Obama - First Black President

[Maxxthepenguin]

At current time since he's done nothing yet ... I can't call him anything but president elect, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until he puts anything into place. The funny thing is, if he's a major screw up in office and fucks things up left and right, I seriously doubt he'll get anywhere close to the criticism of past presidents. I mean hell journalists such as Chris Matthews even stated its no longer his job to report news (like we needed him to actually say that) "My Job Is To Make Obama Presidency a Success"

Matthews: My Job Is To Make Obama Presidency a Success | NewsBusters.org

I thought it was a reporters job to you know ... report the news.

Matthews isn't a reporter. He's the host of an interview show.

What he also is, though, is a complete boob. He's not crazy in the same way as Olbermann, but he's pretty bad in his own way. Once in a rare while he turns up the awesome, but the rest of the time? Pretty shitty.

That said, do you want the Obama presidency to be bad? Do you hate Democrats so much that you want the country to do terribly just so that they can't hold office?

Chris Matthews | The Daily Show | Comedy Central
Enjoy that raping of Matthews.

Oh and lol newsbusters WORLD IS AGAINST US bullshit

[Saphirea]

Oh you misinturperted what I was meaning in that. I was meaning with not so many words is I hope he succeeds and I'll support him as my president once he is in office. I used the newsbusters because thats where the video was hosted.
I don't view myself as a republican but as a conservative and we couldn't have the amazing of Reagan without Carter. That said, I stand to my previous point if Obama screws something up, I seriously doubt though he'll ever receive anywhere close to the amount of criticism that Bush received.

Matthews is an idiot and Olbermann is a dbag of epic proportions ...

[Correction]

I stand to my previous point if Obama screws something up, I seriously doubt though he'll ever receive anywhere close to the amount of criticism that Bush received.

What you are referring to is colloquially called the 'honeymoon effect' and is well known by anybody with half an education. Bush's didn't get one because his first term was won by a heavily disputed 537 vote lead in Florida, meaning his first 100 days was filled with extreme bitterness over the outcome of the Supreme Court trial.

But yeah, nice job falling hook, line and sinker for the 'liberal media bias' when really this happens to any candidate freshly replacing an unpopular one. I'm sure once Obama genuinely screws up, people from both sides of the spectrum will call him on it. But let's actually wait for some of those actions to take effect eh?

[Maxxthepenguin]

Hey, criticizing sources is what I do.

I'm glad you support trying to make the best of whatever presidency we have.
And seriously, Matthews and Olbermann are fucking laughable, not because I usually disagree with what they mean to say, but because they seem to say it in the most boneheaded way possible (Matthews) or the most impressively unempathetic way possible (Olbermann.) Maddow so far seems quite good, though, given that I haven't watched much.

Also, remember, Bush came into office largely contested because of actual issues with the election process. If Obama screws up as much as him, I hope he gets taken to task but frankly, I don't see that as very possible.

I'd say I'm a liberal insofar as I'm generally convinced that liberalism is right quite often, but I don't hold complete confidence that I am right. So that's why I attempt to stay moderate.

By the way, how much criticism did Bush receive for the year after 9/11? It's not like they were going for the throat non-stop.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

It's ok to call Bush a fascist and compare him to Stalin but it's not ok to call Obama a Marxist and compare him to Hitler.

It's one thing to spy on your citizens and restrict their liberty in fear of terrorism, and another to try and create a well informed and capable populace to act on its own without government intervention, or a lack thereof.

For all of you crying about socialism and Nazi Germany, it sounds more like he's giving incentive for us not to rely on the police, National Guard, US Army etc in times of crisis, but offering the adequate funding needed for the program.

With two wars raging and a still unstable Middle East, this sounds like some worthy preparedness in the face of lessons we learned during Katrina. How about not playing the slippery slope game. This stuff he's talking about is far far better than oh, say, the Patriot Act.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Hey, criticizing sources is what I do.

I'm glad you support trying to make the best of whatever presidency we have.
And seriously, Matthews and Olbermann are fucking laughable, not because I usually disagree with what they mean to say, but because they seem to say it in the most boneheaded way possible (Matthews) or the most impressively unempathetic way possible (Olbermann.) Maddow so far seems quite good, though, given that I haven't watched much.

Also, remember, Bush came into office largely contested because of actual issues with the election process. If Obama screws up as much as him, I hope he gets taken to task but frankly, I don't see that as very possible.

I'd say I'm a liberal insofar as I'm generally convinced that liberalism is right quite often, but I don't hold complete confidence that I am right. So that's why I attempt to stay moderate.

By the way, how much criticism did Bush receive for the year after 9/11? It's not like they were going for the throat non-stop.

I'm a big fan of Matthews and Olbermann, they've both taken Clinton and Obama to task for things they said during the election. They also say alot of things I agree with, though Matthews tends to stray off the mark from time to time.

That said, I wouldn't say not having confidence in every idea you have or stand with means you're moderate, it means you're objective. And I feel that objectivity is a central ideal of liberalism. It means having perspective and taking the time to rationalize issues and policy, not stick to your guns regardless of how hard it fails.

Every social policy this country has passed has worked great until the conservatives got a hold of power and started fucking with them.

[Saphirea]

No offense but to your last point... how can you even begin to say that Reagan fucked things up. He took the shit sandwich, shit salad, shit desert and shit coffee that Carter left and turned around things an amazing way.

[Dimmauk]

LOL @ Bush's approval rating being lowest in history. Lower than Nixon right before he resigned.

Anyone see the Today Show's Palin Interview?
Does it seem like the GOP made her victim on purpose, so she will get sympathy? Victim card has been played IMO.

[Saphirea]

Congress' approval rating is lower than Bush's

[Maxxthepenguin]

I'm a big fan of Matthews and Olbermann, they've both taken Clinton and Obama to task for things they said during the election. They also say alot of things I agree with, though Matthews tends to stray off the mark from time to time.

That said, I wouldn't say not having confidence in every idea you have or stand with means you're moderate, it means you're objective. And I feel that objectivity is a central ideal of liberalism. It means having perspective and taking the time to rationalize issues and policy, not stick to your guns regardless of how hard it fails.

The second paragraph is the primary reason I don't like Olbermann. He seems to have no objectivity. It's also what I see as one of Obama's greatest strengths, he seems incredibly objective.

I would also hesitate to label objectivity as a liberal trait. I think it has nothing to do with liberal/conservative. I do think that conservatives tend to have less objectivity, but my objectivity pertaining to myself says "dude, come on, don't you have some bias". Then I say "oh right, I do".

There is, of course, much more party loyalty in the Republican party (who the hell could deny that?) and that shrouds objectivity. But whatever.

Every social policy this country has passed has worked great until the conservatives got a hold of power and started fucking with them.

Generally, I'll agree with that. It's often the case that you'll have a conservative go in, be all conservative-like and slash budgets, then when the programs stop working the hardcore conservatives are like "why not get rid of it? it doesnt work, obviously." But because our government relies on compromise, they think that having a compromise between no program (conservative) and an effective program (liberal) is an underfunded ineffective program.

That's not to say that liberals (or at least Democrats) are never to blame. Clinton, iirc, dipped into the social security fund. Yeah.

[Maxxthepenguin]

Congress' approval rating is lower than Bush's

Congress rarely has a good approval rating and right now I wouldn't say they're fucking our country up. They just aren't doing shit.

No offense but to your last point... how can you even begin to say that Reagan fucked things up. He took the shit sandwich, shit salad, shit desert and shit coffee that Carter left and turned around things an amazing way.

That's extremely arguable...

[Dimmauk]

Congress' approval rating is lower than Bush's

"The most recent Rasmussen Reports survey calculates a mere 9 percent say Congress is doing a good or excellent job, while a majority of Americans, 52 percent, believe it is doing a poor job, which also ties a record high.


The Democrat-controlled Congress enjoys its highest rating among Democrat respondents, 13 percent of whom rated the Congress favorably. Only 8 percent of Republicans were willing to say Congress is doing a good job, while an almost non-existent 3 percent of unaffiliated voters gave Congress a positive rating."

It is strange how the Dems got even more seats now, even though the approval rating is low.

Weird huh?

[Correction]

No offense but to your last point... how can you even begin to say that Reagan fucked things up. He took the shit sandwich, shit salad, shit desert and shit coffee that Carter left and turned around things an amazing way.

Tell that to South America.
The word 'trillion' didn't enter our national debt until after Reagan took office. This is in line with your 'I'm not a republican I'm a conservative' declaration, right?

[Beckwin]

No offense but to your last point... how can you even begin to say that Reagan fucked things up. He took the shit sandwich, shit salad, shit desert and shit coffee that Carter left and turned around things an amazing way.

How bad the country was when Carter left office and how "great" Reagan made it are both highly exaggerated. Carter was far from a great president, but the reality was a mild recession and an economy hurt by an oil crisis, and a foreign policy crisis (Iran hostage). We're arguably worse off right now than we were in 1980, by a fair margin, and it's worthwhile to note that Carter didn't exactly go out of his way to cause those problems for the country- he didn't start 2 wars or fight tooth and nail for deregulation or anything. His response to those problems though was less than stellar and that along with Reagan's strong campaigning, again tapping into Nixon's "silent majority" (gun-and-bible-clinging, vaguely racist majority? you decide), is what made him a 1-termer.

Reagan, however, is possibly the most overblown president in modern history. Yes, the economy grew in the Reagan years... for the wealthy. CEOs went from making 40 times the average wage of their employees to 93 times. for the decade 1980-1990: the richest 1% saw their after-tax incomes increase 87%. The lower 4/5ths of the population saw their after-tax incomes decrease 5% at the poorest level and rise only 8.6% at the highest level. From 77-89, before-tax incomes rose 77% for the wealthiest 1%, and saw no growth or a small decline for those in the bottom two-fifths. couple that with drastic cuts to entitlement programs, social security benefits, disability, etc (which even took a Medal of Honor recipient off of disability), and the lower and middle classes weren't getting a good deal under Reagan. There was a point when a schoolteacher and a CEO were paying the same income tax rate, and the cap for social security payroll taxes was ridiculously low (thanks for jeopardizing SS, ronnie). There was also a point in his presidency, 1982, where unemployment hit 10%. And despite Laffer curve theories, in which lower taxes can lead to more government revenue along with economic growth for the country, he managed to take the national debt from 700 billion to over 3 trillion. If it wasn't for Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton could've possibly eliminated our debt entirely.

as for interventionism, it's been painfully clear throughout our history that we've intervened where we can benefit financially (in theory, lol bush jr.'s iraq). in the case of latin/south america, we'd begin subversive actions when leftist governments started expropriating American-owned businesses (fun fact: when they expropriated, they offered market values for what they took). Reagan was just on speed for his term when it came to that region- Grenada and Nicaragua, along with the continued support of other rightist regimes. He also fucked up royally in Lebanon. In the Reagan years, we saw the armament of Osama's mujahideen and the support of Saddam, arms deals with Iran, and so on.

it was diplomacy that improved relations with the soviets; they had been on a track of economic downfall for some time (since the mid 70s iirc). reagan himself even noted the progress pushed for by Gorbachev.

So the bottom line is that the hero of the modern conservative movement was a deficit spending favorer of the wealthy who put progress on the back of the poor and exerted a lot of force all over the globe, not to mention supporting vicious dictators that would have to be deposed later. all the while, Super-Reagan gets to swoop in and take sole credit for the fall of the USSR.

[Beckwin]

the tl;dr version? Ronald Reagan was the original Neoconservative.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

The second paragraph is the primary reason I don't like Olbermann. He seems to have no objectivity. It's also what I see as one of Obama's greatest strengths, he seems incredibly objective.

I would also hesitate to label objectivity as a liberal trait. I think it has nothing to do with liberal/conservative. I do think that conservatives tend to have less objectivity, but my objectivity pertaining to myself says "dude, come on, don't you have some bias". Then I say "oh right, I do".

There is, of course, much more party loyalty in the Republican party (who the hell could deny that?) and that shrouds objectivity. But whatever.



Generally, I'll agree with that. It's often the case that you'll have a conservative go in, be all conservative-like and slash budgets, then when the programs stop working the hardcore conservatives are like "why not get rid of it? it doesnt work, obviously." But because our government relies on compromise, they think that having a compromise between no program (conservative) and an effective program (liberal) is an underfunded ineffective program.

That's not to say that liberals (or at least Democrats) are never to blame. Clinton, iirc, dipped into the social security fund. Yeah.

I guess I'm more left than I supposed, seeing every conservative mistake from strategic blunders in Iraq and Afghanistan, failed foreign policy and rhetoric in general, FEMA, the economy etc etc and not one person stepping up to take accountability or one person of leadership on their team stand up and say "Hey guys lets rethink this." Not objective on their side at all imho.

It's a wonder, like you pointed out, that the party line of the republicans is smaller government but when they come into power they pass laws that cut down funding for public programs but give more power and tax cuts and subsidies ( with American tax dollars of course ) to favorable markets. Then when the government flips on its head and fails to do what it's supposed to they are the ones who say "See, told you so!"

And it amazes me that people fall for that shit still.


But I do agree, I don't mean to say it's black and white and liberal = good / conservative = bad. I'm sure both systems would work fine with proper accountability and management. Both sides have had their share of greater and lesser evils. But seeing that in this day conservatism relies more on a platform of divinity and greed in contrast to liberalism preferring social unity and pragmatism... in today's world I feel comfortable in my own skin of being a liberal without question.


And about Olbermann, yeah he's pretty explosive and he's our attack dog. Fox News was creating faux outrage with O'Reilly and gang for years and we just sat and took it. That was our problem, we had faith in the greater good and thought people would wise up. They didn't and we paid for it.

Sure hes over the top, but I'm a fan and I wouldn't go so far as to say he's not objective, in a general sense. He has had rants where he has not bee objective, but overall I believe he does a good job of being fair regardless of his bias. We just need someone to pull the curtain and reveal the wizard on our side. It's up to us to decide what the wizard looks like.

[Maxxthepenguin]

Well, Reagan's deficit and debt probably had a little to do with cutting the top income tax bracket from the 70%s to 33% (under Eisenhower it was at 92-91 freaking %, was he a commie/socialist? EISENHOWER?). Interestingly, he only dropped the lowest income tax bracket from 14% to 11%...and then it went back up to 15% right before he left office.

The Laffer curve is partially right, but it doesn't seem to properly account for such extremes.

[Tristam]

Another "founder of american conservatism" blasts the neocons

The Republicans Are Now the Stupid Party - The Daily Beast

"In its embrace of the religious right under George W. Bush, the Republican Party became the stupid party. And committing suicide along with it has been the conservative movement. The party united around god, guns and gays is finished."

lol W.

[Beckwin]

scathing, lol.

I really hope a "reasonable republican" caucus emerges like Hart proposes. it'll be interesting to see where the stupids end up. maybe they'll just stop voting entirely.

[Dimmauk]

The Renegade Is Loose. We Repeat, the Renegade Is Loose.
by Mike Krumboltz



The Secret Service takes a lot of risks for the first family. So it's only fair that the agency gets the honor of coming up with code names for the president-elect and his family. Various sources within the Buzz recently revealed the not-so-secret nicknames.

Mr. Obama will be known as "Renegade" (move over, Lorenzo Lamas). Michelle, a woman of many talents, will be referred to as "Renaissance." Malia Obama's name will be "Radiance," while little sister Sasha's will be "Rosebud."

And what of the Bidens? We were hoping the Secret Service would stick to the "R" theme and dub Joe "Rogaine." Alas, his name will be "Celtic." His wife Jill will be "Capri."