Christine O'Donnell: A New Low

[maxx]

And how do you intend to "grow" the economy when the federal government takes away the means from those who can grow it? The federal government introducing a great deal of uncertainty into the economy doesn't help those people either.

FDR tried that approach back in the 30's. It didn't work very well.

FDR and the Great Depression, unemployment rates
http://open.salon.com/blog/andyf/201...eat_depression

[maxx]

[
Sounds like you and Cheney are on the same team. Making a guy President whose only executive experience was being a 'community organizer' must be like hiring a Lion's quarterback who only played high school ball.

Intelligence, knowledge and ability to deal with complex issues count for a lot. Republicans know that. Lately, they just choose to nominate "likable fools" as their presidential candidates while the real brains, who the people did not elect, operate behind the scenes. General executive duties usually are delegating authority and making decisions. Somehow I doubt that either Reagan or W were very actively involved in decision-making. They were just good mouthpieces.

[jerrytimes]

I'm not going to act like I know everything about O'Donnell, so I'm really not going to say anything about her, but I do have a question about you Democrats and Liberals who all instantly oppose her. First, why is it the Liberal way to instantly make fun and to degrade a candidate that you oppose? This is very Sarah Palinish. [[Not that I'm a Palin fan, because I'm not. Do many of you know anything about O'Donnell? Probably not, yet you comment on her, make fun of her ect... Do many of you know anything about the Tea Party movement? Nope, most of you don't. You're just told by the Liberal media to hate them, even though their principles are good. A lot of people in the Tea Party are there because they aren't only anti Democrat, but they are also anti Republican. Shock! They are fed up with REPUBLICANS TOO! That in itself should at least make Liberals think to themselves 'maybe I should listen just to see what they have to say!' [[not saying that Liberals have to agree, but just listen).

I just can't wait for the elections. We all thought things were sooooo bad back in 2006 we voted the Dems in and two years later that farce that is Obama, and now look at the country. Who thought things could actually get worse after Bush? Not I.

[maxx]

Jerrytimes: I'm not going to act like I know everything about O'Donnell, so I'm really not going to say anything about her, but I do have a question about you Democrats and Liberals who all instantly oppose her. First, why is it the Liberal way to instantly make fun and to degrade a candidate that you oppose?

First of all, I think your use of the word "instantly" is pure exaggeration. Secondly, there is the information about O'Donnell like her misuse of campaign funds, her anti-masturbation campaign, and the robocalls by her own former campaign manager. Even the Republican party, which has gone to the far side of the conservative spectrum, considered her a lousy candidate. Aren't you aware of this? Or do you just not care as long as she can attract money?

Do many of you know anything about O'Donnell? Probably not, yet you comment on her, make fun of her ect..

The OP had a story about O'Donnell, so that people would have some information about her.
Did you read it?

Do many of you know anything about the Tea Party movement? Nope, most of you don't.

The Tea Party made a very poor first impression when they shouted down Congress members at public meetings. That told me they weren't interested in rational discussion. Since then, I haven't got a good idea what they want other than lower taxes. Someone told a Congress person to keep his/her government hands off their Medicare. And another Tea Partier on TV said something vaguely about the Obama admin. not following the Constitution. Now comes O'Donnell, the darling of the Tea Party. Did you read the article about big money like the Koch family funding the Tea Party? Not very grassroots. That's why it's called an astroturf movement.

I just can't wait for the elections. We all thought things were sooooo bad back in 2006 we voted the Dems in and two years later that farce that is Obama, and now look at the country. Who thought things could actually get worse after Bush? Not I.

So you expected the U.S. economy, the largest economy in the world, which was in free fall in 2008 to get turned around in a matter of months?? That is so incredibly naive, it beggars description.

[MCP-001]

I like to use sports examples from time to time to explain a point.
The country under Bush was like the Lions under Millen
The Lions make a change putting a guy in charge who is making solid football moves yet that win meter still hasn't really increased, but people who are in the know understand that it takes time and Mayhew is making the correct moves and predictions are that the Lions will have more wins [[at least they did until Stafford got hurt).
Very similar situation with the country. Now you can still blame Obama because "Officially he's the man in office" but that would be intellectually dishonest.

There is a big difference between caving on Health care reform and supporting the troops. Supporting the troops is one of the few areas both parties can agree on.
If Obama and others didn't vote for spending for the war, even though they opposed the war, the next election they would be explaining 24/7 why they put US troops in harms way.

I'm awaiting your criticism of Sparky Anderson regarding this years Tigers performance.

[MCP-001]

FDR and the Great Depression, unemployment rates
http://open.salon.com/blog/andyf/201...eat_depression

I'd rather take the word of economists [[from UCLA, no less), who look at the bigger picture and have a different take.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla...sion-5409.aspx

[ghettopalmetto]

I'd rather take the word of economists [[from UCLA, no less), who look at the bigger picture and have a different take.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla...sion-5409.aspx

Those professors sure use a lot of "should haves" in their analysis, don't they? As in, "the unemployment rates 'should have' been lower". The word "should" is an automatic red flag for "I'm talking out of my ass."

Yet, they fail to explain why unemployment continued to fall from 1933 to 1938, when it rose after the Roosevelt administration decided to enact a policy fiscal austerity.

But hey, I'm glad you found a couple PhDs who agree with you. That's at least a step above newsmax.com.

[oladub]

gp, The more important thing than your 'should have' concern is that Roosevelt failed to bring down unemployment to resonable levels until the milttary had to prepare for war. Perhaps a decade of double digit unemployment and soup lines is acceptable price to pay for an activist progressive President but for many of us it isn't. Harding had far better results by doing almost nothing when unemployment spiked into double digit territory in 1921.

Here are the unemployment rate during Roosevelt's presidency which began in 1933. After six years in office, US unemployment was still 17.2% under Roosevelt. After 18 months in office, unemployment has increased from 5.7% under Bush to 9.6% today.

1932 23.6
1933 24.9
1934 21.7
1935 20.1
1936 16.9
1937 14.3
1938 19.0
1939 17.2

Even Alan Greenspan is reversing himself to a degree on the problems his Fed's excess liquidity caused. While he supports an end to Bush's tax cuts to the rich, he recently told the Council of Foreign relations that the stimulus is crowding out private investment. One of his themes was that the deficit is too large.

A Conversation with Alan Greenspan [[Video)

[East Detroit]

Here are the unemployment rate during Roosevelt's presidency which began in 1933. After six years in office, US unemployment was still 17.2% under Roosevelt. After 18 months in office, unemployment has increased from 5.7% under Bush to 9.6% today.

1932 23.6
1933 24.9
1934 21.7
1935 20.1
1936 16.9
1937 14.3
1938 19.0
1939 17.2

Interesting numbers, but without value when they have no context. Instead, lets see the same numbers in context:

[oladub]

Interesting numbers, but without value when they have no context. Instead, lets see the same numbers in context:

World War II started bringing in British military contracts by 1939. We became the 'Arsenal of Democracy' for a time. Maybe that's what Obama needs. Having the last factories standing after WWII was beneficial for the economy too. Keynesianism is consistently a flop though. Are you suggesting that the economic revival created by WWII somehow made Roosevelt's economic policies seem sound? Or are you suggesting that we ignore the effects of WWII on the economy and instead credit the revival to Roosevelt's Keynesian policies which had not worked prior to 1940?

[East Detroit]

No, I am suggesting that you are presenting numbers out of context to serve your argument falsely.

[oladub]

No, I am suggesting that you are presenting numbers out of context to serve your argument falsely.

Then we disagree. I hold that WWII did a great deal to end the massive unemployment endured by Americans under the latter Hoover, and first six years of the Roosevelt administration. What exactly was your graph supposed to prove then? For heaven's sakes, It shows unemployment still at 10% in 1941 after 8 years of Roosevelt and a huge war raging in Europe. Don't forget that puting 16M Americans into uniform in WWII also helped the unemployment statistics.

[maxx]

oladub: Harding had far better results by doing almost nothing when unemployment spiked into double digit territory in 1921.

Too bad Hoover didn't have similar results which shows that the Great Depression was a different dynamic.

[East Detroit]

Then we disagree. I hold that WWII did a great deal to end the massive unemployment endured by Americans under the latter Hoover, and first six years of the Roosevelt administration. What exactly was your graph supposed to prove then? For heaven's sakes, It shows unemployment still at 10% in 1941 after 8 years of Roosevelt and a huge war raging in Europe. Don't forget that puting 16M Americans into uniform in WWII also helped the unemployment statistics.

Not sure if we disagree on root cause, but here is what I believe:

1. One can't present numbers without context. You are now seeming to imply that when the numbers are in context that they DO show FDR had declining unemployment from what he inherited, although ascribing a cause to it that is somewhat anti-FDR or FDR neutral. So, now context has erased the previous assertion/implication that his numbers were stagnant.

2. Correlation does not equal causation. To ascribe WW2 to the declining unemployment, versus the FDR policies, we need causal data, not correlative data.

3. Just because someone disagrees with one of your points, do not assume they disagree with all of your points. Sure, the media supported political world we have likes to herd people into binary groups, but we don't have to play into it.

[oladub]

Too bad Hoover didn't have similar results which shows that the Great Depression was a different dynamic.

maxx, Study your history. Hoover, unlike Harding did try a bunch of things. Roosevelt expanded upon them. They failed.

East Detroit: "Not sure if we disagree on root cause, but here is what I believe:

1. You can't present numbers without context. You are now seeming to imply that when the numbers are in context that they DO show FDR had declining unemployment from what he inherited, although you are ascribing a cause to it that is somewhat anti-FDR. So, now context has erased the previous assertion/implication that his numbers were stagnant."

Unemployment declined from 24% to 19% after six years of Roosevelt. I think that 19% is still unacceptably high, even for a Democrat.

2. Correlation does not equal causation. To ascribe WW2 to the declining unemployment, versus the FDR policies, you need to present some causal data, not correlative data.

Putting 16 million Americans in uniform and employing additional millions to manufacture munitions did cause unemployment to finally go down. it would be fair to say that going to war was a Roosevelt policy though.

[Pam]

As an independent, I'm enjoying sitting back and watching the left have a freak-out melt-down over this rather mousy, unassuming woman

Unassuming? Not really. She seems to have been in front of quite a few TV cameras over the years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIYQf8GkWR8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=510V0vbiZ4w

[maxx]

oladub: maxx, Study your history. Hoover, unlike Harding did try a bunch of things.

Yes, in the last year of his admin. Too little , too late.

Roosevelt expanded upon them. They failed.

Bringing down unemployment from 25% to 10% isn't failure. It may not be as good as people would like, but the U.S. economy even in the 1930s could not be turned on a dime.

[maxx]

This Country Just Can't Deal with Reality
http://www.alternet.org/news/148206/...y_more/?page=2
"...America’s decoupling from reality – and its disappearance into the swamp of unreality – began in earnest with the rise of actor and ad pitchman Ronald Reagan, who crafted a host of get-something-for-nothing policies that appealed to a nation that was struggling to adjust to a more complex world.Reagan promised that tax cuts tilted to the rich would generate more revenue and eliminate the federal debt; that this money also could finance a massive military buildup which would frighten America’s enemies and restore national prestige; that freeing corporations from government regulations and from powerful unions would herald a new day of prosperity; that the country could turn its back on alternative energy and simply drill for more oil; that whites no longer had to feel guilty about the plight of blacks; that traditional “values” – i.e. rejection of the “counter-culture” – would bring back the good old days when men were men and women were women...

I also have watched Newt Gingrich since he was a freshman congressman in 1979, when I was a congressional correspondent for the Associated Press. Though I have met many politicians in my career and know they can be an egotistical bunch, Gingrich’s burning ambition – his readiness to do whatever was necessary – stood out even then.
Unlike many other congressional Republicans of the time, Gingrich cared little for constructive governance but a great deal for political gamesmanship. He was already plotting his route to national power and was ready to use whatever tactics would advance his personal and ideological cause..."

[gdogslim]

O'Donnell hung out with someone who practiced witchcraft in high school.
O'Donnell IS A WITCH and must be burned at the stake.
The Tea Party shock wave is reverberating through out the country and can't be stopped.
Kick out the DC dead wood and elect people who are for small government.

"Bill Maher brought out the video as part of a campaign to get O'Donnell on his show, threatening to air clips of her appearances on "Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher" until she agreed. "

[Detroitej72]

O'Donnell hung out with someone who practiced witchcraft in high school.
O'Donnell IS A WITCH and must be burned at the stake.

This coming from the right wingers who claim the president has to be a Muslim because his father,[[who was pretty much agnostic) was born one.

[MCP-001]

This coming from the right wingers who claim the president has to be a Muslim because his father,[[who was pretty much agnostic) was born one.

I don't know how that could've happened?

Speaking of witches, there really is only one way to know for sure.

[Whitehouse]

\

It didn't take long for him to back down. A few huffs and pffs from Rush Limbagh was all it took to turn him around. The guy has no backbone! I don't like Republicans, but I do admire those who stand by their opinion, even though that is sometimes twisted. But this guy, who accused John Kerry of being a flip-flop is totally an asshole!

Who else but Jon Stewart to hammer my point home!

[Hypestyles]

I wonder how true Wiccans like being associated with Ms. O'Donnell now...

[Gistok]

I know one thing about the Tea Party... "they want to take back America".... but from whom?? The government.... or big business??

[bailey]

I know one thing about the Tea Party... "they want to take back America".... but from whom??

...from the black guy .