murky303

Russia's run by a madman, and apart from a nuclear arsenal cannot project military power farther away than the Republic of Georgia. France can't project significant military power that far.

Brazil has a larger economy than either country. So does Germany, for that matter. India is rapidly making progress toward that point. India would be a valuable balancing point versus China in the Security Council, and it has force projection capabilities that would make it a logical decision-making partner in the Security Council.

Serious question. Ed Schulz seems to be a hard-left Democrat of the sort which is constantly accusing the Republican Party of electoral violations. So why is cheating at the polling booth OK now? And why is this guy still working at MSNBC? Is this an endorsement of electoral fraud by MSNBC and its parent corporations Microsoft and NBC/Universal?

Check out the story: http://washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/201...

The latest Rasmussen Report (from the national pollsters) shows that Republican candidates have now posted a nine-point lead over Democrats on the Generic Congressional Ballot for the first two weeks of 2010. This seems to be what the Democrats should have expected from ignoring the will of the people. But read on:

The latest national Rasmussen telephone survey shows that 45% now would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 36% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.

Last week, Republicans started the New Year with a nine-point lead, their biggest in several years, while support for Democrats fell to its lowest level in years. Republicans have held the lead on the ballot for over four months now. Even ACORN will have trouble fighting this.

The number of Americans identifying themselves as Democrats is down to the lowest level recorded in more than seven years of tracking. And after all, who wants to think of themselves as a narcissistic loser who can't take a hint on issues such as government-run health care - an idea now rejected by 55% of the populace?

Throughout the fall and winter of 2008, support for Democratic congressional candidates ranged from 42% to 47%. Republican support ranged from 37% to 41%. The two parties were very close on the Generic Ballot throughout the spring of 2009, but Republicans pulled ahead for good in late June.

Last year, Democrats with majority control of both the House and Senate passed a $787-billion economic stimulus plan and bailouts of the financial industry and troubled automakers General Motors and Chrysler. Voters still don't approve of these measures which were unpopular right from the start. And for good reason - have you seen changes in how either company is run that justify the vast sums of money disbursed to either firm?

Looking back, most voters still oppose the government bailouts of the financial industry and the automakers, and a plurality now believe the stimulus plan has been bad for the economy. Reasonable, considering that even with an average of $200,000 spent per job allegedly saved, unemployment reached record highs during the time of the year (the Christmas rush) generally associated with an upturn in the economy. Most of that money seems to have vanished into the bank accounts of Obama sycophants and political supporters.

The Democratic-controlled Congress also began pushing ahead on a national health care plan last summer which triggered angry congressional town hall meetings and public protests. Overall, 40% of voters nationwide favor the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. Fifty-five percent (55%) are opposed. Support for and opposition to the plan have changed little since Thanksgiving. Minority rule's a loser, guys.

Currently, just 17% believe passage of the legislation will achieve the stated goal of reducing health care costs. Fifty-seven percent (57%) think it will lead to higher costs. Given the impending fiscal demise of Medicare, that's a very reasonable position.

This helps to explain why among voters not affiliated with either major party, the GOP leads on the Generic Ballot this week 47% to 22%.

The latest generic ballot numbers highlight a remarkable change in the political environment during 2009. When President Obama was inaugurated, the Democrats enjoyed a seven-point advantage on the Generic Ballot. That means the GOP has made a net gain of 16 percentage points over the course of the past year. Support for Democrats has declined eight points since Obama's inauguration while Republican support is up nine points.

Separate polling shows that voters feel more strongly than ever that Congress is performing poorly and that most of its members are in it for themselves.

Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, another longtime Democratic senator, also announced he will not seek reelection, shortly after a Rasmussen Reports poll in his state showed him trailing a potential Republican challenger.

Colorado Governor Bill Ritter also has decided not run again, and that makes Democrats a little more competitive in this year's gubernatorial race there.

The two top Republican hopefuls for the U.S. Senate in Kentucky have put a little more distance between themselves and their chief Democratic contenders in a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the state.

Rasmussen Reports also has released Senate polls for Arkansas, Colorado, Nevada, Illinois, Connecticut, Missouri, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, and California. Collectively, these polls define a difficult political environment for Democrats as 2010 begins.

Now how does this correspond to political viability for the Democratic Party? All they have to do is keep on keeping on, and they'll deliver every contentious race to their opposition this November. Minority rule doesn't work, guys.

Just when you think someone has plumbed the depths of fatuity and idiocy, he descends lower.

Pat Robertson calls quake 'blessing in disguise'

Quoted from Yahoo News Video:

Wed Jan 13, 6:57AM PT - AP 1:39 | 25497 views

"TV Evangelist Pat Robertson mad"e some unusual observations about the Haiti earthquake on his CBN newscast Wednesday, calling the quake a possible blessing and saying the Haitian people are cursed.…" (written caption)

In the video segment, Robertson went on to say that the Haitian people made a pact with the Devil to throw the French out of their country (nothing in his demeanor to imply he was speaking hyperbole or exaggerating on purpose), and that since then they have been cursed in one way or another. Robertson also asked another American evangelist who was on site at Haiti after (the deadly earthquake took an estimated 100,000 lives) whether or not the earthquake wasn't "a blessing in disguise" because all the shoddy buildings which fell down would be replaced by a new building boom.

I think that, despite the American political system's cowardly practice of humoring grinning psychos like Robertson, Hagee, or Falwell on the right or Jeremiah Wright and Jim Jones on the left (and Jim Jones had his hindquarters licked assiduously by liberal politicians and press - Time magazine wrote glowing reviews of this monster - almost all the way up to the Jonestown massacre) when they go blathering about God's Will being apparent in the mass deaths of strangers

I wonder if these people don't actually constitute a "third wing" in American politics in which rage, hatred, and rejoicing in the death and misfortune of others are legitimized from the pulpit and politicized. Right wing or left wing, these people seem more alike than they are different, aren't they? I propose we call them the "loony wing," any comments?

when he's taken so much money from Big, Big Business?

It seems that at least some conservatives, libertarians and a few leftists (such as Counterpunch's Pam Martens) (1, 2) were on the real story with Obama - those of us who noted Geoge Soros' and Warren Buffett's generosity to his Presidential campaign, or that Obama got more money from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae than any other Member of Congress. Interestingly, executives and employees of Wall Street law firms and lobbyists were Obama's largest donors, among them Jack Abramoff's Greenberg Traurig ($70,000).

When the investment banks and bankers peel off the big bucks to get you into office and keep you there, and send major executives (like Perseus Group's Jim Johnson - Soros owns Perseus Group) to help you run your campaign, it's not because they like your speaking style. It's because they expect you to share the nation's wealth with THEM somewhere down the line.

To quote Pam Martens (back in March, 2008):

"We are asked to believe that those white executives at all the biggest Wall Street firms, which rank in the top 20 donors to the Obama presidential campaign, after failing to achieve more than 3.5 per cent black stockbrokers over 30 years, now want a black populist president because they crave a level playing field for the American people.

The number one industry supporting the Obama presidential bid, according to the widely respected, nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, is "lawyers/law firms" (most on Wall Street's payroll), giving a total of $11,246,596. They say:

"Other leading presidential candidates are taking money from lawyers/law firms/lobbyists, but Senator Obama is the only one rallying with the populist cry that he isn't."

This presents three unique credibility problems for the yes-we-can, little-choo-choo-that-could campaign: (1) these are not just "lawyers/law firms"; the vast majority of these firms are also registered lobbyists at the Federal level; (2) Senator Obama has made it a core tenet of his campaign platform that the way he is gong to bring the country hope and change is not taking money from federal lobbyists; and (3) with the past seven ignoble years of lies and distortions fresh in the minds of voters, building a candidacy based on half-truths is not a sustainable strategy to secure the west wing from the right wing.

Yes, the other leading presidential candidates are taking money from lawyers/law firms/lobbyists, but Senator Obama is the only one rallying with the populist cry that he isn't. That makes it not only a legitimate but a necessary line of inquiry....

...Why do Wall Street and the corporate law firms think they will find a President Obama to be accommodating? As the Black Agenda Report notes, "Evidently, the giant insurance companies, the airlines, oil companies, Wall Street, military contractors and others had closely examined and vetted Barack Obama and found him pleasing."

Pardon the Joel Chandler Harris analogy, but Barack Obama was Big Business' Briar Patch - they pleaded faintly for the American people not to elect a guy who they found perfectly willing to accept their money in great big lots. What the Democratic Party accuses John McCain and Joe Lieberman of being, Obama IS.

Sources:

1) http://www.counterpunch.org/martens05052008.html

2) http://carolynbaker.net/site/content/view/360/

Howard Dean, who we may recall used to be the head of the Democratic National Committee, and who is also a physician (and therefore knows what he's talking about on the topic of health care), has urged the defeat of this newest health care bill.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul... is the Yahoo News post of an AP article on the subject (just so we can abort the knee-jerk assertion that this is an item from Fox News).

Quoting from the article:

" Former Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean argued Wednesday that the health care overhaul bill taking shape in the Senate further empowers private insurers at the expense of consumer choice — a claim the White House rejected.

"You will be forced to buy insurance. If you don't, you'll pay a fine," said Dean, a physician. "It's an insurance company bailout." Interviewed on ABC's "Good Morning America," he said the bill has some good provisions, "but there has to be a line beyond which you think the bill is bad for the country."

"This is an insurance company's dream," the former Democratic presidential candidate said. "This is the Washington scramble, and it's a shame."

Dean argued that the Senate's health care bill would not prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage for preexisting conditions and he also said it would allow the industry to charge older people far more than others for premiums."

Exactly what most of us who are against this abortion of a bill have been saying from the get-go.

My question (and it's a real question, not a rant) is "How Much Life Does This Healthcare Bill Have Left?"

A good second, follow-up question is

"How long do we have until we have until the REAL negotiations Obama promised us, televised on C-SPAN, with representatives of all the stake holders present and having their say, to hammer our a real, not paid-for by the insurance companies and forced on the people by IRS health-care plan?"

On four occasions (January 4th, 2008, March 31st, 2008, May 18, 2008 and August 21st, 2008), Barack Obama promised to televise national healthcare plans on C-SPAN, to let the people see what was being offered, what was being proposed, who was giving, who was taking.

He also promised that national health insurance wouldn't be mandatory.

Why didn't he keep these campaign promises, do you think? Please, no "because he's a (insert epithet here)" answers, I'd like constructive discussion.

I just saw Neil Cavuto (of Fox News) tearing into a Republican Congressman (Aaron Schock, Rep from Illinois) for criticizing pork-barrel spending loudly while he himself had 15 pork-barrel projects for $7.35 million in the current Federal spending bill. I think that while Fox is undeniably partisan in its approach, it's at least consistent in what it opposes and what it favors. Cavuto spent almost all the time that he had interviewing Schock calling him on the carpet for not living up to his own rhetoric.

How does everyone else here judge objectivity in the news media they use for information? Do you look for objectivity and consistency in reporting and analysis of the news?