Bit of a laugh before tomorrow's election

[MooseMom]

Yes, sorry Cariad, my questions were general in nature.

It is really going to be fascinating to watch what happens next.  Millions of Americans who are jobless are going to be without benefits at the end of the year.  These unemployment benefits have been extended once; will they be extended again, or will the GOP seek to cut this particular government expenditure?  EVERYONE has cried out against "big government spending" and EVERYONE wants to reduce the debt, and rightly so, but not one single new GOP congressperson has told us how they propose to do that.  If you leave aside Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and defense, what you have left is only 15% of total government expenditure.  If you cut ALL of that 15%, you still will not have cut enough to make a dent in the debt.  So, these four expenditures are what you are going to have to pare back.  Inflation is next to 0%, so retirees were not going to get a SS cost of living increase, but do you think our senior citizens were happy about that?  NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!  So yeah, cutting spending is just fine if it does not mean being deprived of your COL increase.

Why should everyone over 65 get SS?  Why not means test them in some way?   How much are we willing to pay/cut re, for instance, airport security?

Some GOP members are already starting to talk about investigations into "unAmerican thinking" by members of the Obama administration...are we going to allow that to bog down our government over the next two years?  Anyone remember how many hard left people wanted Bush, et all tried for war crimes?  Obama and Pelosi almost immediately  said "no" to that, and their base was not happy, but there were too many other things to worry about. 

Do any of you get tired of listening to politicians telling us that they represent "the American people"?  They don't speak for me, so don't claim that!  And I happen to be sick of this crap about Obama being "out of touch" with what Americans want or think.  First he was on TV and on the road giving speeches too damn much, and now he's out of touch.  Well, which is it?  Telling someone they're "out of touch" is one of those blanket claims that mean absolutely nothing.  What, do you really think that Obama doesn't know that people are hurting and that they're worried about the future of the country?  No administration want high unemployment because that's a very expensive proposition, so for people to claim that Obama (or any administration) doesn't care about the unemployed, that's just absurd.

It seems like we have been given a choice...either big government or big business will rule us.  Government should not be in the business of creating jobs, but when new businesses can't get any startup capital because the banks won't lend money, then what do we expect to happen?

I go back to Mitch McConnell saying that his priority is to make sure that Obama is a one-term president.  That's what he cares about.  Not action, not compromise, not legislating, just jettisoning the President.  How does that serve us as a people?


PS...Congress reconvenes 15 November for its lame duck session.  There has to be a vote by the end of the month on whether or not to extend unemployment benefits one more time.  If they are not extended, up to 2,000,000 will lose out by the end of the year.  Which way do you think Congress should vote, and why?

[cariad]

MM, much of what you've written seems to speak to my point that people vote in their own self-interests without considering the larger picture. I think that yes, poor people vote against their own self-interests, but I put that down to them being lied to or seeking a quick fix, so they go for the short-term gain at the expense of the long term. Republicans will lower your taxes! This may be true (although Obama gets credit for the largest tax cut in history) but that extra money in the near future could translate to huge losses when you need a government program and it has been cut.

I still remember my first politics paper in university. (I have been accused by many of having hypermnesia.) I was really nervous about it because I never considered myself politically aware, and here was this republican prof asking us to write about how Reagan changed the political landscape (uh, Mr. Conservative Professor Man, are you sure you want to hear my answer to that?). I got my father's help with that rather daunting question and what I wrote, almost verbatim, was "Ronald Reagan so destroyed the economy that it will be the single focus of presidential campaigns for generations to come." I also said that you cannot win a presidential campaign on a platform of raising taxes because people in America will not accept that if they just pay higher taxes for a few years, they will reap benefits down the track. Anyhow, much to my shock I not only got an A on that paper, he wrote a note saying that mine was some of the best writing that he had read. And so begins Cariad's career in mouthing off in political threads.... I give that prof a lot of credit for being able to grade on the soundness of the case stated and not his own political opinions.

Personally, I do not care that I am not getting a cost-of-living increase (on disability) because in fairness, my costs have not increased. I don't like the idea of a means test, because that would not really be fair, that sounds like what they do to qualify for medicaid, a system that makes it so that you must be either very rich or very poor to be able to survive an illness in this country. I don't want to see people have to wait until they've lost everything to apply for Social Security - it is not a charity, it is a program they have paid into for their entire lives. My parents have reached that age, and I have never heard a word of complaint from either one of them about no increase. I have no problem with what is described as 'big government spending'. I was not exactly thrilled with the bailouts, especially not of the banks, and I wish Obama had forced lending to small businesses earlier (although he has done so much to make the SBA such an attractive option, I guess my problem is a personal one based on where Gwyn works).

I disagree that government should not be in the business of creating jobs. These desperately needed infrastructural upgrades also happen to be job creating machines. It's a great opportunity to put the country back to work and improve our surroundings.

To your question, of course I am going to say that they should extend unemployment benefits. We do ourselves no favors by seeing millions without income. I am reminded of South Africa's continued aid and lending to Zimbabwe over the protests of many. The response from the government was that South Africa gains nothing by allowing a financial disaster to unfold 'on their doorstep'. Yes, Zimbabwe is a corrupt and hopeless place, but having your neighbours in chaos always impacts the entire neighbourhood, doesn't it? It really is in our own best interests here in the US to see these people through this uniquely devastating time. Again, let's look at the bigger picture here. I read a study recently that looked at 'does unemployment really provide a disincentive to work?' Finding were common sense all around. People who had no unemployment generally got back to work months faster than people on unemployment. Sure, if you refuse to look at these data analytically, you will conclude that it is in fact a disincentive. The researchers concluded that in fact unemployment allows you the opportunity to be a bit particular about what job you take. People who had unemployment also tended to return to jobs with much higher salaries than those without that benefit. Don't we want people to make a living wage, and have enough discretionary income to help fuel the economy? Because of my father's business, he knows loads about certainly areas of the world, especially the Caribbean. He recently told me about the case of Barbados. Apparently, when the people of Barbados some years ago heard that 10% of the country were going to lose their jobs to financially necessary cuts, the whole of the island banded together and agreed to take a universal 10% pay cut, and everyone got to keep their jobs. I dream of living in a country such as this....

Anyhow, I could go on all night. Interesting questions. It would be great to hear replies from others.

[BigSky]

One of the biggest areas of spending is social services.  That area alone needs badly revamped.  Problem is liberals will not let that happen.



What has to be done is go back to our roots of responsibility.   Its far too easy to be irresponsible and take advantage of the system.

Whether that be in areas of social services, some corporations and some of the wealthy using loopholes to skirt paying taxes, to people screwing over the government by overcharging in contracts and those in charge in government not paying attention to such things.

[MooseMom]

What EXACTLY do you mean, BigSky, when you say that we have to "go back to our roots of responsibility"?  Let's take one example, one circumstance that Congress is going to have to deal with, and that is what to do about extending unemployment benefits one more time to those 2,000,000 who stand to lose out by the end of the year.  Let's apply this "roots of responsibility" concept to this issue.  If you are listening to the American people like John Boehner has pledged to do, which way are you going to vote?  How do we ensure that those people are going to "go back to their roots of responsibility"?

If we "go back to the roots of responsibility", does that mean we take our troops out of Afghanistan because it is more responsible to better apply the resulting savings to bringing down our debt, or is it more responsible to continue fighting the "war on terror" far from our shores?

As for the health care bill, I am still puzzled by why people don't like the public option.  I know that many do not like the idea of the government being involved in access to health care, but on the flip side, I don't understand why we stick this expense onto businesses.  We've always tried to create an environment that is beneficial to business.  In fact, despite the protestations and goofiness of Michele Bachman, Obama is being accompanied to Asia by quite a few American CEOs for the express purpose of drumming up business.  So, I've never really understood why we've made doing business in America more expensive.  With our health care costs forever rising, it is going to be harder and harder for new businesses to start up; I really wish we could find a different way to fund health care in this country.

The GOP have traditionally been pro-corporation/pro-business, so I don't think we can expect them to be closing any tax loopholes.  Even if you were to vanquish all fraud, it still wouldn't be enough to balance the budget unless you cut the big four expenditures.  The irony is that as the middle class slowly sinks into oblivion, more and more people are going to need social services, and then we will still have the same philosophical question of how do you help people, if at all?  And if you want people to "go back to the roots of responsibility", how do you determine who has been responsible enough to warrant assistance?  Once I go on D and have to be rely on Medicare, is someone going to come around to my house and test me to see if I've gone back to the roots of responsibility?



Cariad, I warn you that playing devil's advocate amuses me, so many of my questions are thrown out there in the hopes that people will actually think before replying.

[cariad]

Cariad, I warn you that playing devil's advocate amuses me, so many of my questions are thrown out there in the hopes that people will actually think before replying.

Sorry, hun, not sure exactly what you're saying here. Are you trying to warn me that you are going to disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing, or that what you write is not always your genuine opinion? I do realise that some of your questions are conversation-starters and I hope it was clear that I most definitely think before I write. Personally, I feel it gets confusing on the internet if people play devil's advocate unless they are very clear that this is what they are doing. I always take opinions at face value on here - as in 'you wrote it, so that must be what you genuinely believe.' If you're just saying that you will continue to throw questions out for people to consider, I say fire away. While I can't promise to always answer myself, I'm sure someone will take the bait.

Did anyone read the article about Bush saying that being called a racist by Kanye West was the low point of his time in office? Then the interviewer pressed him by listing all of the disasters that happened during his presidency "9/11, Katrina, the financial meltdown, declaring two wars" and Bush responded "I don't care" and reiterated that the comment was the low point. WOW.

So now we have to be able to pay for things before we commit to them. Sounds like a reasonable request, but where were Republicans when it came to spending a trillion dollars on an endless and unwinable series of wars? I think defense should be cut. I think waste and bureaucracy need to be cut, but people just love to dismiss that idea as not being big enough. I think people are grossly underestimating just how much waste and needless personnel exist in government. I worked on a government grant for a year. Flipping heck, the way grants are written and distributed is lunacy. Washington think tank seems to be code for 'Your tax dollars at work to suck the soul right out of new graduates'.

I'm a liberal and I would be perfectly happy to cut some social programs. How about the ones that don't work and are counterproductive? (I could name names, of course. Celibacy-only programs are absolutely famous for being a surefire way to increase teen pregnancy in your area.)

My hairstylist in LA self-identified as a libertarian, and the "roots of responsibility" statement sounds almost exactly like what she said to me when we were discussing the election (in 2008). She wanted Ron Paul, and she said we needed to cut welfare programs because 'people live off that stuff', as in, don't work to get off of it. Then she started talking about how that was not what the founding fathers had meant, yada, yada. (The founding fathers were white, rich, sexist slave owners so I think trying to guess what was on their minds back then is no way to run a country in the modern world.) Almost in the same breath, she mentioned going to the ER and when the hospital asked for their insurance information (she did not have health insurance because they could not afford it) her husband snapped "You don't need our insurance information! The state's paying for it!" Is that laughably hypocritical, or am I crazy? You don't want to contribute to someone else's rent or food, but you're happy to have all of us pay your medical bills? I think if individuals want to hold other people responsible, lead by example and show us how you are turning down government benefits. Do Ron and Rand Paul refuse the Senate health insurance policy on principle? Somehow I doubt it.

[MooseMom]

No, cariad, I don't disagree for the sake of disagreeing, nor do I waste time posting things that are not my true opinion.  But just because something is my opinion doesn't make it true, though, and that's why I tend to ask more questions than offer opinions.  When I hear the standard phrases bandied about such as "get the government out of my private life" or "go back to the roots of responsibility", I have to wonder how these phrases are defined by the people who use them.

I'm not interested in baiting anyone.  I already know what I think and why I think the way I do, so I don't feel a need to advertise it.  But I have a hearty interest not only in what other people think, but in WHY they think the way they do.  So I ask questions that I anticipate MAY be asked by people who don't necessarily hold the same opinions that I do.

Also, I am not afraid to change my mind or opinion.  If I discover a differing viewpoint based on critical thinking and better factual evidence, I do not feel embarrassed in changing my mind.  So, that's another reason I ask questions; maybe you or someone else has considered something that has not occurred to me.

Take Bush's answer when asked about his lowest point.  I was never a fan of Bush nor his policies, but I interpreted his reply in a completely different way than you did.  I heard about this third hand, so perhaps if I were to see the interview and/or read his memoirs, I'll come to a different conclusion.  But as for now, I believe that Mr Bush mishandled many things during his administration, so to call him inept or just plain wrong is valid, but saying that he hates black people is, again, one of those easily disparaging comments that carry a lot of weight.  Calling someone "racist" has become too casual for such a damning charge.  The one thing that Mr Bush DID do that I was in favour of was expanding expenditure on HIV/AIDS in Africa, and if he hated black people, I don't think he would have made this particular commitment.  So, I'm thinking that West's comment was a more personal low point for Bush.  I don't believe that Bush hates black people, and for a popular performer to claim that he is during a live televised event was vastly unfair.

I agree that there is waste, and maybe it is grossly underestimated.  But I really don't think you can have real reductions in our debt without tackling the big government expenditures, also.  But those people who make tank parts for the Pentagon and who receive benefits from the government are voters, too, which makes making big cuts all the more difficult.

What does "take our country back" really mean?  What do people mean when they say that?  And you're right, cariad...our founding fathers were not particularly interested in equality.  If you were male AND owned land, then you got the privilege to vote.  When they wrote "We, the People", I'm not so sure they would have included you and I!

Now, the American people have spoken.  Can we have a drinking game where we take a swig every time some politician claims he's heard "the American People"?  Are we monolithic?  Did we all say the same thing?  What do you suppose these politicians heard?  Did they hear "We have to disband the EPA!" or did they perhaps hear, "We have a pre-existing condition and still can't get health care!"?

[MooseMom]

BTW, cariad, you are fearless in expressing your opinions, and that's one of the many things I like about you!   Clarity of thought coupled with passion make for a lot of fun.

[cariad]

Ack, no, no! I did not mean you were baiting anyone, it was just my way of saying while I love having in-depth discussions on IHD, I really do spend too much time here some days and so someone else would most likely answer. Sorry, bait was not the best choice of words. I apologise. I certainly did not mean to offend you.

I have heard people who know Bush Jr personally speak about him, and also get the impression that he is not a racist. I guess I'd hoped for more maturity from the leader of the country, though. To say that that was the worst moment, personal or otherwise, in a presidency that also happened to contain the financial meltdown and the felling of the twin towers seems rather self-involved to me. I haven't read his memoirs either, and have no intention to. He stated that having his feelings hurt was worse than all of these crises which is gobsmacking. I've been called names on IHD, one member even kindly remarked that my masters degree was not in a "real" science. People say idiotic things all the time. I'll take your word for it that Kanye West is popular - I really only knew who he was when Obama called him a 'jackass'. Now, honestly, that had to sting a bit. How many of us will be called a name by a US president? And let's assume that Obama's comments carry a bit more weight than West's. Glenn Beck said that Obama hates white people. I think Obama handled that extremely well, which was, as far as I know, by ignoring that moronic bully.

I've been called a racist many times, mostly for refusing to answer black men who would shout catcalls at me. I was once standing on the corner of Stockton and Sutter in San Francisco waiting for the light to change and I felt someone run their hand up the arm of my velvet top. I knew a lot of people in San Francisco back then, especially in that area, so I turned to see who was there and it was a total stranger. So I recoiled. The cretin had the cheek to say sarcastically "Relax! I'm black but I'm not that black." To which I responded "Don't f---ing touch me." I think most people, and probably all females, could tell you that his race had nothing to do with my response - it was the sheer arrogance of a male thinking he could touch me, especially in such an intimate way. I was in my 20s at the time, but everyone told me I looked 16, so I toyed with the idea of screaming at that very crowded intersection, but I just let it go. Personal low point? It would not even make the top 100.

I think a case can most certainly be made that Katrina was not taken seriously enough because it was the poor, minority neighbourhoods that took the brunt of it. I am certainly not prepared to make a case for or against that myself. I can tell you that I have broadly stated that America hates sick people, and I honestly believe it. Get the message your entire life that people would happily euthanise you to save a bit of cash and the conclusion is unavoidable.

I suppose you could say "I want the government out of my private life" is a cliche, but I was really trying to generally answer the question you posed without getting into specifics. Of course "What do the American people want" is an unaswerable question, so you can only generalise. However, I was also trying to avoid getting specific about my own beliefs, especially on abortion. I really hate discussing that topic, do not want to know where anyone stands, and think arguing that issue is a colossal waste of time. I'm open for discussing pretty much anything else, so long as I actually hold an opinion on it and know enough about it to add something to the conversation.

BTW, cariad, you are fearless in expressing your opinions, and that's one of the many things I like about you!   Clarity of thought coupled with passion make for a lot of fun.

And that is one of the nicest things anyone has said to me on IHD. Thank you so much!

[YLGuy]

I am thoroughly enjoying this conversation.  Well written and extremely congenial for such a volatile subject.   

[MooseMom]

I am inclined to agree that America hates sick people, and America is not particularly fond of poor people, either. There does seem to be this prevailing suspicion that if you get some sort of benefit, I am therefore sacrificing something that I might not want to sacrifice (speaking generically, to be sure).  Giving to you means taking from me...that sort of mindset.  That seems to be the underlying problem with benefits and entitlement programs...the attitude of "why do YOU get to have THAT?" (as if you'd WANT to be poor or sick or unemployed or handicapped or have some other problem that might be a huge obstacle in your life).

I do understand how you'd be disappointed that Bush's low point was having his itty bitty feewings hurt.  I've just finished reading Tony Blair's memoirs, and it did remind me that leaders have their feelings, too.  I KNOW that sounds vapid and syrupy, but I personally hate seeing people humiliated or embarrassed even if in my heart of hearts I believe they deserve it.  I remember when Bush was so heartily booed when he threw out the first pitch at some baseball game, and while I understood it, I had hoped we'd be better than that.  It somehow diminishes the office.  But no one called me to ask me my opinion on that one!

Beck's comment about Obama hating white people was just as appalling and wrong.  Again, I am happy to hear other people's opinions, but that comment from Beck wasn't opinion...it was diatribe.  As much as I dislike how arbitrarily the term "racist" is used, I can't help but wonder if racism is behind so much of the particularly scathing attacks against Obama.  I've heard this theory for quite some time now, and I tended to disregard it because I felt that that explanation was a whitewash and that I had to look at what opponents were saying and had to decide if their arguments had merit.  But the whole birther thing...the "Obama is a Muslim" thing...confirms to me that there is a certain population who hate our president for the color of his skin...that there is this desire to define him as foreign and "other".

I agree that what Americans want is undefinable, but a whole lot of newly elected people seem to think they know exactly what we want.  Well, good luck with that!

I understand not wanting to get specific about your beliefs...that can open you up to all sorts of criticism.  It's not easy to discuss political topics without there being the prospect for flaming.  I look at websites of various international papers, particularly British ones, and there are, of course, articles and editorials about American policies both domestic and foreign.  And there is always the comments that come afterwards, and my God...well, let's just say I've read the n-word many times in posts about Obama.  That's our duly elected President they're talking about, and I'm not real keen on those sorts of idiocy.  It's amazing how quickly such discussions descend to the personal, and that gets dull very quickly.  I think most of us would agree that we are rather tired of the squawking from both sides and that by and large, we are somewhere in the political middle.  We want effective government and will achieve that only if there is effective debate and compromise in Congress.  If we are expecting them to discuss matters reasonably, then we should strive to do the same. 

I like to talk, but I REALLY enjoy listening.  I get bored with myself and am energized by hearing the thoughts and reasonings of other people.  That's why I enjoy talking about politics or sports or anything, really.  I don't know everything about anything, and I'm not afraid of admitting that.

Anyone else have any thoughts on what they'd like to see Congress achieve in the near future?  Any particular issues you want to see addressed?

Ooh, I learned something interesting today.  Tell me what y'all think.  You know the President is going to India; well, it seems that the CEO of Walmart is going on this trip, too.  According to Indian law enacted 70 years ago, it is illegal to own more than two shops, and that's why there are no chains as we know them here in the US.  The idea is that having mainly "mom and pop" shops stimulates employment and entrepreneurship.  Walmart has two stores and only two stores in India.  Sooooo, the CEO of Walmart is going to India to perhaps maybe sorta try to get the Indian govt to change the law.  Could be good to have a US business expand internationally and make more money and pay more taxes, but I'm not sure how great it would be for the preservation of Indian culture.  This could expand business opportunities for American corporations, but I'm not sure that would translate into more American jobs.  So, is this a good move or not?  Beneficial to America or not?  Is this pandering to big business and forgetting about middle class employment, or is this an attempt to open up more opportunity for American companies?

(I wonder what kind of trip you could take for $200 million a day! )

[cariad]

I understand not wanting to get specific about your beliefs...that can open you up to all sorts of criticism.  It's not easy to discuss political topics without there being the prospect for flaming. 

I am not worried about criticism, to be honest, it is just an attempt to not open up the topic. If I don't discuss abortion, I don't invite others' opinions. I am comfortable with my own views on it, do not seek validation from anyone else, and become offended quite quickly if anyone spouts their views on it to me. Doubly disinterested if you are male.

I rarely read news comments from the masses. People are such idiots the world over. I've read British articles about transplant and of course when you read the comments, it is a full Transplant Myth Bingo card within the first five. Try it sometime.

I strongly believe that racism plays into some of the Obama hatred. I have heard the odd news report that contains an individual stupid enough to admit this on air. But you really cannot create a sign that says 'Obamacare' and shows his face photoshopped onto an African shaman and then claim that racism has nothing to do with this. There was apparently a monkey doll that was sold as an Obama doll. I never saw it so cannot confirm, but read an editorial about it before the last election. Pretty sick stuff. The tea party continues to stand amazed that they are considered racists. If you do not decry that behaviour, then you really are supporting it. (Unless your life is somehow at risk should you take a stand, as in, for example, white South Africans during Apartheid). Take Rand Paul's handling of the stomping incident. Utterly vile what happened, and the fact that the man who stepped on that woman took the moldy "blame the victim" stance should render us all speechless. Rand Paul, much as I am fairly sure we were fated from birth to be mortal enemies, handled that perfectly.

Yes, understanding why people do the things they do and how ideologies are formed is endlessly fascinating. I had a funny, ferociously smart friend in SF, and every time anyone would wonder allowed why someone else was making the choices that they were making, she would cry out "Family of origin!" I think there are all manner of reasons that people think the way they do, but most people would struggle to answer that question outright as I believe much of it is on an unconscious or culturally defined level. This is why I adore anthropology, and psychology to a lesser extent. It is astonishing how clear and elegant some of the answers can be in anthropology. (Although psychology has its share of those stunningly gorgeous explanations.)

Oh, yes, I am sooooo with you on being unable to tolerate humiliation of people, even if I do not particularly like them. I don't think I would have cared if I had seen Bush jeered though - I have my compassion limits, after all! Al Franken once described him as a 'towel snapper' and I think the description is apt. As in, the type of overgrown frat boy who would pick on other people in the locker-room and find it hilarious. He destroyed this country with his incompetence and now gets to retire comfortably while other people are losing every thing they have ever worked for. We imprisoned Madoff for running a ponzi scheme, but Bush turned Wall Street into a rigged game, and he walks free. I have no mercy for that man.

I have been boycotting Walmart for almost 10 years. A friend studied the toxic effect that Walmart has on communities and sent me what she learned, and since I always hated the place and dreaded going there for cheap diapers (the only thing I ever bought there) I decided it wasn't worth the few dollars I would save. Then I saw "The High Cost of Low Prices" and there is really nothing they can do to win me back. So, no, I do not think it would be any real benefit to the US for Walmart to expand anywhere. Walmart is infamous for bullying communities into tax breaks and then if they do not get them, leaving a 40,000 square foot eyesore in their wake when they leave town. But I'm sure few are shocked by my opinion. I want to boycott Target, too, but I do think I have the discipline. I want to write them a letter saying that it is not so much that they supported an anti-gay marriage candidate that infuriates me, it's that they took advantage of Citizens United at all. The ruling is stupid, the potential consequences horrific, and I know it's the right thing to do to tell them so and stop shopping there. Unfortunately, I live in a city that suffers from a dearth of independently owned shops, which ironically can also be blamed on places like Target.

Do you hear about Keith Olberman being suspended. He is not my favourite, I vastly prefer Ms. Maddow, but I think holding him to the standards of a journalist rather than a commentator is misguided. I really enjoy sitting down to dinner, flipping on Olberman, and trying to explain to my older child what he's saying. I am really starting to like The Last Word as well. I have pretty well given up on CNN - it seems to have just deteriorated into people talking over each other. I am amazed at how sane Pat Buchanan sounds these days. He must be on his meds. 

Thanks for the lovely comment, Marc! Please, anyone else, feel free to jump in. MM and I don't bite! (Well, technically I can only speak for myself.... )

[jbeany]

One of the columnists in my local (extremely conservative!) paper had an eloquent column this week about the subtext behind the "Take Back America" campaign.  He strongly believes that it is about racism, and pointed out specific examples of other presidents who have encountered challenges similar to the ones Obama has faced without ever inspiring that particular strain of invective.  Who, exactly, do they want to take America back from?  It wasn't an issue when it was Clinton in office and the Republicans wanted him out.  It does become hard to imagine it's about anything other than color. 

[MooseMom]

I, too, am a fan of Rachel Maddow; I think she is more measured than Keith Olberman.  Did you see her bit where she compared his contributions to those of the Fox people?  What's interesting is that NBC has such rules and Fox does not.  That's all fine as long as people understand what they are getting when they watch Fox.  They are not getting news, rather, they are getting political commentary.  Again, nothing wrong with that, but define it correctly at least.  I was happy, though, to hear that Olberman was going to get rid of his "Worst Person of the World" piece; I thought it was mean spirited and redundant.  When he is sharp, he is very sharp, but Worst Person never really worked for me.

I am not sure about CNN.  On the one hand, yes, there are a lot of people talking over each other, and that can get annoying.  On the other hand, I rather like hearing such divergent viewpoints.  John King, though, just creeps me out.  Anderson Cooper seems to like grabbing hold onto one small controversy and blowing it up out of proportion (ie the whole "Obama's trip is costing $200m a day" palaver.  It did make me wonder, however, how Michele Bachmann voters thought about it.).  I watch The Situation Room when I need a nap; Wolf is somnambulistic.

jbeany, the fact that a conservative columnist believes that racism is afoot tells ya something, doesn't it.  No wonder the President has turned gray-haired so quickly; he has that extra helping of crap on his plate.  I wonder how it affects his daughters. 

I'm going to be watching very carefully to see how these new tea party congresspeople vote.  They may become the new party of "no".  I think Mr. Boehner is going to have a fight on his hands.  He is a canny man, and he is certainly a career politician.  He is exactly the kind of politician the tea party people say they hate, so there is going to be a struggle for power.