I will say it:

Once the smoke clears, Reid will NOT be the Senate leader, Pelosi will not be the Speaker.

5678:

No, my point was you dismissed Media Matters as "a completely worthless, leftist organization" and you were certain the clip they used had been falsified. I proved that it had not been, it was dead on. The person you claimed as dead on was, in fact, dead wrong. In addition, his website, or at least the person responsible for editing its content, intentionally falsified Rush's broadcast transcript to cover up a stupid mistake. Looking stupid isn't as bad as being seen as a deliberate liar. This clumsy attempt at a cover-up makes Rush appear as both.

You do yourself a disservice by dismissing contradictory information and putting all your faith in one media. That's the point. It's too easy to verify this stuff with all the sources available on the net. So to dismiss information that challenges your point of view without even considering it shows someone to be biased to the point of not caring what's really true or not and just choosing to remain willfully ignorant. People choose willful ignorance a lot; it's unsettling to have one's world views discredited. And I think those who spread misinformation and propaganda rely on us being too partisan or too lazy to question any of it.

I keep telling my kids that they have to be critical consumers of information. There's so much junk masquerading as "news", so many opinionists masquerading as journalists, that they really can't take anything they hear or read at face value. Verify something before you buy into it. Don't let other people, especially those who make huge salaries from the "news" industry, tell you how to think.

I wish I saw more of that on this blog.

WT,

You are talking about two different things here. I am only gonig off what you are writing and not researching this but Rush made a mistake and admitted it according to what you write on the Hindu thing. And yet his analogy is right. Building something Japanese related next to Pearl Harbor would be distasteful to say the least. Unlike the Muslims, I have to give the Japanese credit for having some taste.

And the Robert Gibbs Robert Gates thing....who cares? If you are listening to the show, I am sure anyone with a bit of common sense would be able to tell that he meant Gates when he said Gibbs. That happens on a lot of news shows on both sides. But unless you are lacking complete and total common sense on a subject, you can usually figure out what the person meant.

You go right ahead and trust sources like Media Matters. We'll leave that entirely your problem. Not that anyone needed it pointed out to them but places like MM and HP seem to be the only places you might get your disinformation. When I have time, I will be happy to point out to you the volumes of misleading headlines and misleading information from both. The kind of put Fox to shame a little.

Anon 5678:

You said previously that the few times you had listened to Rush, he was dead on. Well, this time he was dead wrong. This is too funny to not share:

RUSH: "Let's suggest that we build a Hindu temple right next to the Arizona memorial out at Pearl Harbor. Why? We want outreach and to show we have no hard feelings. Put a Hindu temple there. How about a mosque next to the Pentagon? Why stop at the World Trade Center? Put a mosque next to the Pentagon."

Question: How many factual errors are in the above paragraph?

Answer: Two

1) The Japanese are not Hindus. Eastern Indians are. 2) There is already a mosque IN THE PENTAGON.

Look at the transcript from this morning's show on Rush's website. Talk about creative editing! Even tho Rush went on to correct himself later in the show--after someone else had obviously brought this to his attention--the transcript of his show reads "Shinto temple", not "Hindu temple" as he had originally said it. So his show transcript shows him apologizing for a mistake that isn't there. I've changed my mind--this isn't creative editing, it's SLOPPY and DECEPTIVE editing.

RUSH: "By the way, I need to make a correction. I said "a Hindu temple at the Arizona memorial." I meant Shinto shrine. The Hindus are Indian. They're Shinto, Buddhists in Japan. So that's what a Buddhist temple out there is my point."

Rush DID say "Hindu temple" originally, but not according to his website transcript.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_081610/content/01125106.guest.html

The comedy of errors continues: Rush also called Robert GIBBS the defense secretary, instead of Robert Gates. This wasn't corrected on the transcript.

Rush needs to start writing notes on his hand to keep his facts straight!

Now watch, those idiot listeners who didn't catch Rush's correction later will show up at the next Tea Party rally with signs that read "Bomb the Hindus!"

Given the choice, I'll trust sources like Media Matters first any day.

Anon ONE:

Reid has been showing a higher disapproval than approval rating among Nevadans for the last couple of years. His re-election was in doubt when he started campaigning, altho his approval ratings got better around the time Sharron Angle won the Republican primary. Angle's election was Christmas in June for Reid. Nevadans may be sick of Harry, but probably not sick enough to want a clueless goof like Angle representing them. We'll see.

WT...

We actually agree on something. Angle is a disaster nominee for the republican party. Eventhough Reid and Pelosi are the worst leaders in the last 60 years of their respective chambers, I don't think that is enough to get Angle over the top. This was a lay up for the republicans. This was a mistake that is going to cost our country....getting Reid elected again by putting up a moron and you can't get much more moronic that Reid....against Reid.

On the other hand Reid's Hispanic comments just show the double standard in which libs are allowed to live. Can you imagine if George Bush or Dick Cheney ever said I can't believe black people are part of the democratic party for all the holding back the dems have done to black people? Although that statement is 100% correct, dems would not let the die ever.

Looks like Ken really enjoyed the link I left him. Thought he would.

And geez, Ken, are you fighting with the new moderator already? Let me guess--have you been arguing with him ALL DAY because he refused your post that used an offensive word? Deja vu all over again.

Here's what you're missing. When you say "one would think that someone involved in journalism would realize that the use of a word is not offensive, but the intent may very well be", you don't take into consideration that not everyone reading your words understands your intent. You say you're making a comment on the ridiculousness of political correctness. So why don't you go to southside Chicago and use this word liberally around all the passers-by there to show them how silly they're being about this? You wouldn't because you know you'd get your butt kicked. You feel safe using that word on this blog where no one knows who you are, but you sure wouldn't in public, esp. around those of African American heritage. So you're full of it, as usual.

Here's how I see it: I'm of Anglo Saxon heritage. I am not going to presume to tell AA's how they should feel about the use of the "n" word. I don't share their history or experiences, so I would be forming an opinion on something I know nothing about, like you and Dr. L are. I also would not presume to tell Jewish people how they should feel about the Holocaust. Same thing.

I acknowledge the sensitivity of the issue and just don't go there. I'm sure this is what the moderator prefers to do as well. So should you.

Besides, my response was for 5678. Hey, I gave you the link you asked for! Where for art thou?

I will answer that:

Reid is a toad and an embarassment to the Dem party. He was a puppet compromise when the Dems took the Senate. I will bet right now that he will lose in November outside of a "created" scandal. The proper leadership /sh been a middle road Dem, such as Lieberman.

wt? wrote:
"If the Reps had been able to get a reasonable candidate in, Reid probably would have been history."

________

OK Wt?, I'll bite. Why do you think this?

Anon ONE:

Heck yes! It's been all over the place. Reid is just stoking the anti-Hispanic hysteria in his race against Angle. Not that he needs to. Angle is way weird; the Tea Party getting her elected was the best thing that could have happened to Reid. If the Reps had been able to get a reasonable candidate in, Reid probably would have been history. Who loves the Tea Party? Democrats do!!

Too funny, wt. You still think this is a private blog, even though many have pointed out that it is a very public forum. I see you still like to tell out and out lies, as you claimed I indulged in your habit of name calling. Please quote the sentence where I called anyone a name. Also, why not try to grow up and engage in actual debates instead of third grade taunts? I doubt you are capable of that, but one can hope. One can also hope that your husband is a lot smarter than you, and a bigger influence on your children. It is quite a shock to realize someone like you has any hand in raising children.

I also find it amusing that you think that Dr. Laura's use of a word that even the editors of this blog will not allow in a post proves whatever your arcane point was. The fact that you seem to think that a conservative bringing up race, or using the actual word is in some way bad shows that you think only liberals are allowed to comment on race. You have completely missed, and completely proven Limbaugh's point. This is nothing new for you, as you are pretty much clueless when it comes to interpreting the spoken or written word. Quite simply, Limbaugh is saying that liberals and blacks think that they are the only ones qualified to comment on race. Your outrage at him for daring to mention the obvious is a good example of that line of reasoning.

I mentioned that the blog moderator will not allow the use of the 'offending' word. I used that word in my first attempt at this post, and was told that only the politically correct term would be accepted. It is pretty sad that a word that is used regularly on tv shows, syndicated radio shows, and by many of the very same race that claim to be offended by it cannot be used by a poster on a little read blog. I don't know what the moderator is afraid of, but one would think that someone involved in journalism would realize that the use of a word is not offensive, but the intent may very well be. My intent was to show how far gone we are on the road of political correctness; his refusal or fear of posting my comment just shows how true that is. Hopefully, he won't find this post to offensive, and hopefully he will realize that most of us here are adults and can handle a simple word.

Did anyone happen to see Democratic Senate Majority leader Harry Reid say, "I don't know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican"?

http://www.fox5vegas.com/news/24603037/detail.html

I guess lots of political / talk show types can say stupid things regardless of political affiliation!

Definition of a racist :

Anyone who disagrees with a liberal!

Usually I don't honor Ken with a reasonable response, but this is too good to pass up. This just fell into my lap yesterday. I love it when things come together like this.

My point clearly was not that only blacks can bring up race. My point was they are not the only ones who do. Conservatives do it as well as liberals, so the left does not "own" racism as Anon claimed. Ken's post is an example of the reverse use of race-baiting that I mentioned.

So since this is a discussion on conservative/liberal, not black/white as Ken would prefer, here is one that is. Enjoy, Ken!

http://ricksanchez.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/13/dr-laura-schlessingers-rant/

To Anonymous on August 12, 2010 1:26 PM:

You ask "How can this be?" I'll enlighten you. It's only "this" way inside the alternate universe you call your brain. You're delusional, dude.

So Ken is back, STILL butting in on other people's convos, STILL using his predictable attack-name-calling M.O., trying to bait anyone into an argument. Give it up, Ken, I beat you a long time ago. You're not worth my time.

Neener neener neener.

So, to make a long rant short, wt seems to think that only blacks can bring up race. If a white guy mentions it, it is racist. Again, the typical liberal/wt hypocritical double standard.

Anon 5678:

Ok. You asked for "an unsliced and undiced version of this not from the George Soros run, liberal Media Matters." Here it is.

You don't have to listen to Rush's radio show to get this stuff. You can go directly to his website, rushlimbaugh.com, type in a date, and read a transcript of his show for that day. Which is what I did for his August 6 show. Here is the quote verbatim from Rush's website, just as Media Matters reported it:

RUSH: Basically what you are asking is: Why isn't there any outrage similar to the outrage in the media over Nancy Reagan changing the china? Why is there no outage over Michelle (My Belle) Obama with all these expenditures? She has 60 secret service people, by the way, on this trip to Spain. The answer is patently obvious. I guess you're also asking: Why is there so much anger over the fact that I have earned what I have? It's as simple as conservative versus liberal. It's no more complicated than that, and as far as the media is concerned, Mrs. Obama deserves this. Look at the sorted past, look at our slave past, look at our discriminatory past. It's only fair that people of color get their taste of the wealth of America too.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_080610/content/01125110.guest.html

Compare it word for word to the Media Matters video, I did. They reported it just as Rush said it, no "creative editing" of any kind was used. I understand why you're skeptical of what you hear, especially after Andrew Brietbart's heavily edited posting of the Shirley Sherrod video. But you don't have to assume information that is contrary to your point of view is fake; it's very easy to verify this stuff. Just take a few moments and look it up online. That's what I do.

Anyway, the whole point I was making was that Limbaugh, the most prominent conservative voice today, brings up race A LOT. Browse a bit through his website while you're there. You'll see headlines like this:

Obama Tries to Use Gibbs to Engineer a Sister Souljah Moment

Why Media Won't Criticize Michelle: White guilt animates and controls the liberal media.

Obama and Oprah are Successful Because of their Race

And on and on. If you didn't know Obama was black, you could learn this very quickly just by listening to Rush's show. He never lets his listeners forget Obama's race. And it obviously resonates well with them; if it didn't, this kind of talk wouldn't work so well for Rush.

So to claim the left "owns" the race issue is clearly not the case. Conservatives use the flip side of race baiting to their advantage as well.

I'm not interested in Michelle's Spain trip. She and her friends are entitled to go anywhere on vacation they want, and as long as they're paying for it themselves, which they are, with the exception of the secret service personnel--who would be present no matter where they went--I don't care. They're spending their own money which they lawfully earned, they can spend it how they like. I sent my eldest to Spain for 4 months this year on our own dime, but I know Rush wouldn't care about that. We're white.

Ted Nugent Rocks!

NUGENT: Extermination crew to the rescue
Time to fumigate the Washington pest haven

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/11/extermination-crew-to-the-rescue/

..........I find it painfully disheartening that the United States of America voted for Barack Hussein Obama, the leftist community organizer, in a time following the horrors of Sept. 11, 2001. Would America have voted for a clueless, inexperienced man with an anti-American voting record with the name Adolf, Eichmann or Stalin following World War II? I think not.

It is unfathomable to me that such support exists for a man who was raised and abandoned by avowed Marxist parents, whose mentor was a self-avowed Marxist, who studied and preached Marxism and communism, who attended a radical, America-hating church led by a radical America-hating pastor, who had this radical, America-hating pastor baptize his children and marry him and his wife, who has appointed as czars a gang of flagrant communists, Marxists, socialists and America-hating, capitalism-hating, U.S. Constitution-hating radicals, who associated regularly with convicted homegrown terrorists and 1960s radicals and other such egregious violations. I ask, how can this be?............

WT,

I just listened to Rush for about 20 minutes during lunch just to see what all the hub bub is about. He was commenting about this Media Matters (hopefully you do realize is a completely worthless, leftist organization) thing. His whole point is that the American media other than people like him and Fox don't question anything about what this family does. They say Bush was always on vacation...at his ranch in Texas having full access to work on presidential matters, which he did. Obama and his family are taking more vacations - real vacations - than in president in my memory. And if it is not vacations, it is photo ops with "stars". And heavan forbid have a press conference. I understand it is hard for this man to speak without the use of prepared answers and a teleprompter in front of his face.

Anyway, back to the Rush thing. He made the point that the European press has done a far better job of covering the Obama's abuse of excesses than the American press has. And as it ties into bringing up racism, he brought it up in the context of exactly what I said above.

I get the left doesn't let facts get in the way of anything they want to promote or make their sheep believe. It is just so easy to disprove time and time again.

whozat? wrote:

let us agree there was no national debt surplus when W came into office. In fact, national debt had skyrocketed under Clinton. There was a PROJESCTED surplus for the FISCAL year, a surplus which disappated with the Clinton recession which W inherited.

National debt increased every year under Clinton, but whether or not there was a surplus depends on your definition of the word. If you count the Social Security surplus as part of overall government revenue, then we did have a surplus in each of the last three full fiscal years of the Clinton presidency.

And:

let us also recognize that the tax cuts were an intelligent response to the inherited recession, and they were, as expected, quite succesful. As has always been the case in practice (versus Keynesian theory), the tax cuts created significant increases in Federal revenues streams.

You may recognize this, but many economists do not.

-JQP

WT,

I just listened to that Rush thing. Try providing me an unsliced and undiced version of this not from the George Soros run, liberal Media Matters. You can tell about 45 seconds into it, there was creative editing. And I am not even sticking up for Rush. I have heard him about 10 times in my life. Although I do have to say, the times I have listened to him, he has been dead on. And it is usually about something controversial like this.

I don't think there is too much denying that the Obamas want to make things more "fair"....meaning they are completely for redistribution of weath...unless it is their wealth of course. Keep in mind, this is the same family that went to Rev. Wright for 20 years as their spirtual advisor. And we all know what the great Rev believes. This is the same Obama who lived on the south side preying on black people with comments about social justice. So, Rush saying this isn't completely out of the norm nor really out of context. This really is the guy that 53% of the fools in this country elected for president.

Read the great Michelle Obama's paper she wrote in college. And then remember that Michelle and Barry didn't live through the 1960s. But, they can't let it die.

The big O's plummeting poll numbers.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

New topic - How about the utter arrogance of this man? His approval ratings are plumetting faster than many imagined. Not me. But by the many independents who voted for this man. And he has the nerve to come out yesterday and say he "knows about politicking". Basically he is rubbing it right in the face of all the fools who he suckered into voting for him. We all know what politicking means. It means lying to get votes. And although he has done an admirible job of being a complete liar, he has the nerver to rub into his own voting bases face? And sadly, they applauded and fell for it. This goes to show us how absolutley dumb people are.

And then he has the nerve to go to a Ford plant - a company that did not take federal funds - and bragged that his policies saved the auto industry??? Huh? GM isn't saved. Chrysler isn't saved. They are government owned and run. And people actually buy into his BS?

What are these Hollywood whack jobs going to for a follow up to the Yes We Can video? It better be a We are Morons Who Have No Sense of Reality video.

Uh, what the?, I believe the term for your post is "non sequiter" (not sure of the spelling).

First, a quick history & econ lesson for you:

>let us agree there was no national debt surplus when W came into office. In fact, national debt had skyrocketed under Clinton. There was a PROJESCTED surplus for the FISCAL year, a surplus which disappated with the Clinton recession which W inherited.

>let us also recognize that the tax cuts were an intelligent response to the inherited recession, and they were, as expected, quite succesful. As has always been the case in practice (versus Keynesian theory), the tax cuts created significant increases in Federal revenues streams.

>let us agree that the current attempt to apply Keynesian theory (increase taxes and pretebnd the government knows better how to spend your money) by the Obama admin has been a tremendous failure and has, in fact, hurt our country and all of it's citizens regardless of income strata.

>finally, let us also agree that the President's policies appear to not be in line with either the reality of the times or the wishes of the people, but more of a "catch up" on unpopular far left agendas that have previously failed to pass due to the higher intellect of past Congresses (in all parties).

Whozat:

Re: your comment: "On the subject of debt --- let us all remember that the debt increased significantly under Clinton. Also, the alleged surpluses were a PROJECTION based on static government accounting (the worst kind)."

So when W. came into office and saw that surplus and said it was there because Americans had been overtaxed and deserved a refund, he gave us all a check based on a PROJECTION of the worst kind? How dumb is that?

Wingnuts in both parties?

The Democratic Party core is the far left currently calling themselves Progressives instead of Liberals or Social (ist) Democrats. Many of the icons are outright Socialists or Marxists. Is the core of the Republican Party skin heads and Fascists? No and I haven't seen them at the one Tea Part rally I monitored this year.

From what I read, Tea Party people have generally higher levels of education and income and include all races and religions contrary to the propaganda pumped out against them. They represent less government.

A vote for any Democrat at any level is a vote for growing, more intrusive, more controlling, more centralized big government. With the Ivy League Progressives making sure that everyone they rule has an equal outcome at a far lower income and opportunity level than the Ivy Leaguers who dominate the Federal Government, the entire Supreme Court and most of the large financial institutions.

As long as the Republicans stand for fine tuning the Democrat's Ivy League vision of big government, they have little to offer and hence the reason for the formation of the Tea Parties.

Given the goose stepping Democrats in the US Senate, the idea of moderate Democrats has been laid bare as a myth. If the Republicans continue to look and act like mini-me, their days as the alternate Ivy League party are numbered

Ken:

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

WT, if you are going to accuse others of plagiarism, maybe you should avoid it yourself. Of course, that would go against the double standard you live by.

As for keeping up, maybe you should try to follow your own advice. I was obviously addressing a specific part of your comment, something you might of realized if you had any reading comprehension abilities at all.

I didn't realize that you ran the blog now, but since you have made it clear that you think you do, I will take your butt out comment under advisement. Of course, since so many others here show what a complete idiot you are, I rarely feel the need to comment on your idiocy any more. Seems most of the board realizes what a partisan hack you are, and seems most are quite tired of your shtick. As usual, you are clueless as to what is actually going on around you. No surprise there.

The only one with anything up their butt is you, what the?.

YOU are the one who inferred those who don’t look like you are a “..pot-bellied, middle-aged, paranoid white guy in a soldier costume playing maneuvers and firing rubber bullets”.

Your closed mind is epic, your slurs reek os many "ism's". As oyu have posted, please try and quote me correctkly and in context next time. Your inferences are indicative of your partisan fever.

On the subject of debt --- let us all remember that the debt increased significantly under Clinton. Also, the alleged surpluses were a PROJECTION based on static government accounting (the worst kind).

Anyone who actually tries to defend the debt being incurred by this President is, simply put, an idiot.

5678:

This couldn't have happened at a better time. Re your previous comment, "Obama and his admin have taken this racial divion on themselves. They own it. Keith and Rachel and Huff Po scream racism anytime someone criticizes his policies. That is entirely a left thing."

Really? Screaming racism is ENTIRELY A LEFT THING? Just today, Limbaugh once again brings up race when talking of the first family:

Rush Limbaugh accuses media of using First Lady's 'slave past' to cover up her trip to Spain

Limbaugh does liberals a favor by once more making the conservative argument seem absurd. For Limbaugh, conservatives all "earn" their wealth and excess. Liberals, however, only got their wealth through some form of reparations. Limbaugh actually insinuates that the First Lady went to Spain as some kind of repayment for her family's "slave past." Limbaugh once more brings race into a debate where it does not belong, and in the process helps discredit what otherwise may be a legitimate contention.

http://www.examiner.com/x-5738-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m8d6-Video-Rush-Limbaugh-accusses-media-of-using-her-slave-past-to-cover-up-First-Ladys-trip-to-Spain

You really need to spend more time listening to your contemporaries before calling racism "an entirely left thing"!

How convenient, and typical, of Ken to be so eager to jump on the partisan bashing bandwagon that his superior reading comprehension skills fail him again.

The question posed by Anonymous on August 5, 2010 3:28 PM was "Can anyone here tell me just how much is due to Obama and Obama alone?". By his own admission, Ken claims that "President Bush brought in both candidates to discuss the bailouts, and both approved the bailouts." So the bailouts clearly WEREN'T due to Obama and Obama alone, were they?

If you can't keep up, Ken, keep out.

Also, kudos on the new word "acolyte". You've used "ilk" to death.

Whozat:

Well, bless your heart! Looks like someone has a serious bug up his butt.

"biased, partisan, little narrow-minded, subversive socialist partisan view racist wing nuts"

Sure you didn't forget one? Is that all you've got?

Too funny!

Heard Obama at Ford on Torrence Avenue today and still laughing. He said some sort of nonsense to the effect that while Ford did not take stinulus money, they still benefited from the bail out. Don't ask me to be more specific as nonsense by its nature is non-specfic. So we were arguing about it at lunch with the one liberal lunatic in our squad and his response was the cash for clunkers helped Ford out. Actually people, what helped Ford are the following: 1) They designed a product that people want and people want to buy. Especially our vaunted Crown Victoria which is at the end of the run. There is nothing more exciting than to hear someone talking into the mike and hearing the roar of that V-8 engine on the radio too. It simply screams urgency. 2) Their product quality is superior to GM and especially Chrysler. 3) They ran their operation more efficient financially and had the most aggressive agreements with the UAW. 4) They were not overbranded and thus over dealered like GM was. So when WTF? continues the wing nut line of blame Bush, do not forget that the Obama approved and voted for the stimulus that the Dermocratic Congress designed. Bush little lady merely signed the bill. He did not propose or author the legislation. Obama refused to executive order the suspension of the Jones Act to allow all flagged vessels to assist in the Gulf clean up. Obama has the blood of the highest casualty levels in that good war of his in Afganistan on his hands. He nominates judicially unqualified people to be on the Supreme Court. Kagan is no more qualified than Harriet Meyers was. There is more but his record of accomplishments in failure are actually highlighted in his deteriorating poll numbers. And once we spend September and October in hearings for Waters and Rangle, they will slide right into the mid term elections wherein his popularity will free fall.

How convenient, and typical, of wt to 'forget' that President Bush brought in both candidates to discuss the bailouts, and both approved the bailouts. President Obama seems to want to forget that detail too. No surprise that his local acolyte does the same.

Anonymous on August 5, 2010 3:28:

And don't forget that Bush bailed out Wall Street and the car companies right before he left, with absolutely no accountability or strings attached.

The one thing I consider to be Obama's and Obama's alone so far--the Stimulus.

Mike,

Lets remember that the Obama inherited a built in deficit from policies of the former president. We all forget about Medicare part D -never funded- or the cost of the Bush tax cuts or the Iraq war that Obama inherited. Can anyone here tell me just how much is due to Obama and Obama alone?

I feel people are misinformed - in 2000, Bush took over a federal debt of $5.6 Trillion - contrary to what many say - the US still had debt when Clinton left office. In fact the US has been in debt since WWII. When clinton left office, the us had a budget surplus - which means for that year we took in more revenue than we spent.

Now I am not a fan of all the spending in Bush's 2 terms - but I believe that some of the complaints about the surplus/deficit are blatantly wrong and fostered by partisan politics.

At the end of Bush's terms - the US was $10 Trillion in debt - so it increased by $4.6 trillion during his 8 years.

The spending of pelosi/reid/obama has us now approaching $14 trillion in only 2 years since obama & dems have been in control of our country.

The numbers do not lie - they have spent as much in 18 months as during 8 years of Bush.

I think the govt should be forced to adhere to the previous year's tax revenues - any excess goes to debt.

Well, there he/she goes again!

Per expectations, what the? infers those who don’t look like him are “..pot-bellied, middle-aged, paranoid white guy in a soldier costume playing maneuvers and firing rubber bullets”.

Just further proof of what the?’s biased, partisan, little narrow-minded, subversive socialist partisan view of all things America. As said, everyone who does not look like him or think like him are either racists, wing nuts, etc.

Note the little racial slur at Jamaicans!

5678:

"Obama and his admin have taken this racial divion on themselves. They own it."

Sez you. I don't see this coming from Obama or his administration. In fact, the last time I heard Obama speak of this, he publicly dismissed the charge that racism was involved in any of the problems he faced. Rachel, Keith and the Huff Post may scream racism a lot, but they are not Obama or his administration. That's like claiming W. Bush owns everything that comes from Rush Limbaugh because they're both on the right. I don't think so.

True, polls are showing a growing frustration with Obama. This frustration is coming from the left as much as the right. Neither extreme is happy. But most people live, and most presidents govern, somewhere in the center. The right is increasing offering only EXTREME rhetoric, with Newt wanting to invade Iran and North Korea, with Mitch and Sessions and a bunch others claiming they want to change parts of the Constitution they don't like (I thought conservatives were always claiming to DEFEND the Constitution, not rewrite it), with candidates like Sharon Angle saying she wants to control the media--and literally running from it when she can't--to the fact that a bunch of Palin endorsed candidates have recently lost their local elections. Extremism may jazz up the nut base, but it scares the hell out of us normal folks.

Things in politics can change very quickly. Don't count your chicks before they hatch.

WT?

I simply used your own words to make my point, you should take it as a compliment, not a plagiarism accusation. You frequently label conservatives with broad brushes without acknowledging that it happens on the left as well.

Sorry if you think I have plagiarized (your belief) your precious original thoughts - it sounded more like something you probably heard from one of your liberal sources like Jon Stewart, Keith Olbermann, et. al.

Did you really not get the point? Or are you just being difficult?

In this case the parroting is appropriate because it shows that the same issues and problems are on both sides of the political aisle. By giving you credit for the original statement, he has not plagiarized either.

Anon ONE:

I've never been a fan of parroting/plagiarism. Why don't you make your point IN YOUR OWN ORIGINAL WORDS, then we'll talk.

WT? Wrote: "The far right extremists and fear mongers have been leading the charge since Obama took office, but the charge wouldn't have occurred unless people followed them. If we're gullible and clueless enough to be exploited by demagogues, we have no one to blame but ourselves."

__________________

I agree, but would add the following response:

The far Left liberal extremists and fear mongers led the charge ever since Bush took office (and continue to do so even after he is now out of office), but the charge wouldn't have occurred unless people followed them. If we're gullible and clueless enough to be exploited by demagogues, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Agree?

What the?

Obama and his admin have taken this racial divion on themselves. They own it. Keith and Rachel and Huff Po scream racism anytime someone criticizes his policies. That is entirely a left thing. They can't listen to how poor his policy decisions are. So, they deflect and try the racism thing.....way too much. It is like him continuously blaming Bush. When O spent the $800 mil to do nothing but add to our debt, he bought the economy. Plain and simple. He was out tring to blame Bush the other day again. What has changed? Bush put us in debt with the war and being a "social conservative". Obama has chosen to spend far more.

Polls are obviously showing the growing frustration with this man and his policies. We have been arguing about this since he was elected. And again, I know the alternative was McSame and the Baracuda.....I get that. But it is not like these policies weren't written on a billboard screaming right in our faces.

I can't wait for the midterms. I can't wait til 2012 when the nightmare ends.

Anon 5678:

I LOL'd at the "toothless redneck" comment! If I had said that, half a dozen or more bloggers would be putting me in their crosshairs right now. Goes to show one doesn't have to read the Huff Post or watch MSNBC to come up with the most negative Tea Party comment so far.

I do agree Obama has been a disappointment in some areas. I don't believe, however, that he has divided our country. We have done that entirely to ourselves. The far right extremists and fear mongers have been leading the charge since Obama took office, but the charge wouldn't have occurred unless people followed them. If we're gullible and clueless enough to be exploited by demagogues, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

I knew it was just a matter of time.

Here come the Marxist/socialist/Obama posts. Again.

This thread is about the November elections, remember?

And thanks for the compliment, whozat! I plan to NEVER be a pot-bellied, middle-aged, paranoid white guy in a soldier costume playing maneuvers and firing rubber bullets at my friends so I can feel "cool". I have way too much pride in myself for that.

These guys are nothing to be concerned about, but they are funny to watch. My guess is none of them have ever served in the military. Real soldiers don't just play at war, they fight them. I have no doubt the minute REAL bullets started whizzing above their heads, these guys would drop their guns and sprint out of there faster than Jamaicans!

Here is the problem with the negative Tea Party comments. When all you watch is MSNBC and only read the Huffington Post, of course you are going to be an advocate for trying to spread the uniformed news those two outlets make. They do have a good thought process. They just have poor representatives.

I'll be the first to admit I don't want to painted as a tea party person. There are too many toothless rednecks for my taste. I just want to be a conservative and I want out country to get beyond what happened starting in 2006.

Obama has proven to be awful. He is still campaigning and blaming W for all this. The only thing Obama has changed since he has been in office is put us a trillion more in debt and divided our country more than it has been since the 60s. Oh yeah. He is also scaring the heck out of businesses.

I know the voters in this state are just unbelievably ignorant. If Alexi gets elected over Mark Kirk (and I am not suggesting Mark Kirk is the best thing in the world but at least he is moderate), I will give up what little hope I have left for common sense.

Speaking of bad politics. has anyone else noticed that Obama is quickly turning a victory in Iraq into a defeat?

Nice article, but PLEASE don't bring up the TEA party movement around what the?.

It will start her on one of her biased, narrow-minded, subversive socialist rants where everyone who does not look like her or think like her are either racists, wing nuts, etc (see her posts, above).

JQP:

Good article on the TP. I tend to agree with the author's assessment. The TPers aren't wrong to be angry. They have been had, most Americans have been. The TPer's are just confused or clueless about who or what is responsible.

Government is the enemy of the citizens and we must go after it with everything we got. All the Marxists in our state and in the Whitehouse must be removed. Citizens must take back our country and we must do it now.

Oops. I meant McCain. We all make mistakes at times. I was wirting quickly/

OWVY:

Found the author interview. Just didn't scroll down far enough.

The wing nuts on the right do wrap up extremism in patriotism. What is that phrase they quote a lot "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." Barry Goldwater, 1964?. So to them, extreme rhetoric and behavior makes them true patriots, or "real" Americans (Sarah Palin). It also is used to legitimize attitudes like "2nd amendment remedies" (Sharon Angle) and talk of "armed insurrections" (as mentioned on this blog in previous threads). The thinking--and I use that word loosely here--of the armed insurrection supporters always baffled me. They think that waging a war of treason against our constitution would preserve it? They think that overthrowing a democratically elected government would save democracy?

Our government of checks and balances is working exactly the way our founders intended it to work. No one president can destroy our country. To try to convince yourself that an armed insurrection is even remotely appropriate is merely showing these people for what they really are--the worst possible losers.

Also, those home grown militia groups that the interview showed, all those middle aged guys playing army in the woods? I saw a report on a news program, can't remember which one, awhile ago which profiled that group. Here's an ironic twist for you--the majority of those men are unemployed as a result of the recession and receiving unemployment benefits! Many of them are 99ers! That's how they have time to play army. Someone should tell Sharon Angle, the unemployed aren't lazy couch potatoes enjoying the government largesse. They're running around the woods in camouflage! Like we did as kids, only with cooler stuff. We should also remind these guys the U.S. has a real military and a couple of real wars we're fighting right now, if they ever outgrow imaginary play.

Here's the kicker--these guys justify collecting unemployment to buy ammo because they say it isn't welfare. They're entitled to it because it's insurance that they paid into when they were working. True enough, but they ignore the fact that they've exhausted their insurance benefits. They just keep cashing those unemployment extension checks the Dems keep fighting to pass while screeching about the federal government's overreach into their lives. Sounds a lot like "keep your government hands off my Medicare!"

I think I'll pick up the book "Idiot America" at the same time.

Here's an interesting commentary on the Tea Party.

Here's the group I've come to know and love!

OWVY:

I have not read the book you refer to, but I did click on your link and read many of the reviews (I didn't find the author interview you referenced). What you are talking about was candidly discussed in an interview that was shown on C-SPAN recently featuring Congressman Bob Inglis (R), a 12-year So. Carolina incumbent that recently lost his bid for re-election. His refusal to pander to the lunatic fringe Obama bashers played a big part in that. His loss was disappointing but not surprising; his was one of the few mature voices of sanity, reason and responsibility coming out of So. Carolina. Unfortunately, these traits were not appreciated by his constituents.

Some key parts:

GOP leaders let demagogues set tone, lawmaker says

By BEN EVANS (AP) – Jul 9, 2010

WASHINGTON — Too many Republican leaders are acquiescing to a poisonous "demagoguery" that threatens the party's long-term credibility, says a veteran GOP House member who was defeated in South Carolina's primary last month.

Inglis' refusal to join in on the Obama-bashing of the far right played a big role in his landslide defeat on June 22. Leading up to the election, he frequently challenged voters who questioned the president's citizenship or patriotism. At one town hall meeting, he was jeered for saying that Beck, a Fox News Channel host, is a divisive fearmonger.

He cited a claim made famous by Palin that the Democratic health care bill would create "death panels" to decide whether elderly or sick people should get care.

"There were no death panels in the bill ... and to encourage that kind of fear is just the lowest form of political leadership. It's not leadership. It's demagoguery."

"I think we have a lot of leaders that are following those (television and talk radio) personalities and not leading," he said. "What it takes to lead is to say, 'You know, that's just not right.'"

Inglis said the rhetoric also distracts from the real problems that politicians should be trying to resolve, such as budget deficits and energy security.

"It's a real concern, because I think what we're doing is dividing the country into partisan camps that really look a lot like Shia and Sunni," he said, referring to the two predominant Islamic denominations that have feuded for centuries. "It's very difficult to come together to find solutions."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gMVWMPMusNiWy1BWNNaU9V16LrDwD9GRHQH03

The quote that resonated the most with me: "To encourage that kind of fear is just the lowest form of political leadership. It's not leadership. It's demagoguery."

I wholeheartedly agree.

Here's another link to what happened at a town hall meeting when he told his audience to turn off Glen Beck. Not very pretty.

In this video, Inglis responds to a woman who cried out that she feared President Obama. Rep. Inglis suggests that the woman and her friends should turn off Fox News’ Glenn Beck and tune out the fear-mongering. The Congressman’s advice did not go over well with the wing-nuts:

http://www.indigojournal.com/2009/08/07/rep-bob-inglis-to-town-hall-hecklers-turn-off-glenn-beck/

It does show you how in some parts of the country, the most histrionic voices are the ones leading the charge. I think many Reps. are pandering to this element because they think it will help them win back seats in the upcoming elections. We'll see.

Anonymous on August 1, 2010 2:58 PM wrote:

In the last presidential election, one voted for Bush, the other for Obama.

Wow! The one who voted for Bush must really have been down on John McCain.

;-)

Speaking of politics and things that may drive my future voting pattern -------

Did anyone else notice that our intrepid City Council voted to approve a LOT more money (donated) to Ribfest this year, yet the revenues from the festival actually DECLINED depsite the doubling of size?

It is thinking like this, that in a horrible economy with so many either out of work or worried of being out of work, that they can justy whimsically spend our tax dollars on things they deem "for a good cause".

There are a lot of good causes out there, and a lot of people who could use a "hand up", but using our tax dollars for such things in this economy reminds me a bit of Marie Antoinette.

Of course, this local obliviousness echos the national (and State level) zeitgeit of our politicians.

I, for one, to answwer the question originally put forth, will be voting for REAL change, for leaders who will toe the line on spending first, who will decrease spending, who will approach the subject of Social security, medicare, and medicaid.....

I disagree --- this thread is not designed to "bash" Obama or liberals (am I correct, Sun editor?).

It seems that it was put out there for all of us to discuss the upcoming elections in November, 2010 (not the presidential election of 2012).

In fact, no where in the original statement is there a mention of bashing anyone. It reads like the Sun editor is wanting to know what issues are driving our vote this year, yes?

Having raised two children who are fairly opposite on most things political, I am interested in the book that onewhovaluesyou is talking about above and may look it up myself.

While my adult children both have some areas that they agree on, their personal natures do mean that there are areas of the political arena where they tend to be on the opposite sides of the fence. One tends to see things more in black and white with very few shades of gray. The other tends to see tons of gray with some black and white. We raised them to question, discuss, make their points and occasionally agree to disagree. In the last presidential election, one voted for Bush, the other for Obama. I would not put either one the side of the lunatic fringe of either camp. They have both influenced the other in certain areas, so that neither entirely agrees with either political party.

The problem is that the lunatic fringe of both camps seem to have taken over the discussions in the media, and often on this blog too. It's really shame that the discussions tend to be so uncivil on here now. It's one thing to disagree. It's another to act petty, childish, and disrespectful. It has nothing to do with whether it is "too hot in the kitchen." In the case of this topic, the stove was turned to broil by whatthe with no chance for gradually heating up.

I have to say that at one time, I respected What the, the expression of her opinions, if not always the message. But lately, she comes off as one step above she who will not be named. What the- no one can drag you through the mud unless you are willing to step down into that pit.

I have not read this book yet, I just heard the author John Avlon being interviewed about it on the radio yesterday so I'm intrigued but I thought I'd just mention it in case some of you may be interested. Anyone read it yet?

The book is called "Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe is Hijacking America"

There is a short interview with the author on the link below. He explains a "Wingnut" is "the extreme far right & left people who are always TRYING to divide rather than unite us" and those who "confuse partisanship with patriotism". It is funny, I mean Patriotism is suppose to be "United We Stand" correct? :-)

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Wingnuts/John-Avlon/e/9780984295111/?itm=1&USRI=wingnuts

In addition, I don't know about all of you, but I have been noticing what one commenter above mentioned "baseless assumptions" and "nastiness" permeating almost everything lately. The polarization which John mentions in the interview is occuring also for almost anything. Whether you are a Sox or Cubs fan, how one drives, where you shop for groceries, what brand you buy, pretty soon it will be which way you put the toilet tissue! May seem extreme but it is incredible to me what I'm observing & hearing throughout the day. Better interview the babysitter she may be "one of them" and try to brainwash our children. Interview the neighbor kids because we may not want them to be friends with our children or have our children spend time at their homes if their parents are "one of them". Wear some cute butterfly jeans and you are assumed to be a extreme liberal! The littlest things and things that have nothing to do with one side or the other. I would not be surprised if people are hiring or firing based on perceived assumptions of political views. How far will this go? Will it be self imposed seating sections on buses and restaurants?

Good Lord don't make me sing..."Come on People Now, Smile on your Brother, Everybody Get Together and Try to Love One Another Right now!" Now that will make some assume I'm a liberal! HA!

whatthe
I am Anonymous at 3:59
Personally, since upcoming elections are not presidential ones, I would not say this one is just for Obama bashing.

And I think taunting people before a debate even starts is childish and immature. Once the debate starts, you are free to taunt as much as you want. But your taunting has now taken what could have been a genuine political discussion and already turned into garbage.

As someone who really had no opinion of you on here previously, I now have one merely because of your actions at the start of this blog.

Whozat and Anonymous on July 30, 3:59 PM:

If it's too hot in the kitchen for some of you, that's fine.

But it just seems strange that so many threads over the past several months have devolved into Obama bashing, even when it was totally off topic. And here you're presented with a thread where you can actually Obama and liberal bash to your heart's content and be totally ON TOPIC, and it sits here empty and bash-less. Very strange indeed.

Aside to Anonymous on July 30, 2010 3:59 PM: It looks like the baiting WAS necessary. It got a response from you, didn't it?

what the?
Is the baiting necessary? You're asking, even begging for controversy on this one before it even begins.

A better question might be, do you think both parties are still big government?

Is there any chance that either party's political machinery will allow or support candidates that want to scale back the size and scope of government?

This also means scaling back the amount of money passing through the fingers of politicians before it is dolled out.

The amount of "good" that politicians can do with your money is unlimited, your money isn't.

Why all the anger?

Why all the pent-up aggression?

Why all the partisan attacking?

Why all the baseless assumptions?

Why all the general nastiness?

OH, I see ---- it is just What the? with another uncalled for, graceless post.

Well, same old, same old!

Where have all the Obama/democrat/liberal/socialist/marxist/fill-in-the-blank "ist" bashers gone? You guys have been saying for months that the Reps are going to make a shock and awe comeback in the House. Why so shy now?