Cynical Nation

LOL :)

Interesting. And smart, I think.

Particularly impressive was Larry Kudlow's take on the evening--Dopey Larry sounded like he had a schoolgirl crush or something...

How was this beginning any different than W's? W worked with TED F'N KENNEDY on No Child Left Behind!!!

Ted Kennedy, the legislation's initial sponsor, has stated: "The tragedy is that these long overdue reforms are finally in place, but the funds are not."[47] wikipedia

ps - I'll be "really" impressed if he has dinner with
Malkin
Limbaugh
Coulter (*that* would show so much bravery, I'd be impressed ;)

No BNJ? No JMK? No Mal?

Lol at Coulter. I'd love to see that too. And no, Pete, my invitation must have been lost in the mail, alas.

Ah,, yes, Coulter, Malkin and Limbaugh--three intellectuals and deep thinkers? Or just three yelping inmates inside a rubber room at the Republican Party?

"Ah,, yes, Coulter, Malkin and Limbaugh--three intellectuals and deep thinkers?" (Fred)


Where's the hate for fellow Republican Conservatives coming from, Fred?

Of the three, Anne Coulter's become some sort of lightening rod for the Left.

But SHE'S a bona fide "satirist." She IS often sardonic (mockingly ironic) as with lambasting the "Jersey Girls" the four politically active 9/11 widows from Jersey who publically championed Liberals and Liberal causes, stating, "These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them. ... I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much..."

Mean? YES.

Unfair? NO.

The facts she notes were all accurate; (1) they (the "Jersey Girls" and any woman over thirty who refers to herself as a "girl" has some serious emotional issues) were indeed all made "millionaires" via the 9/11 funds, (2) they were "lionized" by a decidedly Left-wing MSM, (3) they did indeed seem to revel in their new-found celebrity status, (4) they did talk as though 9/11 was more a personal event than an act of war by a merciless adversary on our country.

So, while the tag line, "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much," was tasteless and mean-spirited conjecture, on her part, she had every right as a political commentator to take other such public figures and political commentators to task for their own very real foibles.

I'm virtually certain that no one today, would argue that the likes of Al Franken and Keith Olbermann aren't even MORE mean-spirited and LESS factually accurate, not to mention far less talented than she.

For instance, Coulter's observations are ALWAYS funnier and more insightful than, say, Al Franken's. So why does the MSN have no apparent problem with obvious lesser-lights like Franken and Olbermann (lesser lights in terms of talent and factual accuracy) and such a big problem with Coulter who IS almost as mean-spirited as Franken and Olbermann, but at least more accurate in her observations?

Is it really all about ideology?

If it is, the MSM could quickly solve that dilemma by joining Conservatives, since, as Couter notes, they've never been able to refute them.

But as for the other two (Malkin and Limbaugh) - how are they at all controversial?

Limbaugh's done the same radio show for over two decades. I give him points for longevity and for being one of the most entertaining commentators in the business. Only Howard Stern comes close to being as entertaining a commentator, though he rarely dabbles in politics.

But the idea of Limbaugh as some kind of "controversial Conservative?"

He's about as culturally generic as are GM, Coca-Cola and McDonalds.

And as I've said many times, Limbaugh HASN'T "convinced nor converted" a SINGLE person to Conservatism, all he's done is connect with the vast numbers of like-minded Conservative Americans. No one has, nor do I believe, will ever refute that. So I see that as "established fact" by now.

And Malkin?!

She's a sweet little syndicated columnist and blogger (M Malkin blog, Hot Air, etc). She's certainly a very good writer and she's rarely, if ever caustic.

Again, Malkin may be "controversial" to a small, radical fringe segment of the Left in America, but that's about it.

So, while I acknowledge that Anne Coulter's a little rough around the edges (though she's not even close to being "unhinged" the way BOTH Al Franken and Keith Olbermann are), I can't see ANY objective observer considering either Limbaugh or Malkin either controversial or mean-spirited.

I mean if Rush Limbaugh's "controversial" or non-intellectural," than the same must be said about the likes of David Broder. If Michelle Malkin is controversial and non-intellectual, than the same must be said of folks like Maureen ("the hair-twirler") Dowd.

JMK, do you really think Rush is a non-controversial intellectual? Really?

Have you ever watched/listen to Franken or Olbermann? What makes you think they're unhinged?

I've tuned into all three and, while I think all three are controversial, I don't think any of them is unhinged. I know you won't agree but I think the most intellectual and the fairest of the lot is Franken.

Actually, I've seen more of Olbermann than I’ve heard from Limbaugh, Bob, as Limbaugh's unfortunately on opposite Mike Francessa, so when I do get the chance to turn the radio on around that time...it's usually on WFAN.

I've read and heard Franken and witnessed his many failed comedic attempts through his agonizing SNL years.

Probably his best effort (at least his best known), "Stewart Smalley" was pathetic, in my view.

Limbaugh and Malkin are pretty generic Conservatives. They’re really not "controversial," UNLESS Conservatism itself is controversial and considering that there are still roughly twice as many Americans who identify as "somewhat to very Conservative" compared to those who self-identify as "somewhat to very Liberal," that viewpoint is not at all controversial.

So, we're talking about delivery, then.

In that case, Malkin is generally a pretty pensive, quiet, thought-provoking writer. The few TV appearances I've seen of her didn’t nudge the “outrage meter” at all.

Coulter uses outrage and controversy to sell her books. I fault her for putting that style (intended for her own commercial purposes) ahead of the message itself.

For the life of me, I don't get what drives Olby or Franken.

At least Moore's doing the Coulter thing in reverse, selling movie tickets and hawking books through absurd, outrageous and controversial statements.

The problem that the Coulter-Moore tactic has, is that the user constantly has to top the last outrage and inevitably runs into publicity fatigue.

Olbermann seems to be little more than a complete nitwit. There is something unintentionally comedic about a man consumed with such petty jealousies and personal hatreds pretending to be a compassionate humanist and pacifist “do-gooder” or “good-guy.”

As for Farnken, I can only imagine he wishes he could be even half as funny as Keith Olbermann is unintentionally.

Franken's a putz (or in Brooklynase, "dick") who engages in far more vicious personal attacks than Anne Coulter ever has and when called on it, deigns to call himself a "satirist" by way of explanation.

I'm sure he had to look that word up....too bad he couldn't have looked up a sense of humor to boot, but I suppose we should be thankful for even small wonders.

In fact, Coulter (and I'm no fan and have NONE of her books) is a far better satirist than Franken and she's not only occasionally funnier, her observations are generally more astute....BUT that's not saying all that much, given the shallow talent pool she's competing against.

Bob, I forced myself to listen to Franken on AAR and in one half hour's worth of listening to him found eight glaring factual errors, things opponents would call “lies” and more charitable people (such as myself) would kindly call ("factual inaccuracies").

I'm sorry Bob, but Franken's a moron...and that's being kind (I believe morons are actually higher on that old scale than, say, imbeciles).

The reason Keith Olbermann is "unhinged" is because of his (pretend) "angry Liberal” routine.

If you're a true Liberal, the last SIX YEARS have had to have been delightful, and the last TWO, heaven! You had a Keynesian (spendthrift) President and a reckless and irresponsible (I guess that's "Keynesian") Pelosi-Reid Congress.

Liberals crafted the September bailout Bill, and Conservatives subsequently fought to, among other things, mandate those monies solely for lending (NOT the buying of smaller banks, year-end bonuses, etc.)...the Keynesians refused even those small, common-sense concessions.

Somehow I've gotten the moniker of "the most rabid Right-winger on this site."

In FACT, I'm a pragmatist.

While I acknowledge that Milton Friedman made the best (bar none) economic arguments in eons and I'm partial to Hayek over Hicks and von Mises over Becker, I LIKE the regulated market-based economy America has had in place since around 1912.

Within that regulated scale there are two ends, represented by two schools of thought - Keynesian (a big-government, more state-managed economy) and Supply Side (a more market-oriented, less government-managed economy).

We've experimented with BOTH and the more Keynesian the economy we've had, the worse it's been for the people. That was proven during the longest and most recent purely Keynesian period from 1964 - 1981, from LBJ thru Carter). Reagan's Supply Side approach saw the economy improve dramatically every year he was in office, with the Misery Index dropping below double digits and staying there by 1985.

Bush Sr. (a Keynesian who derided Supply Side policies as "Voodoo Economics") tried a return to Keynesianism and wound up only the second post-WW II American President (along with Carter) to preside over four straight years of double-digit Misery Indexes. Bill Clinton (a Supply Side, pro-Free Trade) President warred with a Keynesian Democratic Congress and cooperated with the Supply Side Gingrich Congress (although Gingrich and Co had to force Clinton to accept the significant federal budget cuts they made).

With Bush Jr. we saw the TWO schools side-by-side. The Capital Gains cut, from 20% to 15% had Cap gains revenues skyrocketing in its wake. Likewise, the across-the-board income tax RATE cuts saw HUGE income tax revenue gains!

Those to Supply Side measures provided cover for a lot of subsequent (6 years worth of) reckless Keynesian spending; Bush wasted more money (even adjusted for inflation) than LBJ did on social spending/dependency programs, the NCLB Act and the Prescription Drug boondoggle cost us hundreds of Billions in needed revenues and he wasted even more “fighting AIDs in sub-Saharan Africa!”

The LAST six years have been a Liberal (pro-big government, pro-social spending) paradise.

NOW, those bills are coming due.

Cities across the country are faced with huge deficits and are laying off workers and will lay off thousands more in the f/y to come. States as diverse as CA, NY, MD and IL are all teetering on insolvency and should any of those go that route, ALL the pensions run by those states (all those Municipal teacher, cop, emergency services pensions) MAY be paid in pennies on the dollar.

As I said, I’m a pragmatist. I support Supply Side policies because they deliver a far more prosperous economy, albeit with a lot of that prosperity drawn to the top (mostly among the “investor class”), BUT all the whining about “wide disparities in incomes” and “too much concentration of wealth” gets us, is policies that stifle investment, encourage more TAX-DEFERRED SAVINGS via IRAs, 457s and 401-Ks, etc. (which cut back income tax revenues as those with more discretionary income tend to save/defer more) and that reduces federal, state and local revenues, which reduces the money pot that pays for all those federal, state and Municipal JOBS and the pensions that go with them.

Over the past six disastrous years, we’ve all gotten exactly the Franken-Olbermann economic plan.

So what does a Liberal nitwit, like Keith Olbermann, have to be “angry about?”

NOTHING, so it would seem, he’s “unhinged.”

I knew you wouldn't agree with me...

I think your glasses are a different color than mine.

The LAST six years have been a Liberal (pro-big government, pro-social spending) paradise.

Wow, if your perspective is at all like that of other Conservatives then I think I understand why they think Obama is a Marxist.

Of course, we disagree Bob. I'm a non-partisan, pragmatist and your a Left-wing idealist, apparently dumb enough t believe that Barack Obama, who's FIRST act after being elected was picking the architect of the Blue Dog Conservative Democratic uprising of 2006 (Rahm Eamnuel) as his Chief-of-Staff. Then kept Bob Gates on as SoD and picked a very pro market-oriented economics team that has killed all talk of ending the Bush tax cuts before their expiration date (December 31, 2010).

The closest any American has gotten to marxism, or real socialism, is found among the neo-nazis, the NOI, the Aryan Nation and other such groups that recognize two basic realities that pseudo-Leftists (would-be "elitists") don't; (1) that economic socialism can ONLY thrive within a fascist political system and (2) there can never be any "economic justice," ao anything approaching "economic equality" so long as we have a system rooted in private property.

In fact, those folks are correct, so far as those realities go, BUT (1) the American people are going to allow a system that eradicates private property rights inflicted on them, AND aside for that outlier fringe, the number of Americans who'd support any real kind of socialism/Marxism don't even crack the 1% mark.

It's not a matter of the color of our glasses (I don't wear glasses), it's a matter of the vast political and economic ignorance on your part.

CORRECTION/TYPO: "In fact, those folks are correct, so far as those realities go, BUT (1) the American people are NOT going to allow a system that eradicates private property rights inflicted on them, AND aside for that outlier fringe, the number of Americans who'd support any real kind of socialism/Marxism don't even crack the 1% mark."

Even during the Great Depression, the radical Left (there were Communist rallies and actual nazi "Bundt Meetings" in Madison Square Garden) never really made inroads with Americans.

Americans LOVE the notion of OWNING their homes and individuals owning businesses and parts (stock) of the businesses that are the underpinnings of our economy and the fountain of our prosperity.

The naive dolts who think Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel would like to see that system "overhauled" or even modified on any large scale, are deluding themselves.

MOSTLY, they want to be re-elected and going down the road Carter went down isn't the way to do that, although it might be (in the sort-term) the way to get rid of the Pelosi-Reid Congress. With an approval rating in the single digits, the Pelosi-Reid Congress is already extremely vulnerable.

...your a Left-wing idealist, apparently dumb enough...

First of all; ouch.

Second, I actually think I'm very much a centrist; but then again, you probably won't agree with me.

:P

...it's a matter of the vast political and economic ignorance on your part.

Wow, you must have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed.

Seriously, insulting me isn't like you. You and I have always disagreed but it's been civil, at least until now.

So let me respond in kind...

Why don't you take your narrow minded, historically inaccurate, and semi-informed opinions and stick them where the sun don't shine.

Y'all be nice. A new era is upon us, after all. :-)

"Seriously, insulting me isn't like you. (Bob)


Actually, I'm somewhat sad to say, it's very much like me, Bob.

As I've said, I tend to be somewhat sardonic (mockingly ironic) in my responses.

In my recollection, we DID NOT "disagree civilly" over your erroneous assertion that the USSR was "an ally of America's and England's during WWII." The USSR had no use for either England nor America AND DID NOT fight the Axis Powers (only Germany) - the USSR only declared war on Japan the day AFTER America dropped the first atomic bomb on Japan.

We DID NOT "disagree civilly" over your assertion that "Liberation theology" a vile creed that claims Christ as a marxist is valid form of Christianity and it's teachings largely in keeping with Christ's views.

Those are completely ahistoric (devoid of any understanding of history) views and what's worse, you assert such things and rarely make an affirmative defense for them.

OK, they don't quite rise to the batshit crazy "Barely Hanging level", but they're grossly and embarassingly inaccurate...and that's being charitable (except for the Barely Hanging part - that's actual stupidity, not mere ignorance of the facts and it's on a completely different wavelength altogether).

As for the nazi rallies (or "Bund meetings") at MSG SEE: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3137835249642012796

AND for a picture a "Bund parade" in NYC in 1939: http://kelticklankirk.com/german-american-bund_2.htm

AND for the communist rallies at MSG SEE: "12,000 COMMUNISTS RALLY AT GARDEN; Peaceful Meeting Marks 20th Year of 3d International-- 1,500 Police on Guard TWO ARRESTS ARE MADE Patrolmen Have Little to Do - Handbills Are Passed Out by Trotsky Supporters"

The NY Times
Tuesday, February 28, 1939,
Page 14, 824 words
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40910FD355B177A93CAAB1789D85F4D8385F9

"Behind a police guard almost as elaborate as that assigned to the German-American Bund meeting a week ago, the Communist party rallied in Madison Square Garden last night to celebrate the twentieth anniversary of the founding of the Third International..."


Bob, you should know me better by now. After all this time, if you think I'm going to let anyone simply and erroneously try and re-write history to their own liking....well, that's not gonna happen.

And unfortunately for such folks, as ALWAYS, I'm ready, willing and very ABLE to back up anything I say (thus the plethora of links I post) as opposed to those who "CLAIM" to disagree with me.

So, have I proven my points?

MSG communist rallies and Bund meetings....the obama administration never claiming to want to change course from the regulated market-driven economy we've had here since 1912...I'm eager to defend EVERY point I made in those posts.

See? As I said, "I don't think it's a matter of glass color...let's just say that it's a matter of the facts being what they are. How's that? Somewhat less insulting?

You're certainly welcome to refute these points, though I'd hope and expect that to be with FACTS and documentation and not mere opinions, OK?

"Second, I actually think I'm very much a centrist; but then again, you probably won't agree with me." (Bob)


That all depends, Bob.

Say something "Centrist," and I'll tell you if I'd agree that you're the "Centrist," you claim to be.

Let's face it, lauding Stalin's thugocracy (the former USSR) as "an ally of America's during WW II" (Stalin hated the "Capitalist West" and did NOT fight the Axis Powers, only Germany....the USSR declared war on Japan the day AFTER America dropped the first atomic bomb on that nation) AND touting "liberation theology", a vile hate-cult that claims "Christ as the first marxist," as true to Christ's teachings....that's not a very promising track record on which to base any "Centrism" on, although I'm certainly open to changing my mind, should new evidence present itself.

“Wow, if your perspective is at all like that of other Conservatives then I think I understand why they think Obama is a Marxist.” (Bob)


Whooops!

I must confess to having misread, or at least misinterpreted this.

I erroneously interpreted this statement to be your claiming Obama IS a Marxist and that’s what Conservatives deserve.

My error and I rescind the “I'm a non-partisan, pragmatist and your a Left-wing idealist, apparently dumb enough to believe that Barack Obama...is a Marxist,” and apologize for both the misinterpretation and the snide retort.

There has been a lot of outright erroneous and hysterical reaction and assumption from BOTH Right and Left...many on the Right assuming the worst (Marxist ideology and radical roots) and many on the Left apparently hoping for those things.

I don’t believe that Barack Obama is a Marxist at all, far from it...at least “pretty far from it.” What he seems to be is a Keynesian – a believer in the viewpoint that big government is goo and social spending can be good for the economy, as it’s an “investment in human capital.”

That’s hardly “radical.”

G W Bush was a Keynesian. He spent MORE money on reckless, wanton social spending (even adjusted for inflation) than LBJ did.

In fact, G W Bush is every bit as Keynesian in his heart as his Dad (Bish-41) who called Reagan’s Supply Side policies “Voodoo Economics”, was. George Bush Sr. was a Nixon devotee, as were his cronies, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Baker, etc.

Ironically enough it was the ONLY TWO Supply Side things that G W Bush did that masked the disastrous effects of all that Keynesian overspending – the across-the-board income tax cuts INCREASED income tax revenues EVERY year since they were applied, as did the Capital Gains rate cut (Cap gains revenues skyrocketed in the wake of that cut). G W Bush SHOULD HAVE BEEN reined in by a GOP Congress, BUT the DeLay and Hastert Congresses were nearly as spendthrift Keynesian as is the Pelosi-Reid...OK, not really, but they DID overspend greatly, even though their excesses have been dwarfed by Pelosi-Reid’s.

The irony is that one part of the current economic mess is due to all that reckless overspending, along with some wrong-headed regulation (the “turbo-charged CRA" that mandated subprime loans to “low income Americans,” something Andy Cuomo as HUD Secretary called “affirmative action in lending” – his quote’s captured on YouTube) and some serious lack of oversight at the SEC...and the solution offered right now is MORE spending, MORE wrong-headed regulation and MORE credit socialism.

There’s an irony there somewhere, but I don’t think it’ll be all that funny should G W Bush come to look more and more like Nixon in retrospect, leaving another Carter to hold the bag on more failed Keynesian policies.

I’ve responded recently many times to fellow Conservatives, “I remain concerned but "cautiously optimistic," so I have no such misgivings so far. In fact, I think it's wrong for us to overlook the undeniably historic nature of this event, and pointed out the many pragmatic and centrist picks made so far.

But it’s not a matter of “one idea being as good as another,” that’s not true. It’s not a matter of “the pendulum swinging back,” as that’s not a GOOD thing!

The economic implosion we suffered under Carter was caused by Keynesian economic policies over an extended period (1964 – 1980) and the economy improved dramatically EVERY YEAR with Reagan’s Supply Side policies, despite the Congressional overspending of that time.

We returned to four more straight years of double digit Misery Indexes with Bush-41 because of a second flirtation with Keynesian economic policies and even though the Bush-41 years paled (10.2 average annual MI) in comparison to the Carter years (16.4 average annual MI). Bill Clinton warred with the Keynesian Foley Congress and cooperated pretty eagerly with the Supply Side Gingrich Congress and G W Bush has shown that Supply Side tax cuts can INCREASE revenues to such an extent that they can cover up a LOT of reckless and excessive social spending and legislation – under Bush Sarb-Ox added greatly to the cost of doing business, the NCLB Act and the prescription drug boondoggle have cost us BILLIONS and tens of billions MORE have been spent on other social programs (more social spending, even adjusted for inflation than even LBJ).

That bit of recent history proves clearly that Supply Side policies WORK, while Keynesian policies DON’T. That’s why I’m hoping for MORE pragmatism at this point.