortions? Republicans think like that.
"But the incidious power of socialism is that there is only one way, the states way."
"My definiton of socialism is the 'state' controlling aspects of our lives."
Now, what do Liberals stand for? Freedom of choice for women. Freedom of choice for families struggling with end-of-life decisions.
Liberals want to control some aspects of business to keep those businesses from poisoning our water and our air. We want to control a larger quantity of rich people's money than what Republicans want to do because rich people can afford it and poor people can't!
People like you disgust me.
Oh, and just for fun, let's compare and contrast a couple of points. Don't cheat and look ahead, gang!
I fear the mentality of socialism, the one that says 'I can't do this on my own' or 'take care of all my needs' and eventually enslaves the individual's psyche. - proudconservative
not by limiting choice, rather emphasize the individual's responsibility and ability to secure and guard their own health care. - proudconservative
I do believe that in a human sense, the individual freedom that capitalism and the social fabric around it provides, gives humans the best chance for persuing happiness as they individually determine. - proudconservative
"The best state constitution and state form is that which, with the most unquestioned certainty, raises the best minds in the national community to leading position and leading influence. But as in economic life, the able men cannot be appointed from above, but must struggle through for themselves…" - Adolf Hitler
"It must never be forgotten that nothing that is really great in this world has ever been achieved by coalitions, but that it has always been the success of a single victor. Coalition successes bear by the very nature of their origin the germ of future crumbling, in fact of the loss of what has already been achieved. Great, truly world-shaking revolutions of a spiritual nature are not even conceivable and realizable except as the titanic struggles of individual formations, never as enterprises of coalitions." - Adolf Hitler
Damn. Do I win?
Does that make Theodore Roosevelt a nazi? He coined the phrase "rugged individualism" to express those same sentiments. It was rugged individualism that forged this great nation and to suggest, just because Hitler adhered to that same philosophy, that that philosophy is diabolical, is devisive at best. You, in fact, lose!
proudconservative, your post involves a lot of assumptions. you talk about the elderly not expecting the same level of health care. but i see that argument myself. should society pay for a heart transplant for a 70 year old in poor health? i don't think so. you also say there are "no options". the option would be private insurance above what would be basic medical care. i have never seen any proposal where a person would not be able to have an additional policy. and people are denied procedures all the time now by insurance companies. like i said, you make a lot of assumptions.
Well, that's actually quite a prescient statement. He's right. Americans like you think you hate socialism, or even that you know what socialism is, and yet you live in a country which practices large pieces of socialism that you have likely benefitted from time and time again. Did you attend a public school, or recieve a Pell Grant or other government-funded financial aid benefit? Do you believe we should abolish all taxes and live in 1900's America where the Rockefellers, Vanderbilts and Carnegies own everything and 95% of the population lives in abject poverty? You don't? Well, congrats, you're an America-hating socialist!
Oh, and here's an ominous quote of my own, that I got from Paul Weyrich, founder of the Heritage Foundation, oftentimes called the "founding father of the conservative movement".
"I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down." - Paul Weyrich
"When fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis
"When and if fascism comes to America it will not be labeled 'made in Germany;' it will not be marked with a swastika; it will not even be called fascism; it will be called, of course, 'Americanism.'" - Halford Luccock
There are several parts to fascism, including: rampant nationalism; disregard for human rights; scapegoating enemies; military supremacy; controlled mass media; an obsession with national security; protection of corporate power; combining religious and governmental authority; disdain of intellectuals; supressing labor power; fradulent elections; rampant corruption/cronyism; rampant sexism; and an obsession with crime and punishment. Bush and the Neocons fit ALL of these things.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, THE TRUTH IS THE GREATEST ENEMY OF THE STATE." -- Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda, 1933-1945
We get the point, goodguy, so stop bringing up the Clintons already, K?
He came. He saw. He left. I'd call that good judgement on Greggs part. We will never know the level of corruption and infighting Mr. Gregg witnessed but what with the Daschle debacle, the Treasurer's dishonosty, the junior senator from Illinois perjury and who knows what other lurking revelations from this administration will eventually ooze to the surface, something stinks in Obamaville.
you see the specter of corruption by Obama?
how about the reality of Bush's corruption? but of course you wouldn't admit that W was corrupt, even though anyone with half a brain (which is more than i think the man ever posessed at any given time) would be able to see. i think Tammany Hall has been put to shame by Bush
Uh, Bush is gone. I'm talking about Dumbama. When you divert to Bush's so called corruption, you abstain from defending Dumbama's. Very telling.
I loved this!
$50 million for the National Endowment of the Arts.
Yes, a fraction of the bill spent on keeping American art and culture alive is unconscionable. If only they'd spend that money on building a big wall to keep all the Mexicans out. Then we wouldn't have to worry about it at all.
All the Mexicans? And liberals call conservatives racist!