"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 (thereÂs 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 thereÂs no private incentive to spend money on monitoring, since even people who didnÂt contribute to maintaining the monitoring system can still benefit from the warning. So thatÂs 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 partyÂs governance as proof that government canÂt 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? LetÂs 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.