I just said that a system of torture isn't the way to go. And I said AGAIN, that the issue isn't trust. I'm not doing a good job of making my point, so I give up.

How ironic that because the democrats in the Massachusetts state senate wanted to prevent our Republican governor from appointing a Republican to fill John Kerry's seat if he won the Presidency and thus changed our rules for filling vacant seats to require a 150-day waiting period (which they are now trying to get changed), that now the Late Senator Kennedy's seat will sit vacant for 5 months during this fierce healthcare debate, and this adds to the difficulty in getting this legislation on a cause that was so near-and-dear to him passed.

Good Lord. Ted's not even dead for a day yet and we've got a Democratic senator already invoking his name in regard to the health care bill. He wants to name the damn bill after him.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmi...r_Kennedy.html

Tortue is never the way to go, because it doesn't produce results. I'm good with what the CIA was doing though, that produced results.

I'm all for it. It was the guy's basically like...life goal.

To have his name on an ill-conceived health care reform bill?

Let's not pretend anymore. This bill is heading downhill at this point. Ted's death is an excellent opportunity to politicize the event and try to rescue the bill. It took less than 12 hours for that to happen. That's embarrassing.

With that said, I have no doubt that Ted would want it that way.

I would have sworn that effort actually started around the time he was diagnosed, or at least seem to recall hearing about someone's intention to do so. In other words, even before he died this was being planned, at least I seem to have some vague recollection of hearing something to that effect.

Ditto.

I'll echo that. I'm pretty sure this isn't the first I've heard of it.

I vaguely remember tuning in to Rush for the first time in months today, and hearing that too. Maybe that's where your recollection comes from. :)

Nope, not me. I doubt I hear Rush live more than 3-4 times a year, if that much, and today wasn't one of those days. I'll catch a half hour or so of Hannity maybe once or twice a month, Savage if happen to be in the car when he's aired in Atlanta, otherwise the only talkers I hear are Neil Boortz & (consumer advice guru) Clark Howard and those only because my wife likes 'em both.

hmmmm, I seem to recall a moment in time recently where a past quote of yours cut off probably, WEEKS, of pointless back and forth. I am thankful for the person who found that quote and nipped that ridiculousness in the bud.

I say "Good", If youre going to screw around the rules to be unfair than you should have to be affected by the same rules.

youre so good at calling these things.


you have no shame.

Yeah, I like Clark Howard too. I wish they hadn't stopped running his show here (except on Saturday).

Actually I don't think there's any shame needed on that comment (re: Ted would have wanted it that way).

If there's any person who was pretty much bred to a career in politics, Ted Kennedy would be a pretty darned good example. And there's absolutely nothing in his background that would indicate a reluctance to use whatever assets at his disposal to accomplish an end.

Truth is I don't believe he would have been genuinely offended by that sort of observation at all nor should he have been. There's nothing shameful about using perfectly legal means at hand to accomplish a task, doubly true if it's a task you're deeply committed to.

I've never felt as confident that a bill will pass as I do now.

the shame was for that whole quote, the whole thing is opportunistic on MBBF's part and ridiculous. He takes every pot shot (remember the short bus vs. bowling stuff) and his track record is absolutely abhorrent.

Exactly. If he was alive, he would have used the opportunity to the Nth degree and he'd tell you as much. That's just part of being a standard-bearer of a political party. Let's not kid ourselves. Pelosi and Reid were pretenders as far as leadership goes compared to Kennedy. You don't have to like his policies or him as a person to acknowledge that.

So MBBF when are you going to call out the GOP for saying using Kennedy's illness and death as an excuse to further delay healthcare reform? I mean Good Lord....

They really don't need to do so at this point. They still haven't even got a concensus bill from the Democrats to even consider yet. The major delay right now is that the polls are going the wrong way on this issue and the Democrats can't even agree amongst themselves. It's somewhat hard to respond specifically to your comment, since you haven't cited anything.

I'd definitely disagree with Orrin Hatch's assertion that Kennedy wouldn't approve of using his death as motivation to get the bill passed. He definitely would without question.

FWIW I'm pretty sure Orrin Hatch has a better idea of whether his friend Teddy would approve or not.

WOW

MBBF knows Ted better than Hatch. :lol: :thumbsup:

Link to the Hatch quote?

I actually saw it on NBC Nightly News last night, though I'm sure it's posted somewhere on the internet.

Let's assume you're right. Are you happy with the GOP for defending what Kennedy would want? Disappointed or upset with the Dems for using the death of one of their leaders for political gain?

I'm really not understanding at this point why the Democrats are so willing to lend credibility inadvertently to GOP talking heads both on the radio and TV. Glenn Beck was drawing so-so ratings in what basically amounts to a late afternoon time slot. Democrats went on the attack and got some advertisers to remove their ads on the program, but the resulting stir-up has given Beck tremendous ratings in an afternoon time slot, virtually guaranteeing that once the dust dies down, the old advertisers or new ones will head back to advertise again on the program. He beat O'Reilly in an AFTERNOON time slot this week. That's just nuts.

Similarly, there is a big fuss whenever Rush says something that irritates the Democrats. They immediately go on the attack against Rush, often creating a listener boost of as much as 20% just because people want to hear him talk about the whole thing.

The same thing happened when the GOP went on the warpath against Michael Moore and his F. 911 movie. The movie was a huge success. Note to activists: stop drawing attention to these people if you don't like what they're saying. The resulting controversy is exactly what they want.

Yeah, I was pretty shocked by the recent ratings. O'Reilly's cable show did better than CBS evening news and Beck beat Maddow, Olbermann and Matthews combined.

While Moore had commercial success, it also allowed Republicans to give the perception that the Democratic party was as far-left as Moore.

Talking heads are not good for political parties. They may be good for media outlets, but you don't want Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore being the face of your party. It's not good for Republicans when Ann Coulter gets up on stage and calls someone in the other party a faggot. It's not good for the GOP when Rush Limbaugh plays Barack the Magic Negro on his show.

These entertainers don't gain new voters. They don't win elections. They help solidify a base while at the same time bring hatred from the other side. While Moore, Limbaugh and others may have fervent supporters, they also have enormous negatives.

The strategy is smart by both parties to portray the others by their most extreme elements. It was smart for Republicans to portray the Democrats as Michael Moore. It was smart for Democrats to portray the Republicans as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. I mean you could argue that Rush Limbaugh cost the Republicans control of the Senate in 2006.

I don't understand the appeal of guys like Beck and Hannity. Beck's insane and irritating, and Hannity is so repetitive and boring he makes me want to stick a pencil in my ear.

I like Rush because he's funny in a baffoonish way.

Beck has always been annoying but at least when he was on headline news (or whatever station he was on in the afternoon before he moved to Fox) he used to go after the government for being large and out of control. He appropriately would blame both parties and always claimed to be a Libertarian. Now he is just another Republican hack. Don't get me wrong I am not defending a guy that converted to Mormonism to get laid, he has always been an idiot. But previously he was at least asking intriguing questions

Beck isn't stupid, it's just an act. He says whatever he thinks will get ratings. He was more libertarian on CNN Headline News, but the move to Fox has turned him uber-conservative. Case in point.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Glenn Beck's Operation
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Healthcare Protests

In order for these strategies to work, you need lots and lots of airtime suggesting that.

I don't think any talking heads/pundits/radio people impact elections. I think they can sometimes rally the base, but the "undecided/influential voters" don't vote according to whether they think Rush/Moore is a bad guy. They vote based on their pocketbook, likability of the candidate and national security fears.

If the economy is good, they usually vote in their incumbent. If it's not, they will tend to go the other direction. At the end, though, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Coulter, Moore, Maddow, Glenn Beck, Olbermann and O'Reilly are irrelevant. Most people that are persuaded to change their vote (or vote at all) don't know who they are or if they do know, it doesn't impacy why they are voting. If you get riled up against Rush or Michael Moore, it's doubtful your vote is ever up for grabs (barring massive economic/military events).

I think that you are generally right here. But there is, in my experience, a voter that can be turned off by the extremes on either side. I should know b/c I am married to one :-)

Using health care as an example, Mrs. A started the whole health care debate process leaning toward the "I don't want socialized medicine, and that is where reform will probably take us" side. She voted for the Republican for governor and Obama for President. She is, in other words, a gettable vote/heart/mind for the GOP on certain issues. And, after a few days of Sarah Palin and "death panels," she is now in favor of reform b/c she does not understand or trust the most vocal people against reform.

Now, that is one anecdotal example. But I can't help but think that the Moores and Hannitys of the world have some small (1-3%) effect on party affiliation and, accordingly, elections.

I think we're giving the extremes too little credit and the average voter too much.

While they can turn people off, if they can amplify their side enough to make it the story of the day (i.e. death panels), you turn off significant positive energy. I don't know if that can be a force for good or positive energy. But with negatives, you can either keep people from voting or emphasize something to the point where someone will vote against a candidate because you control the debate.

SI

I think for every open-minded person that Moore/Rush turns off by their rhetoric, there are 4-5 "foot soliders" who take their propaganda and use it to try and convince non-political voters to vote their way. In the end, I think it's at worst a wash and probably more like a large net gain for their side. Some get turned off while others hear their propaganda via word of mouth and vote that way out of fear/outrage.

In the end, all these people do is rally the base and provide talking points to the masses. Which, in the current political climate, is a fairly useful role.

I think people love to imagine that there's a backlash or "harm" done by the George Soros', Rush Limbaugh's, Sean Hannity's or MoveOn.org's, but it's just not true. The funding, propaganda, rallying cry and foot soldier impact these guys have are very useful/needed for their side. To think that either side would be better off without these groups/people is just illogical.

They are like the "turk" on an NFL football team. No one likes to see them, but they are vital to ensuring the best team is out there on Sunday.

Arles, I wasn't very clear but I was basically agreeing with what you said. When I mean "turning people off", I meant that more of a "fear of candidate they are espousing against which turns them to vote for the other side" (i.e. for instance Rush Limbaugh will convince far more people to vote Republican than he turns off and makes vote Democratic because he can help control the debate because of his airwave power)

What you were saying is spot on- I just did a poor job articulating it.

SI

Ah, agree completely then. The effect of propaganda in shaping the angle of the debate is as important as the arguments themselves.

I think extremes can be bad for candidates, but not pundits/media talkers. I think Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are very good for republican candidates. But, I think Palin would be a terrible candidate - but not just for her views. I do think a very conservative candidate could do well in an election - that person just needs to be charismatic.

As we move ahead in this media generation, appearance/charm is going to trump substance 9 times out of 10 in presidential elections.

It already does. At least since FDR the more likable candidate has won every presidential election.

Well, aside from Nixon (at least over Humphery) ;).

So you are saying that if John Kerry ran against Mitt Romney, we would have the first ever 0-0 tie?

It'll be interesting to see how the health care debate pans out over the next couple of weeks. Pretty emotional weekend for the Democrat partisans may lead to a bit of an emotional hangover. Lots of past ghosts revisited during the funeral coverage.

Couple more articles concerning both health care bill options over at FactCheck.org. Generally pretty good, though the titles are a bit of an editorial........

Twenty-six Lies About H.R. 3200 | FactCheck.org

RNC’s “Bill of Rights” | FactCheck.org

Nice! Seems that the bailout might be on its way to working. I know it kept us from going off the cliff but now it might turn out to be profitable for you and I.

Report: US makes $4 billion from bailout banks - Yahoo! News

More than anything, it clearly illustrates that the bailout wasn't needed as many had already said. The amount of money that the banks made during that period by using taxpayer dollars to invest and loan makes $4B seem like chump change. Glad to see we're now OK with funding private businesses if they have a good enough lobby in D.C.

It should also be noted that the information in that final paragraph could nullify that $4B in profit very quickly. It's awfully early to be calling it a success when a good portion of the chips are still on the table, with most of them in the hands of high-risk investments.

How do you fairly say that there are a bunch of lies? I say good to them for not weaseling out and saying misleading or some people say they are false or something similar.

You mean the robo candidate and the guy who Conan referred to as being like a "bloodhound's scrotum"? :D

SI

ROFLMAO. Amazing the goggles you wear.

Well, if they were fairly titling the article, they would have said "26 lies, XX half truths, and XX truths about HR 3200". It wasn't exclusively lies, though the title indicates it as such. Also, they're addressing an e-mail that was circulated. I'm surprised that they're even bothering addressing a chain e-mail. It's pretty much a given that it's not going to contain much of merit.