San Franciso Chronicle - "S&P Blames GOP For U.S. Credit Problem, AP, Politico Cover It Up" - WOW!

My jaw just dropped that a major media publication would break the cone of silence, and run a story that is counter to the Blame the Democrats, Give the Republicans a free pass narrative. Up until now, Republicans could openly attempt to sabotage the American economy by pushing the Nation into default suggesting that it is not a big deal, and Politico and the Associated Press would blame it on President Obama. Heck, the corporate media narrative is so strong that even DUers' blame it on his failure to lead Congress, because if President Obama was more liberal, then the Tea Party Republicans would listen to him.

But, here is a rare instance like the kid saying that the emperor has no clothes, that a media publication says the obvious. Still, this expression of truth is an aberration. The propaganda campaign will continue. The right will always attack and the left will find that they will get zero air time unless they attack Democrats and give Republicans a free pass.

Remember how Paul Krugman was ignored by the National Media when he was supporting HCR? But, if he attacks Democrats, his calendar rapidly fills up. That is how the corporate media controls the left. It rewards them with attention only if they attack Democrats, but if you attack Republicans, you are dead to the media.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail?entry_id=94858

AP is not so different.

the time.

MOST HAVE BEEN BOUGHT

Think the total was 1.8 TRILLION to be covered?

Stopped being a legit "news" source years ago.

to the Republicans. One does not negate the other. He is letting them run circles around him by not standing up for what is right and telling the truth about what is going on.

This story in no way exonerates Obama. It's not as simple as that.

Your statement:
"Heck, the corporate media narrative is so strong that even DUers' blame it on his failure to lead Congress, because if President Obama was more liberal, then the Tea Party Republicans would listen to him."
shows that you either completely misunderstand the criticisms of Obama or that you are being completely disingenuous in your assessment of the argument against Obama. I do not, and I believe that no one does, believe if Obama were more liberal than the Tea Party will listen to him. That is ridiculous and surely you know that. By stating that you are showing your inability to be rational. Why do you have to completely misconstrue the valid criticism of Obama? It's not just on DU you know. It is pretty widespread.

The Tea Party will never listen to him, they hate him, we all know that. Which is what makes it all the more baffling that he constantly gives them what they want, seemingly in an effort to make them like him. They won't. So why doesn't he just give that idea up and fight them instead of saying such nice things about them like that they don't want to do any harm to the country. Yes they do, they want to ruin the economy and blame it on Obama. And he wants their approval so badly that he is helping them.

He should have kept insisting on a clean bill until the deadline. Wall Street would still have stepped in and told the Tea Baggers they needed to make sure it passed and it would have passed as a clean bill.

After a Dem president excoriates them for the terrorists they are, do they magically disappear?

Do they cower in awe of those strong, pretty words of rebuke and vote the way Dems want?

What happens after the fire-breathing rhetoric?

What's the scenario? Not the movie fantasy, but what can you truly see playing out?

Assumptions:

1. The MSM loves the Tea Party.
2. The Tea Party is well-funded.
3. The current makeup of Congress is as it stands today.

Do what Clinton and other Dems said he should have done--do what Biden told congressional Dems he was prepared to do if the Republicans DIDN'T raise the ceiling---use the tools you have--like the 14th amendment. Tell them to screw off and dare them to impeach you. Don't put yourself in a box by always negotiating too far to the right and than having to move further right to get something done. Don't let them know you will ALWAYS give in to their demands.

If you aren't willing to do that than we may as well just let them run the country and be done with it.

Who needs the power of the presidency in opposition to terrorist demands when we can just roll over everytime?

No---Obama does not get excused because of some wackos kidnapping the other party. They can't have both parties.

And Obama put social security on the table. Obama did that.

He owns it.

and they WOULD do it. And the nation would be subjected to 24/7 coverage of the nonsensical spectacle of a ravenous M$M highlighting and justifying the frothing teabagger impeachment hearings, which would intentionally be dragged out through the 2012 elections, while the extreme left joins with those lunatic fringe terrorist teabaggers cheering it on. :crazy: Forget getting any more legislation (including appropriations bills, etc) done because by golly, keeping the government running day-to-day is irrelevent and the people be damned! :eyes:

Really? Why would the "extreme left" cheer on an impeachment brought on by teabaggin Rethugs because Obama is finally standing up for his liberal base?

IMO what is lacking is Obama's use of the bully pulpit to simply lay out the facts. (I suspect that since facts are well known to have a liberal bias, he cannot bring himself to do that.) If the Rethugs DARED to start impeachment hearings, and thus shut down government, based on the fact that they refused to compromise about the wealthiest Americans not participating in the shared sacrifice of the rest of working Americans, while Obama stood his ground on the issue...it is the Rethugs that would fall even further in the polls, and the teabaggers would be exposed for what they are, an extreme rightwing corporate funded tool. Especially if that fact was blasted at them, ever so reluctantly by the MSM, day after day.

I reject the argument that no other legislation would be passed. Sometimes a nation must stop and reassess where it is going, especially if it is headed for a cliff, both morally and economically. This is what should have been done when Obama first was sworn in with regards to the previous administration's war crimes and civil liberties attacks. The reason is that in the end, when those "biased" facts are brought out into the open, the hidden oligarchy controlling the Rethugs and a lot of the Dems will take a blow, and it will ensure that a greater number of future candidates will steer clear of the stench.

It is worth delaying further legislation if that means that it will produce a more sustainable, more fair and less corrupt legislation from future administrations.

Who do we think S&P is working for?

Honor v dishonor. We seem to have chosen the later.

Maybe we should be sure to find a president who can stand up to them ????

You stand up for what is right instead of going along to get along, which will never happen. When he gives them what they ask for they say wait a minute... we want more now. So don't give then what they ask for in the first place. Stand up for what WE want. Problem is, I don't think he wants what we want. He doesn't fight for what the polls show the people want.

As I said in the post you are replying to, he should have held out for a clean bill on the debt ceiling. He and all the other Dems should have bombarded the media with the truth about how there has never been anything but a clean bill for this and that it was raised under Bush 7 times and I think way more times under Reagan. It would have still come down to the wire and Wall Street would still have stepped in and told the Republicans they had better pass this thing and it would have gotten done.

Doesn't matter if they cower or not, they're emboldened now due to Obama caving again. Do you really think they won't pull this stunt again now that it worked? The people would have been more informed about what was really going on. It could change the framing.

Obama needs to stop adopting the right wing framing of every issue. He is allowing them to frame things rather than calling them out on it. If it doesn't get checked it flourishes, and flourish it did. If he framed it from our perspective we could have an entirely different discussion going on in the country and people would not start using the right wing framework for discussing this. That is huge.

If Obama didn't offer up social programs in negotiations the Republicans would have still been backed into a corner from the outrage of the people about them wanting to privatize Medicare. Dems were in a perfect position to exploit that. But now Obama offered them up all on his own and effectively dissolved all leverage we had on that topic. And that was a colossal mistake that will tear at our safety net for decades to come. We can come to our own conclusions as to why he did that, I'm certain mine are completely different than yours so I will leave that out.

What happened when the current makeup of Congress was in our favor? Same thing. That is not a valid excuse for Obama not fighting for the people and capitulating to the Republicans at every turn, before the negotiations even start.

Even before they ask for it.

but primarily, let's always be sure to "attack the messenger" -- :evilgrin:

And isn't S&P under threat of DOJ government investigtion into their handling

of mortage securities -- ratings?

Maybe the GOP are willing to take the blame and the money?

Calpers, the largest pension fund in California, (I believe) was suing S&P.

Cannot find any references to that lawsuit that are dated after Summer 2009. Don't know what the lawsuit's status is today.

I do know that S&P and other credit agencies claim that their "Free Speech" rights allow them to say the things that mislead the clients. But that nonsense was rebuffed by the courts. Fraud is fraud is fraud, and luckily the courts didn't get bought out on that ruling.

On what the problems were with S&P -- there was an article up the other day --

so don't take what I said literally cause I didn't spend as much time on the article

as I should have.

But sure has been a lot of gimmicking of pension funds and other financial instruments

which certainly people in financial institutions had to know about --

Many corporations were underfunding the pensions and the inspectors were being bulldozed

to approve it.

It's like watching the Sopranos -- or repeats of the Sopranos!!


Not seeing any reports here on what anyone thinks of the stock market drops over last

three days -- are we all in shock -- ?

Going to check to see what I might have missed in that regard now!

Who was it who compared Obama and his dealings with GOP to a wrestling match?

I know that sounds hyperbolic, but that is exactly how I view these people.

gets them to work in one's campaign -- and vote.

One doesn't just play the same old, same old political tit-for-tat game.

Nor does one make empty promises of change. One does one's best to deliver on one's promises of real change.

And to start with, one does not sit around the White House talking to Republicans. One gets our on the street and rallies with Democrats and independents who want to show their support for jobs, fair trade, fair taxation, a fair deal.

One says no to austerity and yes to alternative energy.

IMO, Tea Party supporters will soon begin to turn on their corporate keepers, and begin to openly go after "big business"
with the same zeal with which they are presently going after "big government"

From what I'm hearing, a growing number of them seem to already feel this way but have so far kept these feeling closeted,
out of fear of being labeled leftist, socialist, communist, etc.

I find a measured 'adult in the room' approach to be the most effective
Be patient, but relentless- think months, not days.
Plant the seeds to open their minds, and then
stand back and watch the wheels start turning.

The unused BULLY PULPIT with the message of the difference between right and wrong.

he might also have to expose the KOCH BROS DLC -- and other rw criminal

corporations who have funded the DLC in the Dem party for more than 20 years!!


We have a sick political system -- and sadly it doesn't only have to do with the Repug thugs!!

The T-party is well funded by the KOCH BROS and run out of a public relations firm which

guarantees them publicity --

But that's no different from the many other faked orgs/movements the GOP has run --

From the GOP giving start up funding for the Christian Coalition --

Richard Scaife funding Dobson's org -- other rw wealthy funding Bauer's group --


to the GOP's/NRA -- which they radicalized to target not only liberals and moderates in

the Dem Party -- but in their own party -- thereby moving Congress way to the right.


Or maybe the GOP/"pro-lifers" who are financed by White Christian Militias?

Which the Supreme Court refused to do anything about re RICO laws --

They also solicited volunteers to disrupt women's clinics from Methadone clinics -- and

paid them!


And, let's also remember that the rw can only rise on political violence --

and we've had more than 50 years of it --


Maybe Obama would also like to tell the American public what Al Gore has just revealed

in his Rolling Stone article -- i.e., that 'OUR CONGRESS IS UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE

OIL AND COAL INDUSTRIES' --

That might give Obama an opening to describe what's really going on with Global Warming

and the dangers of it to the nation and citizens!!

Insist on a clean bill. ANd mean it. Don't engage in any other nonsense. The minute he showed signs of caving, the Wall Street Lobbyists saw a win and pushed had for the "neo-liberal" austerity measures they also pushed for in Greece and the UK. Had they taken the President seriously, they would have been lobbying the Rs to cave. We ALWAYS blow it when we play on their playing field. This is negotiating 101. You don't start by capitulating. You don't negotiate with terrorists.

when it's obvious they really don't want to accept an answer?

it seemed based on no statements I ever read on DU

at belittling and ridiculing anyone who criticizes Obama. Too bad s/he derailed such important information. They only hurt their own cause of defending Obama.

I love it when we sound so objective in response to evidence that Republicans are purposely trying to tank the country. Sure, the Republicans/Tea Party/Chamber of Commerce/Grover Norquist/Mitt Romney/Michelle Bachmann are bad, but Democrats/Obama are equally at fault.

Love it! It sounds so objective! Its pavlovian. Test it for yourself. Perhaps post something about John Ensign hiring his mistress's husband with RNC funds, and you will have someone attack Democrats, which just goes to show that the left is at the mercy of the corporate media. We have now internalized the narrative and the propaganda such that even in the face of evidence of Republican misdeeds, we cannot help but cover up for Republicans by either attacking Democrats or at least saying that Democrats are just as bad.

Its very impressive. Try the experiment yourself! Watch the "Democrats" attack Democrats on a Democratic Website.

the actual criticisms.

Apparently you don't know the difference between valid criticism of policies and governing and an attack. I stand up for the Democratic Party platform, not just anyone who has a D after their name even when they govern from right of center.

Read the sentence of yours that I quoted and see if you can come back and respond that you didn't attack other Democrats. This post you replied with isn't very substantive either. You didn't actually respond to anything I wrote, just more empty snark. I see in that post though that you don't identify yourself as left. Are you actually a Democrat? Democrats are the left.

"Try the experiment yourself! Watch the "Democrats" attack Democrats on a Democratic Website."

That quote is from your reply. Again, read the sentence I quoted from your OP in my other post. Please come back and explain to me how that is not exactly what you claim to be against in what I quoted from you here.

You derailed your OP by throwing in that crazy attempt to marginalize anyone who criticizes Obama. Unfortunate that you let your emotions get in the way of disseminating important information.

They are disparaging those who pretend to be democrats but are working in tandem with goals of pugthugs....and yes I know I am speaking at a broken record.

and his "disappointment" that Boehner didn't pick up the offers on

SS and Medicare/Medicaid is frightening!!

Won't give Obama another crack at all of this that's for sure!!

These 3 years are more than enough!

The Merc said something simular as well, I'm glad my local papers are exposing this information. Of course I live in one of the most liberal areas of the country. So they are in essense, preaching to the choir.

Layed the blame on the Republicans. I was surprised, but happily so.

Layed the blame on the Republicans. I was surprised, but happily so.

CNN, on Sat.

:kick:

Used to be a trusted news source. No longer. They serve the RepubliCorp Borg, not the truth and not America.

:kick:

..has created this codependency with the Repugs.

Why wasn't S&P, and other ratings agencies, investigated following the crash?


--

Even when you have an article laying out a clear example of how the corporate media conspires to cover up for Republicans and blame Democrats, you can always count on some "libeal" poster on DU to say that its the Democrats fault that Republicans act so extreme! It just goes to show the power of the corporate media that even folks on the "left" invariably recite anti-Democratic talking points even in the face evidence that the Fourth Estate is corrupt and Republicans are actively working to sabotage the economy.

Or, perhaps we will get the corrupt media tactice of pushing a "false equivalency." So, expect some folks on DU to give Republicans a free pass by suggesting that Democrats are equally at fault by suggesting a "codependency with the Repugs."

You have to admire the power and results of billions spent on corporate propaganda. Even the left can't place the blame where it squarely resides.

Try it yourself. Post something negative about Republicans, and you will get a DUer who will either blame Democrats regardless of the topic or at best, suggest that Democrats are just as bad ON A LIBERAL WEBSITE! Can you imagine what goes on non-liberal websites?

The deck is stacked against the left and Democrats, because we can't escape the narrative. Even here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1682211&mesg_id=1682291

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1682211&mesg_id=1683991

And btw... this is not a liberal website. If it were EVERY post would be criticizing our right of center president.

"his is not a liberal website. If it were EVERY post would be criticizing our right of center president." Pretty good use of namecalling, though I would recommend that you throw in the term of art, DLC! Right of center is also pretty good, since it just creates a visceral reaction without any analysis whatsoever. We can have the right screaming that President Obama is a socialist, marxist, and we can have some folks on the "left" yelling that he is right of center. It really does not explain anything, but it sure feels good doesn't it?

So, keep up the obfuscation and attacks. Oh, and remember, Blame Democrats and Give Republicans a Free Pass!

This message is brought to you by the corporate media!

:hi:

Name Calling: Propagandists use this technique to create fear and arouse prejudice by using negative words (bad names) to create an unfavorable opinion or hatred against a group, beliefs, ideas or institutions they would have us denounce. This method calls for a conclusion without examining the evidence. Name Calling is used as a substitute for arguing the merits of an idea, belief, or proposal. It is often employed using sarcasm and ridicule in political cartoons and writing. When confronted with this technique the Institute for Propaganda Analysis suggests we ask ourselves the following questions: What does the name mean? Is there a real connection between the idea and the name being used? What are the merits of the idea if I leave the name out of consideration? When examining this technique try to separate your feelings about the name and the actual idea or proposal (Propaganda Critic: Common Techniques 1).

Glittering Generalities: Propagandists employ vague, sweeping statements (often slogans or simple catchphrases) using language associated with values and beliefs deeply held by the audience without providing supporting information or reason. They appeal to such notions as honor, glory, love of country, desire for peace, freedom, and family values. The words and phrases are vague and suggest different things to different people but the implication is always favorable. It cannot be proved true or false because it really says little or nothing at all. The Institute of Propaganda Analysis suggests a number of questions we should ask ourselves if we are confronted with this technique: What do the slogans or phrases really mean? Is there a legitimate connection between the idea being discussed and the true meaning of the slogan or phrase being used? What are the merits of the idea itself if it is separated from the slogans or phrases?

a seminal article and twisting it's profound import (MSM subverting government) to suit your own robotic, meaningless and silly propaganda) totally obscuring the importance of its meaning. This by substituting your own hero as the star of the article though never even touched upon. This by way of slapping truthtellers like Krugman and anyone else who interferes with a zombie like hero worship that inevitably and always will culminate in a satin sandwich.

First rule of propaganda: When your words are recognized as propaganda, return that with a false recognition, in kind, to turn it on the challenger.

Good job with the use of Paul Krugman. You say that he is a truth teller, and cite him as authority without any real explanation. Paul Krugman, of course, is a nobel prize winning economist, so his words carry weight, and you correctly cite him without referring to any specific analysis. Thus, you are correct to use transfer:



The key to making your argument work, which you do well, is to avoid the bulk of Krugman's economic analysis that largely rips on Republican ideas. Also, while many folks cite Krugman to attack the President, they ignore his strong support of Health Care Reform and Financial Reform. Yes, he would have preferred that it is stronger, but he would be the last one to suggest that the bills should be repealed. Instead, he says that both bills represent a step in the right direction.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/02/opinion/02krugman.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/opinion/12krugman.html?src=twt&twt=NytimesKrugman

So, you manage to pull a great hat trick in citing Paul Krugman as being against President Obama's policies when he has actually strongly supported President Obama's actual policies, and Krugman's main complaint is when Obama has not pushed hard enough against Republican policies.

Indeed, Krugman is stong supporter of two of Obama's signature accomplishments: Health Care Reform and Financial Reform. On Health Care Reform, Krugman said "This is a reasonable, responsible plan. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise." But, you correctly omit this fact.

Finally, I like your use of ad hominen, by saying in a blanket fashion that the OP regarding corporate media bias is actually engaging propaganda without any description.

You are good!!! Citing Krugman, who supported two of President Obama's signature reform efforts, to suggest that he is anti-Obama when he really is anti-Obama not fighting hard enough against Republicans, which is really a political opinion, rather than an economic analysis.

Thanks for enlightening me. As a Democrat, I thought that dramatic take over of the House by Republicans supported by astroturf Tea Partiers played a role. I also thought that the election of Tea Partiers preaching a message of job growth through spending cuts might have sent the wrong message to our Nation's leadership in 2010. Finally, the fact that Republicans have pretty much tried to stop every Democratic initiative even on policies they once supported, because they wanted to deny Democrats any legislative victories, might have played a role.

But, I stand corrected on the Democratic Website. Will you please post a link to the Republican party contribution page, because all this time I thought Republicans were the ones responsible, but now I know it was the Democrats.

...Blame the Democrats, Give Republicans a Free Pass!

:hi:

Do you think that had no impact this many decades later?

And that was well before Reagan --



See: Wm. Greider -- "Who Will tell he people?" -- 1992

I read it in 1992 and am rereading it now --



In the 1980's I also watched via C-span as Sen. George Mitchell, Majority leader

turned the Senate over to Sen. Bob Dole --



And, as far as Repugs controlling the House -- personally I can't wait until the

Dems only control the house and thereby run everything!!!


:rofl: if it wasn't so pitiful --

I guess you point out Democrats supporting slavery prior to the civil war or President Roosevelt's actions in putting Japanese Americans in concentration camps to argue that present day Democrats are racist, and rely on Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation to say that Republicans are more supportive of civil rights.

But, if you are going to attack the Democratic party, I just don't think that relying on events that took place in 1978 is the best way to convince folks to abandon the Democratic party or President Obama.

I guess you could say that President Obama, as a seventeen year old, was in on the conspiracy, but that starts to sound kind of Orly Taitz-ish.

:rofl: --

Why are you telling me how old Obama was? Do you think he voted for it -- maybe

by his Sesame Street phone?

And, obviously you're still in the chess game frame of mind, but telling the truth

about the Democratic Party really isn't "attacking them" -- it's simply telling

the truth about them.

their hearts and minds will follow".:nuke:

and the blogs carry the standard disclaimer about the opinions presented being those of the blogger and not of the Chronicle organization.

That said, it doesn't mean it's not a good blog entry.

The S&P is owned by McGraw-Hill.

McGraw-Hill is run by

"Principal Corporate Executives
Harold McGraw III

Harold McGraw III
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer"

http://www.mcgraw-hill.com/site/about-us/executive-profiles

And Harold McGraw III is a Romney donor and supporter:

http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?last=McGraw&first=Harold

As an aside, it is even more revealing to note who among Democrats have received McGraw's donations.

Chris Dodd, Kirsten Gillibrand, Mary Landrieu, Paul Kanjorski and Lieberman are no surprise. But Act Blue and Charles Rangel???

As someone noted, McGraw-Hill profits from all the tests our schoolkids have to take. So, McGraw's political picks may depend on who supports the draconian anti-teacher and anti-kids test regimes.

is because the Democrats are the only real weapon we have against the Nazicons.

Short of becoming violent like the NRA, secessionists, anti-abortionists, anti-Blacks, anti-muslims,anti women, pro child labor, drown American in a bathtub factions of the Republican party the only power we have is the power to influence elected Democrats and their power base to act to protect us and protect our rights and to protect the Constitution and to enforce our laws and to save our ecology and our economy is to yell at them as well as the Republicans

You got a better plan?

While, we're still waiting for the Dems to organize a rally for

MEDICARE FOR ALL !!

Because Progressives have been screaming this since day 1.

He should put some progressives on his cabinet and thus avoid these messes, because his policies outcomes make him look complicit with the R position.

Hopefully we will see the Pres on TV daily pushing this point home.


"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR


EDIT TO ADD: K&R!

Co-opting this article's profound importance in exposing the duplicity of Beltway and MSM to subvert government and making it into a sendup of 0, with backhand slaps at truth-tellers like Krugman and folks on DU who have figured out just what is going on.

This "satin sandwich could not have been served up if 0 had not first tossed it onto the chopping block back when pugthugs were on record as ready to except far less and did not think they could get away with more; then shrinking from the bully pulpit to protect the very foundations of the Democratic party (defending safety nets and the middle class) thus allowing the "grand bargain" to be struck.

This is not in any way to say the fault does not lay with the pugthugs almost entirely, it begs the question of just what masque 0 wore in this obscene kabuki.

It actually was worded in such a way that it sounded like Dems were made out to be a fault.

They talked about who was on the Sunday blather shows. Played a clip of the talking over each other.

Talked about S&P downgrading US and questioned who is to blame.

S&P SAID REPUBLICANS ARE TO BLAME ON PAGE 4 OF THE 4 PAGE PRESS RELEASE.

So, how does NPR, the left leaning news???? miss that days after the release?

That is more right-wing propaganda.

It should not be allowed to accept corporate donations.

The corporate media slammed Obama for suggesting some cuts in social security/medicare by using them to play up divisions among Democrats. In sharp comparison, when Paul Ryan announced his proposal to turn Medicare into a voucher program, which makes President Obama's consideration of relatively minor tweaks look like socialism by comparison.

Here is specific example of the corporate media cheerleading the Ryan Voucher plan. Many media outlets cited to a Politifact "Fact check" that said that attacks on Ryan's voucher plan were false. Daily KOS did a wonderful job of exposing the analytical failures of Politifact's analysis. Still, the corporate media gleefully cited this analysis to tamp down attacks on the Ryan plan.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/22/969334/-PolitiFacts-Medicare-fail,-round-two

In sharp contrast, the corporate media repeatedly played up divisions among Democrats merely because President Obama discussed Social Security and Medicare cuts similar to what was raised by his bi-partisan commission. Again, social security and Medicare would remain largely intact.

The false equivalency is suggesting that President Obama's discussion are as radical as actual Republican proposals to privitize Social Security (Bush 2006) and Medicare (Ryan 2011). They are not, and making such a suggestion and argument does a disservice to the American public by suggesting that Republican plans aren't that radical.

I am really surprised that you did not see the plethora of news stories playing up divisions among Democrats and Obama on Medicare and Social Security. Heck, Fox News has a slew of them.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/08/obama-faces-dem-backlash-over-possible-concessions-in-deficit-talks/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/11/obama-holds-press-conference-ahead-budget-talks/

Democrats Balk as Obama Offers to Raise Medicare Eligibility Age in Deficit-Reduction Talks

So, there you go. Even Fox News is playing up the tremendous backlash Obama faced for merely discussing social security and Medicare. But, the Ryan plan? Fox News was in full out propaganda mode selling the plan as "bold."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/06/rep-paul-ryan-raises-profile-bold-budget-plan/

Rep. Paul Ryan Raises Profile With 'Bold' Budget Plan

So, does that answer your question? Or, is Fox News not corporate enough?

is NOT the same as treating Paul Ryan like a hero for being bold enough to propose cuts to Medicare. In fact, your links don't make any sense. They prove the opposite point -- the the MSM leans RIGHT, not LEFT.

The MSM has fallen down on the floor at a right angle is and actively pimps for the right. Why? The MSM is sponsored by large corporations, thus it works to push a right wing narrative. This is why Ryan's radical voucher program is hailed as "bold" while President Obama's tweak is used to publicize divisions among Democrats and the left when the differences are just of degree, not basic concept. The Republican plans call for the complete abolition of Medicare and Social Security as we know it.

It does not mean that we cannot also criticize Obama for engaging in stupid strategies that play into the hands of the Rs and betray the basic values of what it means to be a Democrat. The answer to a call for complete abolition of SS and Medicare is not "half abolition" of these programs. It is a solid defense and every attempt to reform our revenue system BEFORE considering cuts that would diminish our social safety net. Obama did not engage in that. He has played into the hands of both the MSM and the right wing. He did not use the bully pulpit to try to reframe the debate. I don't say that because of false equivalence. I say it because his strategy and tactics have sucked. Any first year law or business student who took a simple negotiating class would know that. So either he is monumentally stupid (unlikely) or he simply does not have the same values as other Democrats and never wanted that stuff anyway (likely). In either case, we are free to criticize, and must do so if we want things to change.

As you make more than clear in your comments --

...by using them to play up divisions among Democrats --

and vs corporate media cheerleading the Ryan Voucher plan.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/22/969334/-Politi...


And again --

... played up divisions among Democrats merely because President Obama discussed Social

Security and Medicare cuts


Are you suggesting that I watch Fox news -- ?

I am really surprised that you did not see the plethora of news stories playing up divisions among Democrats and Obama on Medicare and Social Security. Heck, Fox News has a slew of them.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/08/obama-faces-... /

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/11/obama-holds-... /

Or are you just relating that you do?


And, again, this has nothing to do with criticism of Obama putting Social Security,

Medicare and Medicaid "on the table" --


Democrats Balk as Obama Offers to Raise Medicare Eligibility Age in Deficit-Reduction Talks

So, there you go. Even Fox News is playing up the tremendous backlash Obama faced for merely discussing social security and Medicare. But, the Ryan plan? Fox News was in full out propaganda mode selling the plan as "bold."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/06/rep-paul-rya... /

Rep. Paul Ryan Raises Profile With 'Bold' Budget Plan

So, does that answer your question? Or, is Fox News not corporate enough?

Sorry if I upset some folks that their allegedly "liberal" takes sound curiously like Fox News Headlines. But, as I've tried to explain, the corporate media often limits access to those who attack Democrats. For example, remember Geraldine Ferrarro on Fox News?

But, maybe you are right. Maybe it is all just a coincidence.

:hi:

duh!

This feels like one of THE biggest conspiracies in time.

Kerry/MccCain for helping create this mess. (Saw a tweet by a O supporter). Never mind the Senator is one of Obama's best allies, but guess people will always have a grudge against him from 04.

Man is that all it takes to attribute a criticism to a person? Also, I don't think McCain is the most dysfunctional Republican these days by a long shot. Heck, I even agree with him calling the latest bunch of Tea Party crazies, hobbits.

people like Senator Kerry, who is a Democrat, and has been one of Obama's top allies, and realize Obama isn't the only sane voice out there.

Kerry was nothing like McCain. He was very statesmanlike while the other was fussy. Why some can not appreciate that is mind boggling. But as I said, the Senator can never catch a break with anyone, cause his liberal standing (Boxer's of late has too) been dissed here, so people will always hold some type of grudge against him for beating favorites from 04.

JMHO.

Instead of slamming S& P the Dems should be on the offensive, using S&P's rationale of the R's refusal to add revenue. That they didn't says something about where the big D democratic is today.

This would have been the perfect cover to full court press so of course they didn't.