It's not so much that people get their actual information from shows like the Daily Show, it's more that they get their talking points, cynical attitude, and style of argument. Similar to Limbaugh.

And I looked around the Onion website for political substance, and serious interviews with politicans and military figures, but didn't find anything. The closest thing to political commentary I found on the front page was "Obama's Fifth Gulf Coast Visit Really Helps A Lot." Though I think that's really more making fun of people who consider these visists important, rather than any kind of political commentary.

If Chris Matthews and Michael Moore, they are both political commentators. One has a TV show and the other does poorly done documentaries. Now, if you are saying Michael Moore is a joke, I would have to agree with you. Chris, I haven't ever really watch him because all I hear is him yelling and immediately change the channel.

(Just me) I wouldn't even put Letterman and the Onion in the same category. And as you've stated, Letterman from time to time will have politicians on, but, is not strictly a political show and the Onion is just 100% pure satire regardless of the subject.

Haha! I wasn't actually responding to your post, I just saw the names and went from there. I'm not sure of the criticism of Stewart, but, if someone was criticizing him for not being a comedian, I can understand people disagreeing with that. He IS a comedian and his show IS a comedy show with a political theme, but nonetheless, it is a comedy show unlike say, Hardball or 20/20. Now the Colbert Show, it is a political comedy show and there's nothing ambiguous about it being a political comedy show.

Then you have people like Will Rogers and Mark Russell. Which, to me, are in their own category as political satirists. Whether or not someone finds them funny, is a different story all together. :)

I wasn't talking about his bias. Stewart can do a liberal-themed comedic political commentary show all he wants. And as you've pointed out before, Stewart satirizes Democrats on occasion also.

Here's the last episode summary from TV.com:

Full Recap

Jon reviews the polite way to ask for papers, Olivia Munn looks at Arizona's radar program, and Marilynne Robinson talks scientific faith. (01:03)

LeBron James announces where he is going to play basketball in the first 10 minutes of the ESPN show. (01:33)

Arizona police officers can't arrest you for not carrying your papers, but if you don't have them, you can be detained. (06:33)

Olivia Munn explores the debate between Arizona's highway safety and the invasion of privacy. (05:19)

Marilynne Robinson believes the quality of science and religion determines the nature of the conversation. (05:10)

Jon congratulates the technical video crew on their Emmy nomination and offers a tribute to David Javerbaum's amazing 11 years. (01:46)

....

That ain't Walter Kronkite, but it ain't the Onion, SNL, or Letterman either.

So your issue isn't with the fake news/satire part of the show, but with the actual interviews? The Jim Cramer interview was sort of a rare thing that had about a month of cracks at one another preluding it.

I just don't like him, that's all I said. And the think I dislike the most is the schtick that he's "just a comedian" when he clearly revels in this politically relevant personna he's created. I find him very disingenuous.

SNL does politics maybe 5-10% of the time, and 95% of that is of the simple "Palin is dumb, Clinton is sex-crazed" variety. Onion, as far as I can tell, is 0% political commentary, almost 100% satire of humanity in general. The late night talk shows are mostly satire of the entertainment industry and celebrities, but they delve into politics when politics goes mainstream, and when politicans become celebrities.

You have seen the show, right? Just looking at a couple of those clips from that show you posted a summary of online, I don't see how any of it can be misconstrued as news.

The first has Olivia Munn interviewing people about speed radar cameras. She basically teases the guy who is for it with the red light on the camera. When the guy who is against it mentions loss of revenue if truckers avoid the state, she mentions something about blowjobs from lounge lizards.

If I had to classify it, I'd say it's a mix of SNL and Punk'd (minus the reveal at the end).

Not sure if anything did change. They might have intended to make The Onion TV, but that's not what happened. Whether it changed over time, or turned out differently than they intended from day 1 is completely irrelevant. I read The Onion and I watch The Onion videos, and The Daily Show has pretty much nothing in common with them.


LOL...wow....is this you doing your best MBBF impression?

Here's what you said:

"No one gets their political news from the show. Their age demographic gets their news from the internet."

You used absolutes. You said no one gets information from The Daily Show (that part that I LOL'ed about), and implied that everyone within The Daily Show's demographic only gets news from the internet. (The part I left out hoping you'd be smart enough to conclude that since it was left out, that I wasn't laughing at the idea of people getting their news off the internet. I clearly gave you way too much credit.)

The idea that none of the people who watch the Daily Show believe any "news", political or other, that they see is what I was laughing at, MBBF-part 2.

That's fine. I don't think he's as great as people make him out to be. I always thought the strength of the show was in the supporting cast which has largely moved on to other things. I do find some of their skits/segments funny, but mostly in a "I'll view it online" type way.

SNL isn't a political show. The Daily Show is built around political and news satire. I don't see how you don't see the parallels to The Onion. They both take events in the news and satirize it and point out the absurdity of it.

You are the one that came out and claimed people got their news from that show. The Daily Show's audience is young adults. An audience that has been shown to get more and more of their news through the internet.

I take back the absolute, it was just used to prove a point that I don't think young people are waiting till 10pm to gather their daily news.

theyre not, but the new girl they've brought on for some skits is hawt and terrific.



and doing a google images search for her is even better

In a broader sense, didn't the discussion about Stewart-as-journalist-to-young-people really kick off about 2007 when the survey listed him as a favorite journalist among the under-30 set?
Today's Journalists Less Prominent: Summary of Findings - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

And is there really any realistic argument that it's not primarily a political show, considering it's content being close to 50% political?
http://www.journalism.org/node/10953#fn1

And while the amount of news from the internet is still growing, television still dominates as a source of political news. Even with the shift toward the internet, one-third of voters (33%) under 40 plan to get most of their political news from the Internet. , that still leaves 2/3rds getting most of the political news elsewhere. But alongside that figure from the same soruce you see that Nearly one-third of Americans under the age of 40 say satirical news-oriented television programs like The Colbert Report and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart are taking the place of traditional news outlets.
59% Plan To Rely on TV For Political News in 2010 - Rasmussen Reports™

For all intents & purposes, the internet & Stewart-esque shows are running side by side statistically as sources of political information.

Bolded the important part. That is certainly true, but just because someone does get their news from the internet doesn't mean they get ALL of it from the internet, and it doesn't mean they won't be shown something on The Daily Show that they had not seen before and believe it in whatever context TDS presented it in. That's what I meant, not that they sit and wait until The Daily Show is on to "get their news" as a daily routine.

And does anyone "get their news" anymore? I watch Nightline and 20/20 with some regularity (TiVo), but I wouldn't say I do anything to "get my news" like read the newspaper front to back or go to news websites every day and read them thoroughly. I'll quickly look through ScienceDaily for anything interesting (but ironically, not everyday), read a few blogs, but I more or less just take it in bit by bit as it comes to me.

Gold :D

SI

Poor Hillary Clinton- can't even crack a discussion about "Dem that is most fiercely hated by Republicans" any more.

SI

The Daily Show is also on Hulu.

Maybe it's because I'm in my mid-20s, but I do know people who primarily get their news from Jon Stewart. These people are generally the "government sucks and the mainstream media sucks" crowd. They find "regular" news dry and find that the entertainment shell of The Daily Show appealing.

I've seen at least a couple of those, or at least what amounted to a debate under the label of "candidate forum".

One of the more contentious local races I ever covered was a county coroner's race, pitting two employees of rival funeral homes against each other. Was actually sort of issues oriented, with the key points being qualifications/ training, fiscal responsibility, response time, and relationships/service to both law enforcement & families of the deceased. That campaign was one of the more expensive I can recall at the local level up to that time, plenty of radio & newspaper ads to go along with the yard signs.

Then again, I've also watched from two counties away as a former county coroner eventually became sheriff. To my surprise, he turned out to be a pretty decent sheriff for them, breaking a long run of corruption (IIRC they had three consecutive sheriff's end up jailed on drug/corruption charges).

I'm ripping this off from Wikipedia, but it kind of sums up the influence of the show, not just as a "news source", but as something of a inspiration for cynicism and political attitudes of people in their 20s.

"Another consequence of the show's increasing popularity and influence in certain demographics has been increased scrutiny of how the show affects the political beliefs and attitudes of its viewers. Michael Kalin has expressed concerns that Jon Stewart's comedy comes at the expense of idealism and encourages American college students to adopt a self-righteous attitude toward politics, rendering them complacent and apathetic, and deterring intelligent young people from considering political careers. "Stewart," Kalin argues, "leads to a 'holier than art [sic] thou' attitude [among students]...content to remain perched atop their Olympian ivory towers, these bright leaders head straight for the private sector."

I wouldn't go as far as all that, but I think that shows like the Daily Show give people who even 10-20 years ago wouldn't have cared about politics at all, a new self-righteous confidence that they're smarter than everyone else. (There was a ton of this during the Bush years) Maybe the Daily Show just tapped into what was there and reflects it in it's show, but I think there's some kind of connection.

So I've got a contested race for Coroner in my county coming up. Both are Republicans so they will face off in a primary in September.

The only thing I have to go by is that one is a carpenter and home builder and the other couldn't be bothered to return a response to the newspaper.

What makes a carpenter qualified to be coroner? Should I throw my hat in the ring? I'm a dairy farmer. I know when a cow is dead. I'd run as a Democrat so I don't face a primary challenge.

We definitely need a coroner dynasty.

Wiki isn't really specific but it seems to do a decent enough job of explaining things in this case. Basically many county coroners are treated as part of the executive branch, kind of administrative more than judicial and much more administrative than anything medical.

Coroner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Coroners in the United States are usually county-level officers, are often elected (rather than appointed) officials, and usually do not need to hold any medical qualification. As finders of fact, they retain quasi-judicial powers such as the power of subpoena, and in some states they also have the power to impanel juries of inquest, but unlike their British equivalents, they are not judicial officers, instead considered to be executive branch officials.

In some states the coroner and the sheriff are one and the same.

Many jurisdictions have replaced the elected coroner with a Medical Examiner (often referred to by the initials "M.E."), who must be a physician, and is most often a specialist in pathology or forensic medicine. In some jurisdictions, a medical examiner must be both a doctor and a lawyer.

The medical examiner is most often an appointed official. This has been part of a move toward professionalizing a job increasingly involved with advanced scientific techniques. In larger cities (for instance, New York City) and more populous counties, the post may be that of "chief medical examiner", heading an office with M.E.s and deputy M.E.s on staff to handle individual cases.

Other jurisdictions, such as Monterey County, California, have merged the legal competencies of a coroner into the office of the Sheriff, whose medical duties as coroner are then delegated to a professional forensic staff of medical examiners, technicians, and such.

Duties always include determining the cause, time, and manner of death. This uses the same investigatory skills of a police detective in most cases, because the answers are available from the circumstances, scene, and recent medical records. In many American jurisdictions any death not certified by the person's own physician must be referred to the medical examiner. If an individual dies outside of their state of residence, the coroner of the state in which the death took place issues the death certificate. Only a small percentage of deaths require an autopsy to determine the time, cause and manner of death.

In some states, additional functions are handled by the coroner. For example, in Louisiana, coroners are involved in determination of mental illness of living persons. In Georgia, the coroner has the same powers as a county sheriff to execute arrest warrants and serve process, and in certain situations where there is no sheriff (described in Title 15, Chapter 16, Section 8 of Georgia law), they officially act as sheriff for the county. In Kentucky, section 72.415 of the Kentucky Revised Statutes gives coroners and their deputies the full power and authority of peace officers. This includes the power of arrest and the authority to carry firearms.

If you already know who is meeting in the primary, odds are you've already missed the qualifying window to run.

I think the funnier part is that you have to be part of a political party to be coroner. Are there really issues that divide the parties in this field?

Yeah, it's too late for me to jump in the race.

What I do know about our county Coroner is that when there is an accident with a fatality, the Coroner is called.

Last weekend an infant died in a campground and the Coroner was the one that released the cause of death. No idea what she actually does though.

Fiscal responsibility (or claims thereof) would be the most obvious, although ethics/values claims (or at least assumptions made by voters about those) would also come into play most likely.

In reality, the most likely reason is much more practical: to weed down the field or even settle a race entirely, without waiting until November. In those cases it's also often cheaper to buy regulated (i.e. broadcast TV & broadcast radio) advertising during primary season rather than November, as well as having less competition for attention paid to advertising during primary season (depending upon your location).

Pretty amusing comments from the Senate Leader. Evidently the auto bailout saved Ford.........

RealClearPolitics - Video - Harry Reid: Auto Bailout Probably Saved Ford

The carpenter can provide his own saw--that would save money :D

I know it's ha-ha funny that Harry Reid doesn't know what he's talking about, but in the real world Ford did benefit from the bailout even though they didn't directly take funds. From the WSJ in Dec. of 2008.


I'm not sure if Ford would have failed, but there is a good argument that government intervention helped the company.

Certainly an interesting spin on the situation, but the fact is that they did not participate in the bailout. Anyone who makes a post assuming that Harry Reid had a clue about any far-reaching, indirect effects is lost in space, much like Harry Reid. He's just another dumb politician claiming to have done everything including reversing the spin of planet Earth.

I hate how the WSJ doesn't know anything about business.

Another interesting attempt to spin my comment into something that I didn't say. I didn't refute anything that the WSJ said, but feel free to carry on in defense of another stupid politician who didn't have a clue what he was talking about.

It's the WSJ that's saying Ford will benefit from the bailout and you call that idea, "spin".

But Harry Reid thinks he can reverse the spin of Earth, so you win.

Which, again, is incorrect. I didn't call the WSJ information 'spin'. I called the insinuation by you that Reid had a clue about any of that 'spin'.

I find it an interesting commentary on many partisan supporters that they would defend some of the idiotic comments by our politicians that would be head-scratching at best if it came from someone we actually considered intelligent.

I've been wondering why the Sun was rising in the West lately.

Why is it head-scratching that Reid said something that is partially backed up by real world economists? I'd imagine he overplayed the danger to Ford, but the underlying premise that the bailout helped Ford even though they didn't directly receive funds seems solid from what I've read.

But we're supposed to believe that Reid has no idea that there's evidence supporting his position and hat even though there is evidence Reid 's statement is still somehow wrong?

Jesus Christ, the irony in this is knee deep.

Nonetheless, the Reid statement is stupid. Maybe they did benefit from the bailout, but it was an inadvertent benefit. They took extremely risky loans instead and it paid off from a public perception standpoint. Reid taking credit for their success is just ridiculous. If he's looking for something to boast about, he could point to the cash for clunkers although I'm not sure how much that helped Ford.

And it's not like that's the only reason they did well. Toyota shitting on themselves helped and Ford actually is making some pretty good vehicles these days compared to where they were 5-10 years ago.

No real irony here. I've taken the Republicans to task on a regular basis as well. There's plenty of buffoons on both sides right now. Anybody who denies that has to be deeply partisan.

Agreed with most everything else. Ford made plenty of good moves when others did not and that's why they did so well. And it certainly didn't hurt that Ford has improved their product tremendously.

I would disagree with the Cash for Clunkers disaster. Spent WAY too much money for what was accomplished. Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay $24,000/car just for a swap-out.

LMAO.

I wasn't talking value to the taxpayer, but whether Ford benefited from the government program. You can also throw in the tax credits for new cars as well as helping. And if you really want to get picky, a lot of the credit they did secure were from banks that wouldn't be around without a government bailout.

Reid's comment is still stupid, but Ford did benefit from the government in many ways.

Classic MBBF comedy on this page. Well done!

Looks like we can now add the WSJ to the list of entities who know less about the world than MBBF. This now includes:

Nate Silver (polling and statistics in general)
Barack Obama, David Axelrod & David Plouffe (running a campaign)
Any Nobel Laureate in economics (economics)
...and many others.

You're a smart guy, MBBF.

Very low-interest, government-backed loans are "extremely risky"?

Good to see we agree.

Talking about Ford. They basically leveraged their entire business to get some loans.

Good lord. At least take some accountability and admit that your Ag Secretary made a knee-jerk decision. It's not always someone else's fault.

Obama Blames Media For His Administration's Firing Of Shirley Sherrod

Do you even read what you post?

So DT, Rainmaker, and Flere are bashing MBBF for being too partisan. Hilarious.

I hope you will recall that at the time they took these low-interest, government-backed loans, the credit markets were essentially frozen. Car companies rely a lot on the credit markets to provide day-to-day liquidity for their operations. This money was offered, and Ford took it, in a large part, to shore up their own liquidity, plus do some internal investing.

Sorry, I still don't see the "extremely risky" part. Ford has been very prudently managed since Mulally took charge.


So Dutch is defending someone who, among other things, thinks he knows economics better than Nobel winning professional economists, just because they're on the same partisan side. Hilarious.

So your argument is that the leader of our free nation said the media partially affected his administration's decision-making and you're OK with that? We've obviously had a sharp downturn in what is required of our nation's leader. Thankfully, the criticism I made appears to be in the majority, with multiple liberal news makers leveling the same criticisms. Real leaders don't even partially let something like that affect their decisions.

Keep shifting your argument, MBBF. Eventually something might stick.

I don't understand your beef. He's admitting that Vilsack made a rash decision based on something they didn't fully investigate. Luckily it only led to the forced resignation of 1 person and not the death of thousands of troops.

On a side note, I think Brietbart and the right-wing media deserve a chunk of blame here as well (as does the left-wing media and the administration). I don't understand how that guy thinks he's a journalist. How hard is it in most political rallies to find a 20 second clip that, out of context, clearly makes the wrong statement. What he did isn't journalism, and I love how he says he never meant it to come back to her. According to his interviews, he did it out of retribution to the NAACP because they've come out hard lately against the racist elements in the tea party and their denial of it and refusal to distance themselves from it (except the actions of last week). So in retaliation, he edits a speech down to 20 seconds to change the context of what somebody was saying...and Fox News (and eventually the rest of the media) eats this up??

That's what you should be equally outraged about.

If people aren't strong enough to investigate something and make a rash decision because of the press, they have no business being in power positions. No matter what level we're talking about.

Well, we're going on 4 years now and nothing has yet, so....

Unfortunately Obama is the first politician to let the media influence the handling of staff.

Look, Vilsack made the wrong decision, but he tried to act in good faith. Breitbart acted in bad faith in an attempt to destroy this woman and the NAACP. I'm not happy with how the admin danced, but Breitbart and Fox were the ones who wrote the music.

Agree with this. It should have ended right here. 'My administration made a rash decision and we take full responsibility for that mistake'. That's what a leader does and he doesn't lose any face by taking full responsibility.


I don't disagree that it was wrong to edit down this speech. But the blame being passed by Obama and the attention it continues to bring is only further deteriorating his positions in these matters. These guys look like a bunch of right-wing buffoons who have no pull if you ignore them. By continuing to bring them in the limelight with the blame game, they continue to legitimize organizations that honestly aren't all that legitimate when it comes to these matters. The PR handling by Obama's administration on these situations has been deplorable at best. It's going to keep happening as long as he refuses to take the high road and act like a real leader.

Every admin battles unfriendly media. By your definition there hasn't been a real leader since at least before Lincoln.

Exactly. I'd be fired from a low-level management position for making a move this short-sighted, yet we actually have people defending a similar move by appointed officials in some of the most powerful positions in our nation.

But few have done it this poorly. As I said before, if he fully takes the blame for the quick error in judgment, it's no skin off his back. By passing the buck to the media, he drastically weakens his position.

Who is defending the firing?

This is another in a long list of stories that the vast majority of the country doesn't give a shit about. These political storms only matter to the people that already are very engaged in politics and likely have their mind made up about who they support.

Yes, because if Breitbart hadn't edited the video, and Fox News hadn't given it any coverage, then the NAACP would still have been duped, and Vilsack would have just called her out of the blue and still asked for her resignation.

Vilsack screwed up. I don't see anyone defending him. But clearly the kernel of the matter was the wholly irresponsible excuse for journalism exhibited here. Just another example of how ratings are driving the news narrative, not content.

You mean like how the admin took the high road during the whole faked ACORN tapes episode, and were roundly criticized for not getting involved?

You mean like how the admin took the high road while Glenn Back took years old quotes out of context and created so much bad press that people resigned?

So he's considered a weak and ineffectual leader if he doesn't respond to faked crisis invented by a portion of the media that has all but said their purpose is to make effective governing as difficult as possible.

And then he's considered a weak and ineffectual leader if he does respond to faked crisis invented by a portion of the media that has all but said their purpose is to make effective governing as difficult as possible.

If you think he is a weak and ineffective leader, then you will try to fit the narrative from any situation to justify your view.

??? I've seen plenty of people fired for far more bullshit reasons than this, in the corporate sector no less. I'm sure many, if not most, of us have. Try building your arguments without the use of unsupported hyperbole.


The 2nd half of Bush I's administration. The first two and last two years of the Clinto administration (the first two months in particular were brutal). The last, what, six years of Bush II's administration?

You want to paint Obama as some sort of historical aberration, but your arguments are routinely undone by even a cursory understanding of recent history.

More frustrating hypocrisy from the man who pledged to have an open administration, yet they tried everything in their power to cover up their role behind the Libyan bomber release.......

White House backed release of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi | The Australian

The last term of Bush II is the only one that I'd even consider a fair comparison. The rest doesn't come close.

I'm confused as to what's so controversial about the letter. It is clear that the US completely opposed his release. However, if he were going to be released then the US opposed him returning to Libya.

So what happened was pretty much exactly the opposite of everything that was requested in the letter.

I don't know if this is a legit news source or not but if so, this is absolutely horrible. No excuse...period.

Have you guys even read the article? That headline is basically a flat out lie...

I'm somewhat agnostic on whether the letter is a big deal, but it drives me crazy that news organizations aren't putting the source documents on line when they write stories. I get not putting the whole letter in the story, but provide a link and let us see if the letter is what it's purported to be.

One of the many reasons I won't shed a tear fr the dying newspaper industry.

Scottish ministers viewed the level of US resistance to compassionate release as "half-hearted" and a sign it would be accepted.

"Nevertheless, if Scottish authorities come to the conclusion that Megrahi must be released from Scottish custody, the US position is that conditional release on compassionate grounds would be a far preferable alternative to prisoner transfer, which we strongly oppose."



How is that not supporting the release? If you're going to do one or the other, we would rather have him released?

I'm guessing it has something to do with him being released to a Muslim country but where was the effort to work something out to make sure he stayed locked up? He was supposed to live 3 months...he's now been alive for 11 months? It's unbelievably fishy all the way around.

The letter suggested a conditional release where he would have to remain in Scotland. If that was done, then he wouldn't have had his hero welcome at home and the conditional release could have been revoked if it was discovered that his condition wasn't quite so dire.

And I imagine that people would have gone apeshit if the guy was given a prison transfer to a Muslim country. How long do you really think Libya would have kept him in prison?

The US gave two suggestions...

Number 1 suggestion - He should NOT be released.
Number 2 suggestion - If he is going to be released, then it should be conditional where he has to remain in Scotland.

Neither suggestion was followed. So to say the US backed anything that was done is a flat out lie.

There should have been option #3...somehow he is killed on the way to the airport. The fact this guy is free for even a day is pathetic.

Cover up what role? Every article I read on this said that the U.S. tried to persuade them not to release him. Then said that if that wasn't an option, they'd prefer him to stay in Scotland. What are they covering up here?

And it's funny you had to post an article from an Australian paper to find a headline that misleading. Then again, it's not like you found the article. It's the link being used at the right-wing hate sites that you claim to never read.

Site Explorer - Search Results (these are the pages on the web linking to it)

MBBF is just regurgitating talking points. You aren't going to get any independent thought out of it.

But Obama's administration does deserve blame. They made a decision because they were afraid of a biased cable news network and some hate mongerer running a news website. Sorry, if some guy who is one step away from wearing a pointy white hat on his head causes you to fire someone because he posted a video on his website, you are cowards.

His administration has let the media determine the narrative. They are so scared of feeding this anti-white narrative that Fox News and company are trying to portray, that they make rash and stupid decisions off of it. Bush was a complete fuck-up, but at least his fuck-ups were his own doing. He didn't do them because some hate sites told him to.

LOL - awesome

Here's an interesting look back at the Reagan admin and conservative dissatisfaction in 1981. From the Washington Monthly:

Or even more amusing is that you claim that I said that I never read the Drudge Report. I've always said that I usually check that site and the Huffington Post on a regular basis. If you're going to make a point, at least make a correct one.

Is this because the media in 1990-1992, 1992-1994 and 1998-2000 were too different to today to provide a valid comparison? Or because suggesting that such a comparison might have validity would undermine your goal of portraying Obama as the most incompetent President ever?

You don't win 49 states if you're primarily concerned with appeasing the most extreme members of your party (or even if you're obsessed with appeasing the base of your party, like politicians are today).

It seems like the GOP remembers Reagan's success, but not much about how he achieved it.

It's been said before, but it bears repeating: Ronald Reagan could not with the GOP nomination today.

As much as I dislike Obama's policies, it can't be said that he's obsessed with appeasing his base.

His opposition to proposition 6 would have immediately DQ'd him.

Also he once supported abortion.

I feel for him, but this surely won't help Ken Buck win the GOP nomination in CO:

Why I'll always be a Deaniac. He's one of the few who really gets it:

No More Apologies -- It's Time to Stand Up for Our Convictions

You mean the same guy who said voters should back him over his opponent "because I do not wear high heels"?
Female Colorado Senate candidate bashes Republican primary opponent for 'high heels' dig - latimes.com

There is a huge difference in the timing of the article. That was 6 months into Reagan's presidency. The economy was still tanking, and his first big appointment to the Supreme Court was center-right.

Obama is a year and a half into his presidency, he has had much more time to accomplish his goals.

Reagan had a lower approval at this point in his presidency and didn't really start to climb until the economy picked up after the midterms.

edit: Reagan started 1983 with a 35% approval rating.

PLEASE make this happen. This will by far be the biggest change passed by this Congress if they can get it done. It would have a huge impact on how things are done.

Momentum For Senate Filibuster Reform Builds

I'd love to see it changed ASAP, but if they can't do it for the next session I'd be willing to support a compromise where it goes into effect with the 2014 or 2016 Congress.

In the end I doubt you can get a majority of Dems, but the GOP would flip it in a heartbeat if it helped them.

2016 seems far enough out that both parties could make a decision about this without knowing whether they would be in the majority or not. Nate Silver is probably the only guy who knows which party will control Congress in 2016, and we can just make him promise not to tell :-)

I'd love it if they made it time-limited. You need 60 votes to pass legislation initially, but then you only need 50 votes after, say, 30 days. That would keep a minority of 41 from holding up the business of the country forever. But it would also give the minority a month to build up popular support against legislation and keep 51 senators from passing something before it can be fully vetted.

If, after a month-long media blitz, the minority still can't keep 51 senators from voting on something, then the something is probably not that bad.

I disagree with the change. Just because youre the party in power doesnt mean should should change the rules for your betterment. I was against it when the gOP was in power and started changing rules for their betterment and Im against it now with the Dems in charge.

Oregon political movement adopts a 4chan slogan.

Tea Party vs 4chan. Can we hope for a double KO?

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

I agree that if you're going to filibuster, you need to get the cots out and keep going.

I agree. That's why I think that the Senate should make the change, but not have it take effect until 2016. That way, neither party can expect to be in charge when the rule changes.

No argument. The difference is that Reagan's core started to see things turn around in late '82 (due to the economy). I'm not sure that Obama has hit bottom yet.

Fixed to represent American politics.

And the fact he raised taxes in so many areas.

Lots of folks at the time, the center-right included, were accepting of those tax cuts.

1.) Reforming his previous Tax Cut by reducing it by 1/3.
2.) Increased the gas tax to counter the deficit.
3.) Tax reform aimed at stopping businesses from using loopholes to avoid taxes (it generated some $50B) and so I guess that's raising taxes. Really I think he just made folks pay what they were already supposed to.

Don't forget the big FICA tax that's been paying for both party's spending over the bast twenty-five years.

Let's try not to forget that the rich already pay taxes.

What party or candidate has the platform that taxes should fall "mostly on the middle class"?

In the case of the FICA fix in the eighties it did fall primarily on the middle class. IMO that tax and the way the funds were diverted into the general fund by both parties is the worst government injustice of the past thirty years.