This Week Panel: Concern Trolling The Obama Administration To Be More Republican
By Nicole Belle Sunday Nov 30, 2008 7:00pm
Damn it, it's a center-right nation, and don't you forget it!
I swear to you that is the editorial slant taken by pretty much all the bobbleheads, but none so nakedly as This Week with George Stephanopoulos. Note the make up of the panel is basically four Republicans to one Democrat (with all their concern trolling, I generously figure that Brazile and Stephanopoulos together equal just one Democrat). What's with that ratio? The American public has soundly and decisively voted against the GOP policies and the Bush doctrine, so what are frightened little Villagers to do but put on some former Bushies, Matthew Dowd and Torie Clarke, along with conservative stalwart George Will.
George Will, the sagest one of all, metaphorically pats Donna Brazile on the head and suggests that perhaps all the doom and gloom on the economy is unnecessary, as if Donna Brazile is the one to blame for the bearish outlook. He suggests that the foreclosure rate isn't as bad as everyone seems to think, that the unemployment rolls aren't that bad (WTF? 94% of the people who want to work are working? WANT to work?) and that this is strictly a financial sector problem, ignoring the fact that if the financial sector cannot lend money, it becomes a disaster to the consumer and small business owner as well. Typical Republican missing the forest for the trees.
Meanwhile, former Pentagon spokesperson Torie Clarke rings the warning bell that all these bailouts (not questioned when AIG and BearStearns came a-calling, mind you) are going to cause us to "out-France France"! Quel horreur! And Matthew Dowd insists that if Obama really wants to represent change from how things are done in Washington, he's going to have to reject a Democratic party-led program.
Um, huh? The logic of this escapes me. The American public has rejected GOP policies and rule and so therefore, Obama must reject a Democratic program? I have an idea for you, Matt (along with all of the ABC news bookers): how about we give a Democratic program (and a Democratic panel) a try for once? THAT would be a change.
Login or Register to post comments.
You might as well get upset at the Moonies believing their guy is god. All the neo-Nazis and snakehandlers who call themselves conservatives these days will rave on and on and on that, sure, America accidentally elected Obama but really they just want him to do exactly what the Bush administration did - and more. Really, America just wants to nuke the world into the stone age, repeal the 14th and 19th amendments, stuff all registered Democrats into secret concentration camps offshore, abolish Social Security and spend itself into cataclysmic bankruptcy on wars so that 11 or 12 guys who are friendly with BushCo can make trillions and relegate generations of Americans to indentured servitude to pay off the debt all this wise governance engenders. Really, that is what all Americans pray for at night - if they aren't Democrats or Al Qaeda, same thing really. They just got confused by Obama's diabolical campaign.
Dildos, all.
He might as well interview the LaRouchies.
touche'
you're doing God's work, Nicole, cleaning up the mess.
they're relentless, so much so that I tossed my TV.
if you haven't already, you should step away for four or five years.
It's remarkable how fast and loose with facts they are.
It's also remarkable how much their pictures drive our discourse.
but it's really important that good minds like your take the time to reply.
with compliments.
I suspended my satellite television for 1 month and it was LIBERATING!!
I only reinstated it for viewing sports.
i don't know how or why, but i mistakenly took her for a "good guy" in an earlier comment (here? TP?), wondering why she was pushing a book by amity shailes (sp?)... now i know...
Loved that concern trolling from Mathew Dowd about Bush being too partisan (and he should know, since he worked for him...), so the Dems better sing Kumbaya and hire Repubs.
Of course, next time there is a Repub admin, you know Dowd will go back to proclaiming a GOP mandate and supporting far-right nominations.
My bet is that Dowd is looking at the last GOPer administration he's going to see in his lifetime.
By the way, why don't any of the Milquetoast Dem surrogates on t.v. counter the "liberal media" meme with "Look around you at how many Repubs are on this panel versus how many liberal Dems, and then I'll file your "liberal media" comment where it belongs."
Why are they saying what Obama has to do? He does not have to do whatever the Republicans want. We want through about 8 years of Republicans run wild, thanks to Republican rule and to dumb to speak up Democrats in the Congress.
Dubya said he had a mandate and ruled that way from day 1, whether he had one of not. Obama won by more votes and a bigger percentage than Dubya in 2004. We all remember that Dubya lost the popular vote in 2000. Obama will do what is necessary to fix this country, and if it means that programs will be expanded, like health care to include all people, then so be it.
The argument that we are more social than France is just ridiculous. We are no where near the number of social programs that France implements. The Republicans are just afraid that Democrats might actually help people that need it.
so outnumbered... so skeered to speak out... until this part:
And Matthew Dowd insists that if Obama really wants to represent change from how things are done in Washington, he's going to have to reject a Democratic party-led program.
to which donna, laughing though, says something about how we've been bleeding for 8 years...
really. the audacity of repugs today is befuddling...
the other day i read an op-ed in my daily about how obama should not "manipulate, mislead and misguide the press"... the whole piece was surreal... all about speakers at the annual Media Law Resource Center dinner... lots of advice for obama and how he should treat the press... really?
where was all that advice the past 8 years???!!!!!
really.
Nicole's back- with a vengeance....and I can't blame her!
Like it or not any successful politician has to deal with the opposition.
The last 8 years has been polarizing because of both parties. The Republicans did little to accommodate the needs of Democratic congresspeople. The Democrats have done likewise both with their peers and with the executive.
I know people who are left leaning. I know people you folks would villify and denegrate soley on political leanings, apparently as neo nazis. I don't compare either to Nazis or bring up silly notions of concentration camps or overturning the Constitution. With a few exceptions (people who specifically voice hatred of this country like Reverend Wright and his counterparts in the Aryan Nation) I assume them to be genuinely patriotic Americans. They simply believe something different than I do. This doesn't make we want to use vulgarities to describe them. It doesn't make me intolerant like some of the folks posting here.
Yes President Elect Obama is slated to be our next Chief Executive. By a slim margin he won, and by that slim margin he will have to perform his office. He will not, and cannot, as one person here said, rule. He will need the center of this country, whether you like it or not. Keep up the heated rhetoric and demonisation of people with whom you disagree and you will find yourselves increasingly irrelevant.
as compared to which recently past Presidential elections?
<< Keep up the heated rhetoric and demonisation of people with whom you disagree and you will find yourselves increasingly irrelevant.>>
And to which political persuasion do we presently owe such a track record?
As compared to any recent past election, saving that of Ronald
Reagan. Americans generally do not vote for a president by a landslide, regardless what political hype would indicate. 3 or 4 percent is not an overwhelming mandate. Additionally if you look at exit polling most people couldn't identify key issues in this past election accurately. For instance many thought that Republicans controlled the House of Representatives.
And to the second question, both. Most long term politicians respect their opponents and preserve the decencies of debate. This past 4, and particularly the past 2, years that has not been the case, on either side. Am I attacking Democrats? Yes, but only in the same breath as Republicans. All I'm saying is that politics don't define the moral fiber of a person. You can say Republicans are responsible for all the problems in the country, but that simply isn't true. Framing a solution on a wrong assumption is a logical fallacy and doomed to failure.
"For instance many thought that Republicans controlled the House of Representatives".
They did. Through the Blue Dogs, Rahm Emmanuel "centrists" and weak leadership. All of the important bills supported by the GOP were passed.
"Most long term politicians respect their opponents and preserve the decencies of debate. This past 4, and particularly the past 2, years that has not been the case, on either side."
These past 4 years have been exemplary in Dem congresscritters abandoning their principles (assuming they have the principles that their constituents assume they have) to go along with the GOP. The GOP, on the other hand, has treated these congresscritters like abused dogs. And I have to admit, the Dems have deserved it.
"You can say Republicans are responsible for all the problems in the country, but that simply isn't true."
I'll modify your strawman to something I can agree with: "Republican principles are responsible for many of the problems in the country." From deregulation, failure to regulate, spending money we don't have, and then lowering taxes. And that's only considering "strong" suite of Repub's talents - the economic side. Again, this is a bipartisan problem only because Dem congresscritters abandoned their principles and supported these GOP failures.
Ignoring the first 2 paragraphs as an apparent misunderstanding of the term 'Republican controlled,' which referred to a question of fact, not ideology, I'll move on the meat of your obvious annoyances.
It seems that you don't believe that the Democrats in Congress were far enough left. You are of course entitled to that belief. The Congresspeople are responsible to their constituencies, though. Barbara Boxer in California has a much farther left support base, and must in good faith represent those interests. She and the rest of the California delegation did that admirably. A Democrat from the South or Midwest is likely to have a much more centrist base, and has the same duty to support that base. To that extent you are likely to disagree with their stands. I'm sorry that this doesn't move the country as far left as you'd like, but that is the way the system works.
The 'abused dogs,' is not an argument so much as, I would guess, a general feeling that you disagree with the direction the country went these past 8 years. No answer could possibly cover that. I would ask only that you cite specific instances of where you think Congress caved in to the Republican minority, so that real debate could occur.
Strawman or not, there is plenty of corruption and lack of oversight on both sides to go around. Barney Frank hasn't been a beacon on the Banking Committee. For that matter I didn't see a lot of activity on the part of the Speaker of the House. Both Democrats, and yet no-one seems inclined to have a go at them. Directly put, where big money and politics intersect there will be corruption. That is true regardless of party affiliation.
And Republicans abandoned their principles too. The big 3, banks that made bad decisions, and the homeowner in over his head should all be allowed to fail if that is what would have happened. That is how better decisions are made in the future, through the pains of past bad decisions.
and salient description of our present woes. Pithy yet rather meaty stuff- Thx
All I have to comment is: Obama is hyper-aware of what's transpiring; and he's making all choices as they fit, not only to the present, but YET, towards a future, and more progressive agenda. It would be most unwise to think less of the likes of him (i.e. 'mis-under esti....' y'a know).
Perhaps the opposition will soon no longer be the Republicans or the right wing.
you had the benefit of the doubt, until this:
voice hatred of this country like Reverend Wright and his counterparts in the Aryan Nation
proves you don't know what you're talking about.
the notion is pure bullshit. find the facts. get smart.
you're not helping.
from Canada or U.K. most likely, is attempting (and skewering certain evidence) in order to equalize the debt of culpability in the debate. As a consequence- and considering the obvious aftermath of the last eight years- it seems a no-brainer in determining where he/she/it has entrusted allegiance. There simply is no more room for 'its' kind.
"God damn America," thundered from a pulpit is pretty convincing, So is the sermon in which Reverend Wright says that we deserved Sept 11th. Black Liberation Theology can include beliefs that white government agents deliberately infected African Americans with AIDS. There is a taped sermon of Wrights that re-iterates that nonsensical notion. There is more in that odd theology that is rascist and not supportive of this country. Reverend Wrights' church did espouse the notion of Black Liberation Theology in their webite, until the Obama nomination, when it was removed. These are simple facts, not my opinions.
This is not to attack our duly elected president. For all I know he really didn't know all that about his pastor or church, as his public duties kept him away frequently. Many people sit in churches that they agree with mostly, and partly not. This is to say that prior to claiming someone doesn't know what they are talking about you should at least look into the facts.
Yes, Wright has the right to speak his mind as he sees fit. The KKK would have the same right. Adherents of either belief systems have the right to sit and listen and shout Amen if they wish. Short of an exhortation to violence or treason all speech is protected from prior restraint under the 1st Amendment. That does not mean that people hearing it don't have the right to judge the speaker on his hate speech.
Sorry if I'm not helping. It isn't my intention to be rude or provocative. I genuinely want to know how people with whom I disagree think so that I can correct whatever errors exist in my thinking. I am not a person who considers myself progressive, on philosphical grounds. I don't think progressives are Marxist or Communist or any other inflammatory 'ist', I just don't agree that it is the best way to organize a society.
I've posted this several times.
Tell me where Rev. Wright is wrong in what he said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ
You will not get someone who posted what he has to watch the entire 10 minutes. Context? Who needs context? That I, and others, as old white people agree, that matters not. You hear 20 seconds and that is all that you need to know.
Several long comments of tripe. It would take up too much bandwidth to address the many inaccuracies he stated. I am just too tired to take it on. I fear it would be lost on him/her anyway.
start here:
The full story behind Wright’s “God Damn America” sermon
and
The full story behind Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s 9/11 sermon
the next BEST advice to you: turn off Fox and Limpbaugh.
seriously. they want to keep you stupid.
progressives want you to learn... and think.
this is a good start.
Right on. We don't need these people and their stupid opinions anymore. In fact we need to figure out how to replace them as soon as possible. They need to be called out on their failures past and present as often as possible. Good post showing them trying to hold on to their place of supposed prominence in this changing profession.
Donna, If I were you I would have told this pack of irrelevant and clueless chumps that if we need your advice, we'll ask you--and don't look for that to happen any day soon.
It would be really nice if somebody called out these MSM morons in a more direct and affirmative way instead of being so nice and nonconfrontational. Maybe then they would get a clue and realize that progressives are not pushovers.
I stopped watching watching Sunday morning TV and network news. These "pundits" are so out of touch with the American middle class. While political crimes and corporate fraud raged in our country for the last eight years these people talked nonsense and ideology. Their paychecks are big, everything is good and that's what matters most to them. Don't rock the boat attitudes.
Our best source of information remains on web sights like this. The Internet has changed the world.
ABC's Panel of 4 Republicans and 1 Democrat, well balance of thoughts wouldn't you say. It is funny watching Republicans trying to manipulate the Obama Administration.
Lugar was impressive and Will had some great points but Tore Spelling and Matthew McConaughey were just unbelievable.
It's Funny watching Republicans try to steal greatness because they have no greatness in their own party.
MSM...
"Just because the Democrats won the elections doesn't mean they should govern like they won. They should govern like they lost, and kowtow to the Republicans at every turn.".
Mr. Obama won by 200 electoral votes, and Bush won by 40 or so in 2004.
Bush had a mandate, Mr. Obama doesn't.
The Conservative have to choose. Do they become obstructionists and bring back the Newt Gingrich posse to hunt Obama and Dems, Or do they try to go along on vitals of the nation and stand on "trickle down" ideology ??
We know where Republican House Minority Leader is. That is the Obstrution path.
For the Senate, we will see........
Republican Congressmen and women should beware of the obstruction path. It is less than 2 years before their re election seats.
Kinda brings to mind a Congressional hearing after 2006, and this one repug was acting like he was running the show, until Pelosi slapped him down.
... have a problem. Most profess to be religious, and most of them are either evangelicals or born again christians. You cannot convince them that by all logically reasoning there is no god. They just will not think deeply enough to come to that conclussion
Nor will they believe that Reagan was not a god. Reagan said that the government was the problem, not the solution. He also said he believed that taxes need to be cut, damn the necessity to pay for the running of that evil government.
This led to the current problem of runaway private enterprise without government oversight and the runaway national debt.
These republicans still claim that regulation is wrong, but no one mentions that some people are corrupt and the others are greedy. No one but the government can enforce or regulate honest business. Government should be made a partner - in a way - to business, to assure honesty.
I also never have heard of anyone, republican, democrat or other, ever mention how to pay for the running of the governments. All they talk about is cutting taxes, the 'fair tax' scheme, sales tax, all designed to benefit the rich.
All the nationwide problems are hurting states and municipalities even more. Schwarzenegger refused to raise taxes on yacht owner mooring fees, but has no qualms about wanting to raise the sales tax from 8.5% to 10%. This does not hurt the rich, but it sure hurts those at or near the poverty level. Fees have been raised at nearly every opportunity. My auto registration went up, even though the car is a year older.
If these clowns want to lower taxes, let them look into the 'rebate scheme' run by many companies. Ford recently offered $6,000 cash-back. Which means they are selling a $30,000 car for $36.000, collecting taxes, insurance and registration on $36,000, then give you back $6,000 which was in effect a short term loan to them, on which you paid a sales tax, which in California comes to $460 plus loss of earnings on that amount, or worse, it is being financed at whatever rate you are qualified for. Higher registration and insurance rates also apply.
You will also see republicans, especially those who buy into O'Reilly's BS that both Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are responsible for much of the financial disaster. That is just like blaming lawmakers for cops not doing their job. Frank and Dodd are not responsible for auditing the books of the financial institutions. Regulators were required to do that, those same regulators who were eliminated by the 'deregulators' like McCan and Gramm.
What we really need is to get rid of these 'Compassionate' republicans and convert them to 'Progressive' republicans.
Nicole,
You'ld probably do your blood pressure a favor, if you'ld stop expecting a propaganda outlet to behave as if it were a legitimate instrument of journalism. They know what they're doing and why they're doing it. These guys aren't in business to inform, they're here to manipulate.
The real issue isn't that a sleazy propanda outlet is spewing lies and doing its damndest to manipulate public opinion. That's what slimey propaganda outlets do. The real issue condenses down why an FCC allows them to continue doing it, and thus allows them to violate the terms of their licenses to use OUR airwaves and bandwidth. If the FCC were reformed and restored to integrity, ABC and these other outlets could be compelled to live up to the terms of their licenses and franchises or face losing them. It's time for the blogsphere to address that problem. It's a root cause issue.
We need more entertainment, and these organ grinder's monkeys are going to provide it.
Trolling....trolling...trolling
Keep them doagies rolling
Goon bye.
Now that the u.s. is headed in a completely new direction (acknowledging we have a domestic population for example) these spasming rectums (first thot best thot)have NOTHING TO SAY. They have become irrelevent and are attempting to create dialogue out of a non-existant reality. Bush is dead and so are they.
The so-called "liberal" members of these panels always yield to the bullshit spewed by the repugs.
I am sick and tired of the attempts to frame the debate by the conservatives to always go unchallenged by the token "liberal" clown d'jour.
I always thought du jour referred to soup.
You know, too weak and watery to be considered a substantial stew...
...Ohhhh....
Login or Register to post comments.