Lounge of Tomorrow - The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

Lounge of Tomorrow (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/index.php)

- Daily Grind (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/forumdisplay.php?f=18)

- - The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux) (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/showthread.php?t=3249)

Quote:

That's why [Obama's] indifferent to the plummeting Dow.

Hey Sleepy, the Dow's up 300 points today. Does that mean you now have to declare Obama a resounding success as a President?

The Dow is b.s. I've watched my company's stock fall 10% on a day where we announced record profits and guidance for even higher profits the next quarter. So forgive me if I don't consider the sum of a bunch of stock prices the be all and end all of financial doom. It's a mediocre indicator of economic health at best, and an absolutely irrelevant indicator over 60 days of a President's performance.

You might, by the way, want to take a look at what the dow did the first two months after Reagan's inauguration. Or the first two months after WWII ended (what a horrible decision THAT turned out to be, geez).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight (Post 272280)

Fair enough.

A lot of dems have been giggling with glee over Michael Steele cowing to Rush Limbaugh. They are happy to see the 'pubs defer to a bumbling oaf that no one of importance takes seriously anymore.

But if that doesn't pan out, Steele looks like he'll make a perfectly fine substitute bumbling oaf:

From an interview with GQ's Lisa DePaulo (L)

Quote:

L: How much of your pro-life stance, for you, is informed not just by your catholic faith, but by the fact that you were adopted?
M: Oh, a lot. Absolutely. I see the power of life in that. I mean, and the power of choice! The thing to keep in mind about it, uh, you know, I think as a country we get off on these misguided conversations that throw around terms that really misrepresent truth.
L: Explain that.
M: The choice issue cuts two ways. You can choose life or you can choose abortion. You know, my mother chose life. So, you know, I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other.
L: Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?
M: Yeah. I mean, again, I think that's an individual choice.
L: You do?
M: Yeah. Absolutely.
L: Are you saying you don't want to overturn Roe v. Wade?
M: I think Roe v. Wade--as a legal matter, Roe v. Wade was a wrongly decided matter.
L: Okay, but if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?
M: The states should make that choice: that's what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide.

Uhhhhh....

I too think Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and that women should have the right to choose. Except when I say that, unlike him apparently, I understand what I mean by that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight (Post 272664)

A lot of dems have been giggling with glee over Michael Steele cowing to Rush Limbaugh. They are happy to see the 'pubs defer to a bumbling oaf that no one of importance takes seriously anymore.

Are you suggesting that President Obama is "no one of importance"?

Grasping at the "Roe v Wade was wrongly decided" straw usually means they've run out of anti-choice arguments. I guess they think it gives them some sort of high ground. You know, because all they really care about is the sanctity of a well-written law.

It Mr. Steele's case, it appears he got a bit confused while engaging in some auto-pilot party locksteppery.

Quote:

As Politico.com reported last week, Demo gurus James Carville and Stan Greenberg first concocted the idea of making Limbaugh the GOP albatross last year after a poll showed that among younger voters Limbaugh's ratings were in the toilet. White House adviser David Axelrod and Press Secretary Robert Gibbs joined in the get-Limbaugh gambit, while White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel called Limbaugh "the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican party" on CBS' "Face the Nation."

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee jumped into the act and sent out an e-mail instructing recipients to send an "urgent call" for GOP senators "to denounce (t)his shameful rhetoric." Key to the strategy are gullible partisans who fall for the phony umbrage of cynical operatives. Tens of thousands of outraged sheep — I mean, concerned individuals — have signed on, according to the DSCC.

"Shameful rhetoric?" Sorry, but the only thing that would make these operatives more gleeful would be if GOP leaders were caught in hotel rooms with hookers. This whole brouhaha is designed to get Republicans to snipe at each other and, perhaps more important, to distract voters from what is happening to their 401(k)s — after Democrats have thrown an extra trillion dollars at the economy.

"It's incredibly cynical," former McCain adviser Nicolle Wallace wrote in The Daily Beast. "It assumes that voters are too stupid to know the difference between a talk-radio host and a party's elected leaders."

Quote:

"I can think of no pursuit more childish than an Oval-Office-initiated food fight with a talk-radio host," Wallace wrote. Apparently Team Obama sees the Limbaugh feud as an effective use of its time.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/030...ers031009.php3

Do you ever read any other news source?

What's wrong with going after Limbaugh? I'd support putting a bullet in his brain for the greater good of this country. In the interest of balance, go ahead and pop Randi Rhodes too.

Steele seems to have no problem looking to Rush for leadership, so who are the Dems to argue?