So americans cant do anything that is why Obama will have to schedule our every move and we would all die tomorrow if he wasnt in charge :-)

"Anything" as in "create a rock so big that he can't move it?" As in: impose a functioning, fair, modern democracy on a country in 6 months after said country was ruled by a brutal dictator who murdered political opponents for decades and repressed the majority. As in cut essential spending on infrastructure and expect that there will be no consequences. The emphasis is on any.

rush, hannity,olberson, cuthbert, penn, are entertainers, you do realize that dont you?

Does Olbermann have Congressmen begging to be on his show to apologize?

I know what most of these political commentators/hosts/showmen are. I listened to Neal Bortz on the radio in Georgia in the early 1970s. I know their MO all too well. (Colbert does satire.) Rush is in another league because the Republican party is convinced that he's so powerful that he can't be crossed. http://www.bostonher...articleid=1147919

Repos think you let people spend money, demo's think only the governernment is qualified to spend money.

I know you're being snarky, but that's way off base. National Republicans are all about cutting taxes on investment income and wealth. Capital gains tax cuts. Ending the Inheritance Tax. And taking money away from public institutions, claiming to replace it with things like school vouchers. And rewarding savings (which can only be done by people who have enough money to save) for things like Health Savings Accounts that are meant to be an alternative to government-supported programs. Sure, they talk about cutting income tax rates for the poor and middle class, but their emphasis is always on reducing taxes on the wealthy and businesses.

Republicans aren't about "letting people spend money", not by a long shot. They're about rewarding those who already have.

National Democrats come in many flavors, but generally believe that the US government has many functions that it can and must do and that it has been unduly strangled since 1981.

Krugman put it very well today - http://krugman.blogs...indal-meditation/ :

But both sides, I thought, agreed that the government should provide public goods — goods that are nonrival (they benefit everyone) and nonexcludable (there’s no way to restrict the benefits to people who pay.) The classic examples are things like lighthouses and national defense, but there are many others. For example, knowing when a volcano is likely to erupt can save many lives; but there’s no private incentive to spend money on monitoring, since even people who didn’t contribute to maintaining the monitoring system can still benefit from the warning. So that’s the sort of activity that should be undertaken by government.

So what did Bobby Jindal choose to ridicule in this response to Obama last night? Volcano monitoring, of course.

And leaving aside the chutzpah of casting the failure of his own party’s governance as proof that government can’t work, does he really think that the response to natural disasters like Katrina is best undertaken by uncoordinated private action? Hey, why bother having an army? Let’s just rely on self-defense by armed citizens.

Americans really dont give a rats ass, they want a job, housing and nfl football.

Dunno. I think most Americans want the country to live up to the greatness of its history and are convinced that everyone will be better off if it does. They want to have some money left over after paying their bills. They want to have confidence that they won't have to work until they drop dead. Most people with kids want life to be better for them than it was in the past. Even if they do relax by sitting around drinking beer and get stupid watching football, that's not the extent of their aspirations.

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.

That section you quoted was referring to Iraq and the general lack of federal investment in infrastructure (like bridges and levees).

you derided Jindal for saying that the american people can do anything, its what we are noted for, at least in the past,

When did we think that doing something like our aims in Iraq would ever be done in 6 months? We're still in Germany and Korea and Japan. Defeating a country and changing their government in a lasting way is never easy. It can easily take decades. But Jindal's singing from Bush's hymnal.

As that earlier comment from Sullivan's blog indicated, there was a time when "America can rise to any challenge" was understood to be allegorical. But those who insist that using such language now as an apparent substitute for actual policies that will have a positive effect on our economy are shoveling pablum. It's dangerous to continue to push the happy thoughts that if only we wish hard enough, and keep government off our backs, then things will turn out just fine.

We can accomplish a lot if we are willing to work for it and pay the price for it. But not "anything". History teaches that, if we're willing to pay attention. Jindal and Cantor and Palin and others who believe as they do think that there's a free lunch.

How were my comments harsh?

if olberman had the ratings anywhere close to rush they would kiss his ass too since he is as important ratingwise as christian annapour they can mock him at will

And if everyone had magic ponies, then we wouldn't have to import 10M barrels of oil a day. :-) But we don't, and they don't. (Rush Hudson Limbaugh III's Wikipedia page is interesting. I can't see the Democrats making Keith an honorary member of Congress...)

If I give money to teachers unions or private schools what is the difference. Are public schools a required institution as a standing army or state department

Without an educated citizenry a functioning democratic republic is doomed. http://etext.virgini...ions/jeff1370.htm

Public education is more important than a standing army.

The problem with the framing of education as a competition between public and private is that there's rarely enough money to support both. And as Krugman indicated, things that benefit society as public goods should be provided by some level of government. People who spend thousands to send their kids to private school feel the natural inclination to argue for reduced property taxes that support the public schools. That damages the public good. Public schools do not have strong advocates now, at the time when (one can easily argue) they're most needed. Schools aren't like movie stars - we can't just throw them out and pick a new one when they offend our sensibilities. They're an essential institution, one that can't be replaced by for-profit charter schools or parochial schools or whatever the latest "reform" that is pushed by those who advocate "smaller government". The world is getting more complex, there is increasing competition for ideas and resources, and we need to be much smarter than we've been if we're going to make a meaningful impact on these problems.

Everyone in our society needs a basic level of education. Strangling the public schools in an attempt to reduce the power of teachers' unions is misguided and dangerous, IMO. Of course, they should improve over time, but too often other agendas drive the "reform".

Public schools have morphed into a babysitting creche to keep kids out of the workforce until age 18. You dont beleive me have a governor like ours shut the schools because of the gas prices and every republican in georgia was bitching about who was going to pick up the babysitting tab

Schools, even poor ones, do much more than baby sit. I'm not at all surprised that parents would be upset if the schools were closed - too many people have too many constraints about taking personal time to pick up their kids at non-standard times, and finding sitters is always a problem. Do we really want even more truant teenagers wandering around with nothing to do except get into trouble?

FWIW.

[edit: typo, misplaced "never".]

Cheers,
Scott.

I guess Steele didn't get the memo...

http://tpmdc.talking...rship.php?ref=fp1

In an interview with the Politico, Steele said: "My intent was not to go after Rush - I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh. I was maybe a little bit inarticulate...There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership."

This comes after Limbaugh tore into Steele for declaring on CNN that Rush isn't a leader of the Republican Party, but is an "entertainer" whose rhetoric is "incendiary" and "ugly."

Sullivan sees this for what it is: http://andrewsulliva...eele-reports.html

Cheers,
Scott.

I'm sure that's part of the conventional wisdom about Rush's hold on his audience, but I wonder if that really holds any more (if it ever did in practice).

Pundits and political personalities only have overt power as long as their power isn't challenged. Rush is smart enough not to make categorical statements, at least not for very long. Recall that he was strongly opposed to McCain. But even after blasting him for weeks on his show after the New Hampshire primary, and causing a shift in opinions about McCain among his listeners, his power to shift the nomination to someone else was overstated. http://www.annenberg...hreleasefinal.pdf (8 page .pdf). Of course, Rush fell into line and supported McCain once it became clear that he had the nomination.

The Limbaugh Effect was found to be overstated in 1998 as well - http://www.ingentaco...00000003/art00007

I think the Republican establishment is unsure of what to do right now. They don't want internecine warfare at the moment, so they'll let Rush be BMOC for a while. Once they start heavy planning for the 2010 elections, they'll get into fundraising mode and won't worry about him so much. Major changes to the party will have to wait until someone wins the nomination in 2012. Whether Rush is further marginalized by then is anyone's guess, but I'm sure he won't be running the national party the way he is now....

But we'll see.

Cheers,
Scott.