My post was in response to your sarcastic comment about me being focused on the big picture. What is the big picture to you? On this issue I gave a clear indication of my view in my post you call a non-sequitor.

not to mention that Daschle has already withdrawn his name for the job

ace--look at the op. the question is whether obama should engage with the right's talking head set, not whether you agree with particular talking points that originate with the right's talking head set. what you've been doing is substituting the latter for the former and acting as though it addresses the question. presumably, you take these talking points seriously and so think that they legitimate the sources (assuming that your sources can be traced back to limbaugh or hannity, which is what your actions here implies) and by doing that you undercut, in your world, the critiques of both as non-journalists.

well, ace, they aren't journalists, either of them.
limbaugh is at least smart and very skillful as a conservative infotainment relay system and radio talk show host.
on the other hand, hannity is a fucking idiot.

Poor Tommy Daschle...he seemed to me like the nice, smart, quiet, industrious boy down the street with the paper route since he was seven. He said such nice things about Obama, for so long. He fought so hard to be a part of the inner circle, put in his time. A man of the people for 30 years. Shaking hands in diners, soft-spoken, well-mannered. Did all the right things. 30 years of public service, and he's sunk by his limousine driver. Brutal.

This was something I meant to address earlier and neglected to do so - somehow in the last 10-15 years or so...I'd say about the time Jerry Springer appeared on the scene...news became more densely conflated with shock media than it ever had before...not to say that it hasn't been a progression, I realize that, but it really seemed to pick up steam when the public tar and feathering seen usually late at night with the likes of Morton Downey, Jr. started working its way towards the mainstream during the day.

Combined with the need for material to fill the burgeoning 24 hour cable news channels and the fierce competition between them for ratings...it all comes together. In my head just now, lol.

I've noticed in recent posts that several of our members cant seem to focus on the OP but would bring Daschle into the discussion.

The same members are purveyors of IBD editorials, Hannity......

Hmmmmm....does right wing infotainment causes attention span deficit disorder?

know what hannity and limbaugh have in common: both only have highschool diplomas...


i would like to see obama on a live interview with hannity, just to shut him up. His appearance on o'really really seemed to impress a lot of people


that said, we just had 8 yrs of one of the least public and most private/secretive presidents ever..... we're already having a 'change' in that regard

When I've been able to catch O'Reilly, he has been doing a good job. Maybe even fair and balanced. It's ok to criticize, but offer a suggestion that will work better and help out the country. When O'Reilly discusses the spending bill, he nit picks the wasteful spending, but recognizes that something needs to be done. Limbaugh just tries to tear down any idea coming from the left as wrong through intimidation, name calling, and repetition. He doesn't offer a real plan for helping out all Americans, only the successful people (or people who think they might be successful one day), or people who hate government, making changes in their lives, sacrificing for the greater good, or helping out the less fortunate.

But listening to him tell his side of the story for 3-4 hours a day, is just as bad as only hearing the left side of the story for 3-4 hours a day. If Obama went on his show, he could at least respond to his statements and try and find a few things that they agree on.

Einstein didn't finish highschool, but later went on to the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology... and we all know the rest of that story.

Perhaps there is still hope for Hannity, Limbaugh, and Obama to someday really do something of merit, honor, and substance with the rest of their lives. However (for the time being), they do put on a swell dog and pony show.

At least they're good for a few laughs.

Nothing would be served by it. It would be as if Bush sat down with the Daily Kos.

Nothing would be accomplished aside from giving un-needed legitimacy to detractors. I applaud Obama sitting in on O'Riley (sp?) as he stood by a promise he made. Both were respectful and I gained a lot of respect for him by doing it. However, I can't stand Limbaugh or Hannity and I'm not exactly liberal. The shock-factor they use leaves very little room for logical or reasonable discussion which is needed at this time.

Everything right except committing a federal crime?

Einstein did finish high school. And contrary to the popular belief, he actually was a pretty good student. He left his first high school for some unknown reason, though most speculate that he did not get along well with teachers there, but went on to finish his high school degree in Aarau. He actually graduated with the equivalent of As in geometry, algebra, physics and other similar fields.

In any case, that is beside the point, and somewhat irrelevant. But I find it funny that you think that what Obama, Hannity and Limbaugh have achieved in their lives is in any way similar.
-----Added 3/2/2009 at 11 : 09 : 58-----
amending one's tax returns within the 3 year deadline is not a federal crime. The whole Daschle debacle was really much ado about almost nothing, and certainly much less severe than what Geithner did.

By the way, Daschle's tax problems are exactly the same as Palin's unreported per diems.

No they aren't, per diems aren't considered income.

And while not paying taxes on hired help probably goes on throughout the country, I'm more concerned with why the IRS hasn't gone after these people (and I mean all of them across the country). I mean, if I pay my taxes, but my employer doesn't pay their share, shouldn't a red flag go up at the IRS to look into this matter? Was the hired help not paying their taxes either? Were they told not to?

Per diems are taxable income if you are staying at home. Otherwise, everyone would convert part or all their salary to per diems and be tax free.

If you don't believe me, here is a document from the state of Alaska:
http://fin.admin.state.ak.us/dof/tra...source/tax.pdf

"Per diem and other travel expense payments for most employees are nontaxable. However,
they are only nontaxable as long as the employee is away from their tax home"


And the thing is, it is exactly the same situation as Daschle's. One got a limo and driver to drive to and from work, the other got a per diem to offset living costs.

All pied-pipers with bags of magic twinkies for the useful idiots... one's just more hopey-changey than the others. It's arguable who is really most powerful on any given day.

Wow.

I love you too.

Let me connect the dots. An interview with Hannity or Limbaugh would focus on Obama's hypocrisy. Obama talking to these men would serve no purpose because of the developing mountain of contradictions between his words and his actions, on the day I referenced Daschel that bit of hypocrisy was front and center. These men will continually feed on Obama, it won't stop. He can not win them over, he can not explain away his hypocrisy - fans of Obama simply need to stick their head in the sand and ignore the fact that Obama has on core convictions and is mostly a man of style over substance.

Oh, and what did your post have to do with the OP? Nothing, just a shot at lil ol me. Do you suffer from attention sp...whatever too?

ace...you are right. I apologize for my feeble attempt at humor.

I still dont agree with your "Obama is a hypocite" charge....an easy partisan talking point. I would suggest that the vetting process has been sloppy at best for which Obama stood up and took the blame....that doesnt make one a hypocrite.

Or your "economic stimulus based on government spending will create jobs is a myth" charge.

Or your charges that economic studies that dont support your position are "smoke and mirrors."

Or your past charges of "all democrats in Washington are either ignorant or liars."

Perhaps this might help you understand why I often find it hard to take you seriously.

I am not clear on what his apology was for. Was it for nominating Daschel even though he knew about his lobbying connection and tax issues to spite his proclamations on change. Or, was it for not vetting thoroughly and not being aware of the lobbyist connection and tax issues? Or, was it regarding being dishonest about his proclamations of "change", and that now he is in office it is business as usual in D.C.?

Please understand the full context. The government can take a dollar from one person (or sector in the economy) and give it to another, creating nothing. Or the government can engage in deficit spending which will result in higher taxation or inflation in the future, creating nothing long-term. If government spending created growth or jobs, every nation on earth would have a very simple formula for creating growth and jobs. However, it is clear to most that it does not work.

I get very specific with studies, so you need to tell me what study I called "smoke and mirrors". I do remember when economists told us that the US consumer savings rate was too low and going to harm the economy and now we have economist telling us that US consumers saving more and paying off debt is bad for the economy. :orly::orly::orly: Things that make you go "mmmmmm", or at least me. I am sure most others just go along for the ride without question.

Every time I post that, it is with a specific point supporting my position. And I think it was clear the Democrats either did not understand the TARP legislation or knew about the flaws and are now pretending it was all the Bush administration's fault. Now, you certainly can not dispute that.

Perhaps, we can revisit this, when I care about you taking me seriously.

You should go study Keynesian economics and the tradition of economic theory both for and against Keynes over the last seventy years or so, and see if you still think the above paragraph holds water. I believe, if you engage honestly with the literature, you'll see it doesn't.

There are very good reasons nations don't try to spend their way out of recession. There are also very good reasons why it could work. It's nowhere NEAR as cut-and-dried as you make it out to be.

your basic position, ace, is that there is no crisis in the economy, that the jamming up of credit, the ramifications of that, the spiking of the unemployment rate, etc etc etc are all normal. so you don't need to think real hard, much less question your assumptions about neoliberal dogma, to continue acting as though your positions make sense.

everything follows from that.

O.k., I simply don't get it then. If government spending is the key to job creation why doen't it work? Has it worked in California? Did it work in the USSR? Did it work in Cuba? Did it work during the Great Depression? Hey, perhaps we figured it out. Perhaps government creates jobs by going to war, like in WWII. I guess it goes to the question is being a soldier a job, or an adventure?
-----Added 9/2/2009 at 02 : 14 : 25-----
My basic position is we are in a recession. I think it is generally a normal recession combined with the complexity of a concurrent global recession. I think the market has to make adjustments for some recent excesses, namely the real estate correction and consumption based on false or inflated housing values. I think this adjustment will work through the system, will be painful, will happen regardless of government. Hardly "neoliberal dogma", more of an evaluation of past business cycles and how they compare to current conditions. I hardly believe you or many others really believe that if the government fails to pass a $1 trillion spending bill within the next few days we are going to go into a depression similar to the Great Depression.

Here is my hero: