The American Spectator : A Smorgasbord of Schadenfreude

Text Size

Political Hay

A Smorgasbord of Schadenfreude

By Robert Stacy McCain on 12.9.10 @ 6:08AM

Watching with glee while Democrats eat their own.

Elections have consequences and one of the most pleasant consequences of last month's mid-term "shellacking" is that conservatives can now enjoy the spectacle of Democratic finger-pointing over the fallout of their electoral catastrophe.

Click your TV remote-control over to MSNBC and you can see what I mean. On what is the de facto Democratic Party cable network, liberals are taking turns in an epic beatdown of President Obama and other Democrats whom they accuse of traitorous weakness -- appeasement! nay, even outright complicity! -- toward those evil right-wing Republicans. The Left's erstwhile hero has now become their Neville Chamberlain, or quite possibly their Vidkun Quisling. (You can probably guess who the Nazis are in either of those analogies.)

The reaction to Tuesday's White House press conference, at which the president defended his tax compromise with Republicans, was some of the best programming in MSNBC history. On Keith Olbermann's Countdown show, the network's primetime scold delivered himself of a new classic in his trademark bombastic "Special Comment" lecture series. Viewers of MSNBC -- including those of us conservatives who enjoy it as a campy amusement -- have long since become accustomed to watching this latter-day Ed Murrow wannabe denounce Republicans as dastardly villains.

The key ingredients to any "Special Comment" include outrageous hyperbole and impressive-sounding adjectives of the sort one might find on an SAT-preparation vocabulary list, as well as a frequent resort to historic and literary references, all of which is permeated with Olbermann's contempt for conservatives. Consider as a typical example how Olbermann responded in August, when New Yorkers were protesting against plans to build a Muslim cultural center two blocks from the site where the World Trade Center towers were destroyed by terrorists on September 11, 2001. Olbermann began by quoting the four sentences for which Pastor Martin Niemöller is best known ("They came first for the Communists…") en route to accusing Newt Gingrich of having a "lurid imagination," declaring that the Iraq war was an expression of America's "naked vengeful blindness," and condemning opponents of the so-called "Ground Zero mosque" for allegedly urging Americans "to sell our birth-right, to feed the maw of xenophobia and vengeance and mob rule."

Listening to such overblown rhetoric delivered with all the well-rehearsed seriousness Olbermann can muster (which is quite a lot) serves to reinforce liberals' sense of their own intellectual superiority, to confirm their belief that anyone who disagrees with them is not merely evil -- on Countdown, the evilness of Republicans is indisputable -- but also hopelessly stupid. You might think Olbermann's audience, believing all this, would be at a loss to explain exactly how the party of evil stupidity managed to win an overwhelming victory on November 2. But if you watch Countdown regularly, you know that this result was made possible by the greedy rich, whose ill-gotten wealth was spent to help Republicans appeal to the intractable ignorance, racism and homophobia of the American electorate.

This is the Olbermann caricature of the GOP, and when Obama compromised with Republicans on "tax cuts for the rich," this exposed the president to every oratorical weapon in the Olbermann arsenal, which the MSNBC star unloaded in a 2,192-word rant Tuesday night. He began with another World War II reference, reciting Winston Churchill's denunciation of the shabby 1938 deal at Munich by which Chamberlain betrayed Czechoslovakia to Hitler: "We have sustained a defeat without a war" and so on, culminating in the words written by the invisible hand on the wall of Belshazzar's palace, "Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting."

Of course, Countdown viewers reject the authority of the Bible and despise every political principle Churchill ever cherished, but no rules of logic or evidence apply when Olbermann is engaged in comparing Republicans to Nazis, as he does on an almost nightly basis. But Olbermann wasn't aiming at Republicans, he was aiming at Obama, accusing the president of "selling out a principal campaign pledge" and "betraying the truth that the idle and corporate rich of this country have gotten unprecedented and wholly indefensible tax cuts for a decade." He accused Obama of having "injected new vigor into the infantile, moronic, disproved-for-a-decade three-card monte game of an economic theory purveyed by these treacherous and ultimately traitorous Republicans, that tax cuts for the rich will somehow lead to job creation even though if that had ever been true in the slightest the economy would not be where it is today." And by extending these tax cuts, Olbermann said, the president had guaranteed "a reenactment of this whole sorry, amoral, degrading spectacle in the winter of 2012 and at worst a rubber-stamp from a wholly Republican House and Senate and even White House."

This was no mere legislative compromise. No, Olbermann told his viewers, this was a "searing and transcendent capitulation," the primary victims of which were the long-term unemployed who have exhausted their benefits, the so-called "99ers." Whatever Republicans had ceded in this compromise was dismissed by Olbermann as utterly insignificant: "Mr. President, for these meager crumbs, you have given up costly, insulting, divisive, destructive tax cuts for the rich and you have given in to Republican blackmail which will be followed by more Republican blackmail." And after many more hundreds of words of this kind of verbal excoriation -- this "Special Comment" was nearly 12 minutes long -- Olbermann lowered the boom: "It is not disloyalty to remind the President that he was elected by people to whom he had given a clear outline of what he would do for them, and if he does not steer out of the skid of what he is doing to them, he will not only not be re-elected, he may not even be re-nominated."

This threat of a 2012 primary challenge to Obama, coming from a man who claims to speak on behalf of the Democratic Party's grassroots activist base, surely ought to gladden the evil hearts of Republicans everywhere. Given Olbermann's love of historical comparisons, perhaps he can leave aside his GOP-Nazi analogies long enough to research recent history a bit closer to home. The last time a sitting president faced a serious primary challenger -- when Pat Buchanan took on George H.W. Bush in 1992 -- Republicans suffered a landslide defeat the next November. Before that? Ted Kennedy challenged Jimmy Carter in the 1980 Democratic primaries, and Carter lost in a landslide to Ronald Reagan. In 1976, Reagan's primary challenge to Gerald Ford had preceded Ford's narrow loss to Carter and before that? In 1968, Gene McCarthy's strong showing in the New Hampshire Democratic primary led Lyndon Johnson to announce he would not seek re-election, and the GOP's Richard Nixon was subsequently elected to the White House.

If Obama is Chamberlain at Munich, where is the Democratic Churchill who, by taking on the president in the 2012 primaries, will rescue America from those dreaded GOP goosesteppers? Olbermann's overwrought analogy portrayed "tax cuts for the rich" as a 21st-century Sudetenland, but he never got around to identifying a liberal savior, who perhaps exists only in the fertile imagination of the Countdown host. That all this anti-Obama bombast is the result of a Republican midterm victory, forcing the president to triangulate his way toward an appearance of bipartisanship, promises many more equally entertaining "Special Comments" over the next two years. Some of us may be evil and stupid enough to hope that, should the GOP give liberalism another "shellacking" in 2012, Olbermann will be likening it to Dunkirk, as Democrats desperatedly try to salvage some remnant of the progressive dreams that Obama once promised to make real.

For conservatives with an appetite for schadenfreude, MSNBC is now serving a smörgåsbord. Olbermann's network is arguably less informative than Fox News, but watching Democrats eat their own is as entertaining as anything on Comedy Central.

About the Author

Robert Stacy McCain is co-author (with Lynn Vincent) of Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party (Nelson Current). He blogs at The Other McCain.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (195) | Leave a comment

Alan Brooks| 12.9.10 @ 6:31AM

Olby spoke with the authority of his bachelor's degree in agriculture at Cornell's.
Show us the birth... er, the diploma, Olby.

Dan Smith| 12.9.10 @ 7:06AM

Very appropriate. Agriculture degree, shoveling horse manure.

beebop| 12.9.10 @ 7:12AM

What strikes me about keithy is that the left hangs on every word of this sportswriter cum know-it-all and dismisses Governor Palin as though her ignorance is understood ...

I gave up watching him years ago and I think I could only dial back in if the volume on the telly was on mute just for the pleasure of watching his tiny little head explode, spittle hit the camera lens and his eyes bulge.

Eric Cartman| 12.9.10 @ 9:33AM

I watched Oberturd denounce Obama and was laughing my butt off - literally! I think I lost 10 pounds. I just couldn't stop laughing at the pompous gasbag, all his dreams going nowhere.

don danielson| 12.9.10 @ 7:21PM

I had the same feeling. They are eating their own,a nd I couldn't be happier.

Colin Foy| 12.9.10 @ 3:55PM

If not for the constant audio playbacks of T.V. shows like the View, pMSNBC, CNN, BBC, Bill Mare etc, on radio shows like Hannity, Gerry Doyle, Rush and Doctor Michael Savage, I wouldn't even know they existed.
I cancelled HBO six years ago because of Mare, quit watching network news back in the mid 90's and unless I want to see what that silverback woopie gloomberg is up to (Which is never) I don't watch the menopausel View hags.
I'm looking forward to the day when T.V. cable/sat companies let the customers choose which channels they actually want to pay for.
Thank God for conservative talk radio.

Nostril| 12.10.10 @ 1:28AM

The cable/sats force these 'package' deals on us to subsidize these garbage channels like PMS.

JCfromDC| 12.10.10 @ 8:36PM

AMEN! Got that right. For all the cable/sat "competition" why Don't they let US pick and choose? For all the hundreds of channels to watch, most "premiums" are dreadfully repetitive after the first week of the month, and the rest can be narrowed down to about a dozen that are really worth the watch... but I digress. The "Big Three" are actually 2, 3 & 4 because Fox is not counted, yet is #1? How do they come up with this?

headhare66| 12.10.10 @ 11:51PM

I just want to be able to pick a package that doesn't require me to have spanish channels.

philh| 12.9.10 @ 7:37AM

Pardon me – wrong analogy. Bovine excrement would be the correct phrase.

loulou| 12.9.10 @ 11:10AM

There's nothing wrong with a Cornell Ag degree, it's just the Olby pretends he was in the Arts and Sciences school. Why can't he just be proud of his Ag degree?

Bob K.| 12.10.10 @ 2:21AM

Cornell is a "Land Grant" college. Tuition is free if you pursue an Agricultural degree at one. Penn State has the same deal.

michigander_sandusky| 12.10.10 @ 9:57PM

Many of you making comments don't know your butt from your elbow. Every state has a land grant university and tuition is NOT free to those who study agriculture. BTW: Make fun of "aggies" all you want to, but thanks to the American farmer, many of which have ag degrees, American's spend less of their income on food than any nation on earth. Plus, our food supply is the safest and most diverse available on earth.

CBW| 12.11.10 @ 12:22PM

Here, here! My son is an "aggie" from NCSU & LSU and there were no "free anythings" for his education.

Steve Colby| 12.9.10 @ 8:25PM

Dan, what a terrible thing to say about horses!

JCfromDC| 12.10.10 @ 8:29PM

What an analogy! You stole my thunder, bro'!

Occam's Tool| 12.9.10 @ 10:41AM

Apparently, according to Ann Coulter, Cornell is both an Ivy League school (in parts) and a middling agricultural school (in parts). Guess which part Keith went to?

Alan Brooks| 12.9.10 @ 2:23PM

I did not write the comment at the top, someone at AS ought to check the location of the imposter; but, still, flattering you would think I'd write such a clever comment.

Alan Brooks| 12.9.10 @ 2:50PM

Look, I didn't even know who Olbermann is:
I'm not interested in politics anymore- I just don't want another Bush-type.
But ID theft is serious, how would one of you Southerners like it if someone pretended to be you and wrote:
"I support Obama and advocate miscegenation"?

You would not like that ONE BIT!

ID Theft: Not a big deal| 12.9.10 @ 4:15PM

Don't sweat it.
I'm sure most regular readers saw your name and skipped over the comment.
I did.

Alan Brooks| 12.9.10 @ 4:27PM

Well, sure. Why would you want to read my comments anymore than I want to read Ben Stein's egotism-in-English? Stein is an insult to Judaism.
No wonder Hamas exists.

Alan Brooks| 12.9.10 @ 4:31PM

"I'm sure most regular readers saw your name and skipped over the comment.
I did."

... if you don't read my comments then how could you have replied to the one above?
You are a bundle of Rightwing inconsistencies, whomever you are, you must be a rad con, the most unknowable of creatures.

Alan Brooks| 12.9.10 @ 4:42PM

I like replying to myself.

Alan Brooks| 12.9.10 @ 4:43PM

I do it a lot.

George Field| 12.10.10 @ 7:08AM

You're hilarious. I love reading your very tongue in cheek assertions that may be points you believe. Of course that makes it even more funny.

Tomas| 12.10.10 @ 6:09AM

"if you don't read my comments then how could you have replied to the one above?"

I thought the same thing....

beebop| 12.9.10 @ 5:52PM

AB ... no one here would ever confuse you with Ben.

Alan Brooks| 12.9.10 @ 6:12PM

It's takes me awhile to response because I have to wait for my controllers to prepare my response.

Alan Brooks| 12.10.10 @ 2:22AM

I'm only tree-and-a-half years old!

Christopher Holland| 12.9.10 @ 9:41PM

You never miss an opportunity to prove beyond doubt that you are a prick.

Alan Brooks| 12.9.10 @ 10:29PM

Tell it to Tim, he's writing the comments.
You'll notice Margie isn't commenting anymore:
put on your thinking cap and deduce WHY she isn't.

Alan Brooks| 12.10.10 @ 2:20AM

I pull the wings off of flies!

mzk| 12.10.10 @ 8:20AM

That comment is hyperbolic and borderline anti-semitic. Stein is well-meaning, but he does not know much about the religion he was born into. Hamas ass a crazy version of Islam, even by their own standards.

If the Muslims have any helf-legitimate beef against the west, it's from extreme social liberals who have gone into the other direction and are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. They are correct not to want to be influenced by people like you. (Of course, no one is forcing them to.)

Appleby| 12.9.10 @ 6:50AM

Just as we did in the 1970s, we who got our university degrees in spite of the proto-Obamanistas are laughing up our sleeves as we see their perorations explode in their twisted supercilious faces.

There are reasons this stuff never works. We know these reasons. Some of us tried to explain them, just because we thought they really wanted to know. Eventually we made things better by dodging round them and ignoring them. We have concluded that this is a lifetime job, but we are sure tired of the press behaving as if the small, screaming group on the makeshift stages is the majority.

By the way, did you know the word Bolshevik means *majority*?

Alan Brooks| 12.9.10 @ 7:55PM

"By the way, did you know the word Bolshevik means *majority*?"

You don't say!
and Menshevik means *minority*?
GEE!

Lazarus Long| 12.10.10 @ 10:07AM

And the Bolsheviks were lying.

As always.

MoeBlotz| 12.9.10 @ 6:52AM

Maybe two DemocRAT candidates to challenge Obamawan toil now in Foggy Bottom and the House of Representatives: Hildebeast the Red Queen and Mzz.Pelosi the party secretary. Fill my plate at the schadenfreude buffet,what?

Bang On Moe| 12.9.10 @ 4:33PM

Keep rubbing it into those DemocRAT horse bun peddlers

jonc| 12.9.10 @ 6:59AM

I'm sorry, but I am really starting to believe that Olbman is every bit as valuable to the Republican Party as was Reagan.

... I know, it's a sicking thought.

JCfromDC| 12.10.10 @ 8:45PM

Olby is one of the "useful idiots" to coin a phrase... ahem. And proving more so daily. Every rant against Dems is driving the indies into the conservative/tea party/libertaian camp. But Mr. McCain is correct: Watching Democrats go cannibal is every bit as entertaining as watching (maybe Ed White?) on Comedy Central

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.9.10 @ 7:24AM

Robert Stacy,

I'm not laughing.

I'm being very concerned about the next two years.
Communists, (pardon the shorthand), only smile when they think they are killing us.

When they discover they are not, the smile drops, and they figure out other ways "to skin the cat".
(Us.)

loulou| 12.9.10 @ 11:13AM

We have nothing to be laughing about.
We're still saddled with Boehner, McConnell, et al.

Boehner is a Bob Michels and a Denny Hastert plus a suntan. Mediocrities.

oldfart| 12.9.10 @ 7:39AM

Keith seriouisly needs to stop smoking the cheap stuff off the back 40.

Occam's Tool| 12.9.10 @ 10:45AM

Old fart...personally, I think he's been sytematically tasting every entry in the Bumwine website. (We shrinks have to keep up with this.)

Occam's Tool| 12.9.10 @ 10:47AM

As I read this, "under my thumb" from the Stones comes on. Eerily apropos, eh?

oldfart| 12.9.10 @ 5:09PM

Yep

Tim the Enchanter| 12.9.10 @ 12:35PM

Occam's Tool: That's a great website! They're all there: Thunderbird, Cisco, Richard's Wild Irish Rose, Night Train, Boone's Farm, etc.

Tim the Enchanter| 12.9.10 @ 12:36PM

Oops! The unpardonable! Left Mad Dog 20/20 off the list!

JCfromDC| 12.10.10 @ 8:49PM

Ummm... Aren't we getting just a LITTLE off topic here? Ok, it's fun.

ggoblue| 12.9.10 @ 7:41AM

this is hillarys opening...and this is why wikileaks was allowed to go so far...the leaks are from her dept. and are an embarrassment to HER.

hillary is the only democrat qualified to run for the whitehouse...because she is the only one who didn't cast a vote for obamacare.

cuban pete| 12.9.10 @ 9:25AM

I believe Congressman Lipinski of Illinois voted against Obamacare because of the abortion component. He's a Cook County Democrat legacy office holder who took over the seat from his father.

Bob Miller| 12.9.10 @ 12:04PM

Hillary is every bit the socialist ideologue Obama is, just craftier.

Nunya| 12.9.10 @ 3:35PM

And more hideous to look at... ;-)

mzk| 12.10.10 @ 8:26AM

Yet, but she is dishonest, and so more likely to compromise. This is why I prefer her to Obama. If someone is going to do horrible things, you are much better off if they are corrupt. (Not that Obama is Mr. honesty.)

If I may close with the opening of the latest Latma (Israeli news satire on the web) - "the program that gives diverse views, except those of extremist views, like the public". Obama to a T.

Stormzeye| 12.9.10 @ 12:14PM

"qualified to run...because she,,,didn't cast a vote for obamacare."!!!!
She just about invented it in 1993!
She's qualified for nothing and no amount of posturing as Sec'y of State will change anything.

BLBeamer| 12.9.10 @ 6:06PM

Hillary qualified for nothing? I must object.

If I wished to parlay my complete lack of capital and expertise into a small fortune in cattle futures, she is the first person I would go to!

Stormzeye| 12.9.10 @ 6:21PM

Beamer,
Like most Democrats, she definitely has excellent Wall Street connections!

Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 12.9.10 @ 8:00AM

"Viewers of MSNBC -- including those of us conservatives who enjoy it as a campy amusement -- have long since become accustomed to watching this latter-day Ed Murrow."

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one around here, who can't help but watch this train-wreck in the making of a news-channel-MSLSD (and just to prove my point, I'm watching Morning Joe right now). MSNBC's ratings are really quite pathetic in comparison to FOX, especially in prime-time, but I wonder how bad their rating would actually be, if folks like you and I stopped being Liberal news voyeurs, and stopped watching it cold-turkey? I'm sorry everybody, I really am, but I just can't seem to help myself!! I just really like to see what that Ralph Maddow fellow has to say about the "Evil" Republicans (he makes me laugh). And I figure if I watch Keith long enough, one of these nights, he's actually going to die, right there on the air, during one of his crazy rants (I'm hoping that his head will explode). Yeah, that might be a sick reason for watching him, but once again, I really can't seem to help myself. So anyway, if any of you see me walking down the street someday, somewhere, do me a favor, and run me over with your car, it's the only way I'll ever stop torturing myself like this!!

Average Infidel| 12.9.10 @ 9:22AM

" a mind is a terrible thing to waste" but just a little poison can still kill you. JUNKY.

Old Soldier| 12.9.10 @ 3:36PM

I admit I watched some MSNBC on election night. It was hilarious to watch Keith, Chris, Rachael and the rest sit around and deny what was happening. Every once in a while a victorious Republican would call in a laugh at them. Michelle Bachman asking Matthews if his leg was still tingly made my night.

Colin Foy| 12.9.10 @ 4:13PM

Has anyone else heard this rumor about Herr Olberman: That he has to wear adult diapers during his show due to bladder control issues? That after every show a thorough mop job is required to clean up the overflow on the floor around his desk?
This issue is sometimes given vauge reference by Dr. Michael Savage, however I can't tell if the good Doctor is being coy or actually referencing something he knows about Der Media Fuhrer's spastic bladder issues.
I guess it just depends. Cheers!

MichaelL. Hauschild| 12.9.10 @ 8:18AM

Why would anyone care, listen to, or comment on what Olberman says?

Nunya| 12.9.10 @ 3:36PM

My thoughts exactly. Life is too short to watch idiots.

Pat| 12.9.10 @ 5:03PM

Nunya, you, and Michael above, have a pretty good bead on things – why would anyone watch Olberman or MSNBC? For this author, Robert Stacy McCain, the phrase “simple minds, simple pleasures” would seem to describe him best. McCain is probably in favor of Fox dominating the political commentary market, particularly in regard to their ideological rival MSNBC, so he watches MSNBC? Is he afraid Fox will pull too far ahead in the game on points? Or, has he appointed himself the Conservative Watchdog who keeps tabs on the Wack-a-mole Left so as to report back to us?

Logic may not be McCain’s strong suit, but watching MSNBC is like donating to Obama’s re-election campaign in order to keep us Conservatives humble. Wrong move genius, although MSNBC thanks you on behalf of their advertising revenue - but, then again, a small fraction of Conservatives do seem to have a wide vein of “stupid” running through their DNA.

Vern Crisler| 12.10.10 @ 1:10AM

Yeah, who watches this guy anyway? I guess it must be a handful of conservatives with too much time on their hands, no?

James| 12.9.10 @ 8:34AM

You people make me sick.

If you are somewhat decent, you wouldn't make fun of someone who takes a stand and expresses his beliefs.

If you fear God and are true Christians, then you too would be alarmed at the growing social inequality in this country and how the powerful have undue influence in our government.

If you are educated, then you would stop labeling people as Communists or liberals because they believe in the potential of good government to improve the lives of people.

Since you are none of the above, and are nothing but close-minded and shallow frauds, then you make me truly, truly sad.

Conservative_Monster| 12.9.10 @ 8:39AM

You must be one sad puppy every time you go out in public.

Tom Anderson| 12.9.10 @ 9:18AM

But I am not a Christian, I am an atheist. I don't believe government can improve the lives of people. Only the people themselves can do that.

The problem with Keith is not that he expresses idiotic ideas and beliefs, but that his ideas are idiotic, irrational, and immoral, as he strongly believes (as do liberals generally) that the individual must be sacrificed for the "good of society."

Only an irrational morality could possibly justify such a belief.

Steve A| 12.9.10 @ 9:36AM

Tom, On what do you base your morality if you are an atheist??

Conservative_Monster| 12.9.10 @ 2:06PM

What morals?

Christopher| 12.9.10 @ 7:56PM

He has been asked this question several times, but has not answered because he has no credible answer. You must have a fixed basis for morality, and if you do not, you have moral relativism. A fixed basis must be something man cannot change.

Steve A| 12.10.10 @ 9:27AM

You are correct, sir. It sure would be fun to destroy his reply. I was fishing for one.

Loshooligan| 12.9.10 @ 9:01AM

Talk about shallow frauds? It seems the only fraud in this post is you. I love leftist like you that come in here boo hoo'ing about labeling people and calling names. Come on James tell me all about the christianity I am supposed to have! How convenient it is to bitch about social inequality as a faceless blog troll. I'm sorry that you haven't been able to make it in America as a productive human being. Post me your address, and I will be happy to redistribute my wealth directly to you. That way you'll get a bigger portion if the gubment don't take it's brokers fee. oh, and I will throw in a box of Reynolds Wrap to help increase your communication stream with the gubment mothership.

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.9.10 @ 9:02AM

James,
I'm sorry. You can't sell that stuff here.

You have a computer. Jesus Christ didn't even have a hovel....

Ret. Marine| 12.9.10 @ 9:24AM

The huff and post is on your left side, right is a desirable direction, and how in the hell does watching a train wreck equate to moral conduct, JAMES?

RustyG| 12.9.10 @ 9:29AM

"If you are somewhat decent you wouldn't make fun of someone who takes a stand and expresses his beliefs." .... By inference I take it that you must respect people like Sarah Palin and Glen Beck.

"If you are educated, then you would stop labeling people as Communists or liberals because they believe in the potential of good government to improve the lives of people." .....if you are educated James then you should know the country we live in was founded on the concept that the government should leave you and me the heck alone and let the improving of peoples lives be up the the people..... but what do I know, I'm a "close-minded shallow fraud."

Eric Cartman| 12.9.10 @ 9:37AM

"You people make me sick." That's what we're here for! Glad we could help. And, oh, by the way, you should get to a doctor soon if you're sick because we're going to repeal your socialist heath plan, too. I'm sure you think it's other people's duty to pay for your health care.

Sam| 12.9.10 @ 12:21PM

Finally, Eric Cartman comes through with a funny post! His stupid rants about illegal immigrants riding the backs of garbage trucks were starting to bore me.

And RustyG 's first line= epic. Plenty of people take stands. The KKK takes a stand. Kim Jong Il takes a passionate stand. Ecoterrorists take stands. Union leaders take stands...

Eric Cartman| 12.9.10 @ 1:52PM

I have others. For example, the catapult method of returning illegals to Mexico! That's always good for a chuckle. Or, using my friend Handy Manny to explain destructive Democrat tax policies and my new border wall and flaming oil mote idea. And here is one the Amspec monitor (and former TSA agent) absolutely hates: The Monty Python Immigration Catapult script:

Sir Lancelot the Brave: Okay, up with you, then. Come on, get along. Don't forget the kiddies!

Sir Bedevere: Right, then! All aboard?!

Pedro": Si'

Sir Galahad the Pure: Wait, wait , wait. Whose piano is this?

Pedro: Eet Eez mine, Senor.

Sir Galahad the Pure: In with it then!

Pedro: But eet eez so heavy!

Sir Galahad the Pure: Can't have it lying aboot here. In with it.

Sir Lancelot the Brave: Ready?

Sir Bedevere: Ready.

Sir Lancelot the Brave: FIRE!

Thwack! Ping! Phoooooosh! IIIIiiiiiiiiiIEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeee Chihuahua! Ouch, the piano heet me!

Sir Lancelot the Brave: NEXT!

Colin foy| 12.9.10 @ 4:19PM

Cartman: Good ideas all, but couldn't we just Nuke Los Angeles? That would solve so many other problems as well. Cheers!

Ned the Red| 12.9.10 @ 10:15AM

James, that’s interesting, you know what makes me sad? You do. Maybe we should chug on over to namby-pamby land, where maybe we can find some self confidence for you, ya jackwagon. Tissue, crybaby.

CopyKatnj| 12.9.10 @ 10:43AM

Bravo Ned, exactly.

Ned the Red| 12.9.10 @ 10:49AM

My four year old granddaughter loves that commercial. Lots of wisdom.

chuck| 12.9.10 @ 12:33PM

Thanks for my laugh of the day!

Loshooligan| 12.9.10 @ 12:46PM

Two thumbs up for Ned.

beebop| 12.9.10 @ 5:59PM

I laughed so heartily the dog woke!

Many thanks!

solidground| 12.9.10 @ 10:26AM

James, wow. You must have been the model for The Walking Dead. Zombie-like, you lurch through life gnawing on the dead and rotting flesh of liberal thought. I am truly sad for you. Anyone got a little something to put this poor victim out of his misery?

Occam's Tool| 12.9.10 @ 10:46AM

I, too, fear G-d, but I am of a different Abrahamic faith, James. Scadenfreude is allowed when dealing with Amalek.

Stormzeye| 12.9.10 @ 12:17PM

Excellent, James. I love parody. The irony of your humor is not lost on us shallow frauds.

Timthe Enchanter| 12.9.10 @ 12:39PM

James: if the Urban Dictionary needs a picture for their definition of a Moby, I hope you'll send yours.

Mr. Steve| 12.9.10 @ 2:28PM

James, you are mistaken to think that most commenters here are not alarmed about how the "powerful have undue influence in our government". On the contrary, most conservatives would prefer to nullify this influence by reducing the amount of money flowing into our government.

I am "educated" and thus can look at the past 90 years of Progressive encroachment in our government and see that it has had a negative net effect on our society in terms of equality, equity, and the reduction of socials ills such as poverty.

And since I am educated, I won't call you a communist. But after 90 years of failure, I no longer see the "potential" that you see in our government improving our lives.

It is a matter of dynamics. Governments structures are set up to perpetuate their own existence. They are simply not set up to help the individual or society.

I do wish you would acknowledge the miracle that was the U.S.A. and how individual freedom advanced society in 100 years more than the previous time since our inception.

I care for my family, the poor, the indigent, and so on. However, history has shown me that the best way to improve my life and those around me is in absence of a menacing government.

Old Soldier | 12.9.10 @ 3:40PM

I'm a Christian who tries to live by the Ten Commandments, including the Tenth. Remember that one? (The one you have to break to be a good Democrat)

bastiat fan| 12.9.10 @ 4:24PM

There's no such thing as "good government." Ask a native American. Or a Stalin-era Kulak in Russia. Or maybe an intellectual in Pol Pot's Cambodia. Oh wait, you can't. Their governments KILLED THEM.

BLBeamer| 12.9.10 @ 6:19PM

What a crack-up! Save your sanctimony for real criminals.

The leftists' solution for the powerful having undue influence on the government: give the well-connected even more ability to exert undue influence on the government. Increased regulation and litigation plays right into the sweet-spot of the well-connected.

To paraphrase P.J. O'Rourke: "When you allow the government to determine what can be bought and sold, the first thing to be bought sand sold is the government."

IzeHavitt| 12.9.10 @ 11:06PM

James: If there is social inequality in this country, it is because the Democrat Party has- especially via their cohorts in the teachers unions- consistently taught their followers to be slaves; victims; dependent upon the crumbs of government- rather than carve out a future for themselves. But that is no surprise. In the Civil War period, they were the party of slavery. Nothing much has changed.

jstwndring| 12.10.10 @ 6:04PM

"If you are educated, then you would stop labeling people as Communists or liberals because they believe in the potential of good government to improve the lives of people"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Educated? Surely you don't count yourself among the educated, do you? More like indoctrinated. Let me give you the education you should have recieved in school on the subject of government:

There is no such thing as good government!

Why do you think the Constitution was written in the first place? Precisely because government can NEVER be trusted. We don't get our rights, liberties and freedoms from our government. We get them from the greatest political document ever written in the history of the world: the U.S. Constitution. Our government is constantly trying to undermine it. Our current President has identified it as an obstacle to "progress". In other words, he identified himself as an enemy of the people. The U.S. Constitution was written to LIMIT the power of the government. That's what annoys Obama. It's an obstacle to him. And rightly so. That's the point. We have rights in this country that those in Canada and Europe do not have. The U.S. Constitution is aimed squarely at the government because the government can not be trusted.

James, you are naive. You are typical of the manipulated masses that support the Democrat party. You actually believe in all that "good government" nonsense they teach in school. You better wise up to the fact that you've been brainwashed by State through the State-run school system to trust the State. The public school system needs to be destroyed and replaced.

Conservative_Monster| 12.9.10 @ 8:37AM

Olbermensch is little more than locker room ball wash but he is a comedy act to watch at times. No sensible citizen grants the misogynist any sense of credibility.

John| 12.9.10 @ 8:40AM

Would Olbermann say these things about our President if he was white? I think Olbermann is a racist.

MacDaddy| 12.9.10 @ 8:45AM

All this sturm and drang from someone who used to make a living describing hockey highlights with puerile comments like, "He put the biscuit in the basket!".......

Dennis Bergendorf| 12.9.10 @ 8:57AM

What a laugh! Olbermann doing homework? The same guy who threw his script at the camera to emphasize his appalling lack of knowledge about Lincoln's electoral history?

Cuffs| 12.9.10 @ 9:47AM

Olbermann: informationally substractive.
We know less after he speaks.
He is identical to Obama.

Stan redmond| 12.9.10 @ 9:52AM

Who???

Bill| 12.9.10 @ 9:52AM

It's a continuing delight to me to see (1) the Democratic turmoil about doctrinal purity wreaking havoc amongst their party, and (2) the Republican turmoil about doctrinal purity drawing people together.

It's just delightful to watch and experience.

Mickey Moussaoui| 12.9.10 @ 10:00AM

With every scolding from Olbermann all I can vision is a cartoon character of a spastic colon, inflamed hemerrhoid wearing glasses.

Rich| 12.9.10 @ 10:10AM

Olbermann didn't name anyone who could represent the "Progressives" adequately because, in Olbermann's mind, no one could possibly live up to his expectations except, well, Olbermann.

solidground| 12.9.10 @ 10:22AM

Olbermann the dung beetle incensed at Obama, the progressive termite? Strange things are happening in the insect world.

VBMax| 12.9.10 @ 11:00AM

Olbermann for Prez!!! (Yeah I'm kidding, but wouldn't you love to see him primary against Obama)

buckeyeman| 12.9.10 @ 11:10AM

"Click your TV remote-control over to MSNBC"

I tried this and my finger wouldn't obey me. I tried it again and my finger poked me in the eye. So I left in on the Cartoon channel.

A. C. Santore| 12.9.10 @ 11:16AM

1. What an insult it is to Edward R. Murrow to use his name in a comparison with Keith Überman!

2. Überman couldn't make it as a sports commentator (rather more a "personality," if even that) so what qualified him to be a political commentator?

Answer: Nothing.

fungoking| 12.9.10 @ 11:39AM

"It is not disloyalty to remind the President that he was elected by people to whom he had given a clear outline of what he would do for them, and if he does not steer out of the skid of what he is doing to them, he will not only not be re-elected, he may not even be re-nominated."

Run Keith RUN!!!!

Ted R. | 12.9.10 @ 11:59AM

Olbermann is One Angry Man - and with good reason.

Obama has shown himself to be a craven centrist and a chump pragmatist.

We have to primary him. The political consequences be damned. The liberal base has not even BEGUN to fight - and that is WHY we are in the political situation we're in.

We nominated a lover, not a fighter. But we are, after all (in the words of Karl Rove) the party with the reality-based worldview. We respond to the facts. And the fact is that a hire that looked great on paper, has badly underperformed. We need someone who's a better fit for the position.

I don't know who we might get to challenge him, but it doesn't particularly matter, as long as they are willing to state clearly and repeatedly liberal governing principles - equal opportunity for all, and the idea that everyone is better off, when EVERYONE is better off.

The liberal base needs to look beyond the horizon of the next election. We know now that winning the White House counts for little, if all we get as a result is a Republican-lite agenda.

Stormzeye| 12.9.10 @ 12:29PM

Ted, how can you say that Obama was "a hire that looked great on paper."? WTF paper were you reading?
You want a better fit? How about Hugo Chavez. I'll bet he could prove he was born in the U.S. if he had to; Obama can.
Chavez made "EVERYONE better off" when he made NO ONE better off. I'm sure that kind of circular logic will sell to "the base". Why have the messiness of "equality of opportunity" when you can have the clarity of "equality".

Loshooligan| 12.9.10 @ 1:23PM

The paper he was reading was very tiny one from a very small book with a French Zouave on the cover. As a hint.....Ted also uses these papers to enlighten himself and expand his ability to see the future.

John| 12.9.10 @ 12:41PM

I agree the Dems should have a primary and discuss these issues. Hillary should run. We can have a real primary based on issues, and not like last time when everyone wanted to vote for Obama because he was "clean and articulate," and they felt good for voting for a black candidate.

Loshooligan| 12.9.10 @ 1:03PM

Good Morning Comrade!! Your right Ted R Alinsky...your party really does need a "hire" that actually does more than looks good on paper. I think you really need to find someone with more charisma and a bigger jack boot. That way you can continue to write your BS propaganda from the safety of your Mom’s basement toilet. With your laptop comfortably perched on your lap as you sit down to pee. Again…..only a leftist as far left as you could make the argument that Obama supports Right center agenda. Make sure to pat the tip of your penis dry with no more than two sheets of toilet paper. We don’t want your carbon foot print any larger than it already is.

John Navratil| 12.9.10 @ 1:07PM

I been waiting for Ted R. to sing the second verse.

Each and every time these grand Marxist experiments are tried, they fail. And over and over again, the Left complains that if only the right people were in control all would be well. The failure is always the fault of the politician, never the fault of the philosophy. If the philosophy is so damned good, why has it NEVER succeeded?

Well, Ted R., was Obama "a craven centrist and a chump pragmatist" when you voted for him, or were you fooled?

Please, please, please run a better Socialist next time. I beg you!

Loshooligan| 12.9.10 @ 1:39PM

Comrade Ted would never vote for a socialist. They are too far right wing for his beliefs. He would never vote anyways.....he prefers his gubment to overthrow the people and install its ideology. Plus, his agoraphobia doesn't allow him to be no farther than 20 feet from the safety of his gubment.

John Navratil| 12.9.10 @ 4:04PM

Schadenfreude is like Egg Nog at the Christmas party. Wonderful, but too much will hurt in the morning.

However, while we are still partying....

http://www.angelfire.com/ak2/i.....t_bat.html

Sixtnpenny| 12.9.10 @ 3:49PM

The Democrat Party reality based? Do you not mean emotionally based?
Respond to the facts? Don't facts repulse you?
Looked great on paper? What paper? Did you see a birth certificate, grades, grade average, SAT scores, law review articles, or a written college thesis? Keeping thinking this way, the next election will finally crush the liberal/progressive movement in history.

idalily| 12.9.10 @ 5:13PM

There is only one "liberal governing principle" and that is organized thievery. Fight all you want lib, but eventually the goose laying the golden eggs dies, the liberal fantasy utopia replete with "social justice" and "equality" morphs into the Governments of Robspierre, Stalin or Mao, and then collapses. All the fighting in the world won't help you because what you are trying to achieve is a FANTASY. You think you offer a "reality based world view"? Okay, name one, just one communist government that has actually succeeded. Go on, do it. I'll wait.

Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 12.9.10 @ 6:09PM

The Borg (Space Commies) took over most of the Galaxy and ruled it for many centuries, that is, until they met CPT Picard and the Enterprise. But I guess that doesn't count huh, because it's make believe? Otherwise, I've got nothing, they "all" fail, and people die!!

carnot| 12.9.10 @ 11:12PM

you're in for a lot of disappointment.

Bob Miller| 12.9.10 @ 12:05PM

The Dems await their savior, Napoleon XIV.

Steve A| 12.9.10 @ 12:08PM

Hey Ted, I agree completely. This guy is a total sellout. You should primary him with someone even more left of Obama. Perhaps Castro or Chavez could satisfy you & your band of merry fools. This is the most fun I have had watching politics in some time.

Whosiwhatzit| 12.9.10 @ 1:28PM

Since Olbermann is so apoplectic over the fact that Obama did not raise the taxes on those making over $200k/year as he had repeatedly promised in the 2008 campaign, I suggest Sir Keith and his other wealthy Marxists do the right thing and volunteer to pay additional taxes. That's right, the IRS makes it perfectly clear that anyone who wishes can pay EXTRA taxes. Nobody is stopping the angry leftists from paying more.

I do not know this for a fact, but if I were to guess, I would guess that Olbermann does just like everyone else who pays income tax. I would guess that Olbermann looks for every deduction and any loopholes he can find to keep more of HIS money in HIS pocket.

C.I. Flannigan| 12.9.10 @ 1:37PM

It is as if they are saying to America, "The moral thing to do is to pay higher taxes, and I will do it....as soon as everyone else does!."

jstwndring| 12.10.10 @ 6:40PM

They believe in leading from the rear.

John Navratil| 12.9.10 @ 1:48PM

Whosiwhatzit,

It's all about equality. Sure they want to pay more taxes, but only if they can make you pay more, as well. Anything else just wouldn't be fair, would it?

It's not enough that they don't like to hunt Caribou, but you shouldn't either :)

To paraphrase Mencken, liberals are motivated by the sneaking suspicion that someone, somewhere, is exercising his freedom -- and that this must be stopped.

idalily| 12.9.10 @ 5:18PM

It's worse than that. Liberals honestly believe there are only so many cookies in the jar and they must be parsed out "equally" so nobody starves. What they don't understand is that eventually, everybody starves unless you can figure out how to bake more cookies. Liberals do not believe or understand that wealth can be created and expanded, and that willful blindness will, at the end of the day, always be their downfall.

Schadenfreude is so tasty. Chomp.

C.I. Flannigan| 12.9.10 @ 1:33PM

On the same night, in a pseudo-ulogy for Elizabeth Edwards, Olby wondered aloud why SHE never ran for president....this coming from a guy that spends 22 out of 44 minutes every night decrying the experience level of Sarah Palin.

Wayne | 12.9.10 @ 1:37PM

Don't believe a word. This is pure kabuki theater. They are doing this to make Obama, the man-child, look moderate. If it were real, we would be seeing the black caucus out their calling these libs racist.

cuban pete| 12.9.10 @ 3:24PM

I think you are on to something Wayne.
Good call.

BackToBasics| 12.9.10 @ 11:37PM

You may be right about the perception play but I do not think the black caucus would call the Dems racists even if the anger was not staged.

Steve A| 12.9.10 @ 2:12PM

Wayne, Interesting viewpoint. If you are correct, it is an idiotic political play. He will only reel in a few "independents" but is alienating the hard left base who actually believes in the garbage economic theory of Progressives. They have been spoon fed this tax talk for 10 years & are now supposed to believe raising taxes would be bad for the economy.?? Ain't gonna happen.

Akaky| 12.9.10 @ 2:29PM

The hard left is not happy with the former junior senator from Illinois, and I suspect the former junior senator from Illinois is not happy with himself, but I suspect that both of them will get over it by 2012. Not so, say some of the left, we will primary the turncoat for his departure from the purest of pure dogma; I suspect if they could burn him at the stake for his heresy, they would, but that will not happen, of course, if for no other reason that the Secret Service would have something to say about casting the former junior senator from Illinois in the role of Giordano Bruno. I also strongly suspect that the hard left that lashes the One so hard now will fall into line by 2012 and that there will be no serious primary challenger.

How and why do I say this? Simple: who else are they going to support? Hilary? Hilary is part and parcel of the former junior senator’s administration; she can’t denounce him without opening herself up to questions about what she was doing in his administration. And where would this putative challenger gain his (or her) support? What parts of the Democratic base would be willing to challenge a sitting president of their own party? The labor unions? True, there has been little progress on card check, but the intervention that kept General Motors and Chrysler alive and out of bankruptcy also saved the UAW’s overpriced contracts with those companies and prevented the dominoes of disaster from racing through the industries that supply the big auto companies, something that I am sure the former junior senator’s minions will point out forcefully to any labor leader who wants to support a primary challenger. The expansion of the federal government continues apace, so the government unions will probably not vote against someone with a proven track record of bloating the government, and I think this may include the teachers’ unions as well, although they could go either way, depending on the circumstances. The blacks? Are you kidding? Any primary challenger who thinks that he’ll get the black vote away from the former junior senator from Illinois is deluding themselves in much the same way that the leaders of Europe’s socialist movement deluded themselves when the crisis came in August of 1914. Tribe trumps ideology; that is reality. The blacks will vote for their man and if our putative primary challenger did manage to unseat the One, then the blacks will sit the 2012 election out in protest; it may even give more than one black voter a reason to rethink his absolute commitment to the Democratic Party, which is always a good thing. And the rest of the limousine liberals on the East and West Coasts, the dwellers in the academic cloud-cuckoo-land, and the media and the chattering classes? There aren’t enough of these people to threaten the One, so in the end the hard left will swallow their ideological rage and tow the line.

The big question, I think, is whether the former junior senator from Illinois can swallow his rage. This is a unique situation for him, I think. He’s never been in a situation where he’s had to treat the Republicans seriously. Up to now, from his early days in politics to the White House, the GOP has been a curious abstraction to him, the way that any alternative lifestyle is an abstraction to those who don’t follow it. He comes from a safely Democratic state, a state where the Republicans know that they are in the minority and thus have to spend much time treating with the majority to get what scraps they can get. Whether he realized it before or not, Chicago-style politics only works in a one party state where there is no one to check the knife wielders. Come January 1st, that will not be possible. John Boehner does not need the One’s good will to flourish politically; the people of Ohio sent the future Speaker back to Washington to thwart the One and all his doings. Watching the former junior senator’s attempts to get what he wants from a now hostile House of Representatives should be very interesting and make for very interesting television. I’m still waiting for Olbermann’s head to make like Vesuvius.

Ted R.| 12.9.10 @ 2:46PM

Sure, dislodging Obama is a long-shot. But that is not the only purpose for challenging him. Both Goldwater's crash-and-burn candidacy, and Reagan's failed insurgency, were crucial steps in the conservative resurgence.

The liberals are not taken seriously, because thus far we have no taken any serious political risks. We are now seeing the cost of not having done this. With a politician who has represented the liberal agenda the way Obama has, why do we even bother having elections?

It is simply a fact that in the last 40 years, no one of a national profile has explicitly attacked conservatism from an outspoken liberal worldview - with the possible exception of Hillary. It's time to start doing this. The Reagan era has laid the tinder all around us. You're terribly naive to think you're not in trouble, once we go on the offensive. Burn, Baby, Burn!

Loshooligan| 12.9.10 @ 3:25PM

There it is folks. Paragraph 2 last sentence of Comrade Ted R Alinsky's post. As I said above Ted wants to "install" his form of gubment. Why have elections when intellectual elitist jerks like Comrade Ted can have it forced down your throat. This is the only way any one will ever see the merits of his ideology.

Ted R.| 12.9.10 @ 3:56PM

Typical Con. No reading comprehension.

Loshooligan| 12.9.10 @ 4:21PM

Wow!! 5 whole words from Comrade Ted?? Thats it? See Ted.....you can keep spewing your hate filled circuitous ramblings with circumlocutious zeal of Mein Kampf, and my reading comprehension skills will cut right to who you are. I can see by your post that you officially have been outed!!! You hateful little man!!! You scum back Com.

carnot| 12.9.10 @ 11:19PM

nahhhh...Ted's problem...as with almost all Liberals...is that they fundamentally don't understand human behavior.

BackToBasics| 12.10.10 @ 12:07AM

They may not understand it or they may understand it and not admit that they do. If they admitted it they's also have to admit that they have reached wrong conclusions on just about everything.

What SEEMS worst of all for leftists is that they'd have to admit that they are in reality, very angry at and envious of one or more groups or individuals who are successful people and/or happy people and/or Christians who have a saving faith, and/or those who love their country and the list could go on. This they cannot do without God's help because it takes a miracle to make this kind of a turnaround.

In a pratical way, those who are envious need to realize that everyone has gifts and each person would do well to learn to be satisfied with his or her own gifts. Once you do this you will be happier as a person and also less intimidated by others who also have gifts of their own even if their gift(s) is superior to yours. Chances are that in your own gift, you will be superior to them in some way. Consequently, you will not be as prone to envy. I learned this when I was about 20 and I thank God that I did.

carnot| 12.10.10 @ 8:16AM

no disrespect.....but go back and read tomes such as the Federalist Papers (say...letters 9 & 10). Even a Federalist like Hamilton had a firmer grasp of the passions of man than these new statists. you are right on one level...but on another...the same folks who pray to the immutable and untouchable patterns of the Earth/nature believe in the complete malleability of man intellectually, spiritually, emotionally.....

and they are profoundly wrong.

BackToBasics| 12.11.10 @ 1:28PM

Sorry to answer so late but could not get back t the site for a couple days.

I appreciate the reply and no disrespect is taken. I'll read the papers you cited.

But in a quick reply to your statement, "the same folks who pray to the immutable and untouchable patterns of the Earth/nature believe in the complete malleability of man intellectually, spiritually, emotionally"

Would not this malleability just confirm my point that those on the left WILL NOT or CANNOt admit their mistaken thinking. In other words the malleaqbility is nothing more than a fig leaf to prevent them from admitting their mistake. And to me the biggest problem of all for them is that in doing so they'd have to bring in a personal God into the equation.

I say this partly based on what I've read but also mores on based on family members and acquaintances that I have known and debated for many years. Form observation I have seen that for at least the Americans and Europeans I've talked to who are leftist, the core issue is one of either not believing in God or being very angry at him and thus not wanting to submit him or to ANYTHING that would start them on a differnt more conservative path.

Earth worship, malleability etc. is all part of the same package and this package also "allows' them at some level to continue in their delusions.

John Navratil| 12.9.10 @ 4:17PM

Ted R.

Well slap my ass and call me Susan. I agree!

It's what the Tea Party did and is doing. Get going! At least you can count on the mainstream media to cover you events.

I can't wait to hear the name of your movement. Molotov Party? Will you all become gas baggers? Perhaps what ran up Olberman's leg will run down now.

Akaky| 12.9.10 @ 4:28PM

"The liberals are not taken seriously, because thus far we have no taken any serious political risks"

I'm sorry, Ted, but I was under the impression that the events of 2 November were a direct consequence of the Democrats' taking a serious political risk and finding that they shouldn't have.

Ted R.| 12.9.10 @ 5:18PM

As far as I can tell, that is precisely the wrong reading of events, Akaky.

The Democrats in 2009 were hit with some very bad timing. By 2009 the public had finally gotten ready - by the pressure of rising costs, rather than Democrat message leadership on the issue - for some kind of national health care system. The timing was right for it, we had the Congressional majorities in place to make a go of it - and then were gob-smacked by the meltdown of the financial system, the implosion of the housing market, and the global recession generally. This was a very inauspicious environment in which to do health-care overhaul, but if we hadn't gone forward with it, we would have lost the opportunity.

To me it is simply past obvious, that the President and the Speaker are correct in their post-mortem of the November election: the economy has taken longer to recover than anyone supposed, and in the general atmosphere of crisis this has generated, it was easy for Republicans to demagogue the details of a major new entitlement in health care. As a rule people resist change - and all the more so, when a population is anxious. Democrats are convinced that the health care overhaul was not "popular," because Republicans cynically exploited the information vacuum surrounding the actual composition of the legislation, to stoke fear and anger in the public.

A true liberal president would have been out-front selling the effort. He could have done this simply by telling the truth: telling the stories of thousands - tens of thousands - of Americans, ordinary Americans, whose lives had been destroyed through no fault of their own, because of the current system. President Obama could have told these sad facts - over and over - and asked Americans WHO it was who was standing in the way of fixing it. THAT is what I am talking about, when I say that the Democrats should be taking political "risks." Actually, I don't understand since when simply telling the truth was considered a risk, but in any event Obama was too timid to do it. Believe me, the next person we elect, will NOT be.

With the economy in the condition it's in, we were bound to have a bad November. I reject out of hand any suggestion that the Republicans could have done better. It's easy for Republicans to talk up "fiscal responsibility" (especially in light of the fact that they have NO shame) when they're not in any position of having to take responsibility for governing. If they had been in power, and actually pursued such a policy in the Winter/Spring of '09, it would have been Armageddon for the economy.

A true liberal president would not have been on the defensive over health care in '09-10; and a true liberal president would have made cancellation of the Bush tax cuts (for the rich, anyway) a central focus of the midterm campaign. Liberal activists like myself were scratching our heads over why he wasn't doing it at the time. With this latest tax cut scam, however, it has become finally, horribly clear.

For years you people have been charging us with what in fact we have NOT done: engage in "class warfare" - indeed, when all along, YOU were engaging in it against US! Well, as long as you've put the class warfare tag on us, we've got nothing to lose by ACTUALLY ramping it up. We'll see how it works out for you.

Redstateboy| 12.9.10 @ 5:30PM

Are you nutz?!? This economic collapse was brought about by Liber-ul Democrats pressuring banks to do INSANE things.. Like?? recognize WELFARE as Income!! and it'd all be backed up by FreddieMac and FannieMae. Are you going to tell me you've not watched the u-tube vid of Maxine Waters and Barney Frank excoriating a Bush official and toutint the soundness of these two institutions?!!? and HusseinCare??? why so many waivers?!? why the 2000+ plus page - unread yet voted for - "we have to pass it to know what's in it." Are you kidding me? if there was a confluence of incidences that created this environment - it was directly due to Liber-ul incompetence and interference in to a free market, capitalist system.

Ted R.| 12.9.10 @ 6:03PM

I didn't comment in my previous post as to what caused the Great Recession. The fact is, that it had a number of proximate causes, and to some extent we are all complicit in it. But ultimately, I would lay the responsibility at the feet of a wild-west culture of finance that resulted from the de-regulation-happy Reagan era. We have - all of us have - got accustomed, since the Reagan era, of having largely debt-fueled economic growth. The Con fiscal voodoo was easy to sell politically, even as the costs mounted. Income inequality grew precipitously during the thirty-year Reagan era that ended in 2008; and given that the credit-card "charge it!" fiscal culture of the era affected everybody, lower-income people included, Democrats understandably demanded that the low-income cohort of the population get some share in the rising prosperity, by being given more credit. More credit, obviously, than was wise. But the suggestion that the housing market implosion was caused by people making less than 30k, and not primarily by people earning 40 and above, is laughable.

The suggestion that Wall Street, who concocted those exotic financial instruments in the first place (to try and make a buck by expanding lending markets into risky territory), are less responsible than the financially naive who took the loans that they were offering, is also laughable.

And Wall Street would not have had the legal opportunity, let alone the financial incentive, to create derivatives markets, if it hadn't been for the irresponsible culture of Republican-led deregulation.

The Democrats went along with this culture, that is true enough. We don't escape our share of the blame, there. But when the history books are written, it will be the Radical, Reagan-Era Republicans, who will be the ones they will say were "nutz."

Loshooligan| 12.9.10 @ 6:41PM

Comrade Ted R Alinsky,

" But when the history books are written, it will be the Radical, Reagan-Era Republicans, who will be the ones they will say were "nutz." "

Aaww...you misspelled the word "written". You forgot to add the proper commie pretext to written. You forgot "re-" as in the history books will be re-written to accomodate your lunatic frenzied tirades.

I am really beginning to like you Comrade Ted. In a weird kind of train wreck way. I think from this point forward I'm going to skip reading all the AmSpec articles and just skim the comment section for your posts. You are one of the best, and completely narscissistics elitist that I have seen post on AmSpec. Please continue with your BS postings.

~~Loshooligan twirls his finger on the side of his temple~~

Frosty| 12.9.10 @ 6:51PM

Ted,
Such a waste for you expend so much effort rationalizing and defending an irrational and defenseless ideology and worldview that liberalism so obviously is. I'll never understand it so I've stopped trying to. You are a lost cause.
You may now continue beating your head against the wall for no good reason.

Frosty| 12.9.10 @ 6:59PM

Ted,
I forgot to add, that watching the inhuman contortions you perform in a futile attempt to explain the obvious with phony facts that bear no resemblance to reality, is very entertaining. It borders on an art form.

Ted R.| 12.9.10 @ 7:10PM

I've heard it all already, Frosty. I know the score. The truth hurts.

Loshooligan| 12.9.10 @ 9:16PM

The score in Comrade Ted's mind is that a losing ideology is a winning plan. See he still believes that communism just wasn't ever done right. We should try it again and again and again until another 100 million people are exterminated. After he wins us over with ittelectual prowess, he will then move on to prove that Eugenics is really a good idea. Hey, if he's going to recycle communism, then why not wipe out all races of inferior people. We could only wish though that he would lead by example, and start with euthanizing himself first.

Loshooligan| 12.9.10 @ 9:19PM

*Intellectual* Sorry should have proof read before sending.

Ted R.| 12.9.10 @ 9:26PM

You really think that swinging wildly is gonna make your point?

Loshooligan| 12.9.10 @ 9:39PM

Sure won't, but post from you like this will.

Christopher| 12.9.10 @ 10:35PM

Ted, as you know the term "proximate cause" is first year law school Torts. You have to prove that A caused B. When you blame Reagan for the current economic mess, you have to state a specific law or regulation signed by Reagan, which would have been passed by Congress, and then provide specific facts that resulted logically from the law. You cannot do that. The unemployment rate went to 10% under Obama, not Bush,Clinton,Bush, or Reagan.
So if you want to blame Reagan, state the law, and how that law produced the facts or condition. And keep in mind, Reagan won 49 states in his re-election, and the Democrats agreed with the 1986 income tax cuts. This means the vast majority of Americans agreed with Reagan's policies.

Ted R.| 12.9.10 @ 11:18PM

The explosion of the Debt was a consequence of Reaganomics. He cut virtually no spending, but expanded military spending significantly, and his tax cut produced a net loss of revenue for the budget. The increase in the Debt would have been worse, in fact, were it not for tax increases demanded by the Democrat Congress.

The more than 15% cut in the marginal rate was a pretty easy sell politically, especially when there was no move to balance the budget. Marginal rates never even cracked 40% again, even as we still racked up more debt, year after year.

Meanwhile, the mania for deregulation that conservative enthusiasts had always been braying for, resulted in the repeal of Glass-Steagall in the go-go 90's; that, and woeful lack of enforcement of the remaining regulatory checks on bank activity in the markets, provided the conditions for both the accounting scandals and the ultimate financial meltdown that bookended the Bush administration.

The current Crisis is a direct result of that conservative culture. It was a culture that fully bought into the credit-card financial psychology that has stamped the private economy, and public budgeting, since Reagan's day.

We're all complicit in this psychology, to one extent or another. Democrats, seeing how the political winds were blowing, decided to bend with them in 1986. Democrats did not fundamentally challenge the supply-side free lunch narrative, even when Clinton raised taxes. The Democrats, again, are not blameless in this mess - but there is simply no doubt that it is the conservatives whom history will assign the ultimate responsibility for having brought low both our economy, and our international position.

Christopher| 12.10.10 @ 12:03PM

Ted, you are wrong on the facts. The Reagan tax cuts resulted in doubling the income tax revenue to the governemnt. Liberals don't understand that lower tax RATES is not the same as lower REVENUES. The problem is that the money was spent. At least under Reagan most of it was spent to modernize the military that was neglected under Carter. The military increase was a direct, or proximate cause, of the crack up of the Soviet Union. They could not match us. Clinton then received the benefit, or peace dividend. Unfortunately, Clinton neglected our security by not dealing with the terrorists.
The problem of spending is bipartisan. The only serious attempt to cut spending was when the balanced budget deal between Clinton and Gingerich.
You state your positions, but you do not provide any facts to back them.

Ted R.| 12.10.10 @ 2:12PM

I understand the whole supply-side argument well enough. And the argument is either trivially true, or false. It is false if the claim is: the lower the rates, the higher the revenue. It is trivially true that past a certain rate level, disincentive effects and evasion will reduce revenue, to a point past even what lower rates could bring.

The question is, where that rate is. And if your answer is a rate which consistently brings in revenue insufficient to match the needs of government spending (needs that voters are responsible for determining), then your rate is too low, no matter what the marginal gain to revenue is on the last 1% of rate.

The supply-side argument for lower rates is tenable only if the proposed rate aligns with spending commitments. This conservatism has NEVER done. You have replaced fiscally responsible 'tax and spend' with out-and-out hypocrisy: "Don't tax, but spend anyway." And you're STILL up to it! I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

How much of a peace dividend there actually was, I don't know. I do know that Conservatives opposed measures to combat terror in the 90's - partly on civil liberties grounds, partly on 2nd amendment grounds. The unipolar, lone superpower United States only slowly came round to the threat of international Islamic terror in the 90's. And the Bush Justice department, in fact, deliberately sought to de-emphasize the threat of this terrorism, including the profile of bin Laden himself.

Even the better educated of you are evidently trapped in the Funland of your own ideology.

Christopher| 12.10.10 @ 4:14PM

You are again wrong on the facts. And instead of responding with facts or logic, you make silly personal attacks, "Funland?" The US was attacked repeatedly during the Clinton years, Khobar Towers, Kenya embassies, Somalia, USS Cole, etc. and Clinton did nothing.
Reagan and Bush had a Democrat House of Representatives, The House controls spending. The first Republican House was 1994, and it balanced the budget with Clinton.
If you want to argue ideology, fine, stick to ideology.
If you want to use facts for you argument, use facts, and not your imagination. Do you seriously believe that Conservatives want to spend more than the Democrats? Nobody believes that, not even you, because liberals are always accusing Conservatives of not wanting to spend money on social programs. And it is not answer to say Conservatives will spend on Defense, because both parties spend on Defense.
Moreover, Conservatives have not controlled Congress like the Democrats controlled it from 1948 to 1994. And there is no Conservative Party, conservatives are only a part of the Republican Party, which has/had the likes of Arlen Specter, John Chafee, Lincoln Chafee, etc., all of whom were Democrats at heart.
Regardin g supply side economics, even Obama had admitted it works. He agreed to reduce the payroll tax by 2%, and not increase income taxes now, and said it would stimulate the economy. Of course the question is always at what rate because you do have to raise enough revenue.
Ask yourself, who can spend the money you earn more wisely, YOU or the government? (After the government has taken care of esential needs, such as defense, roads, water/sewage, police, fire)

jstwndring| 12.10.10 @ 7:28PM

"The supply-side argument for lower rates is tenable only if the proposed rate aligns with spending commitments. This conservatism has NEVER done. You have replaced fiscally responsible 'tax and spend' with out-and-out hypocrisy: "Don't tax, but spend anyway." And you're STILL up to it! I don't know whether to laugh or cry."
--------------------------------------------------------------
Again, we collected MORE money under Reagan's tax policies than under Carter's as a result of expanded economic activity. This means we should have been able to meet our "spending committments". The question you should be asking yourself is, why didn't we? Obviously, because the Democrat controlled Congress refused to cut spending as they agreed to under Reagan's budget proposal. The Democrats played political games with our financial future then as they are now. Our country's deficit increases radically under Democrat control. Always. Remember, Congress controls spending, not the President. If you Democrats are as concerned about the deficit as you claim to be, cut spending.

For reference:

Deficit under Bush/Republican Congress: $161 billion.

Deficit under Bush/Democrat Congress: $459 billion.

Deficit under Obama/Democrat Congress: $1.4 Trillion in 2009.

I'm noticing a pattern of ridiculous spending under Democrat controlled Congresses. Hmm.

jstwndring| 12.10.10 @ 7:10PM

"The explosion of the Debt was a consequence of Reaganomics. He cut virtually no spending, but expanded military spending significantly, and his tax cut produced a net loss of revenue for the budget. The increase in the Debt would have been worse, in fact, were it not for tax increases demanded by the Democrat Congress."
----------------------------------------------------------------
This claim completely ignores the fact that we saw record income tax revenues for the federal government under Reagan as a result of his economic stimulating low-tax policies. It encouraged economic activity which actually expanded the taxable base, and as a result brought in more revenue. So, to say that the deficit was a result of tax cuts is incorrect.

Secondly, the president cannot cut spending. He can propose a budget which Congress can implement and pass on up to him to sign. The point is that Congress controls spending, not the President. As far as I know, Reagan's budget took military spending into consideration. If this was any cause of great concern to the Democrats that dominated Congress then, they should have said no to that, or, should have sincerely tried to balance the budget by cutting elswhere. Again, to lay the blame of the deficit during the 1980's solely at Reagan's feet is absurd. Congress controls spending. The Democrats controlled Congress then, as they do now. Wow. Notice any similarities in terms of the rapid accumulation of debt?

carnot| 12.9.10 @ 11:27PM

thank goodness it wasn't Democrats who drove entitlement components of the budget to astronomical levels; or, democrats who multiplied the budget by orders of magnitude in just two short years!

take your faux analysis someplace else.

apparently, no one has informed you about what is...for the moment...a metaphorical target on your back.

and the country wasn't "ready" for a national health care solution as a collective goal. it was ready for solutions that arrested the hyperbolic growth in health care costs. as we have come to learn...this certainly isn't what the DEMOCRAT contrived Obamacare legislation will realize.

Ted R.| 12.9.10 @ 11:43PM

Guess you've forgotten about Medicare Part D, then, eh? Convenient.

The budget deficits of the last two years were a result of Recession and bailout and stimulus spending; it was an emergency situation - the direct consequence of a Crisis brought on by your party's fiscal irresponsibility. It's just breathtaking hypocrisy, for you to try to pin the blame for those deficits on us. You're only fooling YOURSELF.

I don't know where your home planet is, but you must have arrived after the president was elected. A national health-care system was the centerpiece of his campaign for the Presidency. People voted for him expecting he would expand coverage, full stop. And that, for all its flaws, is what Obamacare does.

Oh, and real classy with the veiled physical threat. Sooner or later, every Con I talk to resorts to it. Just further proof that the Con psychology, and genuine participation in a democracy, are just not compatible.

carnot| 12.10.10 @ 8:24AM

pls...enough with the dishonesty.

deficit = current expenditures exceeding current revenue.

all categories fit into expenditures...including those obligated in the past. what is the largest and fastest growing among those? entitlements! who has always championed themselves as the defenders of the general weal and overseers of the "Public Good!"? why...Democrats. can't have it both ways.

btw...which 4 states are in gravest financial peril of default? why...that might be States with traditionally Democratic leadership!

this is a losing battle - the folks who are actually paying the bills are revolting.

this battle has only started. pls, pls, pls....run a far Left candidate against Obama! he is an incompetent...no argument there. folks like me will be more than happy to assist to this seppuku! be sure to inform where the check can be sent and who to make it out to.

jstwndring| 12.10.10 @ 8:06PM

"The budget deficits of the last two years were a result of Recession and bailout and stimulus spending; it was an emergency situation - the direct consequence of a Crisis brought on by your party's fiscal irresponsibility. It's just breathtaking hypocrisy, for you to try to pin the blame for those deficits on us. You're only fooling YOURSELF."
--------------------------------------------------------------
Again, for reference regarding spending. Notice which party controlled Congress--the ones responsible for spending, under Bush and Obama:

For reference:

Deficit under Bush/Republican Congress: $161 billion.

Deficit under Bush/Democrat Congress: $459 billion.

Deficit under Obama/Democrat Congress: $1.4 Trillion in 2009.

The increase in the deficit after the Democrats took over Congress grew nearly 3 times in only 2 years. Then, in one year, the Democrat controlled Congress tippled it again! This fully justifies us pinning the blame on you. You are the ones increasing the deficit to unsustainable levels. How can we not blame you? You are spending money well beyone what future generations will be able to pay. And, to top it off, your party continues to propose more and more of the same.

Steve A| 12.10.10 @ 9:22AM

Ted, Really?? They can't attack conservatism from an outspoken liberal worldview because it is rejected EVERY SINGLE TIME they light of day shines on it. They have to campaign as centrists (lie) in order to get elected. Get a grip.

tombaty| 12.9.10 @ 3:20PM

Obama to his fellow democrats: All right everyone... into a circle, load and lock. Ready, aim and fire!!!

wodiej| 12.9.10 @ 3:56PM

I don't much care what liberals think, say or do. The last two years they have used to help us all see how rabid and irrational they really are. They can go crawl into a corner for all I care and have someone else change their diaper since they are too inept to go to the bathroom all by themselves without the help of the hardworking taxpayer.

Ever heard you can't get something for nothing? You still end up with NOTHING.

Redstateboy| 12.9.10 @ 4:29PM

"On what is the de facto Democratic Party cable network"

funny.. I never hear Liber-uls complain that MSNBC is too Liber-ul - only that FOX is too conservative.

Negro X| 12.9.10 @ 6:16PM

Olberman and a ed schultz, living proof that retards with syphillus shouldn't breed.

beebop| 12.9.10 @ 6:23PM

The NYT -- best used to line the hamster's cage btw -- is highlighting the "blocked" 911 coverage by the GOP and the comments number near 800. At the same time, the headline for the "no confidence vote" from 0bama's own party is termed "House Democrats Oppose Tax Cut Deal" and comments not permitted.

Transparency? Yeah. Right!

Mark R| 12.9.10 @ 6:53PM

Why torture poor hamsters with the NYT?

The One Who Runs Like a Duck| 12.9.10 @ 7:26PM

We took a shellacking, my catamite Ted R. Frau Teddy, thanks for you keen analysis.

"The Democrats went along with this culture, that is true enough."

Wow that was a good one. We are the inventors of the irresponsible culture that has created this mess. We are the inventors of Ponzi schemes that are collapsing. We are the inventors of the welfare state that guarantees votes at the expense of the people that get caught up in it. We are big collectors of kickbacks from the so-called companies we hate. Shakedown is our middle name. We are and always have been the exploiters of racial hatred for votes and profit. We are in short despicable and I need more guys like you trying to sell this nonsense. If we don't do something quick everybody will be on to our unsustainable ways and the party will be over. Summer of recovery, baby.

Ted R. | 12.9.10 @ 9:36PM

Yes, Duck, you are the inventors of the supply-side boongdoggle that has got us into this mess. You are the ones responsible for your starve-the-beast scheme which in fact ADDED to entitlements, even as you cut funding for them. You are not in a position to shake anything down. You are, and always have been, a wholly owned pawn of the Chamber. And, Hell Yeah, you have ALWAYS been the exploiters of racial hatred for votes and profit. You are in league with the enemies of America's future, and if the liberals don't finally take a stand against you, we'll share the blame for what YOU did to our country. Baby.

Loshooligan| 12.9.10 @ 9:42PM

AmSpec monitor....please hurry and bring Comrade Ted's medication. It is now apparent that he has run out.

Loshooligan| 12.9.10 @ 9:55PM

Hey Duck,

When Comrade Ted says "And, Hell Yeah, you have ALWAYS been the exploiters of racial hatred for votes and profit." He forgot to add that it was his Great Society leader, LBJ, who said, "I'll have them n**gers voting Democrat for two hundred years" as a premise for getting the civil rights act passed. Sounds to me like someone is a little confused.

skip| 12.10.10 @ 12:30PM

TedR has proven three things recently:

He is theological illiterate.

He is economically illiterate.

He is delusional.

The further one's view of one's self differs from other's view of that individual the further apart from reality that individual is.

jstwndring| 12.10.10 @ 8:41PM

You can't have it both ways Ted. Your party invented the entitlement society that now expects the government to take care of them. You can't then accuse anyone else of "adding" to them. The government cannot be trusted to handle much of anything. So, to first create a dependency and then accuse the other side of contributing to that dependency is hypocritical and nonsensical.

As far as being "owned" by the Chamber, only if by being owned means adopting the same philosophy of economic freedom, then yes. I would rather be "owned" by free-market-types than by those that would take economic freedom away from everyone in some sort of twisted form of "social justice" like Democrats do. The world view you seem to agree with will take away the free market all-together. And let's face it, without economic freedom, any talk of individual liberty is academic at best.

Regarding racial hatred. Now you are indeed treading on thin ice since it was the southern Democrats (Dixiecrats) that wrote the Jim Crow laws in the first place. Seriously, look it up. Democrats were the pro-segregationists. Democrats were the ones that opposed civil rights legislation for blacks from the 1800's to the 1950's. I challenge you to look it up. It's available for public consumption. Look up the various civil rights acts of the 1860's, 1870's and on up to the 1950's. You'll see that they were voted on party lines, and you'll never guess who opposed them. That's right, the Democrats. Shocked? You shouldn't be. Your party has been exploiting minorities in this country since its inception. Hell, you guys even initially tried to stop the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well. Over 80% of the intial opposition to the act in the Senate came from Democrats like Senator Byrd (KKK member, Grand Cyclops). The final vote came down with around only 62% of Democrats in favor, with 83% of Republicans in favor. If not for the Republicans, you would've successfully killed it again. So, please, get off your high-horse regarding race-relations.

Lastly, America's enemies are those that seek to undermine our Constitution. That would be anyone who pursues an agenda of expanding the size, scope and reach of the federal government. Sound like any particular party's ideological agenda to you? Like the Democrat party? Our Constitution was written to put the heaviest of chains on our own government. The Democrat party is opposed to this limitation in every conceivable way. All Democrats do is dream up new ways to take more and more control of our lives. From health care, to private property rights, to attacking free speech and religion thru Hate Crime Legislation for example. No. Our enemy is within. And our enemy stands in opposition to limited government. Our enemy is you.

Wayne | 12.9.10 @ 8:11PM

Watching Charlie Rangle yucking it up OReilly for higher taxes, which of course he won't be paying. Pretty disgusting really.

Christopher| 12.9.10 @ 8:34PM

O'Reilly is pompous. He does not ask difficult questions but only raises his voice.

Christopher| 12.9.10 @ 8:39PM

Let us give Ted a break and show some compassion. He is a committed idealogue who believes in redistribution, and the "economics" of redistribution. Of course, he is wrong, and has been proven wrong by history. But at least he is not here defending Obama for a politically expedient act, he is stating what he believes in. That is more worthy than defending your political leader when you disagree with him. Remember how every democrat defended Clinton? Disgusting.

Loshooligan| 12.9.10 @ 9:07PM

Christopher,

While I agree with you regarding not defending leaders are doing wrong, I must disagree about the treatment of Comrade Ted. See, Ted is the fat kid of the comment section. I just can't help myself. I just have to pick on him. And remember....Ted is so far left that Obama looks like a right of center politician to him. This guy would make Stalin proud!!

Christopher| 12.9.10 @ 10:23PM

I agree he is far left, but we need him here so we can respond to the left wing ideology. He does take time to explain his ideology, and for the most part he is civil and does explain his position well. The more he writes and explains , though, the worse his ideology appears.

carnot| 12.9.10 @ 11:30PM

nonsense...he's very selective in what "truths" he choses to recognize.

jstwndring| 12.10.10 @ 8:55PM

Agreed. I love it when political south-paws come here to take shots at the deficits under Reagan. It gives me a chance to poke holes in their lies about who is in control of spending. Democrats ignorantly believe it is the President. Or, at least that's what they claim when they incorrectly blame Reagan.

Likewise, when they accuse those of us on the right of being racists. It gives me yet another opportunity to point out how it was southern Democrats that wrote the segregation laws of the south--a region they used to dominate. It was also Democrats that opposed every piece of civil rights legislation from the 1860's on up to the 1950's. Thanks Ted. I hope plenty of self-rightous Dims show up here, read this, and then have the guts to go look at their own party's deplorable history. I DARE YOU.

Nite| 12.10.10 @ 12:08AM

How did a Junior Senator with no practical experience of any kind become President of the USA? Who has been pulling the strings? Probably George Soros, who funds most of the progessive Socialistic groups. I guess you could say, the radicals in Congress and WH. Liberals thought they had a mandate to destroy this country and can't hardly believe that a lot of them got tossed out on their rear in this election. More would likely have lost if it wasn't for absentee ballots magically turning up that weren't previously counted. The Republicans have to carry through with promises. Frankly, though, I don't see why any voter would elect Dems in great numbers anymore since they have showed their true colors for the first time.

Bob Menzies| 12.10.10 @ 4:10AM

You know when you think about it most Americans are closet socialists, of the democratic persuation.

Is not democracy the attempt to socialise/share power?

Is not democracy an attempt to socialise/share information and knowledge?

Is not democracy an attempt to distribute wealth in the interests of the whole community?

Does not the electorate at large readily vote for (and expect) welfare and benefits from their fellow taxpayer, just like corporations?

Does not the electorate at large mistrust and want protection from corporate power and intrusive government control?

Democracy is in fact the socialisation of power, but no one would dare utter such a reality.

Yes most Americans are socialists of democratic persuation. President Obama is a socialist of fascist persuation and that is very dangerous.

"If there is a devil in history it is the power principle" - Mikhail Bakunin

Bill| 12.10.10 @ 9:13AM

That's why the United States government was founded as a republic, not a democracy.

John Navratil| 12.10.10 @ 9:27AM

Mr. Menzies,

No is the answer to all your questions.

Democracy is vesting the power of government in the people. All people will work in their self interest and some believe it is in their self interest to compel everyone to share - From each according to his ability and to each according to his need. Others recognize this as antithetical to human nature with the result that "we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us" and see the rule of law centered on property rights as the most effective way to enhance freedom and prosperity. We have a demonstration of this in the last 250 years of development in North America, vs. the last century's transformation of the bread basket of Europe into a basket case. There are plenty of other examples - India in the 60's, Burma today, e.g.

This democracy is unique in the world in placing the people as sovereign. You might say it is no different that other "western" countries, but it is. All those democracies evolved from a sovereign which was not the people and the people have culturally felt, in some measure, subordinate to the government even though the elect politicians to represent them. This democracy is under attack by those who do not wish the power to reside in the individual, but rather in the state. It is being resisted.

jstwndring| 12.10.10 @ 9:00PM

Yes, true democracies are dangerous. They are too easily turned into a collectivist state. Republics on the other hand.........Hey! Wait a minute........How does it go? And to the Republic for which it stands..........

So THAT's why the Dims are so frustrated. ;)

mzk| 12.10.10 @ 8:32AM

Actually, Daniel was telling the king that the Persians were about to take over, something that Obama perhaps should heed.

Alan Brooks| 12.10.10 @ 3:21PM

Some idiot has been stealing my cyber ID for quite a while now and keeps posting outlandish drivel. I'm going to report this to the FBI and you'll be very sorry and quit calling me "lozel®", that drives me crazy!!!
Some idiot has been stealing my cyber ID for quite a while now and keeps posting outlandish drivel. I'm going to report this to the FBI and you'll be very sorry and quit calling me "lozel®", that drives me crazy!!!Some idiot has been stealing my cyber ID for quite aSome idiot has been stealing my cyber ID for quite a while now and keeps posting outlandish drivel. I'm going to report this to the FBI and you'll be very sorry and quit calling me "lozel®", that drives me crazy!!! while now and keeps posting outlandish drivel. I'm going to report this to the FBI and you'll be very sorry and quit calling me "lozel®", that drives me crazy!!!Some idiot has been stealing my cyber ID for quite a while now and keeps posting outlandish drivel. I'm going to report this to the FBI and you'll be very sorry and quit calling me "lozel®", that drives me crazy!!!Some idiot has been stealing my cyber ID for quite a while now and keeps posting outlandish drivel. I'm going to report this to the FBI and you'll be very sorry and quit calling me "lozel®", that drives me crazy!!!Some idiot has been stealing my cyber ID for quite a while now and keeps posting outlandish drivel. I'm going to report this to the FBI and you'll be very sorry and quit calling me "lozel®", that drives me crazy!!!
Some idiot has been stealing my cyber ID for quite a while now and keeps posting outlandish drivel. I'm going to report this to the FBI and you'll be very sorry and quit calling me "lozel®", that drives me crazy!!!Some idiot has been stealing my cyber ID for quite aSome idiot has been stealing my cyber ID for quite a while now and keeps posting outlandish drivel. I'm going to report this to the FBI and you'll be very sorry and quit calling me "lozel®", that drives me crazy!!! while now and keeps posting outlandish drivel. I'm going to report this to the FBI and you'll be very sorry and quit calling me "lozel®", that drives me crazy!!!Some idiot has been stealing my cyber ID for quite a while now and keeps posting outlandish drivel. I'm going to report this to the FBI and you'll be very sorry and quit calling me "lozel®", that drives me crazy!!!Some idiot has been stealing my cyber ID for quite a while now and keeps posting outlandish drivel. I'm going to report this to the FBI and you'll be very sorry and quit calling me "lozel®", that drives me crazy!!!