Your opinion on the job that President Obama is doing so far (2 Viewers)

[DrJ]

I still don't understand why we are blaming unemployment on Obama.

Why did you start a thread suggesting that improved unemployment numbers would help him?

Because I believed it would.Let me be clear- I understand why the general public blames the guy in charge for bad times, and gives credit to the guy in charge for good times. In that thread I made a prediction that if the economy improved, Obama would benefit among the public. Unfortunately the economy hasn't improved.But the FFA is not the public. For one thing, most of the people who post in political threads here pay a lot more attention than the public does. Therefore I expect us to know more. And so my question was for us: why are WE blaming unemployment on Obama? Surely most of us know that there is not much the president can do about this, one way or the other.

Well, to be fair to the general public, the president did get up there and suggest that he was able to impact unemployment and used this to bolster his case for an 800 billion dollar stimulus.

 

[timschochet]

I still don't understand why we are blaming unemployment on Obama.

Because he's not doing anything to make it better, and in some cases his rhetoric is making it worse.

Let's take this apart, Stat:1. You say he's not doing anything to make it better. First, Obama and his supporters have argued that the stimulus package in 2009 prevented things from getting much, much worse- for instance, they argue, if General Motors had been allowed to go BK the net effect would have resulted in many many more unemployed and a grave economic crisis well beyond what we have now. Why do you find this argument unconvincing?2. What would you do, Stat, if you were in charge, to make it better? Since you argue that Obama is doing nothing, what would you like to see him do? And what kind of effect would it have, in your opinion?3. You state that in some cases his rhetoric is making it worse. Specifically, what rhetoric are you referring to, how did it affect the economy in your opinion, and what should he have said instead?

 

[DrJ]

I still don't understand why we are blaming unemployment on Obama.

Because he's not doing anything to make it better, and in some cases his rhetoric is making it worse.

Let's take this apart, Stat:1. You say he's not doing anything to make it better. First, Obama and his supporters have argued that the stimulus package in 2009 prevented things from getting much, much worse- for instance, they argue, if General Motors had been allowed to go BK the net effect would have resulted in many many more unemployed and a grave economic crisis well beyond what we have now. Why do you find this argument unconvincing?2. What would you do, Stat, if you were in charge, to make it better? Since you argue that Obama is doing nothing, what would you like to see him do? And what kind of effect would it have, in your opinion?3. You state that in some cases his rhetoric is making it worse. Specifically, what rhetoric are you referring to, how did it affect the economy in your opinion, and what should he have said instead?

On #1, how about you explain how you find this argument convincing and can then argue that unemployment has nothing to do with the President.

 

[timschochet]

I still don't understand why we are blaming unemployment on Obama.

Why did you start a thread suggesting that improved unemployment numbers would help him?

Because I believed it would.Let me be clear- I understand why the general public blames the guy in charge for bad times, and gives credit to the guy in charge for good times. In that thread I made a prediction that if the economy improved, Obama would benefit among the public. Unfortunately the economy hasn't improved.But the FFA is not the public. For one thing, most of the people who post in political threads here pay a lot more attention than the public does. Therefore I expect us to know more. And so my question was for us: why are WE blaming unemployment on Obama? Surely most of us know that there is not much the president can do about this, one way or the other.

Well, to be fair to the general public, the president did get up there and suggest that he was able to impact unemployment and used this to bolster his case for an 800 billion dollar stimulus.

And he may have. Personally, I lean toward the argument that the situation would have been much worse. But that's hard to prove. In any event, I do believe the president can prevent catastrophes, at times, through very quick action. FDR's response to the bank runs of 1933 is a good example of this, and so is Truman's seizure of the steel industry. Bush's bailout probably saved Wall Street from collapse.But it is much harder to affect day to day issues, like unemployment.

 

[Statorama]

SIGTARP Calls Out Tim Geithner On Various Violations Including Data Manipulation, Lack Of Transparency, "Cruel" Cynicism, And Gross Incompetence

Hey, remember we HAD to elect Obama instead of McCain since Obama would surround himself with the "best and brightest"

SigTarp Neil Barofsky has just released the most scathing critique of all the idiots in the administration, with a particular soft spot for Tim Geithner.

On the failure of TARP to increase lending:

As these quarterly reports to congress have well chronicled and as Treasury itself recently conceded in its acknowledgement that "banks continue to report falling loan balances," TARP has failed to "increase lending" with small businesses in particular unable to secured badly needed credit. Indeed, even now, overall lending continues to contract, despite the hundreds of billions of TARP dollars provided to banks with the express purpose to increase lending.

On TARP's sole success of boosting Wall Street bonuses:

While large bonuses are returning to Wall Street, the nation's poverty rate increased from 13.2% in 2008 to 14.3% in 2009, and for far too many, the recession has ended in name only.

On TARP's failure in general:

Finally, the most specific of TARP's Main Street goals, "preserving homeownership" has so far fallen woefully short, with TARP's portion of the Administration's mortgage modification program yielding only approximately 207,000 ongoing permanent modifications since TARP's inception, a number that stands in stark contrast to the 5.5 million homes receiving foreclosure filings and more than 1.7 million homes that have been lost to foreclosure since January2009.

On the Treasury's scam in minimizing publicized AIG losses, and on Geithner as a Wall Street puppet whose actions are increasingly destroying public faith in the government:

While SIGTARP offers no opinion on the appropriateness or accuracy of the valuation contained in the Retrospective, we believe that the Retrospective fails to meet basic transparency standards by failing to disclose: (1) that the new lower estimate followed a change in the methodology that Treasury previously used to calculate expected losses on its AIG investment; and (2) that Treasury would be required by its auditors to use the older, and presumably less favorable, methodology in the official audited financials statements. To avoid potential confusion, Treasury should have disclosed that it had changed its valuation methodology and should have published a side-by-side comparison of its new numbers with what the projected losses would be under the auditor-approved methodology that Treasury had used previously and will use in the future. This conduct has left the Treasury vulnerable to charges it has manipulated its methodology for calculating losses to present two different numbers depending on its audience: one designed for release in early October as part of a multifaceted publicity campaign touting the positive aspects of TARP and emphasizing the reduction in anticipated losses, and one, audited by the GAO for release in November as part of a larger audited financial statement. Here again, Treasury's unfortunate insensitivity to the values of transparency has led it to engage in conduct that risks further damaging public trust in the Government.

On the perpetuation of moral hazard courtesy of TARP:

Increased moral hazard and concentration in the financial industry continue to be a TARP legacy. The biggest banks are bigger than ever, fueled by the Government support and taxpayer-assisted mergers and acquisitions. And the repeated statement that the Government would stand by these banks during the financial crisis has given a significant advantage to the larger "too big to fail" banks, as reflected in their enhanced credit ratings borner from a market perception the Government will still not let these institutions fails, although the impact of this cost may be blunted by recently enacted regulatory reform.

On the "cruel, false hope" provided by a "cynical" (if not much harsher word) Treasury Secretary:

While it may be true that many homeowners may benefit from temporarily reduced payments even though the modification ultimately fails, Treasury's claim that "every single person" who participated in HAMP gets a "significant benefit" is either hopelessly out of touch with the real harm that has been inflicted on many families or a cynical attempt to define success as failure. Worse, Treasury's apparent belief that all failed trial modifications are successes may preclude it from seeking to make the meaningful changes necessary to provide the "sustainable" mortgage relief for struggling families it first promised. What Treasury deems a universal benefit, many homeowners, members of Congress, and a growing number of commentators describe as "cruel" and offering little more than "false hope."

On the Treasury's only real focus: bailing out Wall Street and letting Main Street to rot.

Granted Hank Paulson is to be blamed here as well for being, what else, a former Goldman CEO, only intent on bailing out his cronies and receiving favorable quotes in books published by journalists known only for their legendary namedropping skills. In this case, it is also one Steve Rattner whose disastrous handling of the GM fiasco is finally coming back to haunt him:

At a time when the country was experiencing the worst economic downturn in generations and the Government was asking its taxpayers to support a $787 billion stimulus package designed primarily to preserve jobs, Treasury made a series of decisions that may have substantially contributed to the accelerated shuttering of more than 2,000 small businesses, thereby potentially adding tens of thousands of workers to the already lengthy unemployment rolls -all without sufficient consideration of the decisions' broader economic impact...That the automakers have offered reinstatement to hundreds of terminated dealerships in response to Congressional action without any apparent sacrifice of their ongoing viability further demonstrates the possibility that such dramatic and accelerated dealership closings may not have been necessary and underscores the need for Treasury to tread very carefully when considering such decisions in the future.

That's ok. There were record Wall Street bonuses to be paid in 2008, 2009, and, now, in 2010. Thank you TARP.

If after all this disclosure Geithner does not resign, well, America truly will have the Treasury Secretary, not to mention administration, it deserves. And while Timmy is packing his office, can Chris Dodd and Barney Frank please exit by the back door (no pun intended) as well, so this country can finally rid itself of the corrupt oligarchy that does everything to benefit banking and nothing to boost actual economic growth.

There is much more in the 388 page report, which we are combing through right now

 

[timschochet]

I still don't understand why we are blaming unemployment on Obama.

Because he's not doing anything to make it better, and in some cases his rhetoric is making it worse.

Let's take this apart, Stat:1. You say he's not doing anything to make it better. First, Obama and his supporters have argued that the stimulus package in 2009 prevented things from getting much, much worse- for instance, they argue, if General Motors had been allowed to go BK the net effect would have resulted in many many more unemployed and a grave economic crisis well beyond what we have now. Why do you find this argument unconvincing?2. What would you do, Stat, if you were in charge, to make it better? Since you argue that Obama is doing nothing, what would you like to see him do? And what kind of effect would it have, in your opinion?3. You state that in some cases his rhetoric is making it worse. Specifically, what rhetoric are you referring to, how did it affect the economy in your opinion, and what should he have said instead?

On #1, how about you explain how you find this argument convincing and can then argue that unemployment has nothing to do with the President.

I just answered this question. I believe the President can prevent catastrophe, at times, but I don't think he can impact whether or not unemployment is going to be 5% or 15%.

 

[timschochet]

I dunno Stat, I asked what I thought were reasonable questions, but instead of replying, you simply post more propaganda about Obama. That article you posted was an attack on TARP, which was also supported by McCain and Palin (whatever she claims about that now.) If McCain had been elected, would you still be attacking TARP? Would you call McCain a socialist?

 

[DrJ]

I still don't understand why we are blaming unemployment on Obama.

Why did you start a thread suggesting that improved unemployment numbers would help him?

Because I believed it would.Let me be clear- I understand why the general public blames the guy in charge for bad times, and gives credit to the guy in charge for good times. In that thread I made a prediction that if the economy improved, Obama would benefit among the public. Unfortunately the economy hasn't improved.But the FFA is not the public. For one thing, most of the people who post in political threads here pay a lot more attention than the public does. Therefore I expect us to know more. And so my question was for us: why are WE blaming unemployment on Obama? Surely most of us know that there is not much the president can do about this, one way or the other.

Well, to be fair to the general public, the president did get up there and suggest that he was able to impact unemployment and used this to bolster his case for an 800 billion dollar stimulus.

And he may have. Personally, I lean toward the argument that the situation would have been much worse. But that's hard to prove. In any event, I do believe the president can prevent catastrophes, at times, through very quick action. FDR's response to the bank runs of 1933 is a good example of this, and so is Truman's seizure of the steel industry. Bush's bailout probably saved Wall Street from collapse.But it is much harder to affect day to day issues, like unemployment.

If unemployment is a direct result of these catastrophes, and the 800 billion dollar stimulus has some measure of impact, then why is it unfair for people to believe that this continued unemployment is a result of his failure to avoid catastrophe or his actions in mitigating it? Or even dousing gasoline onto existing catastrophe? I think that some businesses have failed to hire as a direct result of the costs they are incurring with health care reform. That the billions in addtional expenses they are claiming have prevented them from hiring other people. That uncertainties with the future economic climate due to talk of cap and trade and things of this nature cause there to be more uncertainty and less willingness to hire people.Furthermore, its clear from your position here that you do believe the president can have some impact on the unemployment rate. So please stop saying that you don't.

 

[timschochet]

I think that some businesses have failed to hire as a direct result of the costs they are incurring with health care reform. That the billions in addtional expenses they are claiming have prevented them from hiring other people. That uncertainties with the future economic climate due to talk of cap and trade and things of this nature cause there to be more uncertainty and less willingness to hire people.

Thank you. These are all reasonable arguments, which have been seriously lacking from most conservatives that I hear these days. Let me respond:1. I agree with you that the health care act will not help business. But it's far too much of a new thing to have an effect on the economy IMO one way or another.2. I agree with you that uncertainty regarding cap and trade and other proposals may have an effect on the economy as well.But since Obama has not formerly pushed for cap and trade, it's hard to blame him for this. One thing you didn't specifically mention is Obama's stated desire to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire- there is no doubt that this will not help businesses hire more people.However, I suspect that none of these issues have a huge effect on the economy. It seems to me there are so many other factors that overwhelm these, most of them global in nature, that these items are rather insignificant. Perhaps if we repealed the healthcare be there would be a .0001% rise in employment. Perhaps if we could get federal spending under control (doubtful) employment would rise by 2-3% in the short term. Who knows?

 

[bg0546]

I still don't understand why we are blaming unemployment on Obama.

Tim, Don't you think Obama has to take ownership of the fact that he guaranteed that if we passed his stimulus bill unemployment would not exceed 8%?

 

[tommyboy]

I still don't understand why we are blaming unemployment on Obama.

same reason people would praise him if unemployment was 4%

 

[timschochet]

Furthermore, its clear from your position here that you do believe the president can have some impact on the unemployment rate. So please stop saying that you don't.

You keep missing my point. There are major things, IMO, that a president can do that can drastically impact unemployment. IMO, passage of a cap and trade act would drastically increase unemployment, and had Obama made a serious effort to do this, I might have to agree with Stat's most dire statements about him. I think that Obama's actions saving General Motors prevented much greater unemployment, as did TARP, and I give Bush and Obama great credit for this.But the health care plan, which I opposed, and the allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire- these are two of the main issues conservatives are campaigning on- they simply don't have a big effect, IMO. And Stat's statement that Obama's rhetoric has an adverse affect seems absurd to me, though I'd like him to explain it. So why a president can have a big effect, I don't think there's much you can do on a day to day basis. And I'm still mystified about what Obama has done to make things so much worse. I don't see it.

 

[DrJ]

I think that some businesses have failed to hire as a direct result of the costs they are incurring with health care reform. That the billions in addtional expenses they are claiming have prevented them from hiring other people. That uncertainties with the future economic climate due to talk of cap and trade and things of this nature cause there to be more uncertainty and less willingness to hire people.

Thank you. These are all reasonable arguments, which have been seriously lacking from most conservatives that I hear these days. Let me respond:1. I agree with you that the health care act will not help business. But it's far too much of a new thing to have an effect on the economy IMO one way or another.2. I agree with you that uncertainty regarding cap and trade and other proposals may have an effect on the economy as well.But since Obama has not formerly pushed for cap and trade, it's hard to blame him for this. One thing you didn't specifically mention is Obama's stated desire to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire- there is no doubt that this will not help businesses hire more people.However, I suspect that none of these issues have a huge effect on the economy. It seems to me there are so many other factors that overwhelm these, most of them global in nature, that these items are rather insignificant. Perhaps if we repealed the healthcare be there would be a .0001% rise in employment. Perhaps if we could get federal spending under control (doubtful) employment would rise by 2-3% in the short term. Who knows?

I also think we got little bank for the buck and that the stimulus money was poorly spent. If you're going to acknowledge that this was something he did that actually helped unemployment in the short term, you also have to acknowledge that him botching it could be contributing to it being worse in the short term. Maybe if the stimulus weren't spent there'd be a .1% rise as well. Maybe if it were spend and not poorly targeted you'd have seen a .1% decrease. Who knows. If you're going to credit Obama for the stimulus and suggest it had some impact on unemployment, you also have to open up the possibility that he targeted it poorly and it had less of an impact because of its suckiness and that overall it could still have been mostly waste.

 

[timschochet]

I still don't understand why we are blaming unemployment on Obama.

Tim, Don't you think Obama has to take ownership of the fact that he guaranteed that if we passed his stimulus bill unemployment would not exceed 8%?

Should Bush take ownership of the fact that he and his people stated the overall cost of the Iraq war would be less than 1 billion?My answer to both questions is no. Rhetoric is part of politics. If the stimulus bill signficantly hurt our economy, then THAT'S what he should take ownership of. But I have seen no evidence that it has.

 

[timschochet]

I think that some businesses have failed to hire as a direct result of the costs they are incurring with health care reform. That the billions in addtional expenses they are claiming have prevented them from hiring other people. That uncertainties with the future economic climate due to talk of cap and trade and things of this nature cause there to be more uncertainty and less willingness to hire people.

Thank you. These are all reasonable arguments, which have been seriously lacking from most conservatives that I hear these days. Let me respond:1. I agree with you that the health care act will not help business. But it's far too much of a new thing to have an effect on the economy IMO one way or another.2. I agree with you that uncertainty regarding cap and trade and other proposals may have an effect on the economy as well.But since Obama has not formerly pushed for cap and trade, it's hard to blame him for this. One thing you didn't specifically mention is Obama's stated desire to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire- there is no doubt that this will not help businesses hire more people.However, I suspect that none of these issues have a huge effect on the economy. It seems to me there are so many other factors that overwhelm these, most of them global in nature, that these items are rather insignificant. Perhaps if we repealed the healthcare be there would be a .0001% rise in employment. Perhaps if we could get federal spending under control (doubtful) employment would rise by 2-3% in the short term. Who knows?

I also think we got little bank for the buck and that the stimulus money was poorly spent. If you're going to acknowledge that this was something he did that actually helped unemployment in the short term, you also have to acknowledge that him botching it could be contributing to it being worse in the short term. Maybe if the stimulus weren't spent there'd be a .1% rise as well. Maybe if it were spend and not poorly targeted you'd have seen a .1% decrease. Who knows. If you're going to credit Obama for the stimulus and suggest it had some impact on unemployment, you also have to open up the possibility that he targeted it poorly and it had less of an impact because of its suckiness and that overall it could still have been mostly waste.

I agree with you on this. But we're still discussing minor points, not disasters.

 

[DrJ]

I think that some businesses have failed to hire as a direct result of the costs they are incurring with health care reform. That the billions in addtional expenses they are claiming have prevented them from hiring other people. That uncertainties with the future economic climate due to talk of cap and trade and things of this nature cause there to be more uncertainty and less willingness to hire people.

Thank you. These are all reasonable arguments, which have been seriously lacking from most conservatives that I hear these days. Let me respond:1. I agree with you that the health care act will not help business. But it's far too much of a new thing to have an effect on the economy IMO one way or another.2. I agree with you that uncertainty regarding cap and trade and other proposals may have an effect on the economy as well.But since Obama has not formerly pushed for cap and trade, it's hard to blame him for this. One thing you didn't specifically mention is Obama's stated desire to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire- there is no doubt that this will not help businesses hire more people.However, I suspect that none of these issues have a huge effect on the economy. It seems to me there are so many other factors that overwhelm these, most of them global in nature, that these items are rather insignificant. Perhaps if we repealed the healthcare be there would be a .0001% rise in employment. Perhaps if we could get federal spending under control (doubtful) employment would rise by 2-3% in the short term. Who knows?

I also think we got little bank for the buck and that the stimulus money was poorly spent. If you're going to acknowledge that this was something he did that actually helped unemployment in the short term, you also have to acknowledge that him botching it could be contributing to it being worse in the short term. Maybe if the stimulus weren't spent there'd be a .1% rise as well. Maybe if it were spend and not poorly targeted you'd have seen a .1% decrease. Who knows. If you're going to credit Obama for the stimulus and suggest it had some impact on unemployment, you also have to open up the possibility that he targeted it poorly and it had less of an impact because of its suckiness and that overall it could still have been mostly waste.

I agree with you on this. But we're still discussing minor points, not disasters.

I don't think the spending of 800 billion with little return is some minor point. The administration itself predicted that unemployment wouldn't go above 8% if it were passed, and we've been well above that with no signs of it dropping signicantly soon. And because of all that, it's even possible to laugh at him for how terrible unemployment is without even blaming him directly for unemployment. He's got 800 billion dollars that we don't have riding on his ability to impact things.

 

[Statorama]

I dunno Stat, I asked what I thought were reasonable questions, but instead of replying, you simply post more propaganda about Obama. That article you posted was an attack on TARP, which was also supported by McCain and Palin (whatever she claims about that now.) If McCain had been elected, would you still be attacking TARP? Would you call McCain a socialist?

That post wasn't really related to your questions. When it comes to Obama, there's so much negative news to report that stories start to pile on top of each other.Oh, and Obama is not interested in compromise

The decline of the Obama presidency can be traced to a meeting at the White House just three days after the inauguration, when the new president gathered congressional leaders of both parties to discuss his proposed economic stimulus. House Republican Whip Eric Cantor gave President Obama a list of modest proposals for the bill. Obama said he would consider the GOP ideas, but told the assembled Republicans that "elections have consequences" and "I won." Backed by the largest congressional majorities in decades, the president was not terribly interested in giving ground to his vanquished adversaries.

He may rue that decision next Tuesday. Whether the midterm elections are a tidal wave that sweeps Democrats out of power on Capitol Hill or simply result in major losses for the president's party, one thing is clear: The stimulus will play a major role in determining the outcome. The legislation has not kept the unemployment rate below 8 percent, as the White House promised -- but it has been an electoral boon to Republicans, and an albatross around the necks of many Democrats who voted for it. It might have been a different story had Obama handled the stimulus differently. In January 2009, Republicans were running scared -- still reeling from the thumping they received in the past two elections, and afraid to so much as criticize the new Democratic president with stratospheric approval ratings. In these circumstances, the president could have easily co-opted the GOP by making it a partner in crafting the stimulus. He could have told Republicans: Take half of the money and use it for tax relief, spending, or both. Indeed, Republicans introduced several alternative stimulus bills that cost half as much as Obama's ("twice the jobs at half the cost" was the GOP mantra). Had Obama really wanted to be the first "post-partisan" president, he could have incorporated one of these alternatives into his final stimulus legislation.

If Republicans had gone along, they would have had to defend the stimulus for the next two years. If they had refused, they would have been in no position to criticize a bill that they had turned down the opportunity to help shape. If the stimulus worked, both sides could have taken credit. And if it failed, reaching out to Republicans would have inoculated the president from the resulting criticism. Had he given them half the booty, they would have shared half the blame.

Would Republicans have accepted hundreds of billions in new government spending in exchange for including pro-growth tax relief and other GOP proposals? The offer would likely have split the party, with a significant number supporting the bill. The grass-roots movement for fiscal discipline had not yet been born, and many of the same Republicans who voted in favor of the "Bridge to Nowhere" would have gladly compromised with the popular new Democratic president. The stimulus would probably have passed with significant bipartisan support, instead of near-unanimous Republican opposition.

But Obama was not interested in compromise. He decided to go it alone. He picked off a few easy GOP votes and rode roughshod over the rest of the Republicans to pass a maximalist bill over their objections. That may have seemed like a good idea at the time. But looking back now, a week from the midterm elections, the wisdom of his approach is hard to discern.

The stimulus united Republicans for the first time in opposition to the president. It gave rise to the Tea Party movement that has fundamentally transformed the nation's political landscape in the GOP's favor. It changed Obama in the eyes of millions of Americans from the first "post-partisan" president into what many now perceive as (to quote Obama himself) "the same old tax-and-spend liberal Democrat." And his subsequent decision to ram Obamacare through Congress over unanimous Republican opposition sealed this impression, which voters will carry into the voting booth next Tuesday.

Almost two years later, the president still doesn't get it. In a recent New York Times profile, Obama says the lesson of his political setbacks is that "you can't be neglecting of marketing and PR and public opinion." Obama's problem was not marketing and PR -- it was his insistence on imposing big government liberalism on Americans against their will, and his failure to anticipate the blowback this approach would produce.

Will Obama figure this out after next Tuesday? Even if he does, it will be too late. Should next week's elections turn out the way most pollsters predict, Republicans will have no incentive to compromise with Obama on expanding the size of government. To the contrary, newly elected Republicans will arrive with a clear mandate to cut spending and restore fiscal discipline. If they fail to follow this mandate, they will likely have very short tours in Washington.

In January 2009, Republicans were on their heels, ready to compromise with the president. In January 2011, Republicans will likely be energized and emboldened to roll back Obama's most egregious initiatives. The president was right. Elections do have consequences.

 

[Statorama]

Public Optimism in U.S. System of Government Hits a 36-year Low

Thanks alot, Barry.

 

[DrJ]

I still don't understand why we are blaming unemployment on Obama.

Tim, Don't you think Obama has to take ownership of the fact that he guaranteed that if we passed his stimulus bill unemployment would not exceed 8%?

Should Bush take ownership of the fact that he and his people stated the overall cost of the Iraq war would be less than 1 billion?My answer to both questions is no. Rhetoric is part of politics. If the stimulus bill signficantly hurt our economy, then THAT'S what he should take ownership of. But I have seen no evidence that it has.

Because printing up 800 billion dollars isn't going to have a negative impact on the economy short term. It won't even be possible to pin it on that particular 800 billion should our eventual collapse come because of bankruptcy, there will be trillions more from all sorts of places that could easily be blamed. That's the beauty of this whole political system, and since you're not even bothering to hold these people accountable for what they said would happen in the short term we might as well just let them run free with the credit card and just hope things work out long term. Oh wait, that's what we've been doing for decades. How's that working out again?

 

[Phurfur]

I think October 2010 has been Obama's best month in office.

 

[Phurfur]

I think that some businesses have failed to hire as a direct result of the costs they are incurring with health care reform. That the billions in addtional expenses they are claiming have prevented them from hiring other people. That uncertainties with the future economic climate due to talk of cap and trade and things of this nature cause there to be more uncertainty and less willingness to hire people.

Thank you. These are all reasonable arguments, which have been seriously lacking from most conservatives that I hear these days. Let me respond:1. I agree with you that the health care act will not help business. But it's far too much of a new thing to have an effect on the economy IMO one way or another.2. I agree with you that uncertainty regarding cap and trade and other proposals may have an effect on the economy as well.But since Obama has not formerly pushed for cap and trade, it's hard to blame him for this. One thing you didn't specifically mention is Obama's stated desire to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire- there is no doubt that this will not help businesses hire more people.However, I suspect that none of these issues have a huge effect on the economy. It seems to me there are so many other factors that overwhelm these, most of them global in nature, that these items are rather insignificant. Perhaps if we repealed the healthcare be there would be a .0001% rise in employment. Perhaps if we could get federal spending under control (doubtful) employment would rise by 2-3% in the short term. Who knows?

I also think we got little bank for the buck and that the stimulus money was poorly spent. If you're going to acknowledge that this was something he did that actually helped unemployment in the short term, you also have to acknowledge that him botching it could be contributing to it being worse in the short term. Maybe if the stimulus weren't spent there'd be a .1% rise as well. Maybe if it were spend and not poorly targeted you'd have seen a .1% decrease. Who knows. If you're going to credit Obama for the stimulus and suggest it had some impact on unemployment, you also have to open up the possibility that he targeted it poorly and it had less of an impact because of its suckiness and that overall it could still have been mostly waste.

I agree with you on this. But we're still discussing minor points, not disasters.

I don't think the spending of 800 billion with little return is some minor point. The administration itself predicted that unemployment wouldn't go above 8% if it were passed, and we've been well above that with no signs of it dropping signicantly soon. And because of all that, it's even possible to laugh at him for how terrible unemployment is without even blaming him directly for unemployment. He's got 800 billion dollars that we don't have riding on his ability to impact things.

The funniest part of the whole thing is that Obama said if we DIDN'T pass the stimulus, unemployment would go over 9%.

 

[Phurfur]

I still don't understand why we are blaming unemployment on Obama.

Tim,Don't you think Obama has to take ownership of the fact that he guaranteed that if we passed his stimulus bill unemployment would not exceed 8%?

Should Bush take ownership of the fact that he and his people stated the overall cost of the Iraq war would be less than 1 billion?My answer to both questions is no. Rhetoric is part of politics. If the stimulus bill signficantly hurt our economy, then THAT'S what he should take ownership of. But I have seen no evidence that it has.

Timmy's World1. Open Borders2. Cradle to grave entitlements3. No accountability for politiciansYou're building a utopia here!

 

[bg0546]

I still don't understand why we are blaming unemployment on Obama.

Tim,Don't you think Obama has to take ownership of the fact that he guaranteed that if we passed his stimulus bill unemployment would not exceed 8%?

Should Bush take ownership of the fact that he and his people stated the overall cost of the Iraq war would be less than 1 billion?My answer to both questions is no. Rhetoric is part of politics. If the stimulus bill signficantly hurt our economy, then THAT'S what he should take ownership of. But I have seen no evidence that it has.

Timmy's World1. Open Borders2. Cradle to grave entitlements3. No accountability for politiciansYou're building a utopia here!

According to Tim, those are the Libertarian philosophies!!!

 

[Parrothead]

I still don't understand why we are blaming unemployment on Obama.

Tim,Don't you think Obama has to take ownership of the fact that he guaranteed that if we passed his stimulus bill unemployment would not exceed 8%?

Should Bush take ownership of the fact that he and his people stated the overall cost of the Iraq war would be less than 1 billion?My answer to both questions is no. Rhetoric is part of politics. If the stimulus bill signficantly hurt our economy, then THAT'S what he should take ownership of. But I have seen no evidence that it has.

holy hell Tim- that fact is brought up in almost every political thread here.. so, yes, many of us blame Bush for that, some more rabidly than others (usually the ones who rabidly defend Obama)

 

[timschochet]

I still don't understand why we are blaming unemployment on Obama.

Tim,Don't you think Obama has to take ownership of the fact that he guaranteed that if we passed his stimulus bill unemployment would not exceed 8%?

Should Bush take ownership of the fact that he and his people stated the overall cost of the Iraq war would be less than 1 billion?My answer to both questions is no. Rhetoric is part of politics. If the stimulus bill signficantly hurt our economy, then THAT'S what he should take ownership of. But I have seen no evidence that it has.

holy hell Tim- that fact is brought up in almost every political thread here.. so, yes, many of us blame Bush for that, some more rabidly than others (usually the ones who rabidly defend Obama)

But not me. I hold Bush responsible for the Iraq war, and partly responsible for the cost of the war. But I don't hold him responsible for saying the cost would be lower. That's meaningless to me.

 

[timschochet]

Timmy's World1. Open Borders2. Cradle to grave entitlements3. No accountability for politiciansYou're building a utopia here!

1. Yes2. No3. NoBut thanks for playing.

 

[bg0546]

Timmy's World1. Open Borders2. Cradle to grave entitlements3. No accountability for politiciansYou're building a utopia here!

1. Yes2. No3. NoBut thanks for playing.

Your posting record says differently. Must be cool to live in your made up world.

 

[videoguy505]

Whoops, spelled Michelle's name wrong. Jon Stewart would have crucified Bush for this.

 

[flufhed]

Whoops, spelled Michelle's name wrong. Jon Stewart would have crucified Bush for this.

You seem to be doing alot of whining today about Bush. What's the deal?

 

[timschochet]

Timmy's World

1. Open Borders

2. Cradle to grave entitlements

3. No accountability for politicians

You're building a utopia here!

1. Yes2. No

3. No

But thanks for playing.

Your posting record says differently. Must be cool to live in your made up world.

Really? I must have forgotten the various posts in which I argued for cradle to grave entitlements and that politicians should have no accountability. Perhaps you can link me to those? TIA

 

[bg0546]

Timmy's World

1. Open Borders

2. Cradle to grave entitlements

3. No accountability for politicians

You're building a utopia here!

1. Yes2. No

3. No

But thanks for playing.

Your posting record says differently. Must be cool to live in your made up world.

Really? I must have forgotten the various posts in which I argued for cradle to grave entitlements and that politicians should have no accountability. Perhaps you can link me to those? TIA

Well, you argued against holding Obama accountable for promising unemployment wouldn't exceed 8% in THIS VERY thread. How quickly you forget.

 

[Phurfur]

I still don't understand why we are blaming unemployment on Obama.

Tim,Don't you think Obama has to take ownership of the fact that he guaranteed that if we passed his stimulus bill unemployment would not exceed 8%?

Should Bush take ownership of the fact that he and his people stated the overall cost of the Iraq war would be less than 1 billion?My answer to both questions is no. Rhetoric is part of politics. If the stimulus bill signficantly hurt our economy, then THAT'S what he should take ownership of. But I have seen no evidence that it has.

holy hell Tim- that fact is brought up in almost every political thread here.. so, yes, many of us blame Bush for that, some more rabidly than others (usually the ones who rabidly defend Obama)

But not me. I hold Bush responsible for the Iraq war, and partly responsible for the cost of the war. But I don't hold him responsible for saying the cost would be lower. That's meaningless to me.

It is a lie to me.Edit: I hold my government accountable.

 

[Phurfur]

Whoops, spelled Michelle's name wrong. Jon Stewart would have crucified Bush for this.

On Wednesday morning, the White House sent out a corrected press release.

It is sad that the WH even feels a need to do this but this is the society we created.We are more concerned with the spelling that comes out of the WH than the lies that have been told.

Go America; you truly are the "Great Society".

 

[Statorama]

Say What?

Obama: "We don’t mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.”

Rosa Parks could not be reached for comment.

The president does realize he’s elected to govern all of the voters, not just those who get their news from MSNBC, right?

 

[Parrothead]

Say What?

Obama: "We don’t mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.”

Rosa Parks could not be reached for comment.

The president does realize he’s elected to govern all of the voters, not just those who get their news from MSNBC, right?

he said that? president's really shouldn't say these kind of things..

 

[Statorama]

Obama unlikely to finish first term

Well that's a relief!

A US analyst says US President Barack Obama is unlikely to end his first term as there are serious efforts by American officials to remove him due to his incompetence.

"It is very doubtful at this time that he will last his first term," Edward Spannaus of Executive Intelligence Review said in an interview with Press TV on Wednesday.

"There are people who are upset within the administration and the Democratic party who are seriously considering how to remove Obama from presidency," Spannaus added.

Many of them put out all their calls for removing Obama under the amendment 25th of the US Constitution.

The amendment allows for the removal of the US president if he is incapacitated either physically or mentally.

Spannaus also opined that people in the military are upset because Obama "is not attentive" to what is going on. "We have troops killing and being killed and he is not interested in dealing with it," he further explained.

Elsewhere in his remarks, Spannaus said people inside the White House say, "Once he got into the White House he is very unhappy having to govern ... he is very frustrated, he is very depressed, some reports say he is on medications and he cannot concentrate or focus, which is a mental problem."

"It is the question of what he is going to do now in this term, the question of the second term is out of the question," he concluded.

According to a new Harris Interactive survey released on Tuesday, just over one-third or 37 percent of respondents have positive opinion about Obama, while about 67 percent of Americans disapprove Obama's performance on jobs and economy.

A recent opinion poll conducted by Gallup had previously revealed that more than half of American voters would not support the re-election of Obama.

 

[Statorama]

Boehner open to letting Obama be involved with Republicans attaining their goals

Reaching across the aisle!

“I love Judd Gregg [who recently said that repealing ObamaCare isn't a good idea], but maybe he doesn’t get it,” Boehner said Wednesday in a rebuke to Gregg, the top Republican on budget issues in the Senate who’s set to retire at the end of his term in January. “We’re going to do everything — and I mean everything we can do — to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can.”…

“To the extent the president wants to work with us, in terms of our goals,” the Ohio Republican explained, “we’d welcome his involvement.”

 

[videoguy505]

It's really getting laughable. His approval rating in the polls is nearly exactly half of what it would be if he just acted like, and delivered on, the promises he made in his campaign. All he had to do was deliver, and he'd have clear sailing ahead.

 

[tommyboy]

It's really getting laughable. His approval rating in the polls is nearly exactly half of what it would be if he just acted like, and delivered on, the promises he made in his campaign. All he had to do was deliver, and he'd have clear sailing ahead.

actually i think he has delivered on a lot of the promises he made in his campaign, that's the problem.

 

[belljr]

Ok I had no idea where to post this.

Is is true we will now be getting taxed on my employers contribution to my helathcare, if it costs them 17000 I have to pay tax on that?

If that is the case can I now claim my out of pocket expenses, copays etc ?

 

[Tango]

I've been enjoying the posters around DC that morph the face of George W Bush and Obama, because they have been the same on many of the most important issues:

1. War. Obama has adopted the Bush plan nearly 100%. Where is Jimmy Carter and the peace movement now? Instead of the "get out now" angry protests (that I support btw), they conveniently change their tune to protect Obama by saying how impossible it is to "get out now". Yet another protest group that cares more about political parties than the issue they rally around.

2. Patriot Act. After all the hoopla regarding its renewal, when it gets renewed now there is not a peep from the press, not a peep anymore about this from the Dems. Nor the Repubs.

3. Gay marriage (less important issue than the others). Obama invokes Jesus Christ when he explains his opposition. Im a former altar boy who happens to disagree with Obama and Bush on this one...but I find it amazing how HRC keeps on giving Obama pass after pass on these issues (they officially said they expect no results until his 8th year in office!)

4. Health care entitlements- both started big, shiny new health care programs

The only difference so far might be views on tax policies that, upon examination, are barely different.

I didnt like Bush and I can view this honestly and say that Obama has been worse...b/c he has been enabled by a willing Congress instead of one that fought Bush at every turn on war/patriot act/etc.

 

[RCon]

Ok I had no idea where to post this.Is is true we will now be getting taxed on my employers contribution to my helathcare, if it costs them 17000 I have to pay tax on that?If that is the case can I now claim my out of pocket expenses, copays etc ?

No, it isn't true. That's unfortunate, as such a plan would be the single best step we could take to lower healthcare costs.

 

[Eric Stratton]

Ok I had no idea where to post this.Is is true we will now be getting taxed on my employers contribution to my helathcare, if it costs them 17000 I have to pay tax on that?If that is the case can I now claim my out of pocket expenses, copays etc ?

No, it isn't true. That's unfortunate, as such a plan would be the single best step we could take to lower healthcare costs.

Wrong...increasing taxes is not the single best step to lower healthcare costs. It does nothing to address the costs that medical providers are charging.

 

[Jewell]

The left-leaning Washington Post shares their opinion on the job that President Obama is doing so far...

"We write in sadness as traditional liberal Democrats who believe in inclusion."

"We can think of only one other recent president who would display such indifference to the majesty of his office: Richard Nixon."

Our divisive president, redux

By Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen

Saturday, October 30, 2010 (LINK)

President Obama's post-partisan America has disappeared, replaced by the politics of polarization, resentment and division.

In a Univision interview on Monday, the president, who campaigned in 2008 by referring not to a "Red America" or a "Blue America" but a United States of America, urged Hispanic listeners to vote in this spirit: "We're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us."

Recently, Obama suggested that if Republicans gain control of the House and/or Senate as forecast, he expects not reconciliation and unity but "hand-to-hand combat" on Capitol Hill.

What a change two years can bring.

We can think of only one other recent president who would display such indifference to the majesty of his office: Richard Nixon.

We write in sadness as traditional liberal Democrats who believe in inclusion. Like many Americans, we had hoped that Obama would maintain the spirit in which he campaigned. Instead, since taking office, he has pitted group against group for short-term political gain that is exacerbating the divisions in our country and weakening our national identity.The culture of attack politics and demonization risks compromising our ability to address our most important issues - and the stature of our nation's highest office.

Indeed, Obama is conducting himself in a way alarmingly reminiscent of Nixon's role in the disastrous 1970 midterm campaign. No president has been so persistently personal in his attacks as Obama throughout the fall. He has regularly attacked his predecessor, the House minority leader and - directly from the stump - candidates running for offices below his own. He has criticized the American people suggesting that they are "reacting just to fear" and faulted his own base for "sitting on their hands complaining."

Obama is walking a knife's edge. He has said that the 3.5 million "shovel-ready jobs" he had referred to as justification for the passage of the stimulus bill didn't exist - throwing all the Democratic incumbents who had defended the stimulus in their campaigns under the proverbial bus.

Although he said, as part of his effort to enact health-care reform, that the health-care mandates were not taxes, now his administration acknowledges in court papers that they are, in fact, taxes.

As Election Day approaches, the president and others in the Democratic leadership have focused on campaign finance by moneyed interests - an ancillary issue serving neither party nor country. They have intensified attacks on business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and individual political operatives such as Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie - insisting that organizations are fronting for foreign campaign money and large secret donations and campaign expenditures. Even the New York Times has noted that "a closer examination shows that there is little evidence" that these organizations have engaged in activities that are "improper or even unusual."

It astounds us to hear such charges from the president given that his presidential campaign in 2008 refused to disclose the names of all of its donors, and in past election cycles many liberal groups, such as the Sierra Club and the Center for American Progress, refused to disclose their contributors.

To be clear, we favor disclosure of every dollar spent and closing the disclosure loophole that exists as a result of the Citizens United ruling. But it is disingenuous for a president - particularly one whose campaign effectively dynamited the lone beachhead of public financing in American politics - to scream about money pouring in against his political interests.

We are also disturbed that the office of the president is mounting attacks on private individuals, such as the founders of the group Americans for Prosperity. Having been forged politically during Watergate - one of us was the youngest member of Nixon's enemies list - we are chilled by the prospect of any U.S. president willing to marshal the power of his office against a private citizen.

The president is the leader of our society. That office is supposed to be a unifying force. When a president opts for polarization, it is not only bad politics, but it also diminishes the prestige of his office and damages our social consensus.

Moreover, the divisive rhetoric that Obama has pursued can embolden his supporters and critics to take more extreme actions, worsening the spiral.

Whatever the caliber of Obama's tactics, they might achieve some short-term success. The Republican Party has offered no narrative or broad solution, and it has campaigned exclusively to take advantage of the negative environment. It contributes merely a promise of a more hostile environment after Tuesday.

With the country beset by economic and other problems, it is incendiary that the president is not offering a higher vision for the nation but has instead chosen a strategy of rank division. This is an attempt to distract from the perceived failures of his administration. On issue after issue this administration has acted in ways that are weakening the office of the president.

 

[Eric Stratton]

The left-leaning Washington Post shares their opinion on the job that President Obama is doing so far...

"We write in sadness as traditional liberal Democrats who believe in inclusion."

"We can think of only one other recent president who would display such indifference to the majesty of his office: Richard Nixon."

Our divisive president, redux

By Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen

Saturday, October 30, 2010 (LINK)

President Obama's post-partisan America has disappeared, replaced by the politics of polarization, resentment and division.

In a Univision interview on Monday, the president, who campaigned in 2008 by referring not to a "Red America" or a "Blue America" but a United States of America, urged Hispanic listeners to vote in this spirit: "We're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us."

Recently, Obama suggested that if Republicans gain control of the House and/or Senate as forecast, he expects not reconciliation and unity but "hand-to-hand combat" on Capitol Hill.

What a change two years can bring.

We can think of only one other recent president who would display such indifference to the majesty of his office: Richard Nixon.

We write in sadness as traditional liberal Democrats who believe in inclusion. Like many Americans, we had hoped that Obama would maintain the spirit in which he campaigned. Instead, since taking office, he has pitted group against group for short-term political gain that is exacerbating the divisions in our country and weakening our national identity.The culture of attack politics and demonization risks compromising our ability to address our most important issues - and the stature of our nation's highest office.

Indeed, Obama is conducting himself in a way alarmingly reminiscent of Nixon's role in the disastrous 1970 midterm campaign. No president has been so persistently personal in his attacks as Obama throughout the fall. He has regularly attacked his predecessor, the House minority leader and - directly from the stump - candidates running for offices below his own. He has criticized the American people suggesting that they are "reacting just to fear" and faulted his own base for "sitting on their hands complaining."

Obama is walking a knife's edge. He has said that the 3.5 million "shovel-ready jobs" he had referred to as justification for the passage of the stimulus bill didn't exist - throwing all the Democratic incumbents who had defended the stimulus in their campaigns under the proverbial bus.

Although he said, as part of his effort to enact health-care reform, that the health-care mandates were not taxes, now his administration acknowledges in court papers that they are, in fact, taxes.

As Election Day approaches, the president and others in the Democratic leadership have focused on campaign finance by moneyed interests - an ancillary issue serving neither party nor country. They have intensified attacks on business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and individual political operatives such as Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie - insisting that organizations are fronting for foreign campaign money and large secret donations and campaign expenditures. Even the New York Times has noted that "a closer examination shows that there is little evidence" that these organizations have engaged in activities that are "improper or even unusual."

It astounds us to hear such charges from the president given that his presidential campaign in 2008 refused to disclose the names of all of its donors, and in past election cycles many liberal groups, such as the Sierra Club and the Center for American Progress, refused to disclose their contributors.

To be clear, we favor disclosure of every dollar spent and closing the disclosure loophole that exists as a result of the Citizens United ruling. But it is disingenuous for a president - particularly one whose campaign effectively dynamited the lone beachhead of public financing in American politics - to scream about money pouring in against his political interests.

We are also disturbed that the office of the president is mounting attacks on private individuals, such as the founders of the group Americans for Prosperity. Having been forged politically during Watergate - one of us was the youngest member of Nixon's enemies list - we are chilled by the prospect of any U.S. president willing to marshal the power of his office against a private citizen.

The president is the leader of our society. That office is supposed to be a unifying force. When a president opts for polarization, it is not only bad politics, but it also diminishes the prestige of his office and damages our social consensus.

Moreover, the divisive rhetoric that Obama has pursued can embolden his supporters and critics to take more extreme actions, worsening the spiral.

Whatever the caliber of Obama's tactics, they might achieve some short-term success. The Republican Party has offered no narrative or broad solution, and it has campaigned exclusively to take advantage of the negative environment. It contributes merely a promise of a more hostile environment after Tuesday.

With the country beset by economic and other problems, it is incendiary that the president is not offering a higher vision for the nation but has instead chosen a strategy of rank division. This is an attempt to distract from the perceived failures of his administration. On issue after issue this administration has acted in ways that are weakening the office of the president.

That sums it up quite well.

 

[timschochet]

Jewell, just to be fair: Pat Caddell is hardly "left leaning". He has appeared on Fox News for years now, ripping Democrats and liberals in particular every chance he gets. His mantra has been the same long before Obama even appeared on the national scene: the Democratic party has gotten too liberal and has chased moderates away. You can agree or not agree with his analysis, but you can hardly call him "left-leaning."

 

[Eric Stratton]

Jewell, just to be fair: Pat Caddell is hardly "left leaning". He has appeared on Fox News for years now, ripping Democrats and liberals in particular every chance he gets. His mantra has been the same long before Obama even appeared on the national scene: the Democratic party has gotten too liberal and has chased moderates away. You can agree or not agree with his analysis, but you can hardly call him "left-leaning."

Did you happen to miss the piece was also written by Douglas Schoen, a longtime Democratic campaign consultant?

 

[Jewell]

Jewell, just to be fair: Pat Caddell is hardly "left leaning". He has appeared on Fox News for years now, ripping Democrats and liberals in particular every chance he gets. His mantra has been the same long before Obama even appeared on the national scene: the Democratic party has gotten too liberal and has chased moderates away. You can agree or not agree with his analysis, but you can hardly call him "left-leaning."

Douglas Schoen: He has worked on the campaigns of many Democratic party candidates including Ed Koch and Bill Clinton, as well as on behalf of corporate clients. He also did work for Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. Schoen is currently a consultant for Jeff Greene in the 2010 Florida Senate election.Pat Caddell: He has worked for Democratic presidential candidates George McGovern in 1972, Jimmy Carter in 1976 and 1980, Gary Hart in 1984, Joe Biden in 1988, and Jerry Brown in 1992. According to researchers, Caddell had wide influence in the Carter White House, and was the chief advocate of what later became known as Carter's "malaise speech". In 1988, Caddell left the Democratic Party after an acrimonious lawsuit with a Democratic consulting firm. Republicans would often cite Caddell's tirades against the Democratic Party on the floor of the House and the Senate.

The piece was co-authored and they still had to get editorial approval to print something that caustic in the preeminent newspaper for a city that is top-heavy with Democrats and African-Americans.

 

[Bronco Billy]

Jewell, just to be fair: Pat Caddell is hardly "left leaning". He has appeared on Fox News for years now, ripping Democrats and liberals in particular every chance he gets. His mantra has been the same long before Obama even appeared on the national scene: the Democratic party has gotten too liberal and has chased moderates away. You can agree or not agree with his analysis, but you can hardly call him "left-leaning."

So because he doesn't fit the wild-eyed take-no-prisoners Obama/Pelosi/Reid mold he can't be left of center on the political spectrum, correct?This reminds me of an interview with the owner of the Denver Post a couple of weeks ago. The Post has pretty much become a hard left Dem rag, which is probably why its readership is down so badly. In any case, the owner is being interviewed on a popular afternoon drive time radio show and he keeps insisting that they are centrist in their reporting. Then when asked why, despite pointing out so many flaws in incumbant seantor Michael Bennett in his term after being appointed by the CO governor, they endorsed him in the coming elections, he stated that Bennett is a centrist and they like that in their politicians.Now Bennett is a guy who votes 19 out of 20 times in line with the Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda despite his constituency being pretty well centered poltically. He cast the deciding vote for Obamacare - and with this track record he's being defined as a centrist by a guy who says he owns a centrist paper.The point being that when your perspective is skewed that far in one direction and yet you are convinced that you are so fair minded that you have to be right in the center of the political spectrum, it makes you think that anyone to the other side of you must by definition be on the other side of the political spectrum, which isn't necessarily true.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

The point being that when your perspective is skewed that far in one direction and yet you are convinced that you are so fair minded that you have to be right in the center of the political spectrum, it makes you think that anyone to the other side of you must by definition be on the other side of the political spectrum, which isn't necessarily true.

How can you tell a journalist is a leftist? When he describes Obama's policies as "moderate".