The Blue Dogs in question (Altmire and Holden) were primaried by more liberal Democrats. Not sure how that's the GOP's fault. Democrats have not passed a budget in three years (a legal requirement). Obama's budgets get zero votes in congress. He rejected the recommendations of his own bipartisan debt commision. Dems offer no proposal to deal with the deficit or entitlements. They wrote the stimuls and health care bills without any GOP input. The results are record deficits, stagnant growth, and perpetually high unemployment. What exactly should the GOP be doing? More taxes? More stimulus? Obama won't change course like Clinton did after 1994. He's still proposing the same taxes/borrowing/stimulus/subsidies he always has. All the GOP can do is offer the country an alternative, which they have in the form of the Ryan budget. <iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/K8QM68X1Kn4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Rather than trying to improve reality (high unemployment, anemic growth, skyrocketing debt), Obama is trying to change public perception of reality and cast blame on others.
The general GOP economic plan consists entirely of trying to change public perception of reality... Tax cuts aren't tricking Americans into spending more money.
I don't think the Republicans are the problem. In fact, I may go so far as to say there is no problem. Why? Because it's the system that allows this to happen. American's electoral system has been around for over 200 years, refined to its current state over time. And at this point, the system is set up perfectly for the Republican platform. Especially with billionaire support through campaign contributions, Fox News, and other methods of controlling the media of typical voters. You can think of it as teams tanking for the 1st pick of the draft or Lebron deciding to team up with Wade and Bosh. Cry unfair all you like, but in the end the system favors a certain way of doing things, and the Republicans are doing it really well.
Yes and no. Our electoral system is flawed. It is very undemocratic to have rural states like Wyoming with about one 40th of the population of California with two senators. It is undemocratic to not have popular vote for president etc. It is very undemocratic to have five unelected S.Ct judges overule laws passed by the Congress and signed by the president. However, the original system did not make corporations "citizens" or force the S. Ct. to allow the rich to buy elections. The original system did not envision media consolidation so that a very small group of the rich can control the info input to the populace. These were recent changes. It is true that conservative monied interests played this well mainly through the Republican Party. As an aside I think I agree that the only way this will change is through media that challenges the propaganda of the Limbaugh/Ron Paul dittos.
That is correct. It is very undemocratic. The Constitution and the law trumps "democracy". As opposed to fifty years ago, when all political information which the people received were through either three big news channels or their local paper, where ONE anchor proved capable of deciding an entire presidential campaign or an entire country's opinion on a war - was that more democratic, or better? Fact is that today we have a widespread glut of information, with the advent of cable television, and the Internet. There are alternative media sources, progressive or mainstream ones at that. But for better or for worse, the people have spoken. They would rather listen to Rush Limbaugh than Air America or past leftist attempts to encroach on talk radio. Oh, and corporate citizenhood and limited liability? That's as old as the capitalist system itself.
Those are features, not bugs. They protect the rights of individuals and prevent a tyranny of the majority. Buying speech is not buying elections. And corporations aren't citizens, but the people who belong to them might be. The media is less consolidated today than it ever has been. Anyone with a computer and internet connection can broadcast information to the entire world. Ever heard of Matt Drudge? The left has contempt for all this new speech they have to contend with. They want to control and restrict it. Colbert is obsessed with it, even though his own political speech is funded by Viacom. I love SuperPACs, I love this production of speech that can't be controlled. It panics the elites who think they are entitled to a captive audience.
Congress is just a battle ground of competing moneyed interest. There is no real fundamental ideological debate, there are no new ideas outside the mainstream ever reaching legislation. manufactured conflict>grid lock> status quo> predictablilty>profits The same people buy ads on FOX and MSNBC, K street will lobby any position for a fee, the same people that run the money outside the government regulate it inside the government. Profit is always a driving force. There is no inherent motive to support unprofitable positions if the morality story can be controlled and spun.
Blah blah blah WaPo blah blah liberal bias blah blah media conspiracy blah blah Obama blah blah. I haven't read the thread. Did I cover the conservative response pretty well?
You left out the part where they post false claims about the President and Democrats have done even though the claims have been proven false multiple times on these boards
The SC ruled corporations can contribute just like citizens. It may go down as one of the worst sc rulings of our generation. True. That's the pro. The Con is individuals can chose to only listen to a select few which means their viewpoints are rarely challenged ...which isn't healthy. It's like that older retired person whose spouse died and the kids moved away. That is the most obstinate person you can find cause nobody is around to challenge them when they say/do something dumb. That's at least 50% of Fox viewers. Fox convinced their viewers to ignore everybody else (it's in their own best interest to do so) cause no one else can be trusted ...but we always tell the truth. It's unhealthy. Everybody loves free speech but when people flip flop, lie or stretch the bounds of what is normal ...somebody should point that out and not treat liars as business as usual. Again, say what you want ...but if you lie then expect to be called on it. But that isnt what happens. Unfortunately, the media treats outlandish behavior as good by giving it more airtime. And when that outlandish behavior purveys a lie, it gets repeated until enough people believe it. The old addage, where there is smoke there must be fire. But the media fails to report that the smoke is often manufactured and start discussing the merits of the fire.
I hate this quote so, so much, because it basically belongs to all sorts of cranks who believe that they will win some day. Well, that, and I don't even particularly like Gandhi all that much anyways. No, what Citizens United did was that it said the government can't run around shutting down political speech on the grounds that it is "electioneering content". Which is, you know, what the government did to Citizens United, and what Bush COULD have done to Fahrenheit 9/11 back in 2004. Who is "somebody?" There's no shortage of individuals, regardless of class or race, who are willing to point out that Fox News is generally bullcrap, after all. Sure, they give it more airtime. But there is such a thing as bad publicity. Heck, we're basketball fans. Durant doesn't do as much in the media or has never had anything as outlandish as Lebron's Decision and Howard's well, Indecision. Yet who's the most liked? The same applies in politics. Palin was outlandish. She received tons of media coverage for a while. But now she doesn't these days, and she's largely viewed as a joke.
The real shame is, with all the garbage Obama has done, the Republicans have grown so fond of extreme conservative ideologies that they've alienated everyone else who would, otherwise, gladly vote against Obama.
The Republican idea of bipartisanship is the opposition bowing down to their every demand. Why would they be interested in compromise? Then things would actually get done and that's no way to do business when you are trying to get back power in Washington, especially after 8 years of terrible governing that left the economy and the federal budget in ruins.
Republicans need to moderate. As the old jungle lore goes, they just can't be the slowest prey pursued. Who else is the far right going to vote for?
Boehner: ‘I Reject The Word’ Compromise http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/12/13/134669/boehner-reject-compromise/ By Ben Armbruster on Dec 13, 2010 at 9:45 am During an interview with incoming House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) last night on 60 Minutes, host Leslie Stahl noted that President Obama has said Boehner will “have a responsibility to govern” as Speaker. “You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower,” Obama said. “We have to govern. That’s what we were elected to do,” Boehner told Stahl, adding that it won’t involve compromising, but instead finding “common ground”: STAHL: But governing means compromising. BOEHNER: It means working together. STAHL: It also means compromising. BOEHNER: It means finding common ground. STAHL: Okay, is that compromising? BOEHNER: I made it clear I am not going to compromise on my principles, nor am I going to compromise the will of the American people. STAHL: What are you saying? You’re saying, “I want common ground, but I’m not gonna compromise.” I don’t understand that. I really don’t. BOEHNER: When you say the word “compromise,” a lot of Americans look up and go, “Uh oh, they’re gonna sell me out.” And so finding common ground, I think, makes more sense. Stahl noted that Boehner compromised his position on the Bush tax cuts to get a deal with Obama last week, noting that he had wanted the all the Bush-era tax cuts extended permanently but only got a two-year extension. Boehner again said it wasn’t a compromise. “Why won’t you say you’re afraid of the word,” Stahl asked. “I reject the word,” Boehner said. Watch it:
