Why?
Why on elections day was the majority, and therefore control of, The Senate take away from the democrats and givren to The Republicans?
Why were even more democrats kicked out of The House and their seats given to The Republicans?
Why were the Governorships of so many blues states taken away from democrats and given to The Republicans?
Why are both houses of Congress now controlled by The Republicans, 30 of the state Governors and the majority of state Legislatures Republican?
Why?
maybe this is why
http://billmoyers.com/2014/11/05/gerrymandering-rigged-2014-elections-republican-advantage/
Gerrymandering Rigged the 2014 Elections for GOP Advantage
November 5, 2014
by Lee Fang
In the midterm elections, Republicans appear to have won their largest House majority since the Hoover administration. Republicans won on the weakness of Democratic candidates, a poor resource allocation strategy by Democratic party leaders, particularly DCCC chair Steve Israel, and an election narrative that did little to inspire base Democratic voters. That being said, in many ways, the game was rigged from the start. The GOP benefitted from the most egregious gerrymandering in American history.
As Rolling Stone reported, GOP donors plowed cash into state legislative efforts in 2010 for the very purpose of redrawing congressional lines. In the following year, as the tea party wave brought hundreds of Republicans into office, newly empowered Republican governors and state legislatures carved congressional districts for maximum partisan advantage. Democrats attempted this too, but only in two states: Maryland and Illinois. For the GOP however, strictly partisan gerrymandering prevailed in Ohio, Pennsylvania Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Texas, Louisiana, Arizona, Tennessee and beyond.
Here’s an example from the election last night. In Pennsylvania, one state in which the GOP drew the congressional districts in a brazenly partisan way, Democratic candidates collected 44 percent of the vote, yet Democratic candidates won only 5 House seats out of 18. In other words, Democrats secured only 27 percent of Pennsylvania’s congressional seats despite winning nearly half of the votes. See the graph below:
A similar dynamic played in North Carolina, another state in which GOP control in 2011 created intensely partisan congressional boundaries. In the 2014 midterm elections, Democrats in North Carolina secured only three out of 13 seats (23 percent of NC’s congressional delegation) even though Democratic candidates in that state won about 44 percent of the vote:
In 2012, the first congressional election after the last round of gerrymandering, Democratic House candidates won 50.59 percent of the vote — or 1.37 million more votes than Republican candidates — yet secured only 201 seats in Congress, compared to 234 seats for Republicans. The House of Representatives, the “people’s house,” no longer requires the most votes for power.
As the results from this year roll in, we see a similar dynamic. Republican gerrymandering means Democratic voters are packed tightly into single districts, while Republicans are spread out in such a way to translate into the most congressional seats for the GOP.
There are a lot of structural issues that influence congressional elections, from voter ID requirements to early voting access. But what does it matter if you’ve been packed into a district in which your vote can’t change the composition of Congress.
Damn Obama Economy
U.S. has added 2.3 million jobs this year
By Tami Luhby and Patrick Gillespie @CNNMoney November 7, 2014: 9:39 AM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney)
Employers added 214,000 jobs in October, continuing a trend of strong job growth this year that is on track to be the best for America since 1999.
The unemployment rate fell to 5.8%, according the government report released Friday. The rate fell below 6% in September for the first time in six years.
Economists are growing more optimistic about hiring. The consensus forecast from economists surveyed by CNNMoney was for a jobs gain of 233,000 jobs and an unemployment rate of 5.9%. While October's hiring fell short of expectations, experts still say it's positive.
"Anytime you're over the 200,000 mark, things are going well," says Rich Thompson, chief economist at Adecco Group North America. "It's still good. It's consistently solid."
On average, the economy has been adding well over 200,000 jobs a month this year, a positive sign. There have been nearly 2.3 million jobs added so far this year.
"It also helped that October's gain was widespread, with nearly every industrial sector contributing to the job gains," says Paul Ashworth, chief economist at Capital Economics. Food services and health care had the biggest hiring sprees.
Wages still stuck: Americans, however, have not been as upbeat about the economy. Though unemployment has fallen from 7.2% a year ago, the economy remains their top concern and played into the midterm voting.
That's mainly because wages have remained stagnant. Average hourly earnings remained steady last month at $24.57. Wages are a key factor in how much money people have to spend, which drives economic growth.
While wages are up 2% over the past year, that's just slightly ahead of inflation, which means most U.S. workers don't feel any better off.
To put it another way, median family income in the U.S. has fallen back to 1995 levels.
Related: Why voters hate the Obama economy
Long-term unemployed: Another lingering problem for the economy are workers who haven't been able to find a good job for months, if not years.
Over seven million Americans cannot find the work they need. The number of people working part-time jobs who really want full-time employment remained high in October and is one the reasons the Federal Reserve is hesitant to change interest rates.
Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen and other officials are closely monitoring the monthly jobs report. They are waiting for hiring and wages to become healthy enough before raising interest rates.
The Democrats lead the way on telling blacks that they should vote based on their blackness and women should vote for Democrats because they are women. And the poor should vote for Democrats because democrats love the poor. It's all nonsense and it lets them avoid talking about the issues that affect people's lives such as the stagnant state of the economy. I am not a Republican but I have grown to loathe the Democratic party to which I have belonged all my life. I've never seen such small minded non-issue based campaigning and I'm glad it backfired.
that explains the Democratic party perfectly and is also the reason I loathe them as well.
They have to. If they could run on the success of their policies they would. Instead they have to rely on frantic appeals to young women and minority groups. A desperate, backward-thinking strategy for a party unable to run on the issues. If they ran on policy and revealed their true intentions they might win a few elections in dark blue States but that would be about it.
I know you guys hate this site but its still interesting
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/11/07/obstruction-and-how-the-press-helped-punch-the/201494
Obstruction And How The Press Helped Punch The GOP's Midterm Ticket
Five Years Of Enabling Radical Gridlock
Blog ››› 27 minutes ago ››› ERIC BOEHLERT
In the days after the midterm elections, the New York Times has been a cornucopia of campaign commentary. Lots of attention is being paid to the issue of gridlock, which has defined Washington, D.C. since President Obama was first inaugurated.
Lamenting America's "broken politics," Times columnist Nicholas Kristof opted for the both-sides-are-to-blame model, suggesting that, "Critics are right that [Obama] should try harder to schmooze with legislators." Across from Kristof on the Times opinion page, Republican pollster Frank Luntz urged Obama to find a way to create "common-sense solutions" with his Republican counterparts. (This, despite the fact that Luntz in 2009 helped Republicans craft their trademark strategy of obstructing Obama at every turn.)
And the same day, while reviewing Chuck Todd's new book on Obama, which stressed that the president "wanted to soar above partisanship" though his two terms will likely "be remembered as a nadir of partisan relations," the Times book critic stressed Obama's "reluctance to reach out to Congress and members of both parties to engage in the sort of forceful horse trading (like Lyndon B. Johnson's) and dogged retail politics (like Bill Clinton's) that might have helped forge more legislative deals and build public consensus."
So after six years of radical, blanketed reticence from the GOP, we're still repeatedly reading in the New York Times that while Republicans have put up road blocks, if Obama would just try harder, Republicans might cooperate with him. You can almost hear the frustration seeping through the pages of the Times: 'What is wrong with this guy? Bipartisanship is so simple. Republicans say they want to work with the White House, so why doesn't Obama just do it?'
Indeed, cooperation is simple if you purposefully ignore reality--if you downplay the fact the Republican Party is acting in a way that defies all historic norms. If you adopt that fantasy version of Beltway politics today (i.e. the GOP is filled with honest brokers just waiting to work with the White House), then it's easy to dissect the problems, and it's easy to file both-sides-are-to-blame columns that urge bipartisan cooperation.
What's trickier, apparently, is speaking truth to power and accurately portraying what has happened to American politics and noting without equivocation that the sabotage that has occurred is designed to ensure the federal government doesn't function as designed, and that it cannot efficiently address the problems of the nation.
And this week, it all paid off for Republicans. "Obstruction has just been rewarded, in a huge way," wrote Michael Tomasky at The Daily Beast.
Led by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Republicans vowed in 2009 to oppose every political move Obama made, not matter how sweeping or how minor. "To prevent Obama from becoming the hero who fixed Washington, McConnell decided to break it. And it worked," wrote Matthew Yglesias at Vox, in the wake of the midterm election results. New York's Jonathan Chait made a similar observation about McConnell: "His single strategic insight is that voters do not blame Congress for gridlock, they blame the president, and therefore reward the opposition."
But why? Why don't voters blame Congress for gridlock?
Why would the president, who's had virtually his entire agenda categorically obstructed, be blamed and not the politicians who purposefully plot the gridlock? Because the press has given Republicans a pass. For more than five years, too many Beltway pundits and reporters have treated the spectacular stalemate as if it were everyday politics; just more "partisan combat." It's not. It's extraordinary. (See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.)
Note the press complaint Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) logged four years ago. It was about how timid the news media were in covering Republican obstructionism. Her critique still applies today:
You guys don't write about [it], and this is what they do. I don't see it, and I take five newspapers. I don't see it on the tube, and I don't see it anywhere. It's obstruction. It's obfuscation. It's bringing the body to a halt and it's been done dozens of times. And this is one more of those times... and they haven't gotten much criticism for it clearly or they would have stopped it.
On paper, the GOP's desperate maneuver in 2009 looked risky: Just gum up the works of Congress and stand in the way of every proposal from the new president who was just swept into office with a public mandate for change? Wouldn't commentators clobber the GOP for blind partisanship and hollow obstruction?
Looking back though, there was very little risk involved. There was no element of chance because within days of Obama being sworn into office, the Beltway press sent out clarion call: If Republicans don't cooperate with the new, wildly popular president, it's the president's fault.
And that press judgment hasn't budged since 2009.
If you think I'm exaggerating about this phenomenon taking root within days of Obama's first term, just go back to the White House's January 23, 2009 press conference. That's when NBC's Chuck Todd asked the new president if he would veto his own party's stimulus bill if not enough Republicans voted in support of it.
Todd's weird query highlighted the unheard-of double standard constructed almost overnight by the press with regard to the pressing issue of bipartisanship: If there was little or no bipartisan support for Obama's stimulus package, then it was Obama's fault, his fault alone, and the bill itself must be a P.R. failure.
Sure, the legislation might help save the collapsing economy at the time. (Fact: It did.) But in terms of optics and how it looked, the emergency stimulus bill was a loser. Why? Republicans didn't like it. The party that had just been pushed out of office didn't support the bill, so the press declared it to be an Obama failure and a key Republican victory.
"Republicans find their voice," cheered Politico after the GOP snubbed Obama weeks into his first term. The Los Angeles Times reported in January 2009, "t was clear that [Obama's] efforts so far had not delivered the post-partisan era that he called for in his inauguration address." Meaning, nine days after being sworn in, Obama still hadn't ushered in a "post-partisan era."
Five years later the simple question remains: If Republicans emphatically do not want to cooperate in any meaningful way with Democrats, is there anything Obama can do to change that? Answer: No, not really. But according to the press, Obama is supposed to change that equation, or else he loses. He takes all of the blame.
That's how the game has been played since early 2009. And that's the dynamic Republicans just rode to midterm victory.
Its ok to cling to these opinion pieces after getting blown out, but the facts are in poll after poll 70% of Americans were dissatified with the direction of the country. Obama and Harry Reid were in power so they were removed.The NSA spying, IRS gate, and the waffley Ebola display just reaffirmed that this administration needed to be benched.
The Republicans were given a rope to consturct problem solving legislation or hang thyselves. We shall see.
[Edited on 11/7/2014 by OriginalGoober]
Must be because the GOP just won the midterms...
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — The U.S. generated 214,000 new jobs in October to nudge the unemployment rate down to a six-year low of 5.8%, another healthy increase in hiring that points to solid economic growth in the months ahead.
Job creation in October marked the ninth straight month the economy has added 200,000 jobs or more, a feat last accomplished in 1994, a government survey of work establishments showed. Hiring in September and August were also higher than previously reported.
The U.S. has created 2.3 million jobs this year and is on track for the biggest gain in almost a decade.
What’s more, job openings recently hit a 13-year high while layoffs have fallen to the lowest level since the turn of the century.
Its ok to cling to these opinion pieces after getting blown out, but the facts are in poll after poll 70% of Americans were dissatified with the direction of the country. Obama and Harry Reid were in power so they were removed.The NSA spying, IRS gate, and the waffley Ebola display just reaffirmed that this administration needed to be benched.
The Republicans were given a rope to consturct problem solving legislation or hang thyselves. We shall see.
[Edited on 11/7/2014 by OriginalGoober]
Obama was removed from power? I must have missed this. I thought he was still president.
Its ok to cling to these opinion pieces after getting blown out, but the facts are in poll after poll 70% of Americans were dissatified with the direction of the country. Obama and Harry Reid were in power so they were removed.The NSA spying, IRS gate, and the waffley Ebola display just reaffirmed that this administration needed to be benched.
The Republicans were given a rope to consturct problem solving legislation or hang thyselves. We shall see.
[Edited on 11/7/2014 by OriginalGoober]
Well Obama wasn't removed but you can bet if we had a Parliamentary system he would have been.
The NSA spying,
Ironically, of everyone on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mark Udall was the most vocal opponent of NSA spying, even broke ranks with Obama on the issue.
Oh well! 
Its ok to cling to these opinion pieces after getting blown out, but the facts are in poll after poll 70% of Americans were dissatified with the direction of the country. Obama and Harry Reid were in power so they were removed.The NSA spying, IRS gate, and the waffley Ebola display just reaffirmed that this administration needed to be benched.
The Republicans were given a rope to consturct problem solving legislation or hang thyselves. We shall see.
[Edited on 11/7/2014 by OriginalGoober]
Well Obama wasn't removed but you can bet if we had a Parliamentary system he would have been.
And thank God we don't. Very few presidents would last through a 4 year term.
I know you guys hate this site but its still interesting
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/11/07/obstruction-and-how-the-press-helped-punch-the/201494
Obstruction And How The Press Helped Punch The GOP's Midterm Ticket
Five Years Of Enabling Radical Gridlock
Blog ››› 27 minutes ago ››› ERIC BOEHLERT
In the days after the midterm elections, the New York Times has been a cornucopia of campaign commentary. Lots of attention is being paid to the issue of gridlock, which has defined Washington, D.C. since President Obama was first inaugurated.
Lamenting America's "broken politics," Times columnist Nicholas Kristof opted for the both-sides-are-to-blame model, suggesting that, "Critics are right that [Obama] should try harder to schmooze with legislators." Across from Kristof on the Times opinion page, Republican pollster Frank Luntz urged Obama to find a way to create "common-sense solutions" with his Republican counterparts. (This, despite the fact that Luntz in 2009 helped Republicans craft their trademark strategy of obstructing Obama at every turn.)
And the same day, while reviewing Chuck Todd's new book on Obama, which stressed that the president "wanted to soar above partisanship" though his two terms will likely "be remembered as a nadir of partisan relations," the Times book critic stressed Obama's "reluctance to reach out to Congress and members of both parties to engage in the sort of forceful horse trading (like Lyndon B. Johnson's) and dogged retail politics (like Bill Clinton's) that might have helped forge more legislative deals and build public consensus."
So after six years of radical, blanketed reticence from the GOP, we're still repeatedly reading in the New York Times that while Republicans have put up road blocks, if Obama would just try harder, Republicans might cooperate with him. You can almost hear the frustration seeping through the pages of the Times: 'What is wrong with this guy? Bipartisanship is so simple. Republicans say they want to work with the White House, so why doesn't Obama just do it?'
Indeed, cooperation is simple if you purposefully ignore reality--if you downplay the fact the Republican Party is acting in a way that defies all historic norms. If you adopt that fantasy version of Beltway politics today (i.e. the GOP is filled with honest brokers just waiting to work with the White House), then it's easy to dissect the problems, and it's easy to file both-sides-are-to-blame columns that urge bipartisan cooperation.
What's trickier, apparently, is speaking truth to power and accurately portraying what has happened to American politics and noting without equivocation that the sabotage that has occurred is designed to ensure the federal government doesn't function as designed, and that it cannot efficiently address the problems of the nation.
And this week, it all paid off for Republicans. "Obstruction has just been rewarded, in a huge way," wrote Michael Tomasky at The Daily Beast.
Led by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Republicans vowed in 2009 to oppose every political move Obama made, not matter how sweeping or how minor. "To prevent Obama from becoming the hero who fixed Washington, McConnell decided to break it. And it worked," wrote Matthew Yglesias at Vox, in the wake of the midterm election results. New York's Jonathan Chait made a similar observation about McConnell: "His single strategic insight is that voters do not blame Congress for gridlock, they blame the president, and therefore reward the opposition."
But why? Why don't voters blame Congress for gridlock?
Why would the president, who's had virtually his entire agenda categorically obstructed, be blamed and not the politicians who purposefully plot the gridlock? Because the press has given Republicans a pass. For more than five years, too many Beltway pundits and reporters have treated the spectacular stalemate as if it were everyday politics; just more "partisan combat." It's not. It's extraordinary. (See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.)
Note the press complaint Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) logged four years ago. It was about how timid the news media were in covering Republican obstructionism. Her critique still applies today:
You guys don't write about [it], and this is what they do. I don't see it, and I take five newspapers. I don't see it on the tube, and I don't see it anywhere. It's obstruction. It's obfuscation. It's bringing the body to a halt and it's been done dozens of times. And this is one more of those times... and they haven't gotten much criticism for it clearly or they would have stopped it.
On paper, the GOP's desperate maneuver in 2009 looked risky: Just gum up the works of Congress and stand in the way of every proposal from the new president who was just swept into office with a public mandate for change? Wouldn't commentators clobber the GOP for blind partisanship and hollow obstruction?
Looking back though, there was very little risk involved. There was no element of chance because within days of Obama being sworn into office, the Beltway press sent out clarion call: If Republicans don't cooperate with the new, wildly popular president, it's the president's fault.
And that press judgment hasn't budged since 2009.
If you think I'm exaggerating about this phenomenon taking root within days of Obama's first term, just go back to the White House's January 23, 2009 press conference. That's when NBC's Chuck Todd asked the new president if he would veto his own party's stimulus bill if not enough Republicans voted in support of it.
Todd's weird query highlighted the unheard-of double standard constructed almost overnight by the press with regard to the pressing issue of bipartisanship: If there was little or no bipartisan support for Obama's stimulus package, then it was Obama's fault, his fault alone, and the bill itself must be a P.R. failure.
Sure, the legislation might help save the collapsing economy at the time. (Fact: It did.) But in terms of optics and how it looked, the emergency stimulus bill was a loser. Why? Republicans didn't like it. The party that had just been pushed out of office didn't support the bill, so the press declared it to be an Obama failure and a key Republican victory.
"Republicans find their voice," cheered Politico after the GOP snubbed Obama weeks into his first term. The Los Angeles Times reported in January 2009, "t was clear that [Obama's] efforts so far had not delivered the post-partisan era that he called for in his inauguration address." Meaning, nine days after being sworn in, Obama still hadn't ushered in a "post-partisan era."
Five years later the simple question remains: If Republicans emphatically do not want to cooperate in any meaningful way with Democrats, is there anything Obama can do to change that? Answer: No, not really. But according to the press, Obama is supposed to change that equation, or else he loses. He takes all of the blame.
That's how the game has been played since early 2009. And that's the dynamic Republicans just rode to midterm victory.
_____________________________________________
MediaMatters?
One of the political action groups financed by Obama’s biggest supporter George Soros, the French socialist billionaire?
Almost as sad as the job growth under obama’s failed economy.
Over 70% of the jobs obama claims he created are part time and or very low wage.
Every liberal seems to be posting answers to the “Why” by cutting and pasting leftwing media.
Does any liberal have a clue as to why obama’s policies and reid and the democrats lost at every level of government Tuesday?
I know you guys hate this site but its still interesting
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/11/07/obstruction-and-how-the-press-helped-punch-the/201494
Obstruction And How The Press Helped Punch The GOP's Midterm Ticket
Five Years Of Enabling Radical Gridlock
Blog ››› 27 minutes ago ››› ERIC BOEHLERT
In the days after the midterm elections, the New York Times has been a cornucopia of campaign commentary. Lots of attention is being paid to the issue of gridlock, which has defined Washington, D.C. since President Obama was first inaugurated.
Lamenting America's "broken politics," Times columnist Nicholas Kristof opted for the both-sides-are-to-blame model, suggesting that, "Critics are right that [Obama] should try harder to schmooze with legislators." Across from Kristof on the Times opinion page, Republican pollster Frank Luntz urged Obama to find a way to create "common-sense solutions" with his Republican counterparts. (This, despite the fact that Luntz in 2009 helped Republicans craft their trademark strategy of obstructing Obama at every turn.)
And the same day, while reviewing Chuck Todd's new book on Obama, which stressed that the president "wanted to soar above partisanship" though his two terms will likely "be remembered as a nadir of partisan relations," the Times book critic stressed Obama's "reluctance to reach out to Congress and members of both parties to engage in the sort of forceful horse trading (like Lyndon B. Johnson's) and dogged retail politics (like Bill Clinton's) that might have helped forge more legislative deals and build public consensus."
So after six years of radical, blanketed reticence from the GOP, we're still repeatedly reading in the New York Times that while Republicans have put up road blocks, if Obama would just try harder, Republicans might cooperate with him. You can almost hear the frustration seeping through the pages of the Times: 'What is wrong with this guy? Bipartisanship is so simple. Republicans say they want to work with the White House, so why doesn't Obama just do it?'
Indeed, cooperation is simple if you purposefully ignore reality--if you downplay the fact the Republican Party is acting in a way that defies all historic norms. If you adopt that fantasy version of Beltway politics today (i.e. the GOP is filled with honest brokers just waiting to work with the White House), then it's easy to dissect the problems, and it's easy to file both-sides-are-to-blame columns that urge bipartisan cooperation.
What's trickier, apparently, is speaking truth to power and accurately portraying what has happened to American politics and noting without equivocation that the sabotage that has occurred is designed to ensure the federal government doesn't function as designed, and that it cannot efficiently address the problems of the nation.
And this week, it all paid off for Republicans. "Obstruction has just been rewarded, in a huge way," wrote Michael Tomasky at The Daily Beast.
Led by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Republicans vowed in 2009 to oppose every political move Obama made, not matter how sweeping or how minor. "To prevent Obama from becoming the hero who fixed Washington, McConnell decided to break it. And it worked," wrote Matthew Yglesias at Vox, in the wake of the midterm election results. New York's Jonathan Chait made a similar observation about McConnell: "His single strategic insight is that voters do not blame Congress for gridlock, they blame the president, and therefore reward the opposition."
But why? Why don't voters blame Congress for gridlock?
Why would the president, who's had virtually his entire agenda categorically obstructed, be blamed and not the politicians who purposefully plot the gridlock? Because the press has given Republicans a pass. For more than five years, too many Beltway pundits and reporters have treated the spectacular stalemate as if it were everyday politics; just more "partisan combat." It's not. It's extraordinary. (See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.)
Note the press complaint Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) logged four years ago. It was about how timid the news media were in covering Republican obstructionism. Her critique still applies today:
You guys don't write about [it], and this is what they do. I don't see it, and I take five newspapers. I don't see it on the tube, and I don't see it anywhere. It's obstruction. It's obfuscation. It's bringing the body to a halt and it's been done dozens of times. And this is one more of those times... and they haven't gotten much criticism for it clearly or they would have stopped it.
On paper, the GOP's desperate maneuver in 2009 looked risky: Just gum up the works of Congress and stand in the way of every proposal from the new president who was just swept into office with a public mandate for change? Wouldn't commentators clobber the GOP for blind partisanship and hollow obstruction?
Looking back though, there was very little risk involved. There was no element of chance because within days of Obama being sworn into office, the Beltway press sent out clarion call: If Republicans don't cooperate with the new, wildly popular president, it's the president's fault.
And that press judgment hasn't budged since 2009.
If you think I'm exaggerating about this phenomenon taking root within days of Obama's first term, just go back to the White House's January 23, 2009 press conference. That's when NBC's Chuck Todd asked the new president if he would veto his own party's stimulus bill if not enough Republicans voted in support of it.
Todd's weird query highlighted the unheard-of double standard constructed almost overnight by the press with regard to the pressing issue of bipartisanship: If there was little or no bipartisan support for Obama's stimulus package, then it was Obama's fault, his fault alone, and the bill itself must be a P.R. failure.
Sure, the legislation might help save the collapsing economy at the time. (Fact: It did.) But in terms of optics and how it looked, the emergency stimulus bill was a loser. Why? Republicans didn't like it. The party that had just been pushed out of office didn't support the bill, so the press declared it to be an Obama failure and a key Republican victory.
"Republicans find their voice," cheered Politico after the GOP snubbed Obama weeks into his first term. The Los Angeles Times reported in January 2009, "t was clear that [Obama's] efforts so far had not delivered the post-partisan era that he called for in his inauguration address." Meaning, nine days after being sworn in, Obama still hadn't ushered in a "post-partisan era."
Five years later the simple question remains: If Republicans emphatically do not want to cooperate in any meaningful way with Democrats, is there anything Obama can do to change that? Answer: No, not really. But according to the press, Obama is supposed to change that equation, or else he loses. He takes all of the blame.
That's how the game has been played since early 2009. And that's the dynamic Republicans just rode to midterm victory.
_____________________________________________
MediaMatters?
One of the political action groups financed by Obama’s biggest supporter George Soros, the French socialist billionaire?
Almost as sad as the job growth under obama’s failed economy.
Over 70% of the jobs obama claims he created are part time and or very low wage.Every liberal seems to be posting answers to the “Why” by cutting and pasting leftwing media.
Does any liberal have a clue as to why obama’s policies and reid and the democrats lost at every level of government Tuesday?
Because of people like you. You know, low info voters.
I know you guys hate this site but its still interesting
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/11/07/obstruction-and-how-the-press-helped-punch-the/201494
Obstruction And How The Press Helped Punch The GOP's Midterm Ticket
Five Years Of Enabling Radical Gridlock
Blog ››› 27 minutes ago ››› ERIC BOEHLERT
In the days after the midterm elections, the New York Times has been a cornucopia of campaign commentary. Lots of attention is being paid to the issue of gridlock, which has defined Washington, D.C. since President Obama was first inaugurated.
Lamenting America's "broken politics," Times columnist Nicholas Kristof opted for the both-sides-are-to-blame model, suggesting that, "Critics are right that [Obama] should try harder to schmooze with legislators." Across from Kristof on the Times opinion page, Republican pollster Frank Luntz urged Obama to find a way to create "common-sense solutions" with his Republican counterparts. (This, despite the fact that Luntz in 2009 helped Republicans craft their trademark strategy of obstructing Obama at every turn.)
And the same day, while reviewing Chuck Todd's new book on Obama, which stressed that the president "wanted to soar above partisanship" though his two terms will likely "be remembered as a nadir of partisan relations," the Times book critic stressed Obama's "reluctance to reach out to Congress and members of both parties to engage in the sort of forceful horse trading (like Lyndon B. Johnson's) and dogged retail politics (like Bill Clinton's) that might have helped forge more legislative deals and build public consensus."
So after six years of radical, blanketed reticence from the GOP, we're still repeatedly reading in the New York Times that while Republicans have put up road blocks, if Obama would just try harder, Republicans might cooperate with him. You can almost hear the frustration seeping through the pages of the Times: 'What is wrong with this guy? Bipartisanship is so simple. Republicans say they want to work with the White House, so why doesn't Obama just do it?'
Indeed, cooperation is simple if you purposefully ignore reality--if you downplay the fact the Republican Party is acting in a way that defies all historic norms. If you adopt that fantasy version of Beltway politics today (i.e. the GOP is filled with honest brokers just waiting to work with the White House), then it's easy to dissect the problems, and it's easy to file both-sides-are-to-blame columns that urge bipartisan cooperation.
What's trickier, apparently, is speaking truth to power and accurately portraying what has happened to American politics and noting without equivocation that the sabotage that has occurred is designed to ensure the federal government doesn't function as designed, and that it cannot efficiently address the problems of the nation.
And this week, it all paid off for Republicans. "Obstruction has just been rewarded, in a huge way," wrote Michael Tomasky at The Daily Beast.
Led by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Republicans vowed in 2009 to oppose every political move Obama made, not matter how sweeping or how minor. "To prevent Obama from becoming the hero who fixed Washington, McConnell decided to break it. And it worked," wrote Matthew Yglesias at Vox, in the wake of the midterm election results. New York's Jonathan Chait made a similar observation about McConnell: "His single strategic insight is that voters do not blame Congress for gridlock, they blame the president, and therefore reward the opposition."
But why? Why don't voters blame Congress for gridlock?
Why would the president, who's had virtually his entire agenda categorically obstructed, be blamed and not the politicians who purposefully plot the gridlock? Because the press has given Republicans a pass. For more than five years, too many Beltway pundits and reporters have treated the spectacular stalemate as if it were everyday politics; just more "partisan combat." It's not. It's extraordinary. (See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.)
Note the press complaint Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) logged four years ago. It was about how timid the news media were in covering Republican obstructionism. Her critique still applies today:
You guys don't write about [it], and this is what they do. I don't see it, and I take five newspapers. I don't see it on the tube, and I don't see it anywhere. It's obstruction. It's obfuscation. It's bringing the body to a halt and it's been done dozens of times. And this is one more of those times... and they haven't gotten much criticism for it clearly or they would have stopped it.
On paper, the GOP's desperate maneuver in 2009 looked risky: Just gum up the works of Congress and stand in the way of every proposal from the new president who was just swept into office with a public mandate for change? Wouldn't commentators clobber the GOP for blind partisanship and hollow obstruction?
Looking back though, there was very little risk involved. There was no element of chance because within days of Obama being sworn into office, the Beltway press sent out clarion call: If Republicans don't cooperate with the new, wildly popular president, it's the president's fault.
And that press judgment hasn't budged since 2009.
If you think I'm exaggerating about this phenomenon taking root within days of Obama's first term, just go back to the White House's January 23, 2009 press conference. That's when NBC's Chuck Todd asked the new president if he would veto his own party's stimulus bill if not enough Republicans voted in support of it.
Todd's weird query highlighted the unheard-of double standard constructed almost overnight by the press with regard to the pressing issue of bipartisanship: If there was little or no bipartisan support for Obama's stimulus package, then it was Obama's fault, his fault alone, and the bill itself must be a P.R. failure.
Sure, the legislation might help save the collapsing economy at the time. (Fact: It did.) But in terms of optics and how it looked, the emergency stimulus bill was a loser. Why? Republicans didn't like it. The party that had just been pushed out of office didn't support the bill, so the press declared it to be an Obama failure and a key Republican victory.
"Republicans find their voice," cheered Politico after the GOP snubbed Obama weeks into his first term. The Los Angeles Times reported in January 2009, "t was clear that [Obama's] efforts so far had not delivered the post-partisan era that he called for in his inauguration address." Meaning, nine days after being sworn in, Obama still hadn't ushered in a "post-partisan era."
Five years later the simple question remains: If Republicans emphatically do not want to cooperate in any meaningful way with Democrats, is there anything Obama can do to change that? Answer: No, not really. But according to the press, Obama is supposed to change that equation, or else he loses. He takes all of the blame.
That's how the game has been played since early 2009. And that's the dynamic Republicans just rode to midterm victory.
_____________________________________________
MediaMatters?
One of the political action groups financed by Obama’s biggest supporter George Soros, the French socialist billionaire?
Almost as sad as the job growth under obama’s failed economy.
Over 70% of the jobs obama claims he created are part time and or very low wage.Every liberal seems to be posting answers to the “Why” by cutting and pasting leftwing media.
Does any liberal have a clue as to why obama’s policies and reid and the democrats lost at every level of government Tuesday?
Because of people like you. You know, low info voters.
________________________________
Yea, everyone is stupid except the liberals who can't explain why they got their a$$'s kicked.
I know you guys hate this site but its still interesting
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/11/07/obstruction-and-how-the-press-helped-punch-the/201494
Obstruction And How The Press Helped Punch The GOP's Midterm Ticket
Five Years Of Enabling Radical Gridlock
Blog ››› 27 minutes ago ››› ERIC BOEHLERT
In the days after the midterm elections, the New York Times has been a cornucopia of campaign commentary. Lots of attention is being paid to the issue of gridlock, which has defined Washington, D.C. since President Obama was first inaugurated.
Lamenting America's "broken politics," Times columnist Nicholas Kristof opted for the both-sides-are-to-blame model, suggesting that, "Critics are right that [Obama] should try harder to schmooze with legislators." Across from Kristof on the Times opinion page, Republican pollster Frank Luntz urged Obama to find a way to create "common-sense solutions" with his Republican counterparts. (This, despite the fact that Luntz in 2009 helped Republicans craft their trademark strategy of obstructing Obama at every turn.)
And the same day, while reviewing Chuck Todd's new book on Obama, which stressed that the president "wanted to soar above partisanship" though his two terms will likely "be remembered as a nadir of partisan relations," the Times book critic stressed Obama's "reluctance to reach out to Congress and members of both parties to engage in the sort of forceful horse trading (like Lyndon B. Johnson's) and dogged retail politics (like Bill Clinton's) that might have helped forge more legislative deals and build public consensus."
So after six years of radical, blanketed reticence from the GOP, we're still repeatedly reading in the New York Times that while Republicans have put up road blocks, if Obama would just try harder, Republicans might cooperate with him. You can almost hear the frustration seeping through the pages of the Times: 'What is wrong with this guy? Bipartisanship is so simple. Republicans say they want to work with the White House, so why doesn't Obama just do it?'
Indeed, cooperation is simple if you purposefully ignore reality--if you downplay the fact the Republican Party is acting in a way that defies all historic norms. If you adopt that fantasy version of Beltway politics today (i.e. the GOP is filled with honest brokers just waiting to work with the White House), then it's easy to dissect the problems, and it's easy to file both-sides-are-to-blame columns that urge bipartisan cooperation.
What's trickier, apparently, is speaking truth to power and accurately portraying what has happened to American politics and noting without equivocation that the sabotage that has occurred is designed to ensure the federal government doesn't function as designed, and that it cannot efficiently address the problems of the nation.
And this week, it all paid off for Republicans. "Obstruction has just been rewarded, in a huge way," wrote Michael Tomasky at The Daily Beast.
Led by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Republicans vowed in 2009 to oppose every political move Obama made, not matter how sweeping or how minor. "To prevent Obama from becoming the hero who fixed Washington, McConnell decided to break it. And it worked," wrote Matthew Yglesias at Vox, in the wake of the midterm election results. New York's Jonathan Chait made a similar observation about McConnell: "His single strategic insight is that voters do not blame Congress for gridlock, they blame the president, and therefore reward the opposition."
But why? Why don't voters blame Congress for gridlock?
Why would the president, who's had virtually his entire agenda categorically obstructed, be blamed and not the politicians who purposefully plot the gridlock? Because the press has given Republicans a pass. For more than five years, too many Beltway pundits and reporters have treated the spectacular stalemate as if it were everyday politics; just more "partisan combat." It's not. It's extraordinary. (See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.)
Note the press complaint Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) logged four years ago. It was about how timid the news media were in covering Republican obstructionism. Her critique still applies today:
You guys don't write about [it], and this is what they do. I don't see it, and I take five newspapers. I don't see it on the tube, and I don't see it anywhere. It's obstruction. It's obfuscation. It's bringing the body to a halt and it's been done dozens of times. And this is one more of those times... and they haven't gotten much criticism for it clearly or they would have stopped it.
On paper, the GOP's desperate maneuver in 2009 looked risky: Just gum up the works of Congress and stand in the way of every proposal from the new president who was just swept into office with a public mandate for change? Wouldn't commentators clobber the GOP for blind partisanship and hollow obstruction?
Looking back though, there was very little risk involved. There was no element of chance because within days of Obama being sworn into office, the Beltway press sent out clarion call: If Republicans don't cooperate with the new, wildly popular president, it's the president's fault.
And that press judgment hasn't budged since 2009.
If you think I'm exaggerating about this phenomenon taking root within days of Obama's first term, just go back to the White House's January 23, 2009 press conference. That's when NBC's Chuck Todd asked the new president if he would veto his own party's stimulus bill if not enough Republicans voted in support of it.
Todd's weird query highlighted the unheard-of double standard constructed almost overnight by the press with regard to the pressing issue of bipartisanship: If there was little or no bipartisan support for Obama's stimulus package, then it was Obama's fault, his fault alone, and the bill itself must be a P.R. failure.
Sure, the legislation might help save the collapsing economy at the time. (Fact: It did.) But in terms of optics and how it looked, the emergency stimulus bill was a loser. Why? Republicans didn't like it. The party that had just been pushed out of office didn't support the bill, so the press declared it to be an Obama failure and a key Republican victory.
"Republicans find their voice," cheered Politico after the GOP snubbed Obama weeks into his first term. The Los Angeles Times reported in January 2009, "t was clear that [Obama's] efforts so far had not delivered the post-partisan era that he called for in his inauguration address." Meaning, nine days after being sworn in, Obama still hadn't ushered in a "post-partisan era."
Five years later the simple question remains: If Republicans emphatically do not want to cooperate in any meaningful way with Democrats, is there anything Obama can do to change that? Answer: No, not really. But according to the press, Obama is supposed to change that equation, or else he loses. He takes all of the blame.
That's how the game has been played since early 2009. And that's the dynamic Republicans just rode to midterm victory.
_____________________________________________
MediaMatters?
One of the political action groups financed by Obama’s biggest supporter George Soros, the French socialist billionaire?
Almost as sad as the job growth under obama’s failed economy.
Over 70% of the jobs obama claims he created are part time and or very low wage.Every liberal seems to be posting answers to the “Why” by cutting and pasting leftwing media.
Does any liberal have a clue as to why obama’s policies and reid and the democrats lost at every level of government Tuesday?
Because of people like you. You know, low info voters.
________________________________
Yea, everyone is stupid except the liberals who can't explain why they got their a$$'s kicked.
If you knew anything at all, you would know that the party in power always does poorly in midterm elections. Nobody seems surprised at that other than you. Everyone but you seems to understand that. You, being uneducated and low info, do not understand it.
But keep ranting. I am enjoying the hell out of that. 😛
I know you guys hate this site but its still interesting
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/11/07/obstruction-and-how-the-press-helped-punch-the/201494
Obstruction And How The Press Helped Punch The GOP's Midterm Ticket
Five Years Of Enabling Radical Gridlock
Blog ››› 27 minutes ago ››› ERIC BOEHLERT
In the days after the midterm elections, the New York Times has been a cornucopia of campaign commentary. Lots of attention is being paid to the issue of gridlock, which has defined Washington, D.C. since President Obama was first inaugurated.
Lamenting America's "broken politics," Times columnist Nicholas Kristof opted for the both-sides-are-to-blame model, suggesting that, "Critics are right that [Obama] should try harder to schmooze with legislators." Across from Kristof on the Times opinion page, Republican pollster Frank Luntz urged Obama to find a way to create "common-sense solutions" with his Republican counterparts. (This, despite the fact that Luntz in 2009 helped Republicans craft their trademark strategy of obstructing Obama at every turn.)
And the same day, while reviewing Chuck Todd's new book on Obama, which stressed that the president "wanted to soar above partisanship" though his two terms will likely "be remembered as a nadir of partisan relations," the Times book critic stressed Obama's "reluctance to reach out to Congress and members of both parties to engage in the sort of forceful horse trading (like Lyndon B. Johnson's) and dogged retail politics (like Bill Clinton's) that might have helped forge more legislative deals and build public consensus."
So after six years of radical, blanketed reticence from the GOP, we're still repeatedly reading in the New York Times that while Republicans have put up road blocks, if Obama would just try harder, Republicans might cooperate with him. You can almost hear the frustration seeping through the pages of the Times: 'What is wrong with this guy? Bipartisanship is so simple. Republicans say they want to work with the White House, so why doesn't Obama just do it?'
Indeed, cooperation is simple if you purposefully ignore reality--if you downplay the fact the Republican Party is acting in a way that defies all historic norms. If you adopt that fantasy version of Beltway politics today (i.e. the GOP is filled with honest brokers just waiting to work with the White House), then it's easy to dissect the problems, and it's easy to file both-sides-are-to-blame columns that urge bipartisan cooperation.
What's trickier, apparently, is speaking truth to power and accurately portraying what has happened to American politics and noting without equivocation that the sabotage that has occurred is designed to ensure the federal government doesn't function as designed, and that it cannot efficiently address the problems of the nation.
And this week, it all paid off for Republicans. "Obstruction has just been rewarded, in a huge way," wrote Michael Tomasky at The Daily Beast.
Led by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Republicans vowed in 2009 to oppose every political move Obama made, not matter how sweeping or how minor. "To prevent Obama from becoming the hero who fixed Washington, McConnell decided to break it. And it worked," wrote Matthew Yglesias at Vox, in the wake of the midterm election results. New York's Jonathan Chait made a similar observation about McConnell: "His single strategic insight is that voters do not blame Congress for gridlock, they blame the president, and therefore reward the opposition."
But why? Why don't voters blame Congress for gridlock?
Why would the president, who's had virtually his entire agenda categorically obstructed, be blamed and not the politicians who purposefully plot the gridlock? Because the press has given Republicans a pass. For more than five years, too many Beltway pundits and reporters have treated the spectacular stalemate as if it were everyday politics; just more "partisan combat." It's not. It's extraordinary. (See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.)
Note the press complaint Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) logged four years ago. It was about how timid the news media were in covering Republican obstructionism. Her critique still applies today:
You guys don't write about [it], and this is what they do. I don't see it, and I take five newspapers. I don't see it on the tube, and I don't see it anywhere. It's obstruction. It's obfuscation. It's bringing the body to a halt and it's been done dozens of times. And this is one more of those times... and they haven't gotten much criticism for it clearly or they would have stopped it.
On paper, the GOP's desperate maneuver in 2009 looked risky: Just gum up the works of Congress and stand in the way of every proposal from the new president who was just swept into office with a public mandate for change? Wouldn't commentators clobber the GOP for blind partisanship and hollow obstruction?
Looking back though, there was very little risk involved. There was no element of chance because within days of Obama being sworn into office, the Beltway press sent out clarion call: If Republicans don't cooperate with the new, wildly popular president, it's the president's fault.
And that press judgment hasn't budged since 2009.
If you think I'm exaggerating about this phenomenon taking root within days of Obama's first term, just go back to the White House's January 23, 2009 press conference. That's when NBC's Chuck Todd asked the new president if he would veto his own party's stimulus bill if not enough Republicans voted in support of it.
Todd's weird query highlighted the unheard-of double standard constructed almost overnight by the press with regard to the pressing issue of bipartisanship: If there was little or no bipartisan support for Obama's stimulus package, then it was Obama's fault, his fault alone, and the bill itself must be a P.R. failure.
Sure, the legislation might help save the collapsing economy at the time. (Fact: It did.) But in terms of optics and how it looked, the emergency stimulus bill was a loser. Why? Republicans didn't like it. The party that had just been pushed out of office didn't support the bill, so the press declared it to be an Obama failure and a key Republican victory.
"Republicans find their voice," cheered Politico after the GOP snubbed Obama weeks into his first term. The Los Angeles Times reported in January 2009, "t was clear that [Obama's] efforts so far had not delivered the post-partisan era that he called for in his inauguration address." Meaning, nine days after being sworn in, Obama still hadn't ushered in a "post-partisan era."
Five years later the simple question remains: If Republicans emphatically do not want to cooperate in any meaningful way with Democrats, is there anything Obama can do to change that? Answer: No, not really. But according to the press, Obama is supposed to change that equation, or else he loses. He takes all of the blame.
That's how the game has been played since early 2009. And that's the dynamic Republicans just rode to midterm victory.
_____________________________________________
MediaMatters?
One of the political action groups financed by Obama’s biggest supporter George Soros, the French socialist billionaire?
Almost as sad as the job growth under obama’s failed economy.
Over 70% of the jobs obama claims he created are part time and or very low wage.Every liberal seems to be posting answers to the “Why” by cutting and pasting leftwing media.
Does any liberal have a clue as to why obama’s policies and reid and the democrats lost at every level of government Tuesday?
Because of people like you. You know, low info voters.
________________________________
Yea, everyone is stupid except the liberals who can't explain why they got their a$$'s kicked.
If you knew anything at all, you would know that the party in power always does poorly in midterm elections. Nobody seems surprised at that other than you. Everyone but you seems to understand that. You, being uneducated and low info, do not understand it.
But keep ranting. I am enjoying the hell out of that. 😛
__________________________________________
You are making excuses because you can't answer the why.
You should get a job in the obama administration. They don't have a clue either.
LOL he is kinda fun to watch. we all know muleboy that there is no answer you would accept, right or wrong. 😛
Y'all may need to see a shrink:
Medical Definition: psychotic denial = Anosognosia
Anosognosia: The Most Devastating Symptom of Mental Illness
Copyright (c) 2008 by Kevin Thompson.
Mental illness comes in many forms. Depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and the anxiety disorders all have the potential to be crippling, and ruin lives. Yet as terrible as depression, mania, psychosis, and the other symptoms of these disorders can be, there is one that stands out as the most damaging of all:
Anosognosia
This obscure word, which is pronounced "uh-no-sog-no-zha," means "denial of illness," and is more serious than you might think.
Most people understand the psychological concept of denial, which is a refusal to believe an uncomfortable truth. Who hasn't heard heard a heavy drinker, eater, smoker, or drug user say, "I can quite any time I want," or someone with a chronic cough (which may indicate a serious illness) say, "It's not important--It's just a cough." Pressing the denier on the obvious gap between reality and his belief typically yields a flurry of thin excuses that support his position, and can provoke an outburst of anger if continued long enough.
Denial serves a useful purpose in helping people cope with sudden change, and is harmless as long as it is not maintained too long. Denial becomes harmful when it interferes with a person's ability to cope effectively with the challenges he faces. Fortunately, denial is temporary in most cases, and even chronic deniers can can learn better over time.
Anosognosia is quite different. It is not simply denial of a problem, but the genuine inability to recognize that the problem exists. It is a common consequence of brain injuries, and occurs to varying degrees in such disorders such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and Alzheimer's disease. (I hasten to add that "common" does not mean "universal!" Most people who suffer from these illnesses are quite aware that they are sick.)
Someone who has anosognosia isn't being difficult, or refusing to face the truth. He is literally unable to believe that his illness is, in fact, an illness. As a result, he does not see any reason to take medication that can control his illness. Many people who have anosognosia will refuse to take medication for schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, because they do not believe they are ill. If pushed, they may give the appearance of cooperation, while secretly discarding their medication.
In the case of paranoid schizophrenia, where the patient believes others are conspiring to harm him or control his life, the combination of anosognosia and paranoia can provoke the him to violent action in an attempt to escape his "persecutors." (Sadly, the often debilitating side effects of antipsychotic medication, which, unlike his illness, are all too apparent to the patient, provide supporting evidence for his beliefs.)
For a symptom with such an obscure name, anosognosia plays a prominent role in both law and medicine. Treatment for most illnesses is taken at the discretion of the patient, who is free to seek, select, or decline treatment, as he considers appropriate. However, there are times when the individual's right to control his medical treatment conflicts with other important principles, namely, the sanctity of life, and the protection of others from harm. A person who is in the grip of a severe psychotic episode, who is judged likely to harm himself or someone else, may legally be committed to a psychiatric hospital for evaluation and treatment, on an involuntary basis. Such treatment usually consists of antipsychotic or mood-stabilizer medications, observation, and possibly restraint.
Most patients who are prone to psychosis (primarily, those with schizophrenia) do not have any particular desire to harm other people. The danger comes not from a desire to harm, but from hallucinations and delusions that can drive violent actions. (For example, a patient may sincerely believe he is fighting for his life against an evil force, when in reality he is attacking an innocent person.) So it is not surprising that patients who are aware of the nature of their illness, and the risk of such harm, generally do prefer treatment to prevent violent incidents. Similarly, patients who have anosognosia about their psychotic symptoms, but whose behavior is harmless, may not have a need for medication that justifies removal of their right to make decisions about their treatment
However, those psychotic patients who are at risk for committing violent acts, and also have anosognosia, are both dangerous, and unable to believe that anything is wrong with them. Because of this belief, they will refuse treatment, and remain dangerous. These are the patients whose right to control their own treatment conflicts with the right of others to safety.
In the end, each case must be handled on its own merits, and someone must make the difficult calls--and be prepared to live with the consequences. It is because of anosognosia that such calls must be made.
________________________________________
Kevin Thompson, Ph.D. is the author of Medicines for Mental Health: The Ultimate Guide to Psychiatric Medication. You can find information about treatments for depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and sexual problems on his Web site at www.MentalMeds.org.
____________________
Ah, those were the daze.
Fitting too as today, after obama saying NO BOOTS on the GROUND in the ISIS fight, obama has ordered 1.500 more troop to Iraq to try and save his failed ISIS response.
Only 2 more years of your worthless updates...... 😛
Only 2 more years of your worthless updates...... 😛
_____________________________
Still you have no answer.
How sad but so typical of a liberals.
for the record i was a republican until the early 90's but McCain and his gang of thieves convinced me they were only in it for the money so i became a libertarian until 2009? until i realized they and the tea party were only in it for the money and they were batshit crazy. so if that makes me a liberal now well so be it. the ACA is a republican idea. a path to citizenship is a republican idea. but, whatever.
Talk about an article based on false premise. The financial crisis towards the end of Bush's Presidency occurred because of misdeeds in the financial industry. Those started during Clinton, and the Bush administration went to the Democratic congress during their reign to try and bring about attention to the growing problem. All was allowed to proceed without any concern until it blew up.
So the bankers and financiers blew up the system, and since they have control over one of govt's most vital functions - the currency - they've created and artificial fix to bring their wealth back. And somehow this guy crafts an article from that focused on how he believes Obama's been such a good President. Especially compared to Bush.
This is the kind of bs that keeps people in the dark. Neither President had the strength to face off with the bankers and bring attention to the real source of the problem. Until that's more universally understood, nothing will get better. Just stay entertained by the circus clowns while everything else gets flushed.
You are not a smart as you think you are.
http://blog.sfgate.com/morford/2014/07/08/the-best-worst-president-ever//blockquote > So this is what the liberals have left to attack with: the rich are doing well, and Obamacare hasn't blown up yet. Oh yeah, and lets toss in a little Bush hate to spice things up. Talk about an article based on false premise. The financial crisis towards the end of Bush's Presidency occurred because of misdeeds in the financial industry. Those started during Clinton, and the Bush administration went to the Democratic congress during their reign to try and bring about attention to the growing problem. All was allowed to proceed without any concern until it blew up.
So the bankers and financiers blew up the system, and since they have control over one of govt's most vital functions - the currency - they've created and artificial fix to bring their wealth back. And somehow this guy crafts an article from that focused on how he believes Obama's been such a good President. Especially compared to Bush.
This is the kind of bs that keeps people in the dark. Neither President had the strength to face off with the bankers and bring attention to the real source of the problem. Until that's more universally understood, nothing will get better. Just stay entertained by the circus clowns while everything else gets flushed.
The only bs is your weak analysis that has no basis in reality.
And the liberals continue with no answer as to why they got whipped at every level of government.
A few irrelevant comments and petty insults.
Sad but typical. When y'all have something to contribute,let us know.
And the liberals continue with no answer as to why they got whipped at every level of government.
A few irrelevant comments and petty insults.
Sad but typical. When y'all have something to contribute,let us know.
That's funny, Porky.
And the liberals continue with no answer as to why they got whipped at every level of government.
A few irrelevant comments and petty insults.
Sad but typical. When y'all have something to contribute,let us know.
That's funny, Porky.
_________________________
Glad you are amused.
The rest of us are still laughing over the liberals crying over the complete rejection of obama and the democrats.
Ever consider contributing to the discussion?
