These three morons who cheer Ron Paul here would then turn around and slander him in the primaries again to get another GWB-alike into the White House.

this analysis

Where I think you, Maddow and Yglesias err is that you commit the all-too common mistake of mistaking 'Republicans' for 'Conservatives'.

Let us be blunt. GWB was NOT 'conservative'. Just because he supported the Military and opposed stem-cell research & abortion does not make him or any other Republican a conservative. No real conservative would have increased spending like GWB did. A true conservative does not increase federal power. He cuts it. He does not increase spending. He reduces it. He does not reduce freedoms (like Bush did). He increases them. There is a big difference between RINO big goverment 'compassionate' social conservatives (So-cons) and fiscal conservatives like Tea Party folks who want to cut taxes & spending. I know that the left likes to lump them all into the same bucket to make an easy target, but I stridently disagree with the position.

Yglesias is saying fiscal conservatives screwed things up. Such a statement is completely false. No fiscal conservative was running the show with GWB in office. He was all about so-called compassionate conservativism, and 'new tone' bipartisan social spending crap. So from where I sit, it is you and Yglesias who are trying to pull the false equivalence rhetorical fast one here. You're trying to have your cake by lambastic fiscal conservatism (which hasn't been practiced for decades) by using a bunch of RINO So-Con liberal Republicans as your example. That may fly with the less educated or the ignorant - but not with me.

In any case, it isn't germaine to the thread. Maddow is neither (A) original or (B) a journalist. Or are you suggesting that O'Rielly, Hannity, and Beck are original journalists? Because they point out Democrat hypocrisy all the time. Journalists report news. Journalism is very dry by nature, and is objective. Hacks advocate. Hacks are sensationalist by nature, and slanted. They are not the same. Which brings me to...

Pennypacker - blah blah moronic blah blah.

Merely because you disagree with my words does not make them moronic. Such a statement is a very Maddowian ad hominem approach. Very illogical.

Journalism is the conveyance of newsworthy material.

If it helps you to compartmentalize - then put the word GOOD in front. I'm talking about journalism as a field that can be respected and considered professional, fair, and neutral. There are all kinds of 'journalism' if you want to Yellow Journalism or gossip rags. But NEWS is another animal (or should be). In the true sense of the word Beck, Maddow, and all other opinion pundits are not 'journalists'. If you want to say guys like Limbaugh and Olbermann are journalists then that's your affair, but most other people are a tad more disciminating.

If he reported objective conditions i.e. facts without blind assertions he would qualify.

If this is your standard, then you have agreed with my original argument. Maddow is just as guilty as the rest at making things up. Her opinions about the Tea Party in particular. She grossly misrepresents them. During the protests last fall she routinely cherry picked isolated fringe radicals out of far larger, less salacious crowds and painted them as if they represented the Tea Party as a whole. This was just like when Limbaugh picked the whacko goons out of the anti-war rallies and said they were all kooks. Don't pretend to me that Maddow is somehow 'journalistic' and the other opinion pushers are not. Sell that bridge elsewhither.

1. She has a popular following. She's part of popular culture.

I would argue 'popular' is a term that only applies to a bigger audience than her measley average. The 3 AM test pattern has as big an audience as her show, but that doesn't make it an 'audience', or popular.

She's a journalist because she diggs deeper into a topic to find accurate support for any commentary she might interject to grab
viewers/listeners.

I perform that function here for the sifters. Does that make me a 'journalist'?

And not simply your subjective opinions/assertions.

Physician, heal thyself.

Would that not then mean that ... Sarah Palin is Constitutionally prohibited from becoming ... President or Vice President of the United States of America?

Well - if you want to play the rhetorical game of strict denotative definitions - then "insurrection" would mean Barak Obama should be tossed out today. An insurrection is simply "resistance against civil authority or an established government", right? As a civil rights activist Obama as resisted the government. The entire Democrat resisted an established government during GWB. The Republicans are doing it right now under Obama. You know what? The more I think about it, the more I like this goofball textpert interpretation. It essentially means that NOBODY is allowed to run for political office. Throw them all out. Good riddance.

The teabagger movement ... was founded by old skool conservative republican, Dick Armey

It would be more accurate to say that Dick Armey supported the already existent Tea Party in the same way Democrats supported the anti-war movement. Under GWB, a grassroots movement got going that was opposed to the way the Iraq war was handled. This true representation of the national mood was aided and abetted by Democrats. Democrats "astroturfed" the bejeezus out of the anti-war movement. It was politically exigent, as well as a philosophical position they agreed with.

Republicans are trying to do the same thing with the Tea Party. The Tea Party is grassroots. It is filled with citizens who hate debt and deficits - who want balanced budgets & fiscal restraint at the federal level. It is Republicans, Independants, and even Democrats for whom sound fiscal policy is a critical issue. But Republicans for years flapped thier lips about fiscal conservatism (even though they don't practice it much). Of course the GOP is going to foster & foment a movement that they politically sympathize with.

The Tea Party movement is about fiscal conservatism. They want balanced budgets, reduced spending, and limited federal power. In that sense they agree with some libertarian principles, but aren't interested in the social policies that make the libertarian party such a collection of oddballs. Neither are they interested in the "Republican party" except as a vehicle to slam the brakes on Obama & Democrats. If the GOP thinks they can just use the Tea Party like a wet-wipe and then go on to be a bunch of fiscal idiots like Bush, then they will find the TP to be an unreliable ally.

Silly

Silly? Well, if by silly you mean "dead on accurate" then, sure.

I thought you thought he was a socialist

Obama wouldn't call himself a socialist. He'd call himself a progressive, or a moderate, or some other leftist term. He is a person who almost exclusively pushes large government, big spending solutions to issues. If that's a socialist, then he's a socialist - but all such political labels are muddled these days.

And - I reiterate - the survey is bunk. I'll illustrate... Swap the polarity of this study and turn back the clock a few years. It is 2008 and Rush Limbaugh sponsors a random poll of Democrat voters. Here are his questions...

1. Do you believe GWB lied on purpose to start the Iraq War so he could make his Father happy?
2. Do you agree that Cheney & Bush conspired with Halliburton to intentionally profit from the war?
3. Do you believe GWB is so unintelligent that he can't even speak properly?
4. Do you agree that it was actually the Bush Administration that blew up the Twin Towers on 9/11?
5. Was Bush a draft dodger?
6. Is it your opinion that Bush stole the 2000 election by cheating and manipulating the Supreme Court?

Now - if that exact poll was run I would lay you odds that the answers would be 75% to 90% in the range of "Yeah he lied, yeah he's stupid, yeah he blew up the towers, yeah he cheated..." Would the results be legitimate? No - they'd be absolute pure bunk.

Survey design is all about removing bias from the questions. It is impossible to get good data when you are using a bad instrument. GIGO. The Daily Kos questions are leading and biased. Therefore the results are complete crap. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant of proper and effective survey design. These questions were designed to get a specific response - and they got it. It means nothing.

Obama will come down in history as a master orator.

No he won't. He's barely average as a speaker. Way too artificial. Way too much dependance on his teleprompter. His register is mechanical. His head swinging is distracting. His tone is flat and dull. Only Obama zombies think his speeches are 'great'. What you mean is that he is 'articulate'. He avoids speech flubs like the plague because he knows that is what the far left hated about W. GWB was a much more natural speaker than Obama, but he got mush mouthed a lot and they liked to say it was because he was stupid. Obama doesn't want to be called stupid, so he PAUSES and then he WAITS ... and then he PAUSES so that he can be ... PRECISE and not make a ... MISTAKE! That's not great speaking. It's robotic.

And even the left wing is harping on this particular flub. PotUS's just don't go after the SC. Not ever - let alone in the SotU address. Obama is catching major flak from this. It may be red meat for the far left fringes, but it was stupid of him to do. The totality of the speech? Pretty much as expected. "Wasn't my fault... MY administration... MY program... MY plan... Me me me me me." Speech was a dud.

Stewart - like most of the Democrats - completely missed what Brown was all about. Brown himself was just a lucky schmoe who happened to 'be there'. You could have put a potted plant against Croakley and the result would have been similar. Croakley - like the bulk of the Democrat party today - was drunk on a sense of priveledge, power, and arrogance. For the past year they've been strutting around thinking that the wave of anger against GWB was going to let them do whatever they wanted. They also thought that the man-child Barak Obama really was all that and a bag of chips and whatever he wanted was what the people wanted and what was best for the country. This combination of arrogance and the illusion that Obama was 'more' than just a twit in a suit gave them the mental security blanket they have been DREAMING of having for years.

They're liberals. They are far-left leaning radicals. And they've had to HIDE it for soooo long. Then along comes a supermajority and a popular leftist president and they thought they could finally - FINALLY - take the mask off and let it all hang out. So they did. They started trying to pass crap that nobody liked. The people started rejecting it, and in their arrogance and hubris they ignored popular opinion (just like Bush did on Iraq). The tea parties were not the grumbling of a few puppet malcontents (like Pelosi, Obama, Stewert, et al wished they were). They were the tip of a very angry iceberg.

People elected Obama because he sold himself as a guy who was 'post-partisan' and would help correct the financial crisis caused by government over-spending and debt. Instead the people were dismayed with Obama's radical leftist agenda. They protested, but the left-wing liberals were in NO MOOD to let their leftist agenda get interrupted by such piddling trifles as the PEOPLE. So they mocked the protests. They ignored the voters. They pretty much spit in the face of the people, and now it has come back to bite them in the @$$ (just like Bush).

So Kennedy's seat is gone because they ran an arrogant, disconnected liberal lapdog who thought the seat was her's just because she showed up. Seen the news today? Health Care Reform is DEAD! This is a GREAT day for America because a radical, left-wing assault on freedom has been killed dead. Democrats rats are jumping the SS HealthCareReform in droves. Even Pelosi is giving up on it. Huzzah! Let's hope the GOP takes both houses of Congress this fall and throw government into total deadlock.

I never underestimate the GOP's ability to shoot itself in the foot. But things are looking promising. Brown won because he was unapologetically CONSERVATIVE. He said, "I'll stop health care because it is stupid policy..." He was totally right. The people responded. The GOP path is clear. If you want to skunk the "Progressive" liberals in the mid-terms then run on a CONSERVATIVE ticket where you promise to balance the budget, CUT SPENDING, pay down the debt, and reduce government to its proper scope & function. Do it GOP and you'll have the people behind you. If you just run RINOs like McCain again then you're screwed.

When has Palin actually limited the size and scope of government? When she supported the "bridge to nowhere" ($398 MILLION in federal funds that she didn't return when the project was eventually cancelled)? When she ran up her state's travel expense accounts on her and her family for non-business? When she abused her powers to get her ex-brother in law sacked? Yeah, that's a real small government conservative.

For you to choose to vote for someone who is obviously incompetent over someone whose politics you merely differ with is crazy. I've voted for 3rd party candidates before; at least go that route.

I shiver at the thought of Palin in a meeting with Hu Jintao, Medvedev or Netanyahoo. She'd get eaten alive. She can't even handle Katie Couric.

Either you haven't thought it through or you are crazy.

>> ^ShakaUVM:
>>Guiness world record. Largest amount of neo-cons getting ready to go in a bookstore EVER.
Sigh... Palin is not a neo-con. Neo-cons are big government conservatives. Palin is a small government conservative. That's why she's so popular - most Republicans had to hold their noses to vote for GWB the second time and many rejected McCain, because they were both for the massive expansion of government. See for example Spendulus I. Obama continued the trend with Spendulus II.
Conservatives are (rightly) asking where all the money for the Spendulus bills will come from, and the Republican Party is providing no leadership in opposing the expansion of government - the party is nearly rudderless. Even though Palin wouldn't be my ideal candidate for president, I'd vote for most any candidate that was for limiting the size of government. Last year I voted Libertarian (Bob Barr), for example. If Palin ran against Obama, I'd vote for her.
All the liberal FUD aside, her stances on the issues are actually quite thoughtful and reasonable. I've followed her notes on Facebook from time to time:
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=90735023434#/notes.php?
id=24718773587
(Expecting to get automatically comment-downvoted by anyone who disagrees with my politics.)

>>Guiness world record. Largest amount of neo-cons getting ready to go in a bookstore EVER.

Sigh... Palin is not a neo-con. Neo-cons are big government conservatives. Palin is a small government conservative. That's why she's so popular - most Republicans had to hold their noses to vote for GWB the second time and many rejected McCain, because they were both for the massive expansion of government. See for example Spendulus I. Obama continued the trend with Spendulus II.

Conservatives are (rightly) asking where all the money for the Spendulus bills will come from, and the Republican Party is providing no leadership in opposing the expansion of government - the party is nearly rudderless. Even though Palin wouldn't be my ideal candidate for president, I'd vote for most any candidate that was for limiting the size of government. Last year I voted Libertarian (Bob Barr), for example. If Palin ran against Obama, I'd vote for her.

All the liberal FUD aside, her stances on the issues are actually quite thoughtful and reasonable. I've followed her notes on Facebook from time to time:
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=90735023434#/notes.php?id=24718773587

(Expecting to get automatically comment-downvoted by anyone who disagrees with my politics.)

Yes, it seems Liz is following in her father's foot prints. Ignore reality in favor of a fantasy world. Its to bad that she forgets that journalists tend to look at historical records for accuracy of things said and done. Which, is sort of what one does, with a journal in a professional sense.

Lets see, the GOP has airhead blondes down to a science now. We have Liz Cheney, Ann Coulter, and that scary looking lady on Fox News in the morning. They all ignore reality, and spew up fiction as if its true. But, that's the caliber of people, the republicans want leading them. They complain that our goverment does nothing, but play politics in Washington; and yet, the same people they elected, are doing the majority of playing. They had hearing about pork spending, but their own elected officals are bring pork home to their states.

Still, I was alittle fearful that after we elected a real president (no amateur hour with GWB), the news would get sort of boring. Its nice that Fox News, and the GOP keeps up with entertaining crap.

So, was Rush for or against, the US Patriot Act when it was being rushed through Congress back during the Republican administration & Congress? That's right, not a single negative issue of it.

I agree, Rush can have all his wild accusations that he wants. He could say the reason it rained on his birthday, is because of the Obama corruption against him. He just has to put his money where is mouth is. He has to come up with the burden of EVIDENCE. That's Rush's problem, no evidence to support his ranting and raving.

There is an upper limit to someone accusing someone else of wrong doing. Once that limit is exceeded, a good, solid amount of evidence is needed to support it. When this support doesnt come, its up to the person to TAKE RESPONSIBLITY of their actions. Now, Republicans and conservates, are VERY noted for being irresponsible with money and power (i.e. GWB 2000-2008).

The cult of conservative republicans simply is a sad case of people who cant owe up to their past destruction as an ADULT.

It makes me warm and fuzzy to see the GOP is STILL both 'entertaining' and 'fail' at the same time. They dont have their buddy GWB constantly screwing up stuff. Now they have to work at it.

Hm - you're using the term 'neocon' badly in many respects. I'll illuminate...

The problem is their posterchild, George W Bush, spent more during his eight years than any president of any party before him. Therefore their arguments ring insincere because they only became concerned about spending when it wasn't their guy spending it.

In this bit you are not talking about 'neocons'. You are talking about 'fiscal conservatives'. "Neocons" are persons who believe in a strong military. GWB is a 'neocon' only in the sense that he supported the military as opposed to denuding it (ala Clinton). Bush was definitely NOT a fiscal conservative. Believe me they were very much concerned about Bush spending. Fiscal conservatives are also very concerned about Obama tripling Bush's debt in only 9 months - an issue neolibs seem to have no problem with incidentally.

The same goes with the constitutional argument.

In this bit you're talking about constitutional constructionism (CC) which is only related to 'neocons' in the most tangental way possible. People who are CC believe the document is critically important. The constitution supports a strong military. In that sense, a neocon COULD be a CC in regards to the military - but not CC in any number of other respects such as social issues, state's rights, and so forth.

They lie to their constituents when they say they'll fight to end abortion and gay marriage.

Here you are now talking about SOCIAL conservatives (SOcons) who don't give a patoot about the military per se. The are single-issue voters that fixate on social issues like abortion, gay rights, and so forth. Sometimes they latch on to military issues (gays in military) or spending (government paid abortion), but in and of themselves they are dominated by their desire to influence government towards socially conservative issues.

And the entire movement is primarily organized by two ENTERTAINERS (Limbaugh and Beck) who get more money when their viewership goes up.

And here you're just talking about people of all stripes that listen to conservative broadcasting as opposed to getting thier talking points from DailyKOS, Maher, MadCow, or Dolberman. I doubt Limbaugh or Beck spend any time 'organizing' the entire conservative movement. They just harp on whatever news story happens to be circulating around at the time. I don't see them driving issues as much as exploiting what issues are already in the public discourse.

Conservatives honestly could give a rat's ass what happens to America, they just want to be the people in charge

If you said "Republicans" then I would agree with you. But 'conservatives' are not Republicans. They are people who believe in conservative principles who may or may not vote Republican. Certainly the Republican party has stopped being conservative a long time ago. They pay lip service for voting blocs, but (as you say) they govern like liberals when they are in charge.
So there you go - you are mixing your terminology badly. Glad to help you learn how to be more specific.

So you are suggesting moderation then WP? You are.. a moderate?

Depends on what you mean. Both Democrats and Republicans like to co-opt the term 'moderate' when it suits their political purposes. Neither of them are moderate. I am a fiscal conservative, strict constitutional constructionist with libertarian leanings. I think we are in the midst of a "Government Bubble" that badly needs popping. Is that 'moderate'? I doubt a neolib who hears me say that government needs to be reduced in size and scope by about 75% would say that I'm moderate.

"I can only hope that the Republicans are making such asses of themselves, are being so obviously obstructionist, that they are going to continue to distance themselves from the average American. And that can only be good for the Democratic Party."

Here's what I brilliantly said in another thread on this topic... It's so brilliant that I'll repeat it here.

But for people who are getting their panties in a bunch over the Republicans for this - all I can say is 'grow up'. For 8 years the Democrats attacked anything and everything GWB did. For 8 years Republicans attacked anything and everything Clinton did. For 12 years Democrats attacked anything/everything Reagan/Bush1 did. This is just how the game is played. To act like it is some sort of outrageous, 'new low' in politics is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Don't like it? Well - you bloody well better get used to it because Obama has at least 3.4 long year more of it. Being the President means you're eating a crap sandwich every day, and you have to do it with a smile on your face, whether it's fair or not. Deal with it.

"We have got to stop fighting and start discussing."

I have generally found that when a liberal says, "we need to stop fighting and start discussing" it typically means, "you conservatives should stop opposing us and just let us do whatever we want." Liberals didn't seem very interested in 'discussing' in the Bush years. In fact, for a long time the liberal watchword was that 'opposition is the new patriotism'. Now all of sudden they want the opposition to just shut up and go away. Doesn't work that way guys.

Yeah - this is pretty much the Republican party trying to parley anything/everything they can into eroding Obama. They've got Obama on the defensive now, and they're pretty much using that to poke holes at everything the guy does.

Now, I don't think this particular attack on his speech to schools has any value. Presidents talk to kids frequently and it's no big deal. But for people who are getting their panties in a bunch over the Republicans for this - all I can say is 'grow up'. For 8 years the Democrats attacked anything and everything GWB did. For 8 years Republicans attacked anything and everything Clinton did. For 12 years Democrats attacked anything/everything Reagan/Bush1 did. This is just how the game is played. To act like it is some sort of outrageous, 'new low' in politics is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Don't like it? Well - you bloody well better get used to it because Obama has at least 3.4 long year more of it. Doesn't matter jack whether you like the guy or not. Being the President means you're eating a crap sandwich every day, and you have to do it with a smile on your face, whether it's fair or not. Deal with it.

With Obama, the material seems to be thought provoking and deep. Here's a few from GWB. That's right boys and girls, this is how a CONSERVATIVE President talks:

"One of my conserns is that the health care not be as good as it can possibly be." --On benefits provided to military personnal, Tipp City, Ohio, April 19, 2007.

"I want everybody to hear loud and clear that I'm going to be the president of everybody." --Washington D.C., January 18, 2001.

"You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror." --Interview with CBS News, Washingon, D.C., September 6, 2006.

"Make no mistake about it, I understand how tough it is, sir, I talk to families who die." --Speaking to reporters on facing the challenges of war, Washington, D.C., December 7, 2006.

"If the Iranians were to have a nuclear weapon, the could proliferate." --Washington, D.C., March 21, 2006.

Yes, got to love the Bush talking points back in the day. When one really had to back up, and rethink what the idiot said. Funny how Fox News does not talk about 'No Child Left Behind"; like they rather that conservative act be forgotten as soon as possible.

Btw, the quotes do come from Mr. George W. Bush, but found them in the book "The Ultimate George W. Bushisms" by Jacob Weisberg.