Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 8:38 AM ET, 01/24/2011

The Morning Plum

By Greg Sargent

* Framing the big debate for 2012: Obama and Senate GOP leaders over the weekend framed the debate that will define the next two years in advance of the 2012 campaign. While Obama previewed that he will call in his State of the Union speech for a "leaner and smarter" government to increase competitiveness, Mitch McConnell insisted this will remain a non-starter if it's coupled with any increases in government spending on education, development or infrastructure.

No matter how many times Obama talks about fostering competitiveness, and no matter how many "olive branches" he extends to big business, McConnell and Republicans will continue to criticize him until he refudiates the fundamental principle that government spending has any role at all in fostering economic recovery.

* History lesson of the day: With Obama's speech set to telegraph how he'll handle the next two years, E.J. Dionne reminds us that Bill Clinton did far more than just triangulate or move to the center. He positioned himself as a staunch defender of popular government programs against Republicans who wanted to gut them:

He battled their cuts in "Medicare, Medicaid, education and the environment" and beat them.

Mysteriously, no one remembers this part of the story.

* No Social Security cuts? Obama will not call for any cuts to Social Security in his speech, though he will apparently say changes of some sort are necessary to keep the program on a solid footing, which should be just enough to keep the liberal nightmare of a Social Security sell-out alive.

* McConnell's dilemma: Interesting dynamic worth keeping an eye on: John Harwood notes that when Obama is able to reach a deal with Republicans, he's the one who gets the credit for breaking Washington gridlock, which could make compromise less likely going forward.

* Calling Senate GOP's bluff on repeal? It looks like Senate Republicans may be able to force a vote on health repeal, but if they do, Chuck Schumer vows that Dems will force Republicans to vote on whether to repeal every single one of the law's popular provisions:

"Do Republicans really want to vote to repeal the ban on preexisting conditions? Do they really want to repeal the guidelines that allow young adults who have graduated college and are just entering the workforce to stay on their parents' insurance until age 26? Do they really want to repeal the fix to the Medicare donut hole that will save seniors 50 percent on the cost of their prescription drugs? Do they really want to repeal free checkups for seniors that save taxpayers billions of dollars through better prevention?"

* Relatedly, this is worth watching: Republicans think the repeal vote would be a tough one for Senate Dems up for reelection, so it'll be interesting to see how such Dems handle the repeal push.

* Olbermann's departure signals no change of direction at MSNBC? As Keach Hagey notes, one of the odder things about his departure is that it comes just as MSNBC is "doubling-down on an attempt to build a loyal audience with a left-leaning programming strategy."

* And: Olbermann may have been discussing his departure with network brass for weeks.

* False equivalence watch: Relatedly, Joe Klein, who has not refrained from criticizing Olbermann's excesses, skewers the notion that there's anything remotely equivalent between Olbermann and Beck:

He is an extraordinary liar, on matters large and small, as I've learned from personal experience with the man. That Beck remains on the air and Keith Olbermann -- unpleasant and extreme at times, but no fantasist -- isn't anymore is a travesty.

* Secret cash to become an issue in the presidential race: Dems plan to renew their push to impose disclosure on shadowy outside groups, which are expected to spend even more in 2012 than last time around, meaning this could become an issue in the presidential race.

* Headline of the day: Via Mike Allen, the White House has to be pleased about this one from USA Today:

Experts: Economy looking brighter for 2011

* Macaca-mentum! George Allen will announce his Senate run today, and the question is whether he can put Macaca and the ignominy of 2006 behind him.

* Here's a spending cut for you: If incoming Congressional leaders want to prove they're serious about austerity, maybe they could start by not spending billions on a jet fighter engine boondoggle that Dem and GOP presidents alike have said we don't need.

* What about gun control? While it appears unlikely that the Arizona shooting will change the gun control conversation, the Post came through with a terrific investigation this weekend finding a dramatic spike in police seizures of guns with high-capacity ammo magazines in Virgina since the ban on them was lifted in 2004.

Key takeaway: Legal limits on the sort of ammo magazine used in the Arizona shooting actually worked.

* And the Tea Partyers continue wrapping themselves in Constitution: Michele Bachmann's Tea Party seminars on the Constitution kick off today with a lecture by Antonin Scalia, and the arrangement is raising some eyebrows.

Maybe Scalia and his Tea Party audience can discuss the founders' support for "government-run health care."

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | January 24, 2011; 8:38 AM ET
Categories:  2012, Health reform, Morning Plum, Political media, Senate Dems, Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Sunday Open Thread
Next: Remembering George Allen's 2006 campaign

Comments

Krugman gets to the bottom line:

"But even if he proposes good policies, the fact that Mr. Obama feels the need to wrap these policies in bad metaphors is a sad commentary on the state of our discourse. The financial crisis of 2008 was a teachable moment, an object lesson in what can go wrong if you trust a market economy to regulate itself. Nor should we forget that highly regulated economies, like Germany, did a much better job than we did at sustaining employment after the crisis hit. For whatever reason, however, the teachable moment came and went with nothing learned.

Mr. Obama himself may do all right: his approval rating is up, the economy is showing signs of life, and his chances of re-election look pretty good. But the ideology that brought economic disaster in 2008 is back on top — and seems likely to stay there until it brings disaster again."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/24/opinion/24krugman.html?ref=opinion

"when Obama is able to reach a deal with Republicans, he's the one who gets the credit for breaking Washington gridlock, which could make compromise less likely going forward"

That's my hope. My fear is that Obama will make the GOP offers it can't refuse (like the Tax Capitulation), Obama's popularity goes up, and the country suffers, while Democrats applaud b/c Obama is popular.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 24, 2011 8:54 AM | Report abuse

The idea that MSNBC is persuing a "left-leaning programming strategy" is such a load of bulls#!t.

It's true that MSNBC has a handful of left leaning commentators on in prime time. They also have an ex-GOP congressman on a multiple-hours long morning show, surrounded by several right-leaning DC media blowhards. The middle of the day shows are decently in the middle, as there are arguments for some left leaning coverage (what they cover) and some right leaning coverage (how they cover).

All in all, MSNBC probably has some of the most balanced idealogical coverage of all the networks. Politico (and other DC media outlets) just want to paint MSNBC as a "left-wing FOX" in an effort to be able to excuse away their coverage as partisan and to hold up the magical and non-existant "liberal media" boogyman.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | January 24, 2011 8:54 AM | Report abuse

You actually used the word "refudiate". Sophomoric mocking or sophomoric language? Take your pick.

Scalia's invited appearance cannot do any harm in and of itself; the chance it will actually educate the TEAs is infinitely greater than the chance it will cause Scalia to commit an ethical violation or a malpractice.

However, appearances may cause some in the public to lose trust in the courts. See:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2011-01-15-RWcourtpolitics23_ST_N.htm

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 24, 2011 8:56 AM | Report abuse

From the Politico piece on Olbermann...

"When Comcast Chairman Brian Roberts was asked last May what he would do if Olbermann began attacking any Republican member of Congress after the takeover, he replied, according to the New York Post, “Let’s have that conversation in 12 months, when we’re playing with live ammo.”

And Imsinca linked this Alternet piece earlier...

http://www.alternet.org/media/149639/what%3Ci%3Ethe%3C/i%3Ehell%3Ci%3Ehappened%3C/i%3Eto%3Ci%3Ekeith%3C/i%3Eolbermann/?page=1

I'm beginning to get angry.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 24, 2011 9:01 AM | Report abuse

"appearances may cause some in the public to lose trust in the courts."

It's far beyond "appearance":

"Supreme Court controversy over justices centers on Koch brothers"

Read more: http://www.kansas.com/2011/01/21/1683876/supreme-court-controversy-over.html#ixzz1BxfBSNsQ"

And for a cute timeline of the Koch Bros and the John Birch Society go here:

http://www.openleft.com/diary/21481/citzens-united-turns-one

Posted by: wbgonne | January 24, 2011 9:04 AM | Report abuse

Eventhough Republicans won't go along with Obama's push for more spending on infrastructure, education, and innovation Obama is RIGHT to push for these for two reasons.

1. By pushing for this Obama is taking the upperhand in messaging that Americans crave which is optimism for the future. This goes beyond job creation, competitiveness,etc.

Vin Weber in the NYT said it best when he said that Republicans risk ceding the high ground of future-oriented optimism that Reagan and Kemp had which is what WINS elections.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/24/president-rebounding-gives-opponents-pause/


2. By pushing for more money for infrastrucute, research, energy, etc. Obama may be able to wrestle business away from Republicans and have business essentially have a stake in Obama's presidency and 2012 campaign. In other words if business believes that Obama is going to push for things they want to improve their business such as manufacturing, energy, infrastructure then they may push the Republicans to go along with this or support Obama in 2012.

For example, look at the fact that the Chamber of Commerce will be working with Labor to stop Republicans from gutting infrastructure spending.

Besides this is a WINNING message that Obama and Democrats can run on in 2012 and WIN.

Posted by: maritza1 | January 24, 2011 9:08 AM | Report abuse

As I said:

My fear is that Obama will make the GOP offers it can't refuse (like the Tax Capitulation), Obama's popularity goes up, and the country suffers, while Democrats applaud b/c Obama is popular.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 24, 2011 9:13 AM | Report abuse

Dionne's conclusion is interesting:
"the House Republicans will be doing all they can to make Obama look like the soul of moderation and reasonableness."

Following the election, some predicted the establishment Rs, led by Boehner, would moderate, largely ignoring or downplaying the more extreme members of the caucus. Thus far, they haven't. Dionne is right to point out that this benefits the President.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 24, 2011 9:25 AM | Report abuse

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/24/business/media/24olbermann.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 24, 2011 9:30 AM | Report abuse

@Bernie

I am not one of those who dismiss your fears of the invisible hand of Comcast in the K.O. departure...after all this is the same group that banned all Dixie Chicks records for a comment they made about Bush and his foolish war in Iraq. In Sister Sarah and RFR's world this constitutes and abridgment of the Dixie Chicks First Amendment rights...snark snark.

But perhaps it's because I've recently lost 25Lbs and 4 inches from my waist I'm feeling particularly cheerful and optimistic this morning. With that in mind Bernie here is an interesting read from John Avlon that points out that Olbermann may actually be part of a larger trend which finds wingnuts from BOTH sides losing influence and popularity. Olbermann was down 20% in the coveted demo 25-54 this past year. Beck lost a whopping 2/3 of his audience in that demo over the same time period. Could it be that sensible journalism and punditry may yet return? We can always hope!

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-22/keith-olbermanns-departure-means-the-end-of-the-wingnuts/

“What might be good for ratings can be bad for the country. The hard-core partisans are self-segregating themselves into separate political realities. But the majority of Americans are starting to wake up to the game.”

"They are part of a larger apparatus that has made our politics increasingly feel like a cult, selling Kool-Aid to the party faithful and condemning anyone who questions the ideological line as weak or worse."

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 24, 2011 9:31 AM | Report abuse

"Following the election, some predicted the establishment Rs, led by Boehner, would moderate, largely ignoring or downplaying the more extreme members of the caucus. Thus far, they haven't. Dionne is right to point out that this benefits the President."

BSimon: Well, it hasn't helped Obama yet and it most definitely hasn't helped the Democratic Party. In fact, the GOP pretty much destroyed Obama's presidency with their recalcitrant antics. As Greg explained last week, obstructionism was obviously a conscious decision by McConnell that completely flummoxed the White House even as the rest of the country saw plainly what was happening. What Greg didn't get to, however, was the question of substance. Yes, as a political tactic, McConnell decided that GOP lockstep opposition to Obama could male Obama appear unreasonable and hurt the Dems politically. That all happened. But what ALSO happened was that the GOP drove Obama ever further Right as he desperately sought to escape the GOP's box. Hence, the Third Way (not to be confused with Triangulation). Obama has discredited liberalism without governing as a liberal. What that means, as Krugman notes, is that Right Wing conservatism is once again the dominant political philosophy and will, inevitably, lead us into even more dramatic economic busts since deregulated economic bubbles are what now sustain the U.S. economy in the Conservative world view. The John Birch Society, albeit operating under other names, is now stronger than at any time in American history. Obama has failed beyond all imagining. I just hope he doesn't do any additional harm.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 24, 2011 9:38 AM | Report abuse

Later.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 24, 2011 9:41 AM | Report abuse

Ahh, the VA Senate race should be fun.


Jim Webb - Born Fightin!

George Allen - Born with a Spoon in His Mouth!

Posted by: mikefromArlington | January 24, 2011 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Two things:

First: "refudiates"

Second: "What else is happening?"

No mention on the article from yesterday's Washington Post about the dimming prospects of filibuster reform?

"Amid a long-running dispute over decades-old filibuster rules, Senate leaders have used a parliamentary trick to leave the chamber in a state of suspended animation - in reality adjourned since Jan. 5 but officially considered in a long recess that's part of the same individual legislative day.

This nearly three-week break has taken place in large part so leadership could hold private negotiations to consider how to deal with a group of Democrats agitating to shake up the foundation of the world's most deliberative body, right down to challenging the filibuster.

To the dismay of a younger crop of Democrats and some outside liberal activists, there is no chance that rules surrounding the filibuster will be challenged, senior aides on both sides of the aisle say, because party leaders want to protect the right of the Senate's minority party to sometimes force a supermajority of 60 votes to approve legislation.

Instead, rank-and-file lawmakers will receive pitches from Sens. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who have been negotiating more limited changes, such as with "secret holds" that allow an anonymous senator to slow legislation. In addition, some modifications could be made to the way confirmations are handled for agency nominees who do not have direct roles in policymaking. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/22/AR2011012203920.html

Posted by: jnc4p | January 24, 2011 9:44 AM | Report abuse

For those interested in a balanced look at the deficit issue...for those tired of the bleating from the right wing fear mongers...

A little perspective...

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/keep-large-debt-numbers-in-context/1146801

Proportionality and the national debt

The projected $70 trillion debt referenced above is accumulated over the next 75 years.

But how does it compare to the nation's ability to pay? That is, what proportion is $70 trillion to the 75-year national income?

We don't know how fast America's national income will grow, but we can estimate high, low and "best guess" numbers.

At a "pessimistic" economic growth rate of zero percent, the gross domestic product will total $1.05 quadrillion over the next 75 years; at an "average" 2 percent rate, the GDP will total $2.46 quadrillion; and, at an "optimistic" 3 percent rate, the GDP will total $3.95 quadrillion.

Comparing $70 trillion to these three numbers, we see that debt as a percent of the GDP varies from 7 percent at zero economic growth to 2.84 percent at 2 percent growth and to slightly more than 1.77 percent at 3 percent growth. Such computation demonstrates that while the projected $70 trillion debt figure represents an important problem, it is also a problem that is quite manageable. Sure, let's get better control over the national budget, but there is no need to panic or take sudden actions with Social Security, or continue the neglect of our roads and rail networks.

Omitting information is misleading


Because much of the general public has only a tenuous understanding of such large numbers, we propose the following rules for the commentariat — reporters, politicians, pundits and professors.

Rule No. 1: Never use large debt numbers without stating the time period in which they are incurred and the corresponding proportion to ability to pay.

Rule No. 2: Never repeat statements made by others that fail to adhere to Rule No. 1, unless it is to include the missing information.

Rule No. 3: Report all failures to adhere to Rule No. 1 as a failure of professional ethics.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 24, 2011 9:59 AM | Report abuse

RUK, Comcast is not Clear Channel.

Read the NYT story I linked to at 9:30 AM for a bit of perspective on KO.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 24, 2011 10:08 AM | Report abuse

"He battled their cuts in "Medicare, Medicaid, education and the environment" and beat them.

Mysteriously, no one remembers this part of the story."

nope, that would be you who doesn't remember.
Many of us realize that Clinton while talking trianglation actually stood up for SS, Med., eduatin and the eviroment.

those that vilify the clintons got us obama.. he's further to the right and only interested in helping himself

Posted by: newagent99 | January 24, 2011 10:08 AM | Report abuse

Olbermann is out because the democrats called for Civil discourse - and clearly that meant Olbermann had to go


Is Bernie upset because the democrats are being forced to live up to their own words?

OR are the words of the liberals ONLY to use used to attack Conversatives - and never applied to themselves?


Is that what the liberals mean?

Where I come from, they have a phrase for that "If you are going to talk the talk, you gotta walk the walk."


yea


AND Obama has talked the talk but he didn't walk the walk on bipartisanship on health care. The deficit is a massive problem.

please note the social security tax passed in December will NOT impact the repored Federal deficit, instead there will be less money in the Social Security Trust Fund - which is a separate number.

Don't forget that.


.

Posted by: SunlightandLowTaxes | January 24, 2011 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Breaking: Suicide Bomber Attacks Russia’s Largest Airport, 31 Killed, Over 100 Injured

WaPo pundits blame Mrs. Palin in 4... 3... 2...

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | January 24, 2011 10:18 AM | Report abuse

@mark-in-austin

"RUK, Comcast is not Clear Channel."

You are correct and I was badly mistaken.
Thanks for the correction. I read the link when you first posted it...thanks for that as well.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 24, 2011 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin and the Tea Party obviously are responsible for the Airport bombing in Moscow, Russia.

Did you hear what Sarah Palin said last week? Surely she motivated the suicide bomber.

The democrats should definitely start to attack her immediately.

Separately, there is a fire in Ohio.

Sarah Palin had to have caused that too. And those interceptions yesterday? The Tea Party. And the rain? Tea Party rain.


.

Posted by: SunlightandLowTaxes | January 24, 2011 10:31 AM | Report abuse

*STARVE THE BEAST*

A key House Republican is quickly pressing forward with her goals to scale back U.S. funding for the United Nations.
http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/foreign-policy/139563-the-world-from-the-hill-un-funding-an-early-target-for-house-republicans

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told The Hill that oversight would be a key function of the panel, particularly funding to the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC) that is “a waste of taxpayer dollars.”

“I’d like to make sure that we once and for all kill all U.S. funding for that beast,” she said last month. “Because I don’t think that it advances U.S. interests, I don’t think that that’s a pro-democracy group, it’s a rogue’s gallery, pariah states, they belong there because they don’t want to be sanctioned.”

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | January 24, 2011 10:33 AM | Report abuse

OH wait. A US Marshall was shot in St. Petersburg, Florida. IT must be Sarah Palin at work again. Wow.


.

Posted by: SunlightandLowTaxes | January 24, 2011 10:34 AM | Report abuse

All, good post by Adam Serwer on the real George Allen:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/01/former_republican_senator_from.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | January 24, 2011 10:45 AM | Report abuse

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/19/cnn-poll-palin-unfavorable-rating-at-all-time-high/


A new national poll indicates that 56 percent of all AMERICANS HAVE AN UNFAVORABLE VIEW OF SARAH PALIN AND ALL TIME HIGH for the former Alaska governor. That 56 percent unfavorable figure is up seven points from just before the midterm elections, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Wednesday morning.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 24, 2011 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Obama is striking a good note here. Being the Grinch party to his optimistic, forward-looking policies is going to be a tough sell. The GOP risks being the party of the bridge to the 19th Century. Not a recipe for success in a presidential election. No amount of Koch money can put lipstick on the GOP field.

Posted by: Mimikatz | January 24, 2011 11:16 AM | Report abuse

@mark in austin
I had read Carter's piece earlier (on Olbermann) and everything he'd written since Friday nite. Also heard him interviewed that night on NBC.

Go through the piece you linked again and note the number of quotes from corporate. Note the number of quotes from anyone else. Note the number of un-sourced supportive quotes or comments. Note as well that this was done on Friday night - the classic document dump strategy to keep a story out of primary focus.

Carter has been doing a really crappy job throughout. Given what I've pointed to above, consider how his piece functions as corporate stenography. All blame is laid at Olbermann's door and none anywhere else.

It may be the case that Carter gets this right but there's no way of knowing from his reporting because it is entirely one-sided. Read it again and view it in that perspective.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 24, 2011 11:53 AM | Report abuse

OT and incredibly sad. We have suffered a real tragedy here in St. Petersburg this morning.

Two of our police officers have been shot and killed and a U.S. Marshal who was with them to serve a warrant has also been shot.

I realize this is not news anymore in the United States of Continual warfare...can we please just get some more freaking guns out there on the street....why is that namby pamby NRA not getting the ban on automatic weapons lifted...cmon everybody knows the Founding Fathers would have wanted us to have all the firepower available for a standing militia.

I'm sorry but I'm afraid I'm might know one of these officers. I have visited dozens of our neighborhood associations over the past couple of years in the political battle to keep a New York scheister Stuart Sternberg from raping our city coffers of a a half billion to build HIM a new baseball stadium.

At every neighborhood assn meeting in St. Pete and community officer attends and gives a report. I remember attending one of the Assn's on the south side of our city not far from where these shootings take place...I was stunned when the community officer said..paraphrasing...The past month we saw a marked improvement in the amount of gunfire in the neighborhood.
Last week there were only two reported instances of gunfire....

Two reported instances of gunfire? And this was a marked improvement? This is the United States of America...or are we in Baghdad?

I'm sorry gotta go before I get too maudlin and over the top if I haven't already. Both of the officers were married, one had children...so much for my optimistic Monday...what a sick effing society we live in........

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article1147322.ece

ST. PETERSBURG — Two officers are dead after a shootout at a St. Petersburg home Monday morning.

"Our community has suffered a loss today," St. Petersburg police Chief Chuck Harmon said during a somber press conference with Mayor Bill Foster outside Bayfront Medical Center.

The St. Petersburg officers became the first killed during service since 1980. Harmon said the wives of both were notified and "in shock." One of the officers had children.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 24, 2011 11:58 AM | Report abuse

@ru - Glad you are feeling chipper (bit of a hurry so will read you link later) but that thesis forwards the ridiculously false and misleading meme of right/left symmetry in media or cable bias. The media themselves, for the most part, find it deeply convenient to continue to forward this false narrative. It is not only inaccurate but deeply dangerous in that it facilitated the emergence of an entire system of propaganda support for one party/movement and because it continues to facilitate this even as the right wing media gets increasingly extremist and deceitful.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 24, 2011 11:59 AM | Report abuse

BTW I'm beyond pi$ssed at the sick pervert that uses all the sock puppets. Get this deranged a-hole attention quick!!!!

Two officer dead..their wives and children's lives altered forever and what does this sick freaking lunatic post...

"OH wait. A US Marshall was shot in St. Petersburg, Florida. IT must be Sarah Palin at work again. Wow."

STRF/37th/SLT/head completely up you backside....whatever the eff you are calling yourself today. Officers are dead, their families shattered, I'm still waiting to see if they were officers I knew...and you you POS you post stuff like that. You wonder why 56% of Americans dislike Palin...because more of her supporters are morons like you...

Tell you what 37th...I don't care if Greg banishes me..you are a freaking scummy P.O.S. The crap you are typing in your keyboard is INSANE...YOU USE THE FREAKING DEATHS OF TWO OF OUR POLICE OFFICERS..THEIR LOSS...THEIR FAMILY'S LOSS TO MAKE A POINT ABOUT YOUR HARPY WITCH..

ALL I CAN SAY TO YOU 37TH ETC...IS EFFFFF
YOU YOU SCUMBAG! YOU ARE A HEARTLESS WORTHLESS LOSER PIECE OF SH&T!

YEAH GREG IT'S A PERSONAL ATTACK ON THE IDIOT I'VE HAD ENOUGH...SATURDAY HE USED THE SAFEWAY TRAGEDY TO INSULT ME...NOT HE THINKS MAKING SNARKY REMARKS ABOUT TWO POLICE OFFICERS GETTING SHOT IS CUTE....
JUST FREAKING AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 24, 2011 12:09 PM | Report abuse

If that was ruk7 being "chipper" I'd hate to be in the produce section when he comes unhinged.

Seriously, though, when are Ethan2010 and fiona5 going to blame Palin for this latest shooting?

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 24, 2011 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Isn't it amazing. No wonder Sarah can be a harpy witch and still have followers...look at their IQ's...look at their lack of heart...

freaking moron clawrence/jake is still joking when two families in St. Pete have experienced the ultimate loss. Small children without fathers and yet claw/jake still thinks it's appropriate to try and score blog points for the hateful mental midget from Alaska. Birds of a feather flock together I guess.

Again Clawrence you too are a real scumbag...these officers might be friends of mine..they haven't released names yet.

Did you parents really raise you to be this cold, heartless and ignorant. It's genuinely scary to know I live in a nation with losers like you and 37th.

You wanna know why so many people hate Sarah Palin...look at her rallies..they're full of heartless mindless cretins like you Jake/Clawrence and 37th. Do you psychos even have a conscience...do you even comprehend human suffering and tragedy, or is life for you losers simply making snarky remarks about the Wasilla Hillbilly no matter what the context?

Well I'm sure the hateful witch is proud of you malungins!

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 24, 2011 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Why was it fine to blame Sarah Palin right after the human suffering and tragedy in Arizona?

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 24, 2011 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Bernie,

What's stopping KO from speaking publicly?  My guess, money.  He signed a confidentiality agreement.  Now, the question is, why would our modern day Murrow do that? 

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 24, 2011 1:08 PM | Report abuse

I'll answer this:
==================
Did you parents really raise you to be this cold, heartless and ignorant. It's genuinely scary to know I live in a nation with losers like you and 37th.

===============

My parents raised me to believe that turnabout is fair play.

Clawrence asked the money question RUK, why not just answer it?

Why do you get to decide that blaming Ms Palin within hours of the Tucson event was OK, but blaming Ms Palin a short while after the police killings is not?

On what basis pal? Or is this just more alogical emotion that we've come to expect from the left these days?

You want to rail against ghoulishness? Show us a copy of a letter you sent to Krugman condemning him for his baseless attacks on Ms Palin. I'd be curious to know when, exactly, you decided he was being cold, heartless and ignorant.

If you can't produce such a document I suggest you shut up about the way Clawrence and others are commenting here. They are displaying the absurdity of the left by lampooning it.

that shoe fits, so wear it with pride RUK.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | January 24, 2011 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Oh, was that a question to me? I thought it was just part of ruk7's rant. My parents did not raise me to be cold, heartlessor ignorant, which is why I was so shocked that Palin was getting blamed for the Arizona shooting. It's still valid to ascertain what is different this time around (Ethan2010 and fiona5 haven't yet posted).

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 24, 2011 1:43 PM | Report abuse

@skip

Excuse me I thought you were a Christian. But of course your last post was as UnChristian as one could be.

"Why do you get to decide that blaming Ms Palin within hours of the Tucson event was OK, but blaming Ms Palin a short while after the police killings is not?"

I DID NOT BLAME PALIN FOR ANYTHING!!!!
Nor did the majority of posters here.
If you want to believe some narcissistic harpy with a persecution complex that's just revelatory of YOUR lack of intelligence.

"My parents raised me to believe that turnabout is fair play."

I thought they raised you to be a Christian...As I recall Christ talked about turning the other cheek...not turnabout...and again IDIOT it's not turnabout with me since I NEVER BLAMED Palin for anything other than being a shrill harpy shrew with little intelligence and a HUGE persecution complex!!!

They say the cream comes to the top...and the whalesh*t sinks to the bottom...now we know who the bottom feeders are on this blog...37th..claw/jake..and skippy the sissy who does not even notice the grief of two families in their time of loss.

Really idiots...think about WTF you are saying...since your fallen idol got some hurt fee fees..that's comparable to the loss of a Husband/Father...it just really amazes me...I didn't realize we had such deviants even on this blog. Your parents must be really proud skippy!

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 24, 2011 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Troll said: "What's stopping KO from speaking publicly? My guess, money. He signed a confidentiality agreement. Now, the question is, why would our modern day Murrow do that?"

As an attempt to discredit Olbermann as somehow uniquely avaricious, not compelling. Do you imagine that any high profile TV personality on any network doesn't have a non-disclose agreement in their contract? Do you imagine the same situation existed during the period of time Murrow was on the air?

Posted by: bernielatham | January 24, 2011 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Wow, skipsailing28, your parents too?!

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 24, 2011 2:20 PM | Report abuse

"Troll said: "What's stopping KO from speaking publicly? My guess, money. He signed a confidentiality agreement. Now, the question is, why would our modern day Murrow do that?"

As an attempt to discredit Olbermann as somehow uniquely avaricious, not compelling. Do you imagine that any high profile TV personality on any network doesn't have a non-disclose agreement in their contract? Do you imagine the same situation existed during the period of time Murrow was on the air?"

But I thought we liked KO because he "spoke truth to power," not because there is a financial penalty should he decide to "defend" himself.  Doesn't his silence say, in your estimation of why he is no longer on the air, that he values money more than his reputation?  And if so, what's that say about what he was and was not willing to opine, er, report on?  Doesnt His silence, in exchange for more money, demonstrate that he has "no decency sir?"

And your big words, like avaricious confuse, frighten and intimidate be.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 24, 2011 2:28 PM | Report abuse

"Why do you get to decide that blaming Ms Palin within hours of the Tucson event was OK, but blaming Ms Palin a short while after the police killings is not?"

I DID NOT BLAME PALIN FOR ANYTHING!!!!

ruk: This is how the Right Wing propaganda machine operates. Just keep saying something over and over regardless of how many times it is debunked. In fact, it was the Right Wingers here -- with the notable exception of Tao (and Kevin who was absent) -- who IMMEDIATELY went into spin mode looking for any hint that the Right MIGHT get blamed, even BEFORE we knew what happened in Tucson. IOW: they weren't going to take any blame REGARDLESS of whether the Loughner was motivated by anti-government hate rhetoric. I know what happened. I was here. And if you have doubts dig up the thread and look for yourself. Furthermore, we STILL don't know what role, if any, anti-government hate rhetoric played in Tucson.

Goebbels would indeed be impressed with the Right's discipline and commitment; others like me would call it psychopathic fanaticism. And that's why I no longer address those Right Wing trolls.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 24, 2011 2:31 PM | Report abuse

ThankGod that wbgonne no longer addresses Right Wing trolls. Abiding by his promise to stay away completely, not so much.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 24, 2011 2:42 PM | Report abuse

@wbgonne "others like me would call it psychopathic fanaticism. And that's why I no longer address those Right Wing trolls."

Agree with your post. And in the future I too shall refrain from bothering with what I believe you accurately describe as psychopathic fanatics.

Sorry to rant on like that but this touched a very personal nerve...again I have acquaintances on the St. Pete Police force and so it has shaken me up very much as you can gather from my posts.

As a 63 year old dude who has been to Vietnam and back and thought I'd seen a lot...I guess in many ways I'm still very very naive. I honestly didn't realize that there were vermin in this world with so little respect for their fellow human beings suffering that they would compare the "suffering" of a prima donna's hurt fee fees with the actual suffering of children who have lost their father, wives who have lost their husbands..a Police force shaken to it's roots...and a community mired in shock, grief, and yes ANGER!!! 100 shots fired in a matter of minutes! Oh if only we could get that ban on automatic weapons lifted we could do soooo much better.

Thanks wbgonne. I guess I'm just literally appalled that there are really such ghouls amongst us.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 24, 2011 2:56 PM | Report abuse

ruk:

Like Bono says: Don't let the bast*rds get you down.

I'm with you all the way on the wars. If Obama doesn't stick with the Iraqi withdrawal schedule and start SERIOUSLY drawing down this summer from Afghanistan, he will lose many supporters I think. Pretty ironic when you consider what boosted him into national contention in the first place.

Later.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 24, 2011 3:02 PM | Report abuse

bernie to TMW:

"As an attempt to discredit Olbermann as somehow uniquely avaricious, not compelling. Do you imagine that any high profile TV personality on any network doesn't have a non-disclose agreement in their contract? Do you imagine the same situation existed during the period of time Murrow was on the air?"

What is more pertinent is that, if as you posit, KO is mum because of a nondisclosure contract, it makes your complaints about the "shoddy" reporting no less . . . shoddy.

In addition, although I haven't studied the particulars, it would be unusual, if there is such a contract, that it bars KO's commenting responsive to anything his former employer has said about the matter.

As I noted on the eariler thread, this is another imagined media conspiracy supposedly consisting of (1) choosing to report what information is available rather than reporting nothing, and (2) failing to state that which is self-evident or a matter of bernie's interpretation.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 24, 2011 3:03 PM | Report abuse

I never compared the "suffering" of a prima donna's hurt fee fees with the actual suffering of children who have lost their fathers, wives who have lost their husbands. Don't let stop your rant though.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 24, 2011 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Again, this is the simple question I asked: "when are Ethan2010 and fiona5 going to blame Palin for this latest shooting?"

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 24, 2011 3:09 PM | Report abuse

"ruk: This is how the Right Wing propaganda machine operates. Just keep saying something over and over regardless of how many times it is debunked. In fact, it was the Right Wingers here -- with the notable exception of Tao (and Kevin who was absent) -- who IMMEDIATELY went into spin mode looking for any hint that the Right MIGHT get blamed, even BEFORE we knew what happened in Tucson. IOW: they weren't going to take any blame REGARDLESS of whether the Loughner was motivated by anti-government hate rhetoric. I know what happened. I was here. And if you have doubts dig up the thread and look for yourself. Furthermore, we STILL don't know what role, if any, anti-government hate rhetoric played in Tucson.

Goebbels would indeed be impressed with the Right's discipline and commitment; others like me would call it psychopathic fanaticism. And that's why I no longer address those Right Wing trolls."


It would be impossible to make this stuff up. I was here after a few hours, too, and, once again, this person is simply a liar. Ethan and fiona5 jumped on board the Krugman and dKos blame-Palin/Beck/Limbaugh express almost immediately. A few like Liam and lmsinca were responsible and prudent and cautioned against such rash conclusions. But others quickly went there.

Good grief, even after we knew the shooter was psychotic, Greg et al continued -- and still continue -- to try to link his actions to conservative rhetoric while denying what they were doing. And the commenter above is still trying to leave that possibility hanging in the air even as he spews more rage at anyone who dares challenge the smear. Look at that rhetoric I just quoted -- literally calling conservatives psychotic to suggest they are the same as and to blame for Jared Loughner.

It's amazing. A couple of weeks later, we're supposed to imagine that it was all in our imaginations. Give us a break.

rukidding,

With all due respect, I think you let your emotions about the tragedy overcome some of your better judgment here, and you are making inferences that clearly aren't warranted or fair, such as suggesting that people are comparing Palin's "hurt fee fees" with the pain of murder victims' families. I haven't seen anyone do that.

I would gently note that your post immediately above the St Pete murder post was yet another one slamming Palin. And, really, is the continuous "harpy," "shrew," "witch" stream really helpful in any way? Don't you think it plays right into the critique you find so outrageous?

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 24, 2011 3:28 PM | Report abuse

St. Petersburg police officers KIA: Jeffrey Yaslowitz and Tom Baitinger.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 24, 2011 4:00 PM | Report abuse

@QB

This is not about calling me names. It's not about me or Sarah Palin. Surely when you reconsider you'll understand that.

This is about using a tragedy to make a political point.

If I give you everything your side is claiming....that the left defamed Sarah Palin's name after the Tuscon shooting...even IF THAT WERE true...it doesn't excuse the heartless, tasteless mindless use of a tragedy that has left children fatherless, wives without their husbands, and an entire city(we are only 250,000 and so we could also be called a large town I suspect) in a profound state of shock, grief and anger.

If you don't get how inappropriate it is to comment...ohhh a US Marshal got shot it must be Sarah Palin's fault...then my friend I'm truly saddened because I had thought a lot more of you. 37th,clawrence, and skip are not the brightest bulbs in the chandelier and I should be more charitable towards them...but you Q.B. know better...just as when Cao upset you over pedophilia...

Can we all not agree it's poor form to score political points before the freaking corpses are even cool. This is exactly why many of us on the left detest Sarah Palin and many of her acolytes...you guys have elevated her (your) victim hood beyond any level of understanding.

Again...even if the left jumped the gun on the crosshairs...they did nothing to Palin's reputation compared to what she herself did with her narcissistic rant on the day of the memorial. And I hope you don't feel like skippy Q.B. that two wrongs make a right...WTF ever happened to Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord...or was it Vengeance is mine sayeth 37th, skippy, and claw/jake?

In other words Q.B. are you suggesting that since in your belief the left got in the gutter by somehow defaming Sarah Palin therefore it is appropriate for all the righties to join them in the gutter?

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 24, 2011 4:01 PM | Report abuse

For the record, I didn't "join" anyone in the gutter. I asked when Ethan2010 and fiona5 were going to show up in the gutter again. That's not "join[ing]" them in said gutter.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 24, 2011 4:06 PM | Report abuse

"* Calling Senate GOP's bluff on repeal?"

Since Durbin's answer was that about all the republicans could do is offer the full bill as an amendment to some other piece of legislation, probably not.

Consider that whatever piece of legislation that they might add it to would certainly not be related to the bill, it could be blocked by a vote on whether the amendment was germane, or other such procedural motions that make no sense to the average American. And unless the bill that repealing health care was amended to was something the Dems really wanted, not likely in this Congress, other procedural actions could be used to thoroughly poison the whole bill and therefore kill it in the Senate without a real vote.

This is a real loser for the republicans, because they can keep bringing it up, but only at the serious risk of damaging their own case and not doing anything particularly useful in the process.

Posted by: ceflynline | January 24, 2011 4:12 PM | Report abuse

ruk wbg, and what is left of intelligent thought on this blog:

Time to turn it over to 37th and his friends. Should WAPO ever come up with the promised improvements, perhaps we could cut WAPO some slack and return, but the responses to 37th's behavior is enough to consign PL to limbo until then.

I am back in the market for a venue where rationality is permitted.

SK

Posted by: ceflynline | January 24, 2011 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Of course "promised improvements" would have to censor more completely than Kevin's "Troll Hunter" program. Talk about wanting an echo chamber.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 24, 2011 4:47 PM | Report abuse

ruk,

No, I think what I'm suggesting is that from your perspective and particularly in the heat of this moment you don't see where the reaction of "the other side" might come from. Now, I didn't respond to your post about the shootings with any political point-scoring, and perhaps no one should have.

But it doesn't come in a vacuum. The immediate attempt by some to blame Palin et al for Tucson did happen. In fact, it's still happening. And it came as the latest installment in a long-running theme coming from the left -- that conservatives are uniquely responsible for violence, its incitment, enablement, and commission, not only of a "political" nature but generally.

Before Tucson, for example, we had the Kentucky census worker suicide, which on this blog was immediately assigned as a murder directly incited by Michele Bachmann. I remember it well. I don't think it's fair to pretend there isn't a pattern of this sort that some conservatives might react to.

. . . well, I got interrupted and forgot the rest of my train of thought. It just seems like a volcanic reaction to the comments above when, in comparison, there was no such outrage at the Krugmans and Ethans of the world just two weeks ago, when they actually jumped to blame people's rhetoric for a paranoid schizo's killings. Indeed, there have been continued efforts to defend those starkly political accusations as understandable and perhaps even justified.

Don't let a blog ruin your new balance.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 24, 2011 4:52 PM | Report abuse

@clawrence...you have one way out of this with any dignity. Here is the original post from RFR.

OH wait. A US Marshall was shot in St. Petersburg, Florida. IT must be Sarah Palin at work again. Wow.


.

Posted by: SunlightandLowTaxes


You can either condemn using the deaths of two police officers...the widowhood of two women..and the loss of a father for a 12-8 and 5 year old or you can remain in the gutter with your buddies.

@cefyline "

Should WAPO ever come up with the promised improvements, perhaps we could cut WAPO some slack and return, but the responses to 37th's behavior is enough to consign PL to limbo until then.

I am back in the market for a venue where rationality is permitted."

I'm probably not far behind. If Greg's techies don't implement the psycho blocker, I don't mind the trolls it's the wack jobs I resent, then I'm also out of here.

Sometimes after reading some of these loser's comments you really feel as if you need to take a shower afterwards...the scum is palpable.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 24, 2011 4:59 PM | Report abuse

rukidding7, I already stated that I am not in the gutter. The difference between what Ethan2010 posted two weeks ago (directly accusing Palin of accessory to murder) and what SunlightandLowTaxes posted today (sarcastically blaming Palin) is clear enough for everyone else to see. Nonetheless, I will take exactly the same amount of time to "condemn" SunlightandLowTaxes as you did Ethan2010 (need I remind you that you returned the following day and posted this: "good to read many of my old buds...Ethan...with whom I obviously agree..."

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 24, 2011 5:22 PM | Report abuse

More from rukidding7 on that thread:

"I love Ethan but he is passionate...and Ethan is far brighter than me and so he can defend himself."

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 24, 2011 5:34 PM | Report abuse

ruk,

Submitted for your consideration without further comment, this was part of your original post on the St. Pete killings:

"I realize this is not news anymore in the United States of Continual warfare...can we please just get some more freaking guns out there on the street....why is that namby pamby NRA not getting the ban on automatic weapons lifted...cmon everybody knows the Founding Fathers would have wanted us to have all the firepower available for a standing militia.

. . .

I'm sorry gotta go before I get too maudlin and over the top if I haven't already. Both of the officers were married, one had children...so much for my optimistic Monday...what a sick effing society we live in........"

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 24, 2011 5:53 PM | Report abuse

(now you've gone and done it, daring to actually QUOTE rukidding7)

"Tell you what 37th...I don't care if Greg banishes me..you are a freaking scummy P.O.S. The crap you are typing in your keyboard is INSANE...YOU USE THE FREAKING DEATHS OF TWO OF OUR POLICE OFFICERS..THEIR LOSS...THEIR FAMILY'S LOSS TO MAKE A POINT ABOUT YOUR HARPY WITCH..

ALL I CAN SAY TO YOU 37TH ETC...IS EFFFFF
YOU YOU SCUMBAG! YOU ARE A HEARTLESS WORTHLESS LOSER PIECE OF SH&T!

YEAH GREG IT'S A PERSONAL ATTACK ON THE IDIOT I'VE HAD ENOUGH...SATURDAY HE USED THE SAFEWAY TRAGEDY TO INSULT ME...NOT HE THINKS MAKING SNARKY REMARKS ABOUT TWO POLICE OFFICERS GETTING SHOT IS CUTE....
JUST FREAKING AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 24, 2011 6:09 PM | Report abuse

On November 8, 1952, Dwight D. Eisenhower, in a letter to his brother Edgar, wrote the following:

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

I could not agree more. Let them eliminate Social Security. It would almost be worth it to have that disgusting party wiped off the face of the earth.

http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com

Tom Degan

Posted by: tomdeganfrontiernetnet | January 25, 2011 4:11 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company