Meanwhile, we're denied the analysis of a sharp journalist like, e.g., Howard Fineman, who I'm pretty sure is far more attuned to the inner dynamics of the Republican field, including Michele Bachmann than Michael Steele is. For the very simple reason that whatever Steele knows, if anything (I doubt it), he's not telling.
Then Chris dropped the hilarious line that what transpires on his show is of educational value for young people wanting to go into politics. What we learned from Michael Steele:
- Michele Bachmann didn't really mean to question the President's patriotism; we just didn't know that much about then-Senator Obama to form an opinion on whether he was a clear and present danger to the republic;
- Amid "you guys" this and that (us "guys" liberals), it's now okay to use the pejorative "Democrat" for "Democratic" heard on MSNBC twice in so many days from wingnuts — the other being Daily Caller super-sophist Matt Lewis. Bashing the Democratic Party and telling lies about the President is OK, but just make sure to use its proper name. It's been around since Jefferson. Neither Matthews nor Cenk corrected their "guests." In Steele's case, shunning the juvenile partisanship should be a condition of employment;
- Michele Bachmann is not a flake but she's made FLAKY statements (David Corn, a sharp progressive from Mother Jones who, as is our wont, has a low tolerance for bullshit);
- The science isn't in on global warming ... WHAT!? (Matthews and Corn).
Suggest dropping Steele on Moron Joe — he'll find a receptive audience there. And MSNBC is running the ridiculous promo claiming Moron Joe is "revolutionary." Peas in a pod. For folks who like raucous, chaotic, anything goes political hardball, Steele has some entertainment value. Enlightening or educational? NADA.
of you have sat, and perhaps thought, with us!
5 comments:
I had no idea this blog existed. I have heard Repubs. and Dems. battle about the debt ceiling, tax cuts and the such. Well, I remember when Bush got into office in 2000 there was a surplus and Repubs. said that it was time the surplus went back to the tax payers. But we HAVE NOT HAVE A SURPLUS IN MORE THAN TEN YEARS. Why didn't those tax cuts stop as soon as there was no surplus? No one has address that tidbit and I have been asking it for a while. Can you answer? Thanks.
When unemployment figures went down Repubs. tried to take credit. Why aren't they trying to take the credit now?
Mr. Oren Hatch (sorry, not sure of spelling) said that it is time for all to share in the sacrifice. Well, the unemployed are already sacrificing. The jobs went overseas due to the greediness of the companies for whom they worked. The only ones who benefited from those companies were their share holders and CEOs. Why should those who got hurt due to the policies of the previous adm. have to pay now? Thanks for your answer.
How come no one have commented on the jobs creation policies that Bush created? He created jobs in China and in India but over here people were losing their jobs. People, without jobs cannot pay for their homes and do not pay taxes. On top of that he created two wars. Those who enlisted were counted as employed but yet their salaries came out of this country's budget. He continue to borrow instead of increasing the revenues to pay for those wars. Now those troops are coming back and of course there are no jobs.I consider that immoral, not to take into consideration the "modus vivendae" of the hard working people of this country.
Well, instead of using that surplus to put Medicare/Medicaid, SS on solid fiscal footing for the future, Republicans used it ALL up to pay for tax cuts for the rich. There was never any trigger mechanism in the tax cut legislation that it was contingent on our having a surplus. Two unpaid wars and unpaid Medicare Advantage threw us straight into deficit.
BTW, Before Clinton, the last time we had a surplus was under Eisenhower in the 50s.
I agree with you. Let's not forget, too, that under Bush the debt ceiling was raised seven times and the Repubs never played politics with it the way they're doing now, trying to dish out the pain to those who can least afford it in our society.
Post a Comment