James Carville's Advice to the President...Panic!

[flowerseverywhere]

I'm very happy to know that there is activity, at least in some areas. What I had in mind is something exponentially larger in scope. Somewhat along the lines of the CCC back in the 30's. Literally putting millions of people to work with new projects. It would have to be federally administered, or at least under the federal umbrella, simply because of the scope. Individual states don't have the resources to take it on.

wouldn't it be wonderful? I love the old CCC bridges and walls in the national parks and could see many projects that could enhance our countries beauty, safety and infrastructure.

I can't imagine that there is a chance one dollar would be appropriated to this project by our present congress.

and IrisLilly, did you see the No child left behind news?

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...,7709150.story

it involves states being allowed to apply for waivers to the program.

"Obama said he has no other choice after his team has been working with Congress for several months to try to remedy the problems without success.

“Congress has not been able to fix these flaws so far,” Obama said, “so I will.” "

[iris lily]

wouldn't it be wonderful? I love the old CCC bridges and walls in the national parks and could see many projects that could enhance our countries beauty, safety and infrastructure.

I can't imagine that there is a chance one dollar would be appropriated to this project by our present congress.

and IrisLilly, did you see the No child left behind news?

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...,7709150.story

it involves states being allowed to apply for waivers to the program.

"Obama said he has no other choice after his team has been working with Congress for several months to try to remedy the problems without success.

“Congress has not been able to fix these flaws so far,” Obama said, “so I will.” "

I am annoyed that the Republicans don't get back to basics of Republican ideals and kill the hell out of the Education Department and any such initiatives.

[rosebud]

I thought I saw something like that on the Green Party platform.

Thank goodness that a conservative finally admits that the tea party has as much relevance as the green party. Please let the lamestream media know so they'll stop all coverage of the tp! Particularly NPR and CNN which both feature stories on the tp every single freakin day. BTW, when WAS the last time you saw even a passing mention of the greens anywhere? I think your post was the first mention of the greens I have seen in a decade. Ah, good times, good times when the greens actually had about a month of breathless coverage from the msm.

[LDAHL]

Thank goodness that a conservative finally admits that the tea party has as much relevance as the green party. Please let the lamestream media know so they'll stop all coverage of the tp! Particularly NPR and CNN which both feature stories on the tp every single freakin day. BTW, when WAS the last time you saw even a passing mention of the greens anywhere? I think your post was the first mention of the greens I have seen in a decade. Ah, good times, good times when the greens actually had about a month of breathless coverage from the msm.

I think the tea party, which seems to be not so much a party in the conventional sense but a loose collection of groups reacting in dismay to this latest spurt in the power of government, is at this point at least as important to the Left as the Right.

the Left requires villains for its narrative, and the tea party fits that bill. With no central platform you can pick and choose which person speaking in their name provides the most outrage. Look at how the image their enemies have test-marketed have changed over the years, from "astroturf" corporate shills, to the violently racist-fascist fantasies following the Giffords shooting to today's know-nothing obstructionists image the President is selling with his new Harry Truman schtick. If the tea part didn't exist, it would have been necessary to invent it. That's why NPR/CNN will keep up their villain with a thousand faces coverage.

[Alan]

Thank goodness that a conservative finally admits that the tea party has as much relevance as the green party. Please let the lamestream media know so they'll stop all coverage of the tp! Particularly NPR and CNN which both feature stories on the tp every single freakin day. BTW, when WAS the last time you saw even a passing mention of the greens anywhere? I think your post was the first mention of the greens I have seen in a decade. Ah, good times, good times when the greens actually had about a month of breathless coverage from the msm.

The tea party is a loose coalition of regional groups dedicated to a few very specific principles and represent a very large percentage of American citizens. I hope we never get to the point where certain liberals or liberal groups get to decide who has a voice and who doesn't.

Already, the coverage most of the "lamestream media" provides the movement is negative. I'd certainly rather that all coverage be negative with the opportunity for rebuttal than to forbid discussion at all.

On a side note, I'm reminded of my irritation that liberals have taken and usurped the term "liberal" to such a degree that classical liberals such as myself and the vast majority of the tea party can no longer use the term. A classical liberal would never, ever suggest that the media be silenced on any subject. From now on, I'll simply refer to you guys as progressives. I hope you'll understand.

[flowerseverywhere]

I am not sure why people have to assign such labels to everyone and especially with such negativity.

[rosebud]

The tea party is a loose coalition of regional groups dedicated to a few very specific principles and represent a very large percentage of American citizens. I hope we never get to the point where certain liberals or liberal groups get to decide who has a voice and who doesn't.

Already, the coverage most of the "lamestream media" provides the movement is negative. I'd certainly rather that all coverage be negative with the opportunity for rebuttal than to forbid discussion at all.

On a side note, I'm reminded of my irritation that liberals have taken and usurped the term "liberal" to such a degree that classical liberals such as myself and the vast majority of the tea party can no longer use the term. A classical liberal would never, ever suggest that the media be silenced on any subject. From now on, I'll simply refer to you guys as progressives. I hope you'll understand.

Nice attempt to spin my comment into the implication that I, a typical non-classical liberal, wish to take away somebody's freedom. Very clever the way you just slipped that in there.

Here's the deal. Non-Classical Liberals, Progressives, whatever you want to call us: We're in favor of the First Amendment, okay, got that? We like it very much. ME criticizing a news organization for covering the tea party ad nauseum or in my view, without historical and political context or without the balance of other points of view has nothing to do with eliminating anyone's "voice" or shutting down any media outlet. I have the right to criticize the TP, journalists and news organizations: That is MY first amendment right.


Here in a nutshell is my criticism of media coverage of the TP:

1. The media portrayed the TP as solely a grassroots, populist movement and ignored the sponsorship of wealthy and powerful movement conservative players. There is a huge element of astroturfing in the TP movement.

2. The media portrayed the TP as a separate and distinct political movement from the GOP and movement conservatism, failing to analyze the TP in historical and political context. In fact a recent study indicates that 80% of TP members are registered Republican and were so registered at the birth of the TP. Studies have also shown that they do hold, compared to other groups, views that would be deemed extreme by the majority of folks in the US. They also show, as a group, more racial animus towards non-white people than other groups in general.
So, if what you are saying is correct, and the media showed them in a bad light, it's only because there are some extreme folks in the mix. The racism and hatred and just plain craziness in some quarters on the right were not invented by the media. They exist.

IMHO, the TP is simply a re-branding effort by the GOP, and to a great extent, it worked. So, good for the GOP, they did something smart.

3. The media did not always balance TP claims with factual analysis by experts. Instead, we were subjected to, for example, the ridiculous "death panel" issue, where an outright false claim was reported by the media and then they would put on, sometimes, some partisan on the other side sputtering about the demogoguery of the TP. You did not have clear, dispassionate, substantive analysis and reportage about the health care bill. So, this helped the TP and gave them more power to shape the debate because people were confused.

Anyway, of course I will concede the point that it is important to cover the tea party to the extent that it represents the Republican base, and obviously the Republican base is a sizable minority, just as the Democratic base is.

You can call me progressive, non-classical liberal, liberal, a die-hard Democrat, and Obamabot, a librul, a socialist. I don't care. Here's where you don't go:

Marxist, Leninist, communist, fascist, Nazi, #)#@), DemocRAT, thug, baby-killer, Feminazi, #(#(@ liberal, un-American, unPatriotic, not a "real" American, terrorist lover, terrorist sympathizer, histrionic woman, parasite (per Ayn Rand, sheesh, let's not get started on her)...

BTW, historical context of the term "conservatism" suggests that modern movement conservatives are really no longer conservatives, but radicals because they want to get rid of a lot of stuff that's been around for a long time, e.g. social security. But, I'll give you a pass on that one.

[loosechickens]

A friend sent this link to me today.....it's long, it's complicated, but if we're wandering into the weeds of "who the liberals are" and "who the Republicans of today are", etc., it is useful. Have at it.


http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all...ult/1314907779

the author of this piece is described by James Fallows in Atlantic as:

"....... is by a recently retired Congressional staffer named Mike Lofgren. Lofgren's name is barely known to the general public, but among people who have covered or worked in the national-security field, he is a familiar and highly esteemed figure. He spent 28 years as a Congressional staffer, mainly on budget matters, mainly in the defense-and-security realm, and mainly for Republican legislators."

An interesting look from inside looking out, by someone right in the middle of the huge changes that have come in the past thirty years in the Republican Party. Certainly the things he discusses are why I am no longer a Republican, and he illustrates very well how the very far right fringes have become somehow the "mainstream" of the Republican Party.

[loosechickens]

Wow.....good heavens! Could it be that even Fox News is beginning to be a bit aghast at where the hard right is taking the country? I wouldn't have believed this.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_980850.html

"Fox News CEO Roger Ailes has given one of his typically candid interviews to Newsweek. The interview was published Monday.

For a man who first made his name as a media guru for Richard Nixon, Ailes is often surprisingly forthcoming about Fox News and his opinions. In previous interviews, he has called NPR executives "Nazis" (he later apologized), said he didn't mind if people thought Glenn Beck was fired from the channel, and admitted that he wants both Bill and Hillary Clinton to join Fox News.

Behind the scenes, Ailes is reported to have clashed with Sarah Palin and told Beck to cool his more controversial rhetoric.

Monday's interview offered up more of Ailes' unvarnished opinions about his network and his employees. He made a big admission to Newsweek, saying that he has made a "course correction" at Fox News, veering it away from the hard-right line it took in the earlier days of the Obama administration. (Ailes offered a preview of this strategy in January, when he told Russell Simmons that he had ordered his anchors and pundits to "tone it down" in the wake of the Gabrielle Giffords shooting.) Beck's departure, as well as a more nuanced approach to his most famous pundit, Sarah Palin, have been part of that strategy, Ailes said.

He also spoke openly about many of his anchors, saying that Bill O'Reilly "hates" Sean Hannity because he's jealous of his radio success (and thus confirming years of rumors about the animosity between the two).

Ailes also called Hannity "predictable" and said that he sometimes has to have a word with Shepard Smith when Smith says things that may not go over well with the Fox News crowd. (He didn't say whether he was referring to Smith's seemingly pro-union comments about the Wisconsin protests, or his saying that the killing of Osama bin Laden was illegal and that American foreign policy is on a dangerous path.)

Read the full interview, including news about Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry's relationship with Ailes, here. "

__________

I see, after posting this, that the link on the last word "here" doesn't work, so to see the whole article, you'll have to go to the link posted and click on the "here" from there....sorry.......

[Alan]

Nice attempt to spin my comment into the implication that I, a typical non-classical liberal, wish to take away somebody's freedom. Very clever the way you just slipped that in there.

Well, you did say you wished the media would stop all coverage of the Tea Party.

Here's the deal. Non-Classical Liberals, Progressives, whatever you want to call us: We're in favor of the First Amendment, okay, got that? We like it very much. ME criticizing a news organization for covering the tea party ad nauseum or in my view, without historical and political context or without the balance of other points of view has nothing to do with eliminating anyone's "voice" or shutting down any media outlet. I have the right to criticize the TP, journalists and news organizations: That is MY first amendment right.

And that's an entirely different thought than the one I commented on.

1. The media portrayed the TP as solely a grassroots, populist movement and ignored the sponsorship of wealthy and powerful movement conservative players. There is a huge element of astroturfing in the TP movement.

Yes, the populist movement did gain the sponsorship of wealthy and powerful people. That doesn't take away from it's populist message.

2. The media portrayed the TP as a separate and distinct political movement from the GOP and movement conservatism, failing to analyze the TP in historical and political context. In fact a recent study indicates that 80% of TP members are registered Republican and were so registered at the birth of the TP. Studies have also shown that they do hold, compared to other groups, views that would be deemed extreme by the majority of folks in the US. They also show, as a group, more racial animus towards non-white people than other groups in general.
So, if what you are saying is correct, and the media showed them in a bad light, it's only because there are some extreme folks in the mix. The racism and hatred and just plain craziness in some quarters on the right were not invented by the media. They exist.

The Tea Party is a separate and distince political movement. It just happens to have a broader appeal to dis-enchanted Republicans than to Democrats. I can't speak for what the majority of folks in the US consider extreme, since there are no examples given. I will challange the "racial animus" part as it's been my experience that race and identity politics have nothing to do with the movement, regardless of how the media and the political left try to frame things.
Where the left and the media have succeeded is in their focus on the fringe elements of the group and linking those attributes to the whole. Then, the non-political only see what the media wants them to see and comes away with a bad impression.

3. The media did not always balance TP claims with factual analysis by experts. Instead, we were subjected to, for example, the ridiculous "death panel" issue, where an outright false claim was reported by the media and then they would put on, sometimes, some partisan on the other side sputtering about the demogoguery of the TP. You did not have clear, dispassionate, substantive analysis and reportage about the health care bill. So, this helped the TP and gave them more power to shape the debate because people were confused.

That's because there was truth behind the claims. Any factual analysis by experts would expose the underlying truth that in many cases, care, or lack of care will be decided by government bureaucrats, which could be construed as "death panels", or perhaps "life panels", or even "care panels".
As for the health care bill analysis, I don't think you can blame the Tea Party for people's confusion. Our Speaker of the House told us that we had to pass it before we could find out what was in it, and now, all this time later, we still don't know what effect various parts of the bill will have.

You can call me progressive, non-classical liberal, liberal, a die-hard Democrat, and Obamabot, a librul, a socialist. I don't care. Here's where you don't go:

Marxist, Leninist, communist, fascist, Nazi, #)#@), DemocRAT, thug, baby-killer, Feminazi, #(#(@ liberal, un-American, unPatriotic, not a "real" American, terrorist lover, terrorist sympathizer, histrionic woman, parasite (per Ayn Rand, sheesh, let's not get started on her)...

Luckily for you, the conservatives on this site do not engage in that sort of name calling. Watch out for some of the progressives though, there are a few who like to speak in terms of "small minded right wingers", "low information voters", etc.

BTW, historical context of the term "conservatism" suggests that modern movement conservatives are really no longer conservatives, but radicals because they want to get rid of a lot of stuff that's been around for a long time, e.g. social security. But, I'll give you a pass on that one.

I suppose you could look at it that way, but you could just as easily believe that modern movement conservatives recognize the non-conservative aspects of things that have been around for a long time, as well as the realization that those non-conservative "stuff" have the real possibility of placing this country's economy into the same situation Greece is in now. Of course, Greece has the rest of the EU to bail them out. If conservatives don't persevere, when it happens to us, I wonder who'll step forward to save us from ourselves?