It is a universal political truth that administrations do not begin to fragment when things are going well: it only happens when they go badly, and those who think they know better begin to attack those who manifestly do not. The descent of Barack Obama’s regime, characterised now by factionalism in the Democratic Party and talk of his being set to emulate Jimmy Carter as a one-term president, has been swift and precipitate. It was just 16 months ago that weeping men and women celebrated his victory over John McCain in the American presidential election. If they weep now, a year and six weeks into his rule, it is for different reasons.
Despite the efforts of some sections of opinion to talk the place up, America is mired in unhappiness, all the worse for the height from which Obamania has fallen. The economy remains troublesome. There is growth – a good last quarter suggested an annual rate of as high as six per cent, but that figure is probably not reliable – and the latest unemployment figures, last Friday, showed a levelling off. Yet 15 million Americans, or 9.7 per cent of the workforce, have no job. Many millions more are reduced to working part-time. Whole areas of the country, notably in the north and on the eastern seaboard, are industrial wastelands. The once mighty motor city of Detroit appears slowly to be being abandoned, becoming a Jurassic Park of the mid-20th century; unemployment among black people in Mr Obama’s own city of Chicago is estimated at between 20 and 25 per cent. One senior black politician – a Democrat and a supporter of the President – told me of the wrath in his community that a black president appeared to be unable to solve the economic problem among his own people. Cities in the east such as Newark and Baltimore now have drug-dealing as their principal commercial activity: The Wire is only just fictional.
[More]
This is alternative universe/bizarro thinking from a senior Democrat: “The Fox network is a remarkable cultural phenomenon which almost shocks those of us from a country where a technical rule of impartiality is applied in the broadcast media.”
Yup, blame FOX. Shoot the messenger. That’ll fix what’s wrong with America. Obama the zero achievement professor and now zero achievement POTUS is a colossal failure. Oh dear, how racist is that?
Fox basically led the Tea Party and most other anti-Obama movements. They deserve plenty of blame/credit for Obama’s demise. Now they’re grooming a presidential candidate for one of the parties. If any other netowork had done this for the Dems, you guys would be over the moon.
I am old enough to remember Jimmy Carter, and Barack Obama is no Jimmy Carter – he is way worse. Cheers.
Re: #3
All the other networks did do this for the Dems, that is why we have Obama! The fact that the National Enquirer is up for a Pulitzer tells you all you need to know about the MSM today.
Then you have to ask yourself why there are ever any GOP presidents, Pragmatist. Obviously it’s not that simple.
FOX didn’t lead the Tea Party. The rallies were genuine news, huge news as a matter of fact, so FOX merely covered them as any responsible news network should have done. The other networks basically ignored them dispite the fact that they were a political phenomena. When they did get shamed into giving the movement air time they did so in full attack mode. They fabricated incidents, focused heavily on any negative they could dig up and severly misled their (rapidly declining) viewership. On the other hand FOX’s coverage for their (rapidly increasing) viewership was fair, balanced and most of all honest, to those actually paying attention. As but one example the 10% fringe nutcases in the movement (that are found on both sides) were roundly critized by FOX but at the sametime not falsely portrayed as making up the majority.
Theres nothing ‘fair & balanced’ from Fox unless one is from the extreme right.
Did too, did not, did too, did not! LOL
Re: #6
I’d say the MSM tilt to the left occurred during the GW Bush years. I’m certainly not implying that FOX is impartial!
UV says “Theres nothing ‘fair & balanced’ from Fox unless one is from the extreme right.”
That statement is more of an indicator of where UV sits on the political spectrum than where Fox sits.
Pragmatist says “I’m certainly not implying that FOX is impartial!”
And CNN, MSNBC, CBC, Toronto Star, Globe and Mail and on and on ARE impartial?
“unless one is from the extreme right”
What is the “extreme right”? Anarchy? Or is this just a convenient epithet for protecting socialist values?
And, johndoe 124, most people would rather be extremely right than be extremely wrong.
Re: #12
If you read my first post in this thread you’ll probably understand a little better…
I’m saying a senior Democratic is a pot calling the kettle black.
It seems to me that the evidence of what works and what doesn’t work is right before our eyes.
The U.S. is unique in that various programs can be test run in one state to see how it will work.
For instance, the health care system in Mass.
As far as governing, very clear examples can be seen by comparing California with Texas. I found it interesting that Texas Legislators meet every second year for 90 days. Population is growing in Texas and declining in California. Industry is growing in Texas, and fleeing California.
The evidence is right there for all to see. What amazes me is that so many don’t see it.
Even if the U.S. government changes hands, nothing else will as long as the financial elephant is still in the room and the two parties continue to fight each other instead of getting their financial house in order. Sadly it would appear that the U.S. maybe past its ‘due date.’
‘We have the cure; no we have the cure; no we have the cure; no we have the cure.’
Well, heres something I came across today entitled ‘Palin’s claim family sought medical care in Canada prompts scrutiny, ridicule’
The Canadian Press reports that Sarah Palin’s week end admission that her family once travelled to Canada to receive treatment under the public health care system shes so often demonized.prompted skepticism and ridicule.
Palin’s experience, if accurate, reflects what some studies suggest is a more common trend that americans are travelling abroad to get cheaper care. Damn those broads.
A report last spring by Deloitte Center for Health Solutions said 750,000 americans travelled abroad for medical treatment in 2007. That far out paces the number of Canadians going to the states like Danny Williams for medical treatment.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100308/health/health_us_cda_palin_health
UV, why dont you check some facts before you repeat these “reports”?
Palin was 5 years old when these trips to Canada for health care happened.
They lived in Skagway.
Where is the nearest health provider to Skagway?
You guessed it, Whitehorse.
When did this happen? In the ’60s. When was nationalized health care in effect? 1972.
And in spite of all of the above, you and others like you who cant check out a dam thing, are so happy to try to spin something negative.
Has there ever been a time when Americans could come to Canada and get health care free? I have never heard of it.
So what is the point of all the bloviating?
To try to make something negative out of this is ridiculous.
Lee, well she does very well as a stand up comedian so thats why I added ‘If accurate’ but it does seem that more and more Americans are travelling abroad for cheaper health care as mentioned in the same report. And it would appear that may americans do travel north for cheap drugs ‘Government eye Canada for cheaper drugs’
http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/10/16/canada.drugs/
Fox = extreme right wing
Palin = standup comedy
Geeze, UV… you’re on a roll!
#21 — arent we all ‘on a roll at one time or anoder?’ Some roll them to the left while others roll them to the right while others just want to role them somewhere in between.
Why are we in this handbasket? Where are we going??
Lmao, Mac.
Funny how in some threads we just will not deal with the subject at hand.
I would rather laugh than cry, Lee… The glass is half-full…