The Democrat Thread

[lostfan]

No, it wouldn't. I've seen it here. I've heard it elsewhere. That's the difference.

Sure it would... VP debates, case in point. "OMG SARAH PALIN WAS AN AWESOME DEBATER SHE SCHOOLED JOE BIDEN LOL"

 

From the 30% groupings on either end of the spectrum there is no objectivity in there.

Edited February 25, 2009 by lostfan

[kapkomet]

Sure it would... VP debates, case in point. "OMG SARAH PALIN WAS AN AWESOME DEBATER SHE SCHOOLED JOE BIDEN LOL"

 

From the 30% groupings on either end of the spectrum there is no objectivity in there.

Thank God I'm not a Republican then. Seriously.

 

[bmags]

No, it wouldn't. I've seen it here. I've heard it elsewhere. That's the difference.

 

To tell you the truth Kap I actually expected a lot of Vindal. I'd heard he was a charismatic version of pawlenty who at one point I'd found reasonable, but he was just awful, brutally awful. If this is the face of the GOP I'm feeling pretty good If I was Obama, but poor for the US. Luckily, I think the Utah gov. is smart, intelligent, and especially not an idiot. But when Fox news, david brooks, the entire right wing concluded that Jindal sucked, do you come to the conclusion that Jindal was good? You are such an independent thinker, always thinking the republican response was great in the face of everyone saying it was terrible, here's a cookie.

[lostfan]

Thank God I'm not a Republican then. Seriously.

I wasn't talking about you though...?

[kapkomet]

To tell you the truth Kap I actually expected a lot of Vindal. I'd heard he was a charismatic version of pawlenty who at one point I'd found reasonable, but he was just awful, brutally awful. If this is the face of the GOP I'm feeling pretty good If I was Obama, but poor for the US. Luckily, I think the Utah gov. is smart, intelligent, and especially not an idiot. But when Fox news, david brooks, the entire right wing concluded that Jindal sucked, do you come to the conclusion that Jindal was good? You are such an independent thinker, always thinking the republican response was great in the face of everyone saying it was terrible, here's a cookie.

Like I said in the beginning, I didn't express my opinion. On purpose. Yes, he sucked. Obama did a good job. My problem with Obama's speech is like every other "SOTU" speech - it's all promises about nothing.

 

[bmags]

Like I said in the beginning, I didn't express my opinion. On purpose. Yes, he sucked. Obama did a good job. My problem with Obama's speech is like every other "SOTU" speech - it's all promises about nothing.

 

Easy to make fun of things when you don't get in the water with everyone. "Lol once again all you OBAMA SHEEP thinking the MESSIAH had a GOOD SPEECH while the REPUBLICAN SUCKED!" ..."oh and you too republicans in the thread SHEEP"

[HuskyCaucasian]

Anyone else feel that when the high holiness of the GOP, Bobby Jindal, WALKED in for his speech, it was as if he were the president walking in to make his address? I think every other "rebuttal" I've ever seen was with the person sitting down or already in the room.

 

Hence the "Oh God" reaction, by Chris Matthews.

I was right in why Matthews said it...

I was taken aback by that peculiar stagecraft, the walking from somewhere in the back of this narrow hall, this winding staircase looming there, the odd anti-bellum [sic] look of the scene. Was this some mimicking of a president walking along the state floor to the East Room?

[BigSqwert]

Don't hurt yourself patting yourself on the back.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Don't hurt yourself patting yourself on the back.

:P

[Balta1701]

BTW, just going at the politics of Jindal's "Disaster preparedness for me but none for thee" speech last night....you have to wonder how it hits his career.

The real crime here is that Jindal, who’s clearly an ambitious guy, could’ve scanned recent history and decided to save himself the pain*. In all the heated discussions last summer about who Obama’s running mate should be, whenever Kathleen Sebelius’s name came up, people would talk about how impressive it is that she’s a strong Democratic voice in a conservative state and that she has true policy credentials--and then they’d say, But did you see her rebuttal? Similar deal with Tim Kaine, who was plagued by his dead fish performance in ’06. Gary Locke, Obama’s likely next pick for Commerce, gave such a bad speech six years ago that it’s a breathtaking act of charity that he’s been allowed to talk in public, in front of other people, with cameras around, again. Much of the blame, of course, rests with the individuals: These aren’t the most dynamic orators in the political world. But I think SOTU rebuttals are so consistently wretched for more systemic reasons. You arrive onscreen directly after the president, and the optics are terrible. Instead of addressing a joint session, you’re hanging out by yourself a room fit for a Bing Crosby Christmas special. Also, you’re consigned from the get-go into a defensive position, making it more difficult to pounce effectively. And by the time the president’s done speaking, the viewing public has endured about an hour of political oratory--well beyond most right-thinking people’s threshold. It takes a truly remarkable performance to stand out that late in the night.

 

The great recent exception, of course, came in 2007, when Jim Webb went full metal and excoriated the hobbled president and Republican brand. He was so good that commentators no less esteemed than Michael Tomasky and Jason Zengerle were talking him up as VP material a few days into his first Senate term. But Webb’s success was dependent on a happy confluence of temperament and timing: He spat hot fire when the nation, having just rejected the worst excesses of Bushism in the 2006 midterms, was finally ready for it. In other words, that kind of triumph is, by definition, going to be rare.

[Balta1701]

The Volcano Chaiten in Chile has responded to Jindal's speech by erupting 3 times in 24 hours. (Until 2008, that volcano was inactive for somewhere around 9000 years.)

 

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

[Balta1701]

Last year's Nobel Prize winning economist:

But both sides, I thought, agreed that the government should provide public goods — goods that are nonrival (they benefit everyone) and nonexcludable (there’s no way to restrict the benefits to people who pay.) The classic examples are things like lighthouses and national defense, but there are many others. For example, knowing when a volcano is likely to erupt can save many lives; but there’s no private incentive to spend money on monitoring, since even people who didn’t contribute to maintaining the monitoring system can still benefit from the warning. So that’s the sort of activity that should be undertaken by government.

 

So what did Bobby Jindal choose to ridicule in this response to Obama last night? Volcano monitoring, of course.

 

And leaving aside the chutzpah of casting the failure of his own party’s governance as proof that government can’t work, does he really think that the response to natural disasters like Katrina is best undertaken by uncoordinated private action? Hey, why bother having an army? Let’s just rely on self-defense by armed citizens.

 

The intellectual incoherence is stunning. Basically, the political philosophy of the GOP right now seems to consist of snickering at stuff that they think sounds funny. The party of ideas has become the party of Beavis and Butthead.

[HuskyCaucasian]

The Volcano Chaiten in Chile has responded to Jindal's speech by erupting 3 times in 24 hours. (Until 2008, that volcano was inactive for somewhere around 9000 years.)

 

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I love when geology gets into politics

[bmags]

<!--quoteo(post=1839355:date=Feb 25, 2009 -> 01:47 PM:name=Balta1701)-->

<!--quotec-->The Volcano Chaiten in Chile has responded to Jindal's speech by erupting 3 times in 24 hours. (Until 2008, that volcano was inactive for somewhere around 9000 years.)

 

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I love when geology gets into politics

 

[Balta1701]

I love when geology gets into politics

You know who doesn't like that? The state of Louisiana.

[HuskyCaucasian]

You know who doesn't like that? The state of Louisiana.

ahh that would be meteorology

[NorthSideSox72]

ahh that would be meteorology

And geology. And hydrology.

 

[Balta1701]

Actual geologists and volcanologists respond to Jindal's attack on them.

[Balta1701]

Senator Byrd is correct here. Too often, in particular for x number of years before this one where x = (2^4)/2, these sorts of appointments and commissions have wound up being used as nothing but ways to hide conflicts of interest from congressional oversight. Congress needs to take action on reigning in the executive branch in this matter.

Robert Byrd, the Senate pro tempore from West Virginia, said in a letter to the president he is concerned the appointments of new so called 'czars' in the offices of health, urban affairs and climate change are not subject to Senate approval and could therefore shield information from congress under the right of executive privilege.

 

"Too often, I have seen these lines of authority and responsibility become tangled and blurred, sometimes purposely, to shield information and to obscure the decision-making process," Byrd wrote in the letter.

 

“As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, and to virtually anyone but the president," he continued. "In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability."

 

Byrd also urged the president to prohibit the right of executive privilege from appointees' in agencies overseen by the Senate.

[BigSqwert]

I'm almost starting to feel sorry for the GOP now. Ah who I'm I kidding? I hope they keep using Joe the Plumber.

[BigSqwert]

Gotta love that Matt Drudge!

And Yet, Still Rules Their World

 

This is really a jump the shark moment for Matt Drudge, who is only relevant to the Gang of 500, anyway.

The mar

k

et

s

opened thi

s

morning with a

s

u

s

tained decline, which Reuter

s

attributed to a new

“

report

s

howing yet more deterioration in the hou

s

ing mar

k

et.

”

Matt Drudge, however, wanted to blame it on Pre

s

ident Obama,

s

o he po

s

ted an auto updating graph of the Dow Jone

s

Indu

s

trial average. Under that, in large bloc

k

letter

s

, Drudge a

s

k

ed, WA

S

IT

S

OMETHING HE

S

AID? But a

s

the day pa

s

s

ed, the mar

k

et rebounded, and Drudge wa

s

left

s

ugge

s

ting that Obama wa

s

re

s

pon

s

ible for the rally. Drudge couldn

’

t let that

s

tand

s

o,

s

everal minute

s

later, he changed the headline: MAR

K

ET REBOUND

S

. But then,

s

hortly before the clo

s

ing at 4:00 PM, the mar

k

et declined again. What did Drudge do? He hurriedly changed it bac

k

, typo

s

and all: WA

S

IT

S

OMETHING HE

S

AID?">WA

S

IT

S

OMETHING HE

S

AID?

We all know that every minute of market activity is dictated entirely by the utterances of whoever is President at that time, so Drudge is surely on solid footing here. So I'm sure this embarrassment is just a temporary setback for him. After all, markets rarely fluctuate over the course of a day.

 

I'm also fairly certain this will cause approximately no member of the chattering class to reassess their reliance on headlines and news stories hand-picked by someone who today revealed himself to be a complete idiot.

[southsider2k5]

Gotta love that Matt Drudge!

 

I don't know about the early stuff, but watching CNBC most of yesterday, while Bernanke was speaking was when the rally really got underway. They about 10 minutes before the close, that is when the market collapsed. That was also when Barack went on TV and started talking.

[lostfan]

I don't know about the early stuff, but watching CNBC most of yesterday, while Bernanke was speaking was when the rally really got underway. They about 10 minutes before the close, that is when the market collapsed. That was also when Barack went on TV and started talking.

Still though, it's pretty common that Drudge becomes a parody of himself like that.

[southsider2k5]

Still though, it's pretty common that Drudge becomes a parody of himself like that.

 

In general yes. In the instance of Barack moving the market, no. It has happened many times over the last few months. I know I, and others, have talked about specifics.

[BigSqwert]

In general yes. In the instance of Barack moving the market, no. It has happened many times over the last few months. I know I, and others, have talked about specifics.

So whenever the market goes down it's because of Obama. When it goes up it has nothing to do with him. Interesting.