Coaxial

Herc Appraises The First Four Hours Of Aaron Sorkin’s First HBO Series, THE NEWSROOM!!

Published at: June 24, 2012, 4:36 a.m. CST by hercules

An engrossing, fast-paced and flawed new hourlong depicting the backstage drama at a hugely popular and profitable cable news network, “The Newsroom” comes to us from Aaron Sorkin, who earlier explored the people who mount live telecasts in ABC’s “Sports Night” and NBC’s “Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip.”

“The Newsroom” is better than its promos let on. I confess I found myself consuming all of the first four hours hungrily, one after another, keen to see where it would take its characters next.

For those just joining us, Sorkin also masterminded Emmy magnet “The West Wing” and scripted some of the finest entertainments ever to grace cinemas, among them “A Few Good Men,” “The American President,” “Charlie Wilson’s War,” “The Social Network” and “Moneyball.”

Those troubled by the (considerable) shortcomings of 2006’s similar “Studio 60” probably needn’t fret; Sorkin creates a far more convincing environment for his fake news show than he did for his fake sketch show. And in terms of watchability, “Newsroom” leans closer to “West Wing” than “Studio 60.”

With its love triangle and patina of endless crisis management, “Newsroom” manifests a worthy update of James L. Brooks’ Oscar-nominated 1987 big-screen dramedy “Broadcast News.” Its opening rant recalls Sidney Lumet’s 1976 TV-news dramedy “Network.”

But mostly, “Newsroom” is very much another Sorkin TV brainchild. “Sports Night” and “Studio 60” fans will quickly recognize a budding romance growing betwixt a pair of new coworkers and simmering almost-romance endured by veterans long obsessed with each other but kept separate by circumstance. And of course there’s no lack of Sorkin’s singular smart-people banter throughout.

Jeff Daniels (“Good Night, and Good Luck,” “State of Play”) plays a Tea Party-loathing Republican anchorman named Will McAvoy, Emily Mortimer (“Our Idiot Brother,” “Hugo”) his long-ago love and new executive producer, Sam Waterston (“The Killing Fields,” “Law & Order”) his longtime boss, Alison Pill (“In Treatment,” “Scott Pilgrim,” “To Rome With Love”) his new associate producer, and Dev Patel (“Slumdog Millionaire,” “The Last Airbender”) his show’s blogger.

Olivia Munn (“The Daily Show,” “Perfect Couples”) joins the cast in the second hour as a hot girl with two doctorates in economics – at least one of them from Duke University -- and an adjunct professorship at Columbia. Jane Fonda (“Georgia Rules”) joins the fray as Waterston’s boss in episode three. Hope Davis (“In Treatment,” “Mildred Pierce”) arrives in episode four as a professional gossip who garners McAvoy’s attention at a party.

Following a lengthy pre-credits teaser set three weeks earlier, the bulk of the “Newsroom” pilot takes place on April 20, 2010, the day we all learned of the BP oil disaster. The second episode is set three days later. The third episode telescopes out over a period of six months and ends with the Nov. 2, 2010 election that handed the U.S. House of Representatives back to the GOP. The fourth episode starts on New Year’s Eve and ends Jan. 8, 2011.

The barely-period-drama format allows characters to react to real events instead of the newsmaker facsimiles and surrogates we grew used to seeing on “Sports Night,” “The West Wing” and the “Law & Order” shows. This may be a lift from “Mad Men,” another Sunday cable hourlong that likes to carefully weave historical events into its storytelling, but it’s an agreeable lift.

It’s not, however, all good news for “The Newsroom.” As entertaining as I find the series so far, the writing does a little too often feel rushed and lazy. The first scene in the pilot features a pretty college girl asking what makes the United States the greatest country in the world. It’s ultimately a set up that allows anchorman McAvoy to explode (uncharacteristically, we’re assured) into an angry torrent of facts – facts demonstrating that our nation is likely not the greatest – but if you think about it for two seconds, it’s hard to believe even the stupidest of college girls would be motivated enough to stand in line to voice such a lame query. (It’s more like something a highly coached 7-year-old might ask, but I guess even McAvoy’s not a big enough jerk to tell a second-grader “I don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.”)

In a later episode, the series’ fortyish executive producer accidentally misdirects a highly sensitive email to hundreds of fellow employees. Given the character’s reputation for professionalism and journalistic smarts, this inability to properly direct email comes off as ginned-up nonsense. Would she have been more careful had the email mentioned the name of a confidential source?

Just as bad, Sorkin has given McKay’s blogger an unfortunate, inexplicable and unconvincing obsession with Bigfoot.

And four episodes in, neither Mortimer, Pill, Munn nor any of the series’ other actresses are called upon to indulge pay-cable nudity.

In sum, “The Newsroom” is messy and nakedness-free but its problems aren’t big enough to keep me from anticipating eagerly the rest of its first season.

HitFix says:

... For all the clumsy and/or self-righteous moments that pepper the first four episodes of "The Newsroom," Sorkin is a talented enough craftsman that the show is often compulsively watchable even when it's being aggravating. TV news is a much better setting for Sorkin's skill set, and this debate, than a sketch comedy show was. When we see extended glimpses of Will's show, it's believable in a way that the "Studio 60" show-within-a-show never was. And it's fun to watch actors as gifted as Daniels, Mortimer and Waterston banter in that familiar, rat-a-tat Sorkin fashion. The extra-long pilot episode, which climaxes in a long segment depicting Will's first newscast about the oil spill, has rough edges but is on the whole evocative of Sorkin's better TV work. (It's the later episodes where the show really begins to fray.).…

HuffPost TV says:

... a dramatically inert, infuriating mess … All I can do is what any other educated citizen of this great nation would do: Change the channel.

The New York Times says:

... At its best, and that doesn’t come into full view until the third and fourth episodes, “The Newsroom” has a wit, sophistication and manic energy that recalls James L. Brooks’s classic movie “Broadcast News.” But at its worst, the show chokes on its own sanctimony. …

The Los Angeles Times says:

... "The Newsroom" is, essentially, "The West Wing" by way of "Broadcast News." It's not necessarily a bad idea, although clearing one extremely high bar is difficult enough, never mind two. For the first hour, the show seems promising, especially for Sorkin fans. After that, things go into a baffling free-fall in which plot exists almost solely to support the political and cultural points Sorkin wants to make, often in non sequitur monologues. …

The San Francisco Chronicle says:

... kind of a mess, but one you can't really look away from. … Oddly enough, if you don't think too much about the actual words coming out of their mouths, several cast members deliver superb performances, beginning with Daniels, whose character bears a resemblance to former MSNBC and Current TV personality Keith Olbermann. It's not entirely plausible that after years of playing it safe, participating in a panel discussion about current events would trigger a sudden growth spurt in Will's nether regions. But, from that point on, Daniels is great at being insufferable.

The Boston Globe says:

... The Oscar-winning screenwriter (“The Social Network”) is also given to didacticism, but what helps make the lecturing palatable is that Sorkin’s not above a pratfall, a double-take, or a goofy interlude to keep the rhythms from bogging down in all that pontificating. …

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette says:

With plenty of junk on TV, it's understandable that viewers will want to embrace HBO's "The Newsroom" from writer Aaron Sorkin ("The West Wing," "The Social Network"). It's smarter than most of what's out there, and Mr. Sorkin makes sure viewers know it, with statistic-filled monologues. "The Newsroom" moves fast and can be entertaining at times. But compared to many of TV's most-respected programs -- "Breaking Bad," "Homeland," "Game of Thrones," "The Good Wife" -- "The Newsroom" feels musty and out of touch. ... "The Newsroom" is not the worst thing on TV; it's just a disappointment when you consider the source. The show is unconvincing even as it offers a lot for viewers to chew on if they're in the mood to think. …

The Washington Post says:

... fails to meet the high expectations that greet it, save one: It is crammed with incessant gibber-jabber. …

USA Today says:

... The Sorkinish good and bad are so tightly entwined in The Newsroom, even the best surgeon could never separate them. On my TV scale, what works about the show outweighs what doesn't, but others will read the results differently. …

TV Guide says:

... exhilarating, exasperating and often sensationally entertaining … There's no question The Newsroom is eye-rollingly full of itself. But it's also recklessly full of wit, passion, anger and humor — and timely purpose. When's the last time you saw all that wrapped up in a single TV show? The West Wing, maybe?

Variety says:

... presents viewers with two options: Lament how the series doesn't match the lofty crests of Sorkin's finest work, or admire the show's ambitions and embrace of serious ideas, and grudgingly roll with its uneven tides.…

The Hollywood Reporter says:

... love or hate his soapboxing, the man can write. And what might be the most alluring part of The Newsroom is that it’s clear Sorkin wants the show to be enormous, filled with characters of all stripes and able to take on innumerable storylines as it looks at journalism, politics, romance, the workplace and America itself. Whether you go along on that ride with him has everything to do with whether you like his style. Because -- cue the orchestra and step onto the soapbox -- Sorkin is always true to himself and doesn’t try to cover his tendencies or be embarrassed by them.…

10 p.m. Sunday. HBO.

Follow Herc on Twitter!!

Follow Evil Herc on Twitter!!

 


Cheapest Ever Breaking Bad Blu!! $12.99!!


Hundreds of Blu-rays Under $10!!

Readers Talkback

comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • June 24, 2012, 4:58 a.m. CST

    Studio 60 - better than people say

    by Kaczmar1984

    With all its flaws, I still consider Studio 60 to be the most underrrated and unappreciated show in recent history (tied maybe only with Firefly) and I'm right now rewatching its final four episodes - briliant!! So when you say Newsroom is better than S60, I'm psyched as hell. With all the mixed reviews out there, I'm glad the one critic who I respect the most actually liked it. Sorry for the ass-kissing. No nudity, right? What about cursing? Sorkin really knows how to make poetry with the f-word (case in point - almost every speech made by Phillip Seymour Hoffman in Charlie Wilson's War).

  • June 24, 2012, 5:31 a.m. CST

    Do NOT actually SAY anything on TV.

    by gotilk

    We stopped doing that in the 70s. We find it offensive now. wonder why.... Some of the reviews I've read appear to have a bigger agenda than the show does. Reviews: Pass. Show: Watch. Your review seems fair though, Herc. I have only "heard about" the first episode.

  • June 24, 2012, 5:37 a.m. CST

    Most overrated writer of all time

    by georgecauldron

    Except for maybe Lindelof.

  • June 24, 2012, 6:31 a.m. CST

    Will McKay ? mkay ..., but isn't it Will McAvoy ?

    by zakmcKracken

  • June 24, 2012, 7:09 a.m. CST

    Queue Fox News Hate.... now.

    by Bill Brasky

    Oh, and all of you Euro-trash douchebags who can't help but troll about how terrible the US media is - we've heard it all before. It's not interesting or enlightening. It's just pathetic.

  • June 24, 2012, 7:40 a.m. CST

    MSNBC the Show...

    by nemov

    If I wanted to watch a liberal show about the news should be covered I'd watch MSNBC.

  • June 24, 2012, 8:27 a.m. CST

    bill brasky

    by Kaczmar1984

    Being a Euro-trash (Polish to be specific) douchebag I wholeheartedly agree;) Most media sucks everywhere, France, Germany, Poland, US - doesn't matter....some douchebags just wanna feel superior I guess.

  • June 24, 2012, 8:37 a.m. CST

    STOP WITH THE ROMANTIC ANGLES IN THE WORKPLACE SORKIN!

    by Bullet_time_Facehugger

    Jesus...The main thing that's given me pause with all the promos is that there's obviously a romantic angle being shoehorned into the show already, when it hasn't even started yet. That's what killed Studio 60. Sorkin's a good writer, so why does he feel the need to immediately pair his male and female leads off together when it took lesser shows like ER literal years to do such things, and only after they had long run out of ideas.

  • June 24, 2012, 8:39 a.m. CST

    Didn't "Studio 60" open with a "Network"-like scene, too?

    by Toe Jam

    With Judd Hirsch railing against the state of TV, and society in general? I typically enjoy -- not love -- Sorkin's shows, but often they're like that highly intelligent friend who insists on discussing politics even when no one else wants to. He/she wants you to be as outraged/concerned/excited as they are, but sometimes you're like ... zzzzzzzzzz. Even though it's probably going to be as smug and heavy-handed as his other shows (except maybe "Sports Night), I'll definitely be giving this one a try. I'm hoping the fact that it's on HBO will counterbalance the typical Sorkin problems and the presence of Olivia Munn, who, while hot, is fucking insufferable on-screen.

  • June 24, 2012, 8:42 a.m. CST

    looking forward to this

    by Shakes

    I'm currently rewatching the West Wing, mid-way through season 3. Love the show though I'm sympathetic to the criticisms of Sorkin, both in style and content <br>The casting of Mortimer kind of puts me off a bit. She's got one of those voices that can really amplify the annoyances of Sorkin's dialogue, the clever comebacks, the repetitiveness, etc. kind of like Janeel Moloney or whatever the name was of the woman who played Donna

  • June 24, 2012, 8:50 a.m. CST

    Studio 60

    by CapIsKing

    Studio 60 did in fact open with a "Network" like breakdown. I enjoyed Studio 60 and watch it often on DVD. I think it was a wonderful show that never got a chance to grow. I'm also a huge fan of the West Wing, especially the first three seasons. While I don't share Sorkin's political views, he can write great dialogue and encourages his viewers to actually think about subject facing the world today. While he may be put on too large of a pedestal but many in the entertainment field, I don't believe there's any denying he consistently delivers thought-provoking shows that allow the actors to shine. His worst work is better than most of the best work we see on television. We need more intelligent television and less of those awful "reality" shows.

  • June 24, 2012, 8:56 a.m. CST

    Skimpy Mortimer as his "long ago love"?

    by Spinninmarty

    Like when she was 12 and he was 40?

  • June 24, 2012, 8:56 a.m. CST

    Jane Fonda (“Georgia Rules”)

    by JonQuixote

    Really?

  • June 24, 2012, 8:57 a.m. CST

    Emily Mortimer - stupid auto correct

    by Spinninmarty

  • June 24, 2012, 9 a.m. CST

    You had me at "Tea Party-loathing"

    by gusradio

    This world needs that kind of public personal revelation/breakdown to be real, and for Fox News to choke on its own shit.

  • Even most smart girls would do the same thing.

  • June 24, 2012, 9:09 a.m. CST

    Did you seriously just use the words "patina" and "betwixt"

    by Jesuswasarobot

    Also, "facsimiles and surrogates?" It's not like we don't know what those words mean or anything, but they're sort of the kind of words/phrases that only pretentious people and kids trying to sound smarter than they really are in book reports rocking 18 pt fonts and triple spacing use. I mean, I guess that's all.

  • June 24, 2012, 9:21 a.m. CST

    easy mistake to send a email out to the wrong people

    by rakesh patel

    i'm guilty of that shit.

  • Who the fuck knows Jeff Daniels from "Good Night, and Good Luck" and "State of Play?" You do realize why writers use those parenthetical callbacks, right?

  • June 24, 2012, 9:32 a.m. CST

    should have made Daniels character a Democrat

    by gumbyandpokey

    The show would still be insufferably smug and preachy, but would have been more honest, imo. Now you just sort of laugh, shake your head and say, "of course he's a Republican ripping other Republicans even though he agrees with every Dem talking point and liberal viewpoint." And Olivia Munn has to be sleeping with somebody to get these parts. You can always tell when a mediocre/poor actress all of a sudden is in big projects...like Blake Lively...that she's using her female assets to rise through the ranks.

  • June 24, 2012, 9:41 a.m. CST

    liberal democrat of Polish ancestry here

    by Matthew

    stay on your soap box Sorkin and keep putting your own politics, ideal, opinions in your work but the show has to be good still. Write your own show if you don't like it. Why can't someone's art reflect what they think about the world and politics? If conservatives don't like it, write your own goddamn show

  • June 24, 2012, 9:48 a.m. CST

    Best review of The Newsroom is in the Miami Herald

    by gumbyandpokey

    http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/24/2865631/hbos-the-newsroom-a-shrill-sour.html

  • June 24, 2012, 10:16 a.m. CST

    That Miami Herald review ...

    by Toe Jam

    Seems to confirm my worst fears for this show. And I say that as a bleeding-heart liberal who considers "Real Time with Bill Maher" appointment viewing. Those lines of dialogue the Herald quotes? Ugh. I'll still check out the show to decide for myself, but my expectations are definitely tempered. Who wants heavy-handed, self-important, ponderous shit like that when we have subtly brilliant shows like "Breaking Bad," "Mad Men" and "Boss"?

  • June 24, 2012, 10:33 a.m. CST

    West Wing...

    by nemov

    worked as a political show b/c it was a political show. Making Daniels' character a Republican is the typical liberal cliche. It's why Herc insists he's a Republican. No one believes it, but by claiming to be a Republican they feel like they can speak with authority about other Republicans. It's dishonest and lazy.

  • Two words: Carrie Prejean

  • June 24, 2012, 11:19 a.m. CST

    Olivia Munn - A fan of the pooper area...

    by scrapplejoe

    I cant take this chic serious to begin with, after her goofyness on g3 video game show, and now with those phone pics that got released of her basically naked and telling her boyfriend to stick it in her pooper because it feels better... uhh, its hot, but she definitely is taking it from studio execs in the pooper now to get these roles..

  • June 24, 2012, 11:40 a.m. CST

    Jane Fonda (“Georgia Rules”) - Herc, are you just fucking with us?

    by Doctor_Strangepork

    Cat Ballou Barefoot in the Park Barbarella Klute The China Syndrome Or Golden Pond I would have even accepted "The Lean Routine Workout", but Georgia Rule?! THAT'S the credit most of us will recognize her from? I feel like Frank Whaley in Swimming with Sharks. "Shelley Winters...Lolita...A Place in the Sun...Winchester '73..." (blank stares) "The Poseidon Adventure." OH!

  • June 24, 2012, 11:49 a.m. CST

    I just hope it doesn't get too preachy and santimonious

    by Rob0729

    My biggest problem with Sports Night and Studio 60 was that both were too preachy of Sorkin's politics. I agree with a lot of his politics, but his heavy hammering of his disdain for people in Red States on Studio 60 was pathetic. Everyone not from NY or LA on the show were basically rubes. The ironic thing was that West Wing was far less preachy than the other two shows. Sports Night started out without the preachy stuff and then went overboard as the series went along. Studio 60 was brought down by it right off the bat.

  • June 24, 2012, 11:57 a.m. CST

    Daniels' character as a Republican

    by k88dad

    To those that don't understand the concept of Daniels' character being a Republican, please remember that the party has a long history. There used to be these people called moderate Republicans. They believed in things like fiscal conservatism. Eisenhower comes to mind. Old Ike would have a pretty tough time getting the nomination of his party today. I've heard Rachel Maddow describe herself as an Eisenhower Republican. The party has changed--a lot. I guess what I'm saying is that there must be one or two of these old guys left who still call themselves Republicans but despise what has become of their party.

  • June 24, 2012, 12:15 p.m. CST

    I can't wait for this

    by theGoldbergV

    Majorly looking forward to it since it was announced. Would love it if Marissa Tomei had took Mortimer's part (as was rumoured) but who cares, it's Sorkin, on HBO, with a great cast. What's not to love? And the misogyny against Olivia Munn is quite amazing. There are many male actors out there getting by on their looks, have they all slept their way to the top? Personally I like Munn, she's playing a game for sure, nothing wrong with that. Plus she's funny and hot. I like that in a woman.

  • June 24, 2012, 12:18 p.m. CST

    Prediction: people will talk while walking.

    by memento108

    MARK MY WORDS.

  • June 24, 2012, 12:41 p.m. CST

    Millenials-- Worst (period) Generation (period) Ever (period)?

    by StarWarsRedux

    Why? Because we happened to come of age during the financial breakdown? Because we learned too late that the liberal arts degrees we were all pushed into getting weren't worth a damn as far as getting jobs once we graduated? Because we've inherited a decade or more's worth of bankrupcy from wars, tax cuts for the rich and health care for the elderly being put on our tab? <p> <p>Because we use twitter? <p> <p>Fuck the Boomers, and fuck Gen X. They're the ones who put us into this mess in the first place.

  • June 24, 2012, 12:49 p.m. CST

    It seems like that's exactly why he loses it.

    by ahdvd

    From the trailer it looks like it's the fact he gets asked that by a college student, someone who SHOULD know better that causes him to blow up, so from the trailer, that looks believable.

  • June 24, 2012, 1:23 p.m. CST

    k88dad

    by WeylandYutani

    Agreed. Even the much eulogized, Reagan, the quiet negotiator, Ford, or the staunch anti communist, Nixon, would be hard pressed to get the nod from today's Republican right. • Nixon proposed and created the EPA, created a timeline for extracting US troops from Vietnam and took a more diplomatic approach to the USSR and China creating an era of détente. • Ford initiated a national vaccine program, ran large deficits, was reluctant to reenter foreign conflicts and presided over a weak economy with high inflation. • Reagan turned out to be a huge tax and spend republican – he cut federal taxes, but signed into law a series of tax hikes over the course of his presidency while running huge federal deficits. Republicans and the Tea Party would have a collective conniption and would reject any of these guys if they didn't look at recent US history with nostalgia and through rose coloured glasses.

  • June 24, 2012, 1:24 p.m. CST

    WEst Wing was too preachy - sounds like this is too

    by FrodoFraggins

  • June 24, 2012, 1:25 p.m. CST

    The Republican Party...

    by Red Ned Lynch

    ...has drifted so far to the right over the past thirty years that it is barely recognizable as even the party that nominated Ronald Reagan in 1980. Every month it seems some formerly stalwart conservative is branded a RINO because of some minor transgression against the religious orthodoxy that is now required by the party faithful. I mean, Orrin Hatch? Orrin Hatch? So yeah, you guys are right. The idea of what was formerly considered a rock bellied conservative becoming estranged from the current incarnation of the Republican Party is absolutely ridiculous.

  • June 24, 2012, 1:32 p.m. CST

    Studio 60 was fantastic.

    by Fawst

    It had less "problems" than Sports Night in my opinion, but I love both shows equally. I still don't understand what was "wrong" with Studio 60. It still astounds me that we have the horribly unfunny 30 Rock on the air still, but S60 got one season.

  • June 24, 2012, 3:20 p.m. CST

    Remember when the Democrats weren't socialists?

    by Darth_Inedible

    BOTH parties have changed over the past 50 years. Today's Dem leadership is essentially Social Democratic, run by the same former '60s radicals that the European Social Democrat parties are. FDR opposed public employee unions. JFK believed that tax cuts led to growth. Obama Dems believe that America is a horrible, fallen country that deserves to be disassembled and reassembled according to plans the of their Communist '60s University professors.

  • June 24, 2012, 3:36 p.m. CST

    mistergreen

    by WeylandYutani

    Studio 60 had structural problems and I think it was marketed poorly by NBC. But it was unfunny because it was never meant to be a comedy. It was a drama about people who write and produce a comedy series. It was not a comedy about people who write and produce a comedy series, such as 30 Rock. Perhaps if it had been funny, more like the Larry Sanders Show, it would have found a larger audience. But from what I have read that was never Sorkin's vision for the show.

  • FAIL.

  • If this show sounds like it is worth your time, you have my condolences.

  • June 24, 2012, 4:01 p.m. CST

    That Miami Herald review is awesome! Great read!

    by Saen

  • June 24, 2012, 4:01 p.m. CST

    Mamet > Sorkin, if you want to talk writing ability.

    by ReportAbuse

    Both are known for rapid-fire dialogue but Mamet places his patter into the context of a tight plot, whereas Sorkin is given to speechifying for its own sake.

  • June 24, 2012, 4:28 p.m. CST

    Sorkin is selling the same thing over and over again

    by ElfinJam

    I loved Sports Night. Watched some of West Wing, but couldn't take the obvious agenda. Tried to watch Studio 60. Frankly, Sorkin uses the same formula every time. I think Herc nailed it in his review (for once) and some of the other talkbackers as well. He does the same thing over and over and don't get me wrong - Sorkin does it very well. It's just tired after 4 iterations. One thing for sure - liberals trying to write their typical cardboard cutout conservative viewpoints - that's a hoot. I will skip that, thank you.

  • June 24, 2012, 4:52 p.m. CST

    Munn curse at work again

    by Bag_of_Hammers

    Every show or movie she's in bombs, check out her IMDB. Appreciate the cell phone pics, but this chick is the curse of death for a TV show.

  • June 24, 2012, 5 p.m. CST

    Darth...

    by Red Ned Lynch

    ...what I always wonder when I read comments like yours is whether you really believe what you've written or if you know you're spouting unsupported, bombastic gibberish and just hope to carry the debate with the power of your Frank Luntz approved keywords. As dishonest as the second would be I would prefer it over the former. The Democratic health care plan was the Republican position just a decade ago. This Democratic President and Senate have agreed to enormous cuts in domestic spending without obtaining any additional revenues from taxes. This Democratic administration has continued the Bush era assault on civil liberties. These are things that have actually happened. Not things that are 'sure gonna happen' or 'they've got them secret plans for'. Our nation now has a two party system in which one party is a centrist party and the other a right wing reactionary party. If you can produce any factual information that would argue against this pretty apparent truth I would certainly be willing to read it. By this I mean laws passed. By this I mean specific budgetary measures. Not rhetoric or a reference to Obama hanging out with Bill Ayers. Like the Good Book says, by their fruit shall you know them.

  • June 24, 2012, 5:15 p.m. CST

    darth_inedible

    by WeylandYutani

    I see what you are saying and there certainly is a small, but radical left in the Democratic fold. But for the most part, Democrats are a centre-right party when compared to federal parties outside of the US that reside on the political left. The notion that the current US president, or the party that he belongs to, wants to deconstruct the country based on communist principles learned by PhDs is silly at best and ignorant at worst.  As someone who has worked for several news organizations, two of which were right leaning, I can tell you based on my experience that neither politically active Democrats nor Republicans or members of the Tea Party believe that America is horrible. In fact, most are extremely patriotic, to the point of being over the top. The main difference between the two groups is that the large R Republican tend to embrace classical neoliberal values: open markets, low taxes, free trade, market deregulation and the privatization of state-owned enterprises. This is seen through the lens of, and is often expressed through, the 'Protestant' work ethic.  In contrast, large D Democrats tend embrace the doctrines of classical liberalism (different than neoliberalism) and its values of: liberty and equlity, free and fair elections, social justice, law, human rights and freedom of religion or even freedom from religion if one chooses.  The American experience tends to embrace both lines of thinking, even though there are inherent contradictions in doing so... Neoliberalism, while taking into account the rights of the individual in an economic context does not nessisarily include the mechanics inherent to what westerners think of as a democracy. For example neoliberal ideas can be in fascist doctrine. While liberalism is interested in enshrining the rights of the individual and is interested in constitutionality (originally designed to restrict the rights of monarchs). But it does not explicitly take into account capitalism per se and could be included in the doctrines of socialism. However, this does not mean that Republicans are fascist (they are not) or that Democtats are socialist (they are not) or even communist for that matter.  Generally, Democrats in the US sense, see government as an arbiter of free markets, insuring that they offer a level playing field and fair access to all. In contrast, new Republicans and neoconservstives tend to reject this line and argue that capitalism and free markets are a form of governance or are at least self regulating and are handicapped or worse, corrupted by government interference.  But no matter how you look at it. Current Democratic thinking is not based on communism. That is just misinformed. 

  • June 24, 2012, 5:20 p.m. CST

    Obama didn't hang with Bill Ayers?

    by gumbyandpokey

    Not sure how important it is, but it's certainly something to take into consideration when evaluating how liberal/fringe Obama is.

  • June 24, 2012, 5:22 p.m. CST

    scrapplejoe link please

    by Extr3m1st

    TO THE MUNN ASSFUCKING

  • June 24, 2012, 5:23 p.m. CST

    "Some of the finest entertainments to ever grace cinemas"

    by BeMoreFunny

    Easy there, Keith Olbermann, you're creeping everyone out. And are you really sure that Charlie Wilson's War, The American President, and Moneyball are all classics? Social Network is barely a classic, A Few Good Men definitely is, but Moneyball no one will be talking about in the future. Sorkin is boring to me because he doesn't try to create other worlds or imagine anything beyond our own intricate bureaucracies. He treats bureaucracy like its the be all end all of the human enterprise. It's sickening.

  • June 24, 2012, 6:18 p.m. CST

    Olivia Munn is playing Rachel Maddow???

    by MGTHEDJ

    Ha! hahaha! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! That starfucking fame whore with an IQ of 100 is playing Rhodes Scholar Maddow?? Olivia Munn must have let Sorkin's girlfriend Kristin Davis fuck her up the pooper with a strap-on dildo while he watched. Maddow being played by Olivia Munn? Not believable. Maddow wanting to DO Olivia Munn? That's believable. -----later------m

  • June 24, 2012, 6:18 p.m. CST

    Obama's no socialist

    by Voice O. Reason

    A socialist is someone who wants government ownership of industry, not just regulation of it. With Obama, the corporations' shareholders and boards of directors are still in control. Look at the Dow Jones average, if you think American business isn't still profitable, even in a recession. And Obama knowing William Ayers doesn't make you a socialist, any more than Ronald Reagan knowing Goldwater made Reagan a libertarian, or Mitt Romney knowing Donald Trump makes Romney a birther. That's just dumb logic.

  • June 24, 2012, 6:21 p.m. CST

    buckethead50

    by WeylandYutani

    "dumbass ended up selling insurance." That is a pretty funny story.

  • June 24, 2012, 6:46 p.m. CST

    weylandyutani: I get that Studio 60 is a drama

    by mistergreen

    But Don't you think siting at a writer's session at SNL would be hilarious or the even the personal relationships between SNL stars would have you rolling on the ground? Funny is part of their DNA. You don't get that in Studio 60 at all.

  • June 24, 2012, 7:02 p.m. CST

    A lot of college girls are really really stupid

    by Rupee88

    I'm surprised that you wouldn't find it realistic that one could ask a dumb question.

  • June 24, 2012, 7:07 p.m. CST

    Studio 60 was a drag

    by Rupee88

    No one would smile on that show. Matthew Perry just seemed miserable. And yes I know it was a drama too but the tone was just all wrong, as evidenced by the poor ratings. I tried to like that show...really enjoyed the first episode but was just downhill from there.

  • June 24, 2012, 7:28 p.m. CST

    The problem with Sorkin

    by John Brown

    He always writes from the perspective of "This Is How Things Should Have Been and Are Supposed To Be." West Wing was him telling the Democratic Party (and the country) how to run things. "Studio 60" was basically him telling Kristin Chenoweth how their relationship should have gone. And now "The Newsroom" tells us how television journalism should happen. It's even set in the past so Sorkin can comment on real stories that happened and show his alternate "This Is How It Should Been Done" version. It's the height of arrogance. Add to that the fact that the man never has an original idea. "Sports Night," "Studio 60" and now "The Newsroom" are all about rebel personalities in television who decide they're going to stick it to the powers that be and do things their way, which ends up causing great consternation but even greater self-adulation. "West Wing," which I thought was Sorkin's best work, was even a reworking of a concept he had already done with "The American President," which was (gasp!) Sorkin telling the Democratic Party how to run things. The man is a creative desert.

  • June 24, 2012, 7:40 p.m. CST

    prndlgirl I"m not sure what you're asking

    by Shakes

    The premise of what you're asking seems flawed. Your first question, asking for a statement made "before during or after" condemning Ayers, well a simple google search will find that for you. <br> That also addresses part 2, "Did you discredit his statements at any time?" <br> Now when you specifically ask for something BEFORE it became an issue, I'm just not sure how that would look. I mean before it was an issue, he was a junior U.S. Senator, and before that he was a State Senator. What exactly would you expect to see <br>"Hey guys, I'm a State Senator from Illinois, and just an fyi, some guy I was on a board with in the 90's blew up a pipe bomb at the Pentagon in the 70's, when I was a kid. Just a heads up, I condemn those actions." <br>I'm not trying to be facetious here, but I honestly don't know what one would expect, or what would be appropriate for someone in Obama's then position to do or say

  • June 24, 2012, 7:41 p.m. CST

    buckethead50

    by WeylandYutani

    Also, because of your dumbass cousin, you no longer have the right to run for public office due to his one time political beliefs. There is no legal justification for this, but according to many on this thread, you are guilty by association. Too bad you attended that family wedding or thanksgiving dinner... You will never live it down dude.

  • June 24, 2012, 7:46 p.m. CST

    Yeah, but do we really want...

    by Red Ned Lynch

    ...a President Buckethead? Yes. Yes we do.

  • June 24, 2012, 7:51 p.m. CST

    Prndlgirl... Romney really?

    by chiwrtr72

    Only if more GOP states can stop people from voting like in Florida... And I think it's funny that you are upset Obama didn't speak out against Ayers before it became an issue (it was never really an issue, but a GOP talking point). Should I be upset that Romney didn't speak out against the Mormon church baptizing Jews who died in WWII?

  • June 24, 2012, 7:52 p.m. CST

    prndlgirl

    by WeylandYutani

    A good point. If candidate Obama had done what you have suggested, it would have been an exceptional act for a politician. By staying tight lipped on the issue, knowing that it would fade, he acted like the majority of politicians do – no matter if they are GOP or Democrat. Perhaps by him engaging the allegations, his handlers felt it would become even more difficult to manage. You don't want to tee that kind of thing up for the media or your opponent. Therefore, candidates opt for silence most of the time.

  • You suck at Google. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/oct/06/sarah-palin/obama-and-ayers-round-ii/

  • "Mr. Ayers is a 60-plus-year-old individual who lives in my neighborhood, who did something that I deplore 40 years ago when I was six or seven years old. By the time I met him, he was a professor of education at the University of Illinois." -Sen. Barack Obama April 27, 2008 Fox News Sunday You've heard of Google, right?

  • "Obama spokesman Bill Burton noted in a statement that Ayers was a professor of education at the University of Illinois and a former aide to Mayor Richard M. Daley, and continued: 'Senator Obama strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of violence. But he was an eight-year-old child when Ayers and the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect Obama with events of almost forty years ago is ridiculous.'" http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_weatherman_connection.html Please direct future ridiculous questions to: www.google.com

  • June 24, 2012, 8:31 p.m. CST

    voice o. reason = GAME. SET. MATCH.

    by WeylandYutani

  • June 24, 2012, 8:42 p.m. CST

    RE: Studio 60 being unfunny

    by Rob0729

    I think that was a big problem with the show. Not the biggest problem, but a significant one. Not that the show needed to be funny, but the characters had to show they were actually capable of being funny to give credibility to their characters. It didn't need to be 30 Rock, but when they did show sketches they shouldn't have been painfully unfunny and characters that are supposed to be gifted comedic actors or writers would be occasionally funny in their personal life. It would be like doing a show about brilliant scientists and have them all speak and act like Forrest Gump for the entire show. It destroys the credibility of the show. If a character is supposed to be funny, it isn't enough for them to just tell us that. He/she must actually demonstrate a good sense of humor to buy into that character. Studio 60 never demonstrated that with their characters. Personally, I had more of a problem with anyone not living in NY or LA portrayed as some out of touch country bumpkin and the show preaching to its audience, but that was an issue.

  • I worked in newspapers (as a reporter) for eight years, alongside nothing but liberals who ranted and raved behind closed doors about how much they HATE Republicans. When I told them how they couldn't be objective and cover Republicans at the same time, they swore that they could.....even though they clearly thought Republicans and Tea Partiers are no better than Nazis. So, instead of listening to what Tea Partiers have to say, the mainstream media dismisses them as lunatic fringe, and portray them in their reporting that way.......when, in fact, Tea Partiers have a great many VALID points about the dangers of bigger government. I now work for an organization that exposes taxpayer waste and infringements on individual liberty by government (and there is A LOT). It seems to me that most reporters could do a better job looking out for us if they'd do more investigative reporting about the things Tea Party members are warning us about. By the way Herc.....how come I can't get my stuff posted on this thread using my traditional ID, but I can do it on other AICN threads today?

  • June 24, 2012, 9:05 p.m. CST

    voice o. reason

    by Shakes

    bravo sir

  • June 24, 2012, 9:18 p.m. CST

    red ned,

    by CountryBoy

    Many conservative groups and individuals have strongly opposed Obama-style healthcare plans all along. Yes, Republicans sponsored a bill that was depressingly similar in the '90s, but it was far from a universally accepted plan. (Of course, the Republican party has at times been a thorn in the side of staunch conservatives.) The fact that Republicans now oppose Obama wholeheartedly is not due to pure hypocrisy, as you seem to imply; it has to do with the ascendancy of a differing viewpoint in the party, which was there from the beginning but has gained influence in recent years.

  • June 24, 2012, 10:12 p.m. CST

    bridges vs. daniels

    by Shakes

    Anyone else think Jeff Bridges and Jeff Daniels have a Bill Pullman/Bill Paxton kind of thing going

  • June 24, 2012, 10:25 p.m. CST

    countryboy...

    by Red Ned Lynch

    ...actually, the rightward lurch of the Republican Party is precisely what I was talking about. Clearly you agree.

  • June 24, 2012, 10:29 p.m. CST

    I really like Jeff Daniels...

    by Red Ned Lynch

    ...but this show is so remarkably similar to Sports Night that I actually saw Robert Guillaume's Isaac every time Sam Waterson was on screen.

  • June 24, 2012, 10:30 p.m. CST

    I mean there are some nearly identical...

    by Red Ned Lynch

    ...character beats going on here. No Josh Charles character though.

  • June 24, 2012, 10:56 p.m. CST

    Not bad

    by Sacredfun

    Sure I can see the Sorkin hallmarks after watching the first episode (people walking through hallways, ah West Wing), but I enjoyed this. It was a little precious and a bit convenient at times, but Alison Pill is daffy and winning, and Emily Mortimer is great. I just like her character already, although McKenzie MacHale is too much of a mouthful - she deserves a better name. All in all, I'd say the first episode was imperfect, but strong, but dynamic enough that I'd watch again.

  • June 24, 2012, 11:15 p.m. CST

    Really liked the first show

    by Volstaff

    Not a fan of any of Sorkin's series. I never got into The West Wing, or believed any of the characters on Studio 60 were funny or talented enough to be on an SNL type of show. Really enjoyed this show. But boy the goofy idelogical speech that Jeff Daniels gave at the beginning got to me a little, and the pacing and feel had me from start to finish, and wanting more. I'm hoping against hope that they stay the hell away from the soap operaish love stories and just focus on the goings on in a news room.I think that will get old fast. More Sam Waterston please. Love the banter between his character and Daniels.

  • June 24, 2012, 11:22 p.m. CST

    The clever midget with big dong was the best part

    by BoRock_A_Boomer

    That Sorkin dude can write!

  • June 24, 2012, 11:28 p.m. CST

    shakes, re: bridges vs. daniels

    by American Mythos

    Not at all alike. Nor are Paxton and Pullman. If anything, Daniels and Pullman are alike. Family Guy even did a cutaway gag of how similar those two are. Bridges and Paxton, on the other hand, are in leagues of their own.

  • June 24, 2012, 11:47 p.m. CST

    Awesome show - whats with the haters?

    by Lostboytejas

    Fucking useless/miserable press cunts! Dont know an awesome show if it fisted their anus!

  • June 25, 2012, 12:18 a.m. CST

    Obama the radical...

    by Darth_Inedible

    How sad it is that the country that was once the engine of global meritocratic capitalism is now run by a flaming socialist who is such a mincing, bowing apologist douche that he disavows the concept of American exceptionalism. We've never had a President this radical, this ideological. Every word, every phrase from this turd's mouth sounds like something my communist English-lit professor would have approved of. Obama started school in the early '80s at the exact moment when the '60s tweekers were at their moment of triumph and he soaked it all up. And shock horror... When you give a man and a party like this control of America the whole world sees what a joke we've become. The economy lies dormant, waiting for someone who understands that wealth is created by the private sector, not public stimulus. "The private sector is doing fine..." How sad are we for electing this douche?

  • June 25, 2012, 12:23 a.m. CST

    I liked it . Gives me something to watch at 9pm on Sundays

    by MGTHEDJ

    Was it loaded with Sorkin-isms? Yes, but no more than NYPD Blue was loaded with Bochco-ism when compared to Hill Street Blues. Most of the haters, when you strip away the snark and the venom, are really just saying "Been there, Done That", "Same Story , New Setting", "Nothing Original." I found it entertaining. Sam Waterston was great. Mortimer was a hybrid of Laura Logan and Holly Hunter's character in Broadcast News. As for the dueling alpha male producers, that was a bit of an exaggeration. But waiting for some predetermined "fixed-point" before shifting gears on coverage has happened. The only difference was they didn't show the continued grousing by the people who got it wrong to the "loser no-nothing" who got it right. I''ll be tuning in next week when Olivia Munn begins her performance as Rachel Maddow. Ok Sorkin that bit of casting is stupid! -----later------m

  • June 25, 2012, 12:27 a.m. CST

    Darth: the private sector is doing fine

    by MGTHEDJ

    The firing of local and state public employees is what is driving the unemployment numbers! Discuss!!

  • I'm not a big Sorkin fan, especially of his TV stuff, but I'd give this a shot if most of the reviews weren't giving gigantic warning signs to stay away. "When it's at its best it recalls West Wing," "you may have to give it a number of episodes," "the Sorkin constituency will eat it up," etc. all tells me what I need to know. I hope that those of you who enjoy clever banter among characters that bear zero resemblance to actual human beings will get a kick out of this. For those of you who will be watching for the politics, I just have to ask why. It's like watching a fictional show based on Sean Hannity and some liberal caricatures for his political opponents, only with the esprit d'escalier built into the script so that he nails those scumbag commies reeeeeal good. What's the point?

  • June 25, 2012, 1:17 a.m. CST

    Voice o' re: Obama the Socialist

    by Darth_Inedible

    Socialism: The initial idea behind Obamacare was to destroy private healthcare by setting up a bottomless public insurer who would "compete"(Obama's word) with the private companies who were allegedly driving up costs. Of course this would conveniently kill the industry. Then you have the government takeover of the student loan industry, the 'bailing out' of various car companies and replacing their shareholders with the politically connected unions, Solyndra and the whole idiotic program of trying to copy Chinese-style crony capitalism in America and the continued collusion between banking and government via bailout promises. Etc. But 'socialism' is an antique word. It's probably more accurate to call Obama a post-American Progressive which is what practicing Socialists call themselves today.

  • June 25, 2012, 1:27 a.m. CST

    Don't forget Southern Democrats backed the Klan.

    by tailhook

    Yes, both parties have changed.. a lot. Most people don't realize that a good portion of the Democratic Party were white racists in the early-to-mid part of the 20th century or the Eugenics ideas of the Progressive Wing led to the slaughter of 11 million people in Nazi concentration camps.

  • June 25, 2012, 1:29 a.m. CST

    Oh, and if you identify yourself as a Progressive...

    by tailhook

    to me thats just saying you're evil to the core.

  • June 25, 2012, 1:33 a.m. CST

    Didnt Bill Clinton say The Era of Big Gov is Over?

    by Saen

    And now with Obama the next Democrat as President the Democrats are pushing gigantic government. And yet the Democrats wont admit how far from the center they themselves have gone.

  • June 25, 2012, 1:40 a.m. CST

    Well, clearly Bill Ayers hangs with a lot of groovy people

    by Hercules

    But Obama just enjoyed a dinner with George W. Bush. Does this make Obama a Republican? I once played 36 holes of golf with Hitler. It doesn't mean I called for the murder of six million Jews.

  • June 25, 2012, 1:45 a.m. CST

    darth_inedible

    by WeylandYutani

    I can't decide whether you are an idiot or a troll or both. But you seem to enjoy lifting Newt Gingrich's talking points.  I am not even an American and I can think of at least five presidents that were more "radical" than Obama: • John Adams: Outlawed or curtailed freedom of speech and freedom of the press with the Alien and Sedition Act.  • Abraham Lincoln: His election caused a series of southern states to leave the union because he was viewed as abolitionist, however, abolitionists did not think he was radical enough at the time. Also, during the civil war, he suspended habeas corpus.  • FDR: Created the modern welfare state with the New Deal. Also, he did four consecutive terms in office, instead of the usual two, even when dictators were all the rage in Europe.  • LBJ: Drafted the tenants of the Great Society Programme, which outlined federal aid to education, disease prevention, Medicare, Medicaid, urban renewal, beautification, conservation, development of depressed regions, a fight against poverty, prevention of crime and removal of obstacles to the right to vote. • Bush 43: The doctrine he designed changed decades of American foreign policy by allowing pre-emptive invasions of foreign nations. These wars were also not paid for directly, but put on the national tab. Expensive wars and other fiscal shenanigans added to the economic meltdown in 2008 which was worsened due to the squandering of the annual federal surplus left by the previous administration, despite a tech bubble. Like Reagan, he was a big spender of the public purse, despite stumping with cherished conservative principles like small government and reduced spending.  What is Obama's radical agenda? • Universal healthcare similar to what most other free market democracies have.  • The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which was a follow up to Bush's TARP and was created to shore up the American auto, banking and housing sectors which were on the verge of collapse with a mix of tax incentives and direct assistance.  • Extracting US forces from three foriegn wars (Libya and Iraq in 2011 and Afganistan in 2014) while shifting to special forces which are clearly better suited for detecting and destroying terror cells and networks.   Try reading a book or a newspaper and stop being a douche with a gift for hyperbolic statements. 

  • June 25, 2012, 2:02 a.m. CST

    bemorefunny

    by Hercules

    positive reviews, per Rotten Tomatoes: 81% A Few Good Men 90% The American President 81% Charlie Wilson’s War 96% The Social Network 95% Moneyball

  • June 25, 2012, 2:16 a.m. CST

    saen

    by WeylandYutani

    In the last 32 years, the two presidents who increased the size of government the most were: 1. Ronald Reagan 2. George W Bush Those administrations also contributed huge amount to the US national debt. This may have been for good reason and in order to deal with the crises of the time. Reagan signed into law federal jobs programs while enacting federal tax cuts and simultaneously fighting inflation. In addition, he increased military spending which eventually bankrupted and broke the USSR. Bush oversaw a massive reorganization of government and two wars after 9/11. Further he signed TARP into existence in order to keep the US economy from falling over a cliff. While Obama has continued to increase the US national debt, the size of the federal government has actual contacted due to massive layoffs. Debt and the size of government has nothing to do with the Democrats or Republicans, liberals or conservatives and has more to do with the demands of the electorate and private industry.

  • June 25, 2012, 2:42 a.m. CST

    HERCULES MURDERED SIX MILLION JEWS!!!

    by Queefer Sutherland

    Historical FACT!!! Boycott Hercules!!!

  • June 25, 2012, 2:45 a.m. CST

    weylandyutani

    by Queefer Sutherland

    You're too smart for this site. Go blow out a portion of your brain and come back when you're a hot-headed idiot.

  • June 25, 2012, 3:42 a.m. CST

    I thought i was real good

    by Phategod2

    Show's how intelligent TV is and could be, and I came up with this thought while watching "The reason I don't watch reality TV, is if I wanted to watch something loud, stupid and sexy I would watch porn."

  • June 25, 2012, 4:12 a.m. CST

    tailhook wins the award for most glaringly idiotic comment of this TalkBack

    by American Mythos

    Congratulations. Where would you like your wheelchair-bound FDR statuette sent? After all, he was the progressive cripple who took America into WWII, which led to the end of the holocaust you claim progressives are responsible for.

  • June 25, 2012, 4:34 a.m. CST

    And BTW Darth...

    by WeylandYutani

    Most progressives on the left practice 'Social Liberalism' which, unlike socialism, is not collectivist or anti capitalist and does not oppose free enterprise, hierarchy or private property. This is the term used in journalism, political science, civics and social justice and is considered encyclopedic. "Post-American Progressive" is a term created by the right to suggest that being 'liberal' or 'progressive' means to destroy or leave behind American values. This term is not used in journalism (unless it is to highlight its improper and imprecise meaning). Nor is it used by academics and it is not considered to be encyclopedic. In addition, I can guarantee that private health insurance companies operating in countries that also have government mandated universal health coverage like: Canada, France, the UK, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland ect, are still EXTREMLY profitable. In fact, insurance, pharmaceuticals and doctor salaries are very profitable and always will be because it is still very much a for-profit system. It is just that the user does not see the medical bill because it is paid by the government through tax revenues, very much like the American Medicare system, which is also for-profit. So to recap: If one is left of centre or progressive, that does not make them socialist be default. Further, publicly funded healthcare is still usually a for-profit system in western countries where big insurance and big pharma are still incredibly profitable.

  • June 25, 2012, 4:59 a.m. CST

    Herc is dumb

    by goodforyou

    Actually Herc if you golfed with Hitler after he killed millions of Jews, then yes, I would look at you a little different. Think son before you type a stupid message. Would you spend time with a domestic terrorist years after he committed the acts?

  • Maybe if we were stuck in an elevator together?

  • June 25, 2012, 5:29 a.m. CST

    Herc

    by goodforyou

    That's what I thought! I would forgive you for that if you got off on the next floor. LOL

  • June 25, 2012, 6:19 a.m. CST

    Bill Ayers is an American hero

    by hst666

  • June 25, 2012, 7:26 a.m. CST

    My main problem with Newsroom....

    by syoungkin

    Is with the supporting characters. With the West Wing, we got a grasp of the supporting characters during the pilot episode. By the end of the episode, I wanted to see more of Josh, Sam, CJ, Toby and Leo. It was helped by the fact that they had some really strong character actors (Bradley Whitford, Allison Janney & John Spencer especially) who made their scenes light up with energy and they balanced each other wonderfully. It was a true ensemble show. <p> With "Newsroom", I barely remember any of the characters other than the 2 leads & Sam Waterson. It's not that they were bad but they were unmemorable which is probably a worse sin for a tv series. As for the dialogue, there were moments that were fun (such as McAvoy giving up $3 million just for the ability to fire his ex-girlfriend every week for the next 3 years) but it lacks the spark that his other work (both tv and movies did). It is better than Studio 60 in that the news program comes off as more plausible than the late night sketch comedy did but the series has a ways to go to avoid the fate of Studio 60.

  • June 25, 2012, 7:34 a.m. CST

    That's funny, America is the Greatest is repeated constantly.

    by Charlie

    I think the fact you think that is unbelievable and bad writing speaks to how acurate the show is. How oblivious and blinded people are. I am sorry as a non american, it's just laugh out loud how often everyone in all facets of US society that gets any sort of platform says comments about how the US is the greatest country every. It is literally something I have heard, rolled my eyes at thousands of times on TV, in books, in movies, on the new, in interviews ect. That question was accurate and hit the nail on the head about what's wrong with America. Brainwashed into thinking the country is the greatest, ordained by god himself. With the citizens being the few chosen "free" people. FYI, the reason the system has conditioned you to think that, is so no matter how crappy things are. You think it couldn't be better. Remaining ignorant. 'Well, there's massive unemployment and poor, third world life expectancy for many minority groups.. but shucks.. it's the greatest country on earth damn it." The same way we laugh at and scratch our heads at people in North Korea not knowing how crap it is. Due to constantly being told it's paradise. That's how the US looks to a lot of the developed world. I'm sorry and if anyone reads this they'll rage, but it's true.

  • June 25, 2012, 8:09 a.m. CST

    Herc, how about a serious answer?

    by gumbyandpokey

    The "Would you spend time with a domestic terrorist years after he committed the acts?" is a valid question.

  • Do you not believe that America is the greatest country on Earth? If you don't, please inform me which country is the greatest on Earth...

  • June 25, 2012, 8:23 a.m. CST

    by rich

    Do people realize that this country is going down the toilet for no good reason other than politics? We have big problems that can, fortunately, be solved, but only if people stop acting like governing this country is a team sport with the goal of beating the other team. The media absolutely complicit in this. We seem to have 3 media teams. The right is a parody of itself at this point. It has almost abandoned reality in favor of demagoguery and propaganda. Fans of this team are either complicit in the scam, or they are being spoon fed fear and hate and told they are super special all American victim of the evils of the world. They lap it up. It’s is a cult, there is no other way to describe it. It’s super sweet cool aid. To go further with the analogy, Americans are completely hooked on sugar, so as sad is this state of affairs is to a free thinking human beings, they message captivates a huge number of people, enough to make Bush a second time when the game was long obvious to anyone paying attention. Enough to put the Tea Party in control of congress. They are not serious people and they are dangerous, and despite their breathless blaming of the democrats, what they have wrought is already upon us. There is not a left really there any more, not in terms of real hard core liberal ideology. There are remnants of it but at this point it’s just “not the right”. Not becoming their enemy seems to be a guiding principal. They don’t want to get their hands dirty. It think that’s admirable but they just don’t want to get into the street brawl because they can’t throw punches. They rely on people to pay attention to reality, and more and more I am afraid that they are over estimating the American people. In my observations fans of this new liberal media are just so completely disgusted with the republicans that they are willing to call themselves liberal, but most of them really aren’t. They just want validation that they are not crazy and someone else is just as terrified by republicans. The center? The independents? Aside from a fringe pundits who truly hate the whole mess, the center is bunch of clowns pretending to moderate a debate. To them it’s entertainment and they are the star of the show. The big bright shining star. Meet this press is just hard to watch. The Week still puts Ann Coulter on TV. CNN is like wet bread. The newroom shows makes an incredibly important point. We need Smart media, who can take stands without falling victim to partisan ideology. The back lash against the show, especially from the media says to me that we might not be capable of that. It’s too hard, the idea that its possible is rejected as preaching, like a doctor telling us to put down the soda and have a god damn piece of fruit. And… it’s just fucking TV show.

  • June 25, 2012, 8:50 a.m. CST

    Sorkin doesn't write human beings

    by Laserhead

    Rapid-fire dailogue does not equal smart dialogue; evocative dialogue is smart. Sorkin dialogue is info-graphics. Also, politics isn't characterization. His characters are willfully naive to the point of offense (as if innocence is a virtue to pursue). Sports Night, The West Wing, Studio 60-- these are all the same show, and it's not profound. It's just a man having some inner white-guilt debate with himself on the page.

  • Those are far from some of the finest films to ever grace the screen. Get your head out of your ass, fanboy.

  • June 25, 2012, 8:58 a.m. CST

    gumby&pokey, how about a serious question?

    by chiwrtr72

    The questions about how much influence Rev Wright had on Obama was a good question and Obama's insightful response to the issue of race in America was a good answer. Your question, "Would you spend time with a domestic terrorist years after he committed the acts?" is a silly one. How about asking "If you were stuck in the jungle, and a poisonous snake bit both your parents yet you only have enough medicine for one. Who would you save?" That's a valid question too. Not important, but valid. How about another? That's a valid question too.

  • June 25, 2012, 9:29 a.m. CST

    So there are a lot of pale white guy second tier leading men...

    by Red Ned Lynch

    ...sure, it's hard to keep them straight. Still, Daniels is one of the better ones.

  • And what exactly do you think the Tea Party is in charge of? What have they "wrought" upon America? Republicans control one half of Congress, and the Tea Party has very little influence over most of the Republicans. I really think you spend to much time reading The Huffington Post and watching The Daily Show...

  • June 25, 2012, 9:41 a.m. CST

    I'd put Daniels...

    by Red Ned Lynch

    ...more than solidly ahead of Pullman, solidly ahead of Paxton and solidly behind Bridges. Daniels is also well behind young William Hurt but well ahead of old William Hurt.

  • Do some people honestly believe that?

  • It's like being a straight, married man, who doesn't fuck his wife, but only has sex with other men. He claims he's straight, but he only fucks men. Saying you're straight doesn't make it so...

  • June 25, 2012, 10:28 a.m. CST

    Terrific Show

    by The Alienist

    I loved the first episode, with the implied romantic triangle and everything (it helps the triangle is composed of three great stage actors, Allison Pill, John Gallagher Jr and Tom Sadoski). I rarely have been so entertained by a TV show that has received such mixed to actually negative reviews.

  • June 25, 2012, 11:23 a.m. CST

    coughlins laws

    by rich

    Because it’s just an internet message board, I’ll bite You wouldn’t recognize independent thought if it bit you in the ass. You assume I watch certain TV shows too much because I can see that the Tea Party is stupid and dangerous? If you think the Tea Party is a force for good. You are a god damn moron. and you’re a tool of corporate interests that care nothing for America other than as a flag to wave that you can march too. Can I assume then that you listen to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and watch fox and friends every morning? What have they wrought? I suppose you think the economy is Barrack Obama’s fault. Republican policies caused these problems, but they started blaming Obama they day he was elected, since then they are literally pulling every trick they have to prevent progress because their only hope for election is a bad economy that they can blame on Barrack Obama. And what is their plan? To go back to the same policies that got us into this mess. Not only go back to them, but double down on them, less taxes, more deficiy, less government regulation. It’s fucking madness. and now... 3, 2, 1 accusing me of "loving" barrack obamo so much that I should marry him. accuse me of watching rachel madow. accuse me of being a liberal, accuse me of being a big meanie, now. please .... accuse me of being what ever I have to be so you can hold on to your ignorant cult world view.

  • Look, whatever you think of The Tea Party and what it is now, it started in response to TARP (started under Bush but spent under Obama), the stimulus package (which stimulated nothing and was a HUGE, IRRESPONSIBLE budget buster), and Obama's demand to cram Obamacare down the throats of Americans against their will. Say you don't like it. That's fine. But evil? Really? Here's a little reality shock for you, opposition parties oppose the party in power. Do you really want to make the case that Democrats and liberals during the 8 years of Bush respectfully went along with whatever he wanted? No, they didn't. They put a halt on his Presidency in 2006 when they took over after 6 years of constant dissent (which at the time was considered patriotic, now it's called racist). Bush was a Lame Duck for 2 years. I really don't see how you can come up with that asinine premise, that The Tea Party somehow caused the recession and the Banking Collapse...

  • Why? Because they are appeals by some Republicans to flood the party with the lowest common denominator. Hating Barack Obama is not and should not be what defines one as a conservative, and yet too much policy is now influenced by screaming anti-intellectuals who will not accept nuance or compromise even if it leads to long-term benefits or immediate necessity (the debt ceiling). Each party has to make appeals to the dumb-asses of the nation in order to get elected but you cannot throw them the fucking reins and let them steer the course. Stupid ass people making stupid ass pledges got elected on the wave of the Tea Party's unfocused dissatisfaction, and the Republican elite are not thrilled with having to deal with them in order to enact an actual vision for the nation rather than just continuing the petty sniping at the other party. Hell, they're the reason Sarah Palin never entered the Presidential election, despite keeping her nose pressed against the glass looking in and panting the entire time. Hell, she had her own god damn Presidental tour bus. The electorate wanted *anyone* but Romney, and still she stayed out despite being an attention whore on the scale of Donald Trump. Why? Because the serious members of the Republican party made it clear to her that they would *destroy* her if she made a run. It wasn't the Democrats... her candidacy would have been a gift from heaven for them. It was the serious conservatives who were going to see her named defacto leader of their party over their own dead bodies. So yeah... Democrats that hate the Tea Party might be more common, but let's not pretend that there aren't conservatives that despise them as well.

  • Does anyone have an answer? Give me a list of all the countries that are better than America. I'm not being an ass or a troll. I'm seriously curious as to what people think. If you're going to definitively say that America isn't, you've got to have some idea as to who is, right? If you're going to compare our crime rates or literacy rates to countries the size of some of our smaller states, tell me which ones stack up as better. I just don't get the hate for America alot of people have. The trailer for this stupid show has Jeff Daniels exploding at this girl and insulting her for asking, as if this is the dumbest question ever asked. As if every other country in the world doesn't have acrimony in their political system or problems of any kind. But the funniest thing is, I simply don't believe that any girl that's come off a college campus actually believes America is the greatest country on Earth anyway, after he Communist, America-hating professors are done with her...

  • just curious- only saw the first few minutes so far, but it looked like a great scene about the greatness of America...

  • I am sorry to have to say this. But you are ignorant. You are lost in a world of political gamesmanship and you think it’s real. Look behind all the bullshit. First of all I never said they were evil. You said that I said they were evil in your first reply. And then in your head this became what I said. Stop for a second…. this is a perfect example of how non reality get’s inside your little brain and becomes real. You are fooling yourself. The poor souls who make up the Tea party are not evil, they are Ignorant followers following whoever blows the best red white and blue freedom smoke of their asses. The Tea Party is a tool of the right wing interests. Those “grassroots” are actually well funded and professionally organized by hard core right wing interests. The same well funded and organized right wing interests that have been intensely lobbying our government for low taxes for corporations and deregulation of all markets, resulting in an economic free for all that results in boom and bust economic carnage. It’s not a coincindence that the Tea Part formed at the very moment Obama won the election. That was part of a coordinated marketing effort of what message to have during a democratic presidency. I sum up the Tea party with one quote. “Keep your government hands off my medicare”. Morons. People actually like Obama Care when they hear about what it actually is. People like not have to worry about pre existing conditions, people like letting their kids stay on their health care. People actually like Medicare quite a bit. It’s only when you call it Obama care that they don’t like it. It’s all marketing. “Shove down their throats” that’s called a talking point, it was literally a memo that went out and said starting today everyone use the phrase “Shove down our throats”. Congratulations you got the memo. It's not your thought, its someone elses. I am a capitalist. I like money, and I work my ass of and save for my retirement. My entire motivation politically here is that I don’t want the god damn economy falling off a cliff and blowing everything I’ve worked for. I do NOT trust republicans because they do not promote reality, they promote fantasy, and their arterial motives are always the same. Make it easier for rich people to get more money from the rest of us. All this talk of freedom and real America and Jesus and liberal hating is all just kool aid. The Tea Party is a distraction to keep your little brain occupied while the rich get richer and the rest of us get swindled.

  • America is a great country- no denying it- but why does it HAVE to be the best in conservatives minds- who really cares? just make it a great country, don't just say it. MAKE IT A GREAT COUNTRY- not with words, but with deeds!!!!! Ands clap really hard, so Tinkerbell can hear you...

  • June 25, 2012, 12:43 p.m. CST

    Jingoism - and jingo was his name- Oh

    by Michael Lunney

  • June 25, 2012, 1:04 p.m. CST

    coughlin's laws...

    by Red Ned Lynch

    ...there is a distinct difference between constantly trumpeting that a particular country (or sports team, or etc.) is the greatest in the world... ....and taking pride in one's homeland. There was an era when we here in America spent less time brainlessly trumpeting that 'we're number 1'... ...and more time thinking and working to make our nation a better place for our children than it was for our parents. Likewise there is a great difference between citing statistics on various measures of livability that demonstrate that we here in America could be doing much better in terms of educating our children, running our healthcare system and creating opportunity... ...and hating America. There was an era when we defined patriotism as a willingness to criticize the status quo and work for an America that more perfectly realized its ideals. Still, please continue in your ongoing defense of empty jingoism. It offers an edifying insight into your value system.

  • Looks like YOU got the oldest, cliched, generic talking points memo ever. Yep, that's how evil "rich" people get rich all right. They steal it from poor people.<p> And you 're going to tell me that the moonbat lefties, OWS etc... "promote reality"? <p> Pfft. How's the weather up there in your ivory tower?

  • June 25, 2012, 1:12 p.m. CST

    People chanting USA, USA are idiots.

    by DoctorWho?

    And this is coming from someone who thinks America IS the greatest country in the world. Some morons just like to treat it like a sports team for some unfathomable reason. It's tribal bullshit. This is the same mentality coming form soccer hooligans in Europe. They'll kick your ass just because your not one of them.<p>

  • June 25, 2012, 1:18 p.m. CST

    yes jingoism is a sign of retardism

    by Rupee88

    The Republican convention is fucking scary...all the "USA, USA" and the "Drill baby drill"...fucking scary.

  • Yes the Republican Party is all about wealth distribution...stealing from the poor and giving to the rich. That is what makes the poor Tea Party bastards even more pathetic..they are supporting their own destruction. And yeah I don't know the Democratic Party is not pure and virtuous, but significantly less transparently evil than the other side. Yes still evil but lots less so.

  • June 25, 2012, 1:24 p.m. CST

    doctor who

    by rich

    wtf are you talking about. moonbat lefty? only someone with rush limbaughs dick in their mouth would use that term. who is a moonbat lefty that has any real influence on our electorate. there is no real leftist agenda that's even part of the discussion. Obama is quite centrist. Occupy wall street is just a bunch of disorganized kids. The Tea Party is a professionally run political organization that holds key offices across the country and through a game of chicken and intimidation, control contgress, and therefore the counties ability to do anything. it's a dangerous game.

  • With all of her faults withstanding...America has provided the MOST LIBERTY and OPPORTUNITY for the MOST amount of people of ALL races, colors and creeds than ANY country in history.<p> That's a pretty fair criteria. I would acknowledge that even if I lived in Poland or Japan. Don't be so butt-hurt about it people.

  • June 25, 2012, 1:30 p.m. CST

    doctor who

    by rich

    LIke I said I am a capitalist. I want the system to include reasonable stability to I can plan for my future. The republicans do not offer this. I also believe that national health care would give people freedom. rigth now people cannot leave their jobs becasue of health care. People cannot start businesses because they would loose health care. People are stuck working for coporations that are big enough to provide health care. our health care systems makes people captives to the corporations that provide the health care. don't get me wrong, I am not saying it's the worse country in the world. there is alot to be proud of.. but there is much that could be better. unfortuately its money that talks. and the government is for sale. and one they want to do ensure that it stays that way, and they want to keep tilting the table further and further toward their own interests. and the middle class get's fucked.

  • June 25, 2012, 1:32 p.m. CST

    rupee88. Learn some basic economics.

    by DoctorWho?

    Your premise is flawed from the start.<p> In your mind, wealth is STATIC and FINITE. In your world...if someone EARNS $100, it means they must be taking it from someone else. Doesn't work that way. Sadly, the average person believes as you do.

  • June 25, 2012, 1:39 p.m. CST

    rich people getting rich

    by rich

    most rich people inherit it. god bless the honest man who works hard and gets rich, I am not saying it doesn't happen. but you certainly can up the odds by checking your ethics at the door. Let's be real. Greed is greed. I think it's one of the 7 deadly sins for god's sake. I am not saying you don't have the right to get rich, but I'd be nice if someone was watching your greedy ass in the process so you don't, you know, cut any corners. and without spiderman or shazam looking out for the common man, all we have is the government. Deregulation is another word for "not having laws" It's not all black and white.

  • June 25, 2012, 1:43 p.m. CST

    basic economics

    by rich

    Problem is, basica right wing economics is more of a sales pitch than a honest science of looking at what works. It starts with the premise of, I want lower taxes and less regulation, and then says... how do I sell it. Now there are certainly times when less tax and regulation are a good perscription. but now it's time for the pendulum to swing a little bit left.

  • June 25, 2012, 1:45 p.m. CST

    "Occupy wall street is just a bunch of disorganized kids."

    by DoctorWho?

    Sure. Who attack police stations, spray paint buildings, smash windows, destroy small businesses...and other forms of violence and vandalism. Care for some links? Didn't see any of this reported on your local news? Hmmm. Small wonder.<p> The media would LOVE the Tea Party to act this way. It would lead every newscast and be plastered on the front page of the Times for months with some tagline like ..."Nation In Crisis!"<p> Instead, the Tea Party brings you grandma and grandpa sitting on their lawn chairs talking about the Constitution and picking up their trash before they leave. Fucking assholes right? How dare they gather to debate the direction of their own country.

  • June 25, 2012, 1:46 p.m. CST

    doctorwho?

    by Rupee88

    If you see someone on the street and beat them up, and steal $100 from them, then that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not wealth is static, finite, or anything else.

  • June 25, 2012, 1:47 p.m. CST

    "most rich people inherit it"

    by DoctorWho?

    Bullshit. Where did you even hear that shit? Provide me with the statistic please.<p> And I'm more than sure you think anyone who makes over $250k a year qualifies right?<p> Most people bust their asses to be that successful.

  • June 25, 2012, 1:49 p.m. CST

    beanr

    by Rupee88

    Yes you state the obvious but that which is lost on so many people. I think most of them are scared to see the truth because, yeah it really is pretty ugly. That and people with low IQs can not grasp anything but the absolute simplest concepts (like Drill Baby Drill!)

  • June 25, 2012, 1:53 p.m. CST

    "Deregulation is another word for "not having laws""

    by DoctorWho?

    So let's have 100% total regulation of every aspect of life from a monolithic, centralized authority right?<p> I think one ridiculous characterization deserves another ;)

  • Idiots!

  • June 25, 2012, 2 p.m. CST

    red ned

    by CountryBoy

    Saying Obama's plan "was the Republican position just a decade ago" sounds as if it was once the unanimous position of the party, and their reversal is somehow nefarious. If you consider that lots of people opposed it all along, and that their view -- i.e. that government shouldn't force people to buy a product -- has over a number of years become dominant, that needn't be characterized as a "lurch to the right."

  • So, let's go back to that. Vote Rombush, 2012!

  • June 25, 2012, 2:03 p.m. CST

    "most rich people inherit it"

    by rich

    a) I am not part of OWS. b) there is nothing that says the Tea Party can't be nice people. nice people are often ignorant followers. the problem with the Tea Party is how it's funded and organized. by people who want to hide behind a nice grandma and grandpa. that doesn't make them rigth. unless you are a moron c) a significant percentage of americans' wealthiest people inherited it. d) 250K is very comfortable but it's not rich. People with a 250K probably work pretty hard. thanks for assuming you know me though.

  • June 25, 2012, 2:04 p.m. CST

    Romney: Bush 2.0

    by SergeantStedenko

    New and improved! Now with even more religious idiocy and giveaways for the rich!

  • June 25, 2012, 2:08 p.m. CST

    "Deregulation is another word for "not having laws""

    by rich

    just like a right winger to live in a world of black and white and take everything to one extreme or the other. it's about balance. and we have none deregulation is another world for having less laws. that doesn't sound as good for what you are trying to sell though. do you even knowwho frank Frank Luntz is?

  • June 25, 2012, 2:18 p.m. CST

    "250K is very comfortable but it's not rich."

    by DoctorWho?

    Tell that to the Obama administration. Their definition. Not mine.

  • June 25, 2012, 2:18 p.m. CST

    countryboy...

    by Red Ned Lynch

    ...well you don't need to characterize it as a lurch to the right unless you want to accurately describe what it represents. And I did. If you can describe it in another way I would certainly be interested in reading your description. Obama's plan was the Republican's plan. Yes, there were those on what was then the extreme right of the Republican Party who objected even to this plan. That extreme right wing of the Republican Party now holds the reins of power in the party. That would be...well...the definition of a lurch to the right.

  • June 25, 2012, 2:28 p.m. CST

    talk to the obama adminstration?

    by rich

    are you talking about marginal tax rates? I think above 250K should be taxed more. I also think capital gains should be taxed more. I don't want to go back to the 80% rates under the republican eisenhower admisntrations but we are at historically low tax rates for the rich it's fucked up. our economy practically collapsed. and you want to blame the fire truck (bailout) for the fire. MORONS

  • June 25, 2012, 2:29 p.m. CST

    Johnny Depp made 50 million last year.

    by DoctorWho?

    Is he an enemy of the people?<p> No, he's the "cool" guy you want to hang out with so he gets a pass. <p> Why not occupy Leo DiCapprio's house? No really...why not?

  • June 25, 2012, 2:35 p.m. CST

    gumbyandpokey

    by Hercules

    is the terrorist cute? is she into me? what happened with Ayers and Obama? Did one of them blow the other? Or did they chat about health care reform at the mayor's cocktail party?

  • The banks new what they were doing. Bush's deregulation gave them carte blanche to play around with people's money as well as hand out mortgages like they were candy.

  • June 25, 2012, 2:38 p.m. CST

    "I think above 250K should be taxed more." Of course you do!!

    by DoctorWho?

    They're all just “millionaires and billionaires” to you.<p> A young radiologist who works hard and makes $250,000 a year... but pays the full tab for his two kids at USC ($100,000 per year) is the same as Bill Gates in your world. in reality (where I live) They are no better off than the DMV supervisor at a $65,000 salary, (paying less taxes) and has three kids on state grants at community college.<p> Who thinks in "black and white"?

  • June 25, 2012, 2:44 p.m. CST

    If you make over $250,000 you are richer than 98% of your fellow Americans

    by SergeantStedenko

    Kind of arbitrary what one person or another's definition of rich is. All I know that Romney is so out of touch that he considers the $250,000 he made from speaking fees alone last year to be "not that much" money. Yeah, that's more money than 98% of the people you want to represent made, Mittens.

  • How does a DMV supervisor send two kids to USC at $100,000 a year? If the DMV supervisor CAN'T send two kids to USC on a $65,000/year salary, how is the radiologist "no better off"? How much do you think a radiologist pulling down $250,000 pays in taxes? Let me let you in on a little secret. People who earn $250,000 are better off than people who earn $65,000/year.

  • June 25, 2012, 2:50 p.m. CST

    Herc, try reading the post again...SLOWLY this time.

    by DoctorWho?

  • And we can't have THAT now can we?

  • Liberals are actually against government too, but for different reasons than conservatives. Conservatives hate government when it taxes the rich, but loves it when it's killing brown people overseas. Liberals on the other hand hate unnecessary war and bloodshed as well as a government that only represents it's wealthy patrons, but would love to see a Government that helps educate its people and provide basic human rights like Health Care.

  • June 25, 2012, 2:54 p.m. CST

    Obama made 5.5 million last year. Is he "out of touch"?

    by DoctorWho?

    This is not a rhetorical question. Is he?

  • June 25, 2012, 2:58 p.m. CST

    doctorwho

    by rich

    I want to hang out with Johnny Depp, because he's a cool guy? you know this? and what in gods name does that have to do with anything. this is a nice example of convervative logic being a little more than thin coat of paint over personal insecurity issues. What the right does is somehow harness and focus personal insecurity and anger against their own enemies. it's cliche at this point but ... they tell you who you can blame for all your problems. and you do. It's politics. I am sure it's nothing new, but that doesn't make it right. it reminds me of the presidents critique of the richard dryfus character in the American President. who wrote that movie? and it's not the same on the left. it's not tit for tat. "the left" whatever exists of it, is often misguided and often ridiculous, but for very different reasons.

  • June 25, 2012, 2:58 p.m. CST

    doctorwho, as a liberal, yes I do believe Obama is out of touch

    by SergeantStedenko

    Obama has doen way more for Wall St. than he has done for Main St. That said, at least Obama pays some lip service to working Americans. Romney doesn't even know we exist. And he won't until he tries to take our SS way.

  • June 25, 2012, 3:01 p.m. CST

    doctorwho?

    by Hercules

    I read it more slowly. My view on this matter is not altered by the slower read. I suspect I'd rather send my kids to USC than a community college. And, college kids or no, I'd certainly rather earn $250,000/yr (even with the higher taxes) than $65,000/yr (with the lower taxes). Given those circumstances I believe I (and most people) would regard the $250,000/yr me "better off." Perhaps even "much better off."

  • June 25, 2012, 3:01 p.m. CST

    sergeantstedenko

    by DoctorWho?

    I was going to respond to some of your points, but after the "... loves it when it's killing brown people overseas" I realized you're so far off the extreme end of the spectrum that it's not even worth it.

  • June 25, 2012, 3:03 p.m. CST

    Republicans and government at this point is a self-fulfilling prophecy

    by SergeantStedenko

    They don't believe in government so they elect people who are incompetent and or don't believe in government to do nothing in government thereby creating a non-functioning government that is as ineffective and incompetent as they said it was.

  • You mean comments like "...only someone with rush limbaughs dick in their mouth would use that term."<p> I'll try to remember that.

  • June 25, 2012, 3:06 p.m. CST

    doctorwho, I only call it as i see it

    by SergeantStedenko

    but that siad, I will admit that that comment was a little over the top. But, most Republicans, saved for Ron Paul, do seem to love war. Am I wrong?

  • June 25, 2012, 3:08 p.m. CST

    Johnny Depp

    by Rupee88

    Depp is an artist and an entertainer. He actually produces something people enjoy. He doesn't sit on a bunch of corporate boards and get paid for doing favors for his friends and make them even richer.

  • because he has a small penis, you see.

  • June 25, 2012, 3:09 p.m. CST

    and $250K is a lot of f'ing money

    by Rupee88

    Yes 98% of people don't earn that much and that says it all.

  • June 25, 2012, 3:16 p.m. CST

    doctorwho?, historically I agree with you...

    by Red Ned Lynch

    ...and therefore, if you are the patriot you claim to be the following should disturb you as much as it disturbs me... 'At least five large studies since 2000 have found the United States to now be less mobile than comparable nations. A project led by the economist Markus Jantti found that 42 percent of American men raised in the bottom fifth of incomes stay there as adults. That shows a level of persistent disadvantage much higher than in Denmark (25 percent) and Britain (30 percent) — a country famous for its class constraints. Meanwhile, just 8 percent of American men at the bottom rose to the top fifth. That compares with 12 percent of the British and 14 percent of the Danes. Despite frequent references to the United States as a classless society, about 62 percent of Americans (male and female) raised in the top fifth of incomes stay in the top fifth, according to research by the Economic Mobility Project of the Pew Charitable Trusts. Similarly, 65 percent born in the bottom fifth stay in the bottom two-fifths. Now I was born in the bottom fifth and was fortunate enough to reach the top fifth (the bottom of the top fifth, mind you, but still...). I grew up on Welfare and my father's veteran's benefits, and after he died while I was still quite young, on Welfare and my mother's widow's benefits from his military service. And I was lucky enough to get Pell Grants to supplement the academic scholarship I received. But a lot of that support is gone now. And the current Republican position is to cut it still farther. If you really value the sort of opportunity and mobility this nation has historically provided its citizens you would stand against those who wish to continue remaking American society in a way that diminishes those opportunities.

  • June 25, 2012, 3:16 p.m. CST

    "what in gods name does that have to do with anything. "

    by DoctorWho?

    I would have thought it was obvious...but I'll explain.<p> Jennifer Lopez, Oprah, Leo, Depp etc rake in close to 100 million a year give or take. I'm sure they are just as adept at finding tax breaks and loopholes as well as Rush Limbaugh.<p> "Hip" zillionares are cool!<p> John Kerry married into a fortune that probably dwarfs the one that Mitt Romney made himself. But hey...Kerry windsurfs and wore spandex while cycling. Romney is a racist and "out of touch".<p> Bottom line: It's all image. Your rich Hollywood heroes and celebs are exempt from disdain because of their identity. <p> Or maybe it's NOT about just wealth hmmmm?

  • June 25, 2012, 3:26 p.m. CST

    "I'd certainly rather earn $250,000/yr"

    by DoctorWho?

    So would I. So would 100% of people if you asked them. But that wasn't my point.<p> The point illustrates that just because one makes 250k a year doesn't mean they are not strapped with their own relative debt, monthly payments tuitions, mortgage etc. I'd rather make 65k a year if I lived within my means, comfortably, simply, with good credit and spending cash...than 500k a year strapped with debt, bad credit, living beyond my means, debt collectors, stress working 80 hrs a week just to maintain it etc. <p> Again, everyone fails to address the nuance and variety within these stupid classifications. Black and white thinking. Rich=selfish, bad,greedy.

  • Will McAvoy strongly resonates with me. I'm a Republican, but I hate hate HATE the dolt-pandering (Evolution is a myth! Obama is a Muslim!), hostage-taking (let's default on the debt to get a tax cut!), flag-swaddled thieves who tell us that we're atheist traitors if we don't make the Bush tax cuts permanent. Their conduct is neither honorable nor effective, and if saner people don't claw back control, we're going to be out of power for the next generation or more. I'm not a RINO for thinking that my party has been hijacked.

  • Nothing more boring than hearing a rich person complain about taxes.

  • June 25, 2012, 3:30 p.m. CST

    my hollywood heros?

    by rich

    first of all. your not a very informed person, so I will try to be patient with you.. second.. this is not about attacking the rich or wealth itself. If I gave that impression that's my bad. but, I suspect you are arguing less with me, and more with some characture presented by your favorite right wing news source. this about creating a society that looks our for those who are less fortunate at some minimal level. you can be rich and want to do that. or you can be rich and want to gut social security because you see that big pile of money and can't wait to get your hands on it. you can be rich and want to provide health care to all people. or you can be rich and see health care as a place to maximize profit. you can be rich and understand that being so gives you a special responsiblity to society, or you can use you weathy to purchase a government that and lower your taxes and ends laws that prevent you from making even more money. the problem is not the rich, the problem is a governemnt that favors the rich more than for the rest of society.

  • June 25, 2012, 3:33 p.m. CST

    doctorwho?

    by Red Ned Lynch

    So what you're saying is that it's possible to make poor decisions and make yourself miserable no matter how much you make. And this is certainly true. And just as certainly absolutely irellevant to the discussion taking place.

  • June 25, 2012, 3:37 p.m. CST

    I don't like Sorkin but this looks good

    by chien_sale

  • June 25, 2012, 3:37 p.m. CST

    red ned lynch

    by DoctorWho?

    Good stuff.<p> A nation cannot have never ending perpetual growth. Nothing can. <p> You said "And the current Republican position is to cut it still farther." So you purport that the reason for cutting spending is either A) Republicans are dicks who want to see people suffer and skim whatever paltry spare change off the backs of the poor that they can. Or B) Some common sense people can see the simple mathematical principle that the money is running out and the economy will implode resulting in what were seeing in Greece.<p> Haven't any of you lost a job and had to cut back spending, eating out, family vacations, eat ramen etc? Or did you just keep spending, going to the titty bar, buy rounds of drinks racking up debt and credit card bills until it all came crashing down around you?<p> It's really no simpler than that.

  • June 25, 2012, 3:38 p.m. CST

    irrelevant...

    by Red Ned Lynch

    ...even.

  • June 25, 2012, 3:40 p.m. CST

    doctorwho...

    by Red Ned Lynch

    ...you present a false choice. This is a matter of priorities. You decried the very same sort of null sum thinking earlier that you are engaging in now.

  • Who disagrees with that?

  • Well it certainly is a relevant response to the discussion Herc and I were having. Sorry if it didn't dovetail into your area of interest.

  • June 25, 2012, 3:46 p.m. CST

    by darth_r._mort

    by rich

    I hate to say this because I applaud your sentiment, and actually I agree with you. but.. your not a republican. that party is long gone. I had a very sudden and rude awakening in sometime in the winter of 2002. I suddendly realized that this was not the same republican party that remember 8 years prior when I supported Bush 41. This was the new, crazy newt gingrich karl rove party. they don't care about reality, at all, they just care about show business and it's all marketing to cover for the real agenda of dismantaling govnerment. I would say that maybe Jeb could bring the old party back, but there is not party to bring back. the youth of the party are like the people here. preoccupied with hollywood celebrities and brietbart thinking. I got alot of shit from republicans for saying this. but what I really hated about W was that he was destroying the republican party because Jesus H Christ we can't let the Democrats control everything. But 12 years later. I am basically a Democrat. I mean I'll vote for whomever I think is the best, but at this point the democrats are a pretty moderate centrist party. maybe even a little right of center. while the republicans are litterally purging themselves of sanity like some kind of weird religious order.

  • June 25, 2012, 3:47 p.m. CST

    Who disagrees with that?

    by rich

    Paul Ryans budget disagrees with that

  • It's either wide-open Mexican borders or “alligators and moats” as Obama says. It's either full blown centrally controlled health care or doctors will be amputating limbs and ripping out tonsils just to make money. Those are just a couple that I can remember off the top of my head.<p> Do forgive me if I've gone off topic/

  • Amen, brother! Anyone who believes that Obama and the Democratic party are Socialists is a complete brainwashed idiot, pure and simple. coughlin's laws, I'm looking at you.

  • June 25, 2012, 4:01 p.m. CST

    Thanks beanr!

    by DoctorWho?

    That's the other one I was searching for! Paul Ryan doesn't want to rectify any unsustainable financial woes...Nooooooo....he just wants to kick the sick, the elderly, women and children into the street to suffer. <p> Never any middle ground with you demagogues is there? You see this is where good values come into play. I may disagree with you, but I don't think you're a bad person with bad motives. Just wrong, that's all. You however, assume I, or Paul Ryan, Romney etc are bad people (if not evil) not merely wrong. wtf?

  • June 25, 2012, 4:05 p.m. CST

    "maybe even a little right of center."

    by DoctorWho?

    Example please. I can't wait to hear this one.

  • June 25, 2012, 4:14 p.m. CST

    I do believe that most rich people are evil, because the Bible tells me so.

    by SergeantStedenko

    ,"For the love of money is the root of all evil" (1 Timothy 6:10) Certainly not all rich people love money, but I imagine many do.

  • June 25, 2012, 4:26 p.m. CST

    @sergeantstedenko

    by nemov

    It's not just the rich that love money.

  • June 25, 2012, 4:28 p.m. CST

    Socialist vs. Right of Center

    by nemov

    There's a lot of ground between these two extremes. Democrats are certainly not right of center. Presdent Clinton was a Center Left type of guy and President Obama is further left than Clinton. We can argue about how much or how little, but to argue that either were Center Right is comical.

  • June 25, 2012, 4:30 p.m. CST

    Well put nemov

    by DoctorWho?

    To see someone here positing that statement... and having others agree... shows just how extreme the view is from their perch on the spectrum.

  • June 25, 2012, 4:36 p.m. CST

    Thought Experiment

    by Chris Zinn

    Imagine a "grand bargain" where the Tea Party types get everything they want - economic, social, political, the whole package - if they agree to double the taxes (and no loopholes allowed!) on people making over, say, a million dollars a year. Anybody think they'd agree to that? I sure don't think they would, and that ought to say all that needs to be said about what the real agenda is here. Everything else is just bait.

  • June 25, 2012, 4:41 p.m. CST

    Oh, Wait

    by Chris Zinn

    What's this stuff about some HBO TV show now?

  • June 25, 2012, 4:43 p.m. CST

    darth_r._mort

    by DoctorWho?

    The "Tea Party types" are largely concerned with out of control spending and adherence to the Constitution. That was the whole reason they originated. You're lumping a whole bunch of other types in there. <p> A better question would be "how much would you like to see the "rich" (250k per yr) taxed?" 50%? 60%? 75%? Gimmie a number.

  • June 25, 2012, 4:44 p.m. CST

    I find Aaron Sorkin's writing moronic and infuriating.

    by Snake Foreskin

    Well, I find it infuriating that so many people think he is the epitome of smart writing. Many of the criticisms leveled at this newest endeavor are accurate; I only wish they would have gone a bit further. In Hollywood, Aaron Sorkin seems to have become the arbiter of intellect and he is now regarded as some sort of touchstone for morality, social mores and all that nonsense. Why put so much stock in what he thinks? This show is more annoying than West Wing, because it focuses on vapid, vain people who think far too highy of themselves and are taken far too seriously by the public - just because they are on TV and cover news stories. It's really too bad, because I like Jeff Daniels. I just cannot abide this type of Hollywood elitist social commentary masquerading as entertainment for the masses. It's like pay-cable Picket Fences. TRIPE!!!

  • June 25, 2012, 4:46 p.m. CST

    The poor love money, too. They just don't have enough of it.

    by Snake Foreskin

    You can love bourbon. It doesn't mean that your swimming pool is filled with it.

  • June 25, 2012, 4:50 p.m. CST

    Aaron Sorkin's point of view mirrors that of most Hollywood liberals...

    by Snake Foreskin

    "Big business is bad, unless it's the big business I'm making my millions in." And if the United States of America isn't the greatest country on Earth, what is? Please educate me!

  • June 25, 2012, 4:55 p.m. CST

    ...That Pilot was massive.

    by Dharma4

    suspenseful, tense, exciting, masterfully written. Critics can fuck off -Namaste-

  • June 25, 2012, 5:12 p.m. CST

    "But that wasn't my point."

    by Hercules

    Listen, junior. You say someone making $250,000 (with the higher tax rate) is "no better off" than someone making $65,000 (with the lower tax rate) --IF the fellow with the $250,000 has two kids collectively spending $200,000/yr of his money on the University of Southern California. That's a pretty big fucking "if." To compare apples to apples, you would need to have the DMV guy sending his kids to USC too! If your kids are such a burden, send them to UCLA, which is in a better neighborhood and where tuition is $11,220/yr. If they're not smart enough to get into UCLA, send them to community college like the poor bastard at the DMV. You can throw in ALL SORTS of irrelevant conditions like "what if the radiologist has kids going to USC" or "what if the radiologist had a lot of debt," or "what if the radiologist is a quadriplegic; would you rather be an able-bodied DMV employee or a radiologist with no use of his arms and legs?" You can't just assume the DMV fellow doesn't have loads of debt or kids in expensive schoolsl! That's like saying, "Well, the radiologist is no better off because he has to pay a country club fee and a personal chef and the crew that maintains his yacht. The DMV employee has to pay for none of these things!" You assertion that the man making $250,000 (paying more taxes) is "no better off" than the man making $65,000 (and paying less taxes) is patently horseshit. I speak from personal experience.

  • June 25, 2012, 5:20 p.m. CST

    doctorwho?

    by Chris Zinn

    I was unclear, and I apologize. I do believe that the average Tea Party member is sincere. My issue is that I think the movement is being leveraged by those who only want to increase their own wealth at the expense of everyone else's. Desiring a balanced budget and a return to constitutional principles does not necessarily go hand-in-hand with increasing the country's wealth disparity. And, while Tea Party supporters might agree with that statement, their elected representatives sure aren't voting that way.

  • June 25, 2012, 5:34 p.m. CST

    by DoctorWho?

    "To compare apples to apples, you would need to have the DMV guy send his kids to USC too!" ??? It doesn't matter WHAT the money is being spent on. I'm just a illustrating a hypothetical...one out of an INFINITE number of possibilities...to make a LARGER point. It's none of our business WHAT they're spending their money on nor WHERE they send their kids to college. Get it? The larger point I am positing is that things are not black and white in your Rich people=Evil...Poor people=Victim... worldview. Period. <p> "You can't just assume the DMV fellow doesn't have loads or debt or kids in expensive schoolsl!" Never did. Again...it's just a hypothetical for Christ's sake. You act like it's simply an impossibility. Like I just made some blanket statement about ALL rich and poor people... and react as if I just told you the Earth was flat!<p> "You assertion that the man making $250,000 (paying more taxes) is "no better off" than the man making $65,000 (and paying less taxes)" In THIS specific hypothetical...yes, exactly. Did I say anywhere that this was a general statement of fact about a vast swath of people?<p> Hey, if YOU come up with a specific hypothetical I would address it at face value. Your not seeing the forest through the trees methinks.

  • You're going to get very little sympathy from me if you're having trouble making your payment on your new Mercedes. You could have bought a Hyundai.

  • Agreed! So why insert spending into YOUR hypothetical? Could it be because without that super-expensive college bill (for the radiologist only!) it's really hard to argue that the $250,000/yr fellow is "no better off" than the $65,000/yr fellow? Clearly, even in your ginned-up hypothetical, the $250,000/yr guy is better off because his kids ARE GOING TO USC and not Greendale Community. Trust me on this. If you ever make more than $250,000 yearly and get a bump in taxes, you'll still get to live in a bigger house, drive a nicer car and send your kids to a better school than the fellow making $65,000.

  • June 25, 2012, 6:27 p.m. CST

    Hey Herc, what episode does Emily Mortimer get naked?

    by DrPain

  • June 25, 2012, 6:40 p.m. CST

    "Agreed! So why insert spending into YOUR hypothetical? "

    by DoctorWho?

    Simple! It's not WHAT they're spending it on...it's HOW MUCH that is at issue. It's their prerogative to to send their kids to whatever school they choose. If they want to buy a gaudy Mercedes so be it. The guy making 250k always more CHOICES. Doesn't mean they can't mismanage money and spend beyond his/her means.<p> The radiologist isn't lighting cigars with $20 bills. They are not "taking" anything away form someone else. They work hard and earn. They do not deserve insults and derision because they are in a different tax bracket. Nor do they deserve to be chastised as not paying "their fair share" or to be lumped in with "millionaires and billionaires"

  • Does this represent of some kind of "injustice" in your view?

  • June 25, 2012, 6:59 p.m. CST

    Done

    by rich

    I already had this coversation at length in 04 You retard conservatives fucked this kuntry up real bad. Big O got elected and the tea party magically appeared I said 2 myself , Holy shit Theyre going to blame this the new guy. Thats been the plan. Depraived. The followers of the right are often nice people who want to do good things. But leadership of the right is depraived and disgusting Grow up

  • June 25, 2012, 7:16 p.m. CST

    "Big O got elected and the tea party magically appeared"

    by DoctorWho?

    Yeah...that kind of shit happens when presidents do irresponsible things. But hey, just dismiss 'em all as racists that way you don't have to worry about the facts.

  • Liberals do this when they are losing elections in the country. They pine for "what the Republican Party used to be". Bullshit. Liberals (who now call themselves "Progressives" because it polls better) always hated Republicans, from Reagan through Palin. There was NEVER A REPUBLICAN THEY EITHER LIKED OR RESPECTED. BTW, this applied to the Ultimate Squishtard, Daddy Bush, who caved to the Democrats all the time. They despised him, because the liberals knew they could roll him, like they did at Andrews Air Force Base back in 1991. Palin they hate because they know she has conviction and she calls Obama on his Unicorn Bullshit all the time. She was also successful in making Chicago Jesus bleed for two weeks during the campaign. The so called "thinking conservatives" that the liberals around here seem to "respect" (and I use those scare quotes deliberately) hate Palin because they are in on Romney's Hog Trough Express Train, and just want in on the looting. Palin isn't a looter, like Obama and Romney, which is the capital reason why the Political Class hates her so much. I can't help laughing at an entire generation of AICN Talkbackers who grovel at the feet of a parliament of gangsters who have been looting from them for generations and have condemned their children, and their children's children, to lives of debt and bankruptcy. But they despise the woman who came along and didn't play the same looting game. As for Obama? Obama is the Front Man for the greatest collection of economic war criminals since Hitler put together the Organization TODT in 1940 to rape European Russia and Western Europe. Soros, Larry Blankfein, Buffet, the entire crew didn't want the public to turn on them after they raped the country during the Clinton and Bush years. So they needed a Hand Puppet to salve the public and distract them. And the got one in Obama. You people are too distracted by the Shiny Ponies of "racism" and "the War on Women" to ask why no banksters except the Patsy, Bernie Madoff, went to prison, and why there were no racket hearings like there were when Democrats produced real men, like FDR and Truman, as Presidents. Remember, every time people like Sorkin make snarky, pornographic remarks about Sarah Palin, I'll simply point out that not only did she leave her state with an 11 billion dollar surplus and a AAa credit rating, but SHE didn't destroy Sorkin's California. Jerry Brown and the Progressive Democrats did. And some of you all need to start looking in the mirror and ask why not only is the Middle Class "Progressive" California for Texas, but even the MEXICANS are fleeing the Golden One Party State for Mexico. Because even in MEXICO, they are creating more jobs than the Democrats are creating in California.

  • June 25, 2012, 8:07 p.m. CST

    Okay, I'll be the comedian...

    by Red Ned Lynch

    ...single payer healthcare is the liberal position. Romneycare, the position the Republican party touted a decade ago, is the blueprint for the healthcare reform law that was passed. Now of course the Republican Party has lurched every farther to the right, but that doesn't change the true liberal position. Glass-Steagall is the liberal position for banking reform. You know, what we generally considered that quaint little cluster of four laws that kept huge financial meltdowns from occurring after 1933 and before the recent Bush-Clinton-Bush caused unpleasantness. Our recent attempt at financial reform was very similar to the style of non-regulation regulation Ronald Reagan advocated when he entered office. I can give you a bunch more examples, you know, rooted in actual policy, but these are the two primary issues the Obama administration has faced since entering office and neither has been resolved according to long held liberal policy positions. In fact, liberal policy positions were never fought for by the administration and Democratic lawmakers who fought for them in Congress have been undercut by Geitner and others in the administration. I could go on to civil liberties, environmental concerns...really almost every issue of import to our Republic. So yeah, I'm laughing at just how funny it is to claim that this administration, and the Democratic Party as a whole, are now a center right party. Because you see, fellas, I am a liberal. I am a shining example of how the policies of the New Deal, as expanded by Ike, Kennedy, LBJ and Nixon, created prosperity and offered opportunity to even those with the misfortune of being born into the most difficult of circumstances. I love my country. And it pains me greatly to watch it drift in such a dark and profoundly UN-American direction.

  • June 25, 2012, 8:11 p.m. CST

    Doctor Who?

    by Red Ned Lynch

    You can't play both sides of this street. You started off by saying that the guy who made a quarter mil a year and sent his kids to USC was no better off than the guy who made 60 grand and whose kids went to Communo U, likely stacking up student loan debts that will haunt them for the rest of their lives. (yeah, I know you didn't say the last part, but those are the stone cold facts) And then when someone points out that the fact that his children can go to USC means that he and his family are better off you challenge them by asking if they think that's unfair. What they're saying is that your initial premise was terribly flawed. And it was. As your admission demonstrates so clearly.

  • From The New Republic: Obama emphasized the coercive character of the mandate in a January 2008 debate, saying to Clinton: “If they cannot afford it, then the question is: What are you going to do about it? Are you going to fine them? Are you going to garnish their wages?” The next month, an Obama mailer warned: “The way Hillary Clinton’s health care plan covers everyone is to have the government force uninsured people to buy insurance, even if they can’t afford it. ... Punishing families who can’t afford health care to begin with just doesn’t make sense.” Back in '08, would you have ridiculed Obama as a "right wing extremist"? Or would you describe his flip as a "lurch to the left"? All I'm saying is, you clearly want to paint Republicans as fanatical and evil, but that just isn't fair. People can change for reasons other than that "the crazies took over."

  • No country is the greatest, no country should think they're the greatest. As I said, it's no different than people in North Korea thinking it's paradise. If you want to go something superficial like money you can say america. If you want to say something else about it's society and how people live. The income, health systems, life expectancy, how they treat the less fortunate. Stacks of places are better. I would want to say, well US was great sending people to the Moon. Only that could happen with america. Amazing thing, however at that time the country was senselessly slaughtering Vietnamese. For everything good you can say about the US. There's a shit tonne of negatives. Which are generally enough to invalidate it from any weighing up of greatest country argument.

  • June 25, 2012, 8:28 p.m. CST

    countryboy...

    by Red Ned Lynch

    ...I don't use words like crazies. I define people by the positions they advocate. The healthcare system in our nation is broken. The healthcare systems in nearly all of the other industrialized nations are not. I offer you, as just one shameful example, the just released report from Louisiana, documenting infant and maternal mortality rates that are at nearly third world levels. In 2008 Obama was still paying lip service to a modified form of single payer healthcare. That is a position that was further to the left than Clinton's and was one of the reasons those of us on the left flocked to his standard. His position was not to the right of Clinton. He was challenging the notion of a mandate from the left, the side that believes that the only workable solution to our broken healthcare system is to adopt some sort of single payer model. Those who currently drive the Republican Party have now adopted the notion of the free market as an absolute good, forgetting every lesson not just of the Gilded Age and subsequent depression but Dickensian England as well. Whether they have done this because they are 'crazies' or doctrinaire extremists or just not willing to learn the lessons of history is irrelevant to me. They are wrong.

  • Nope. I think what *I* said was the guy earning $250.000/yr (and paying more taxes) with the kids at USC is "better off" than the guy earning $65,000/yr (and paying less taxes) with kids in community college. It's strange to me that you don't think he is.

  • Standard of living? The way we treat our poor and old people? The ability to rise from poor to rich unlike any other place in the world? The amount of aid we give the rest of the world? If we aren't the greatest and it's so obvious that we have to tell 20 year old college girls they are fucking brain-dead idiots for even suggesting it, then you should have an answer of what is the greatest country in the world. I happen to think we are. I could be wrong. Those silly statistics he rattled off, including countries with 1/10th of the population we do and hardly any urban areas (no doubt), don't impress me. I really think you need an answer to that question if you don't think America is the greatest...

  • June 25, 2012, 9:53 p.m. CST

    red ned

    by CountryBoy

    It's not entirely accurate to say our system is broken but most others are not. Every system has flaws, ours and others included. You attribute infant/maternal mortality solely to poor health care, but a host of factors contribute to it (genetics, lifestyle, income) which are exacerbated by the U.S. being so diverse in its population. Also, other countries use different criteria for measuring infant mortality, or more accurately for tallying live births, which alters the statistics. A small (but movie-related!) story about health care has always stuck with me. When Joely Richardson died after hitting her head at a Canadian ski resort, a spokesman said something to the effect of "We couldn't get her to a big hospital in time -- let alone an American one." In other words she was doomed to the Canadian health care system, so she had no hope of survival. Again, world health care a grayer area than you're making it appear. Your explanation of Obama's position kind of makes my point about Republicans. He went from opposing the mandate to demanding it, for reasons you consider perfectly sound. But you declare Republicans' shift to be because of extremists who think the free market is "an absolute good." Why can't they have sound reasons too, e.g., that the understanding of the flaws in the mandate (which, again, many saw all along) were made clear? We could go back and forth forever. Soon the decision will be made for us, so let's see what happens. P.S. Didn't mean to offend you with "crazies"!

  • I honestly don't understand why liberals never admit to being liberal. Are you ashamed of being liberal? I don't get it...

  • June 25, 2012, 10:20 p.m. CST

    red ned

    by DoctorWho?

    The flaw was in understanding the premise. But I'll accept the fact that I was perhaps less than crystal clear.<p> When I said "no better off" in my example, I'm speaking of the finances involved. Pure numbers. I'm not referring to the "quality" of the educational institutions.<p> In my way of thinking both colleges are a 'push'. Going to college has changed. I have zero sympathy for someone who goes to USC and spends a fortune getting a degree in 19th century French Poetry, Women's Studies or Political Science and then gripes that they can't get a job. That's on you. Bad call. Bad investment. I love how these kids walk out of campus and expect to waltz into a 70k a year job with that kind of degree. I saw scores of them in Zuccotti Park screaming about the cosmic injustice of it all. The student who goes to ANY college to get a marketable skill...engineering, medicine etc. is being pragmatic.<p> I see the degrees on the wall of my dentist...I have no idea what university he attended. I don't care. I don't choose him over others because of the status of his alma mater.<p> Also, universities are virtually left-wing seminaries. They used to be marketplaces of ideas...not ideological monopolies.

  • June 25, 2012, 10:21 p.m. CST

    Herc...see my red ned post^^

    by DoctorWho?

  • June 25, 2012, 10:29 p.m. CST

    Spot on countryboy!!

    by DoctorWho?

    Here's a link to a NY TIMES article illustrating how Pelosi and her ilk just blew off concerns about enumerated powers and the limits of the Commerce Clause. They never saw it coming. Shows how little they know about nor care about the Constitutional boundaries.

  • June 25, 2012, 10:33 p.m. CST

    Oopss! Here's the link...

    by DoctorWho?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/us/past-denials-of-vulnerability-raise-health-act-what-ifs.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

  • June 25, 2012, 10:38 p.m. CST

    Infant mortality in the US fantastic when you consider the demographics

    by Darth_Inedible

    The US currently has the highest number of foreign born immigrants in the known universe as well as the lowest percentage of white people per capita of any first world nation. By all accounts we should be right about where Brazil is in terms of infant mortality. Also we're super prissy about this stuff so we don't even fudge the numbers like Cuba and China by not counting deaths a few days after birth. America, dragging the suffering world forward one screaming leftist whiner at a time...

  • June 25, 2012, 10:56 p.m. CST

    countryboy...

    by Red Ned Lynch

    ...right now you're doing fine in your argument against your redefinitions of what I'm saying and your battle with the facts. First, I did not make a value judgment of Obama's shift in position on healthcare. You had simply misstated the facts and I corrected you. I consider Obama's not fighting for the liberal position on healthcare a betrayal, as a matter of fact. And I define the current leadership of the Republican Party by their positions on the issues. Their positions on these issues are extreme and dogmatic. They represent a radical departure from the post-Depression era social contract and the fundamental balances between private and public interests that built the United States into the most powerful and prosperous nation on the planet. It was Natasha Richarson who died, by the way, and she died at the Lennox Hill Hospital in New York. She was transferred there from a hospital in Montreal. She had initially refused treatment and when she first began to exhibit symptoms was taken to a hospital associated with the ski resort. So no, the rural hospital in Canada did not have the same equipment or quality of medical personnel available at what is widely considered one of the top twenty hospitals in the United States. By the way, these aren't the doctors you'd see on your HMO. What you're remembering is a bit of nonsense that made the rounds on some conservative blogs during the healthcare debate, in which an anonymous 'doctor' was said to have written that Richardson would have received a much speedier CT scan if she had been injured in the United States because most of the resorts here would have been able to airlift Richardson, once she had allowed herself to be treated, directly to a facility where the epidural hematoma could have been drained. That might even be true, by the way, I don't know, but it is telling of the strength of your position that you would try to qualify actual evidence, like the study from Louisiana, into not meaning anything, and try to defend your position with a questionable anecdote. Think about what you have done there, and throughout your posts here. Seriously, think on it. You have either not known or misremembered fact after pertinent fact. You have had to try to reinterpret what I have posted in order to be able to fight it. You have rejected factual information and relied on anecdote. Do you really want to be that person? If that's what you have to do to defend your positions should you be defending them?

  • June 25, 2012, 11:03 p.m. CST

    doctorwho?

    by Red Ned Lynch

    But you see the man in your example made the choice to use his money in that way. He. Had. That. Choice. And believe me, having the money to make those sorts of choices makes you better off. I know that situation from both sides. And yes, your casual anti-intellectualism is noted.

  • June 25, 2012, 11:18 p.m. CST

    darth...

    by Red Ned Lynch

    ...I guess either your post is parody or you are...remarkably...let's just say remarkable. Japan, South Korea and Taiwan have been considered first world countries since the term came to mean what it has since the end of the Second World War. There are even more countries, several of them in Latin America, that are now considered first world nations. Or perhaps you had some other point?

  • June 25, 2012, 11:18 p.m. CST

    Yes, he had a choice.

    by DoctorWho?

    And guess what...the guy in the next highest tax bracket has more choices than he. The term "better off" does not exist in a vacuum. I'm not talking about the 'mega rich' here. Are we to wring our hands and rend our clothes because we ALL do not have an equal plethora of choices at all times?<p> Do you resent the guy next to you at the red light because he drives a nicer car than you?<p> And your use of paragraph spacing for dramatic effect is duly noted.

  • The Affordable Care Act was NOT liberal in anyway? Is that what we are saying now?

  • June 25, 2012, 11:29 p.m. CST

    It's not about what I may or may not resent...

    by Red Ned Lynch

    ...it's about this: 'When I said "no better off" in my example, I'm speaking of the finances involved.' Because you're still incorrect about this, though I am beginning to think you are doing so purposefully. Yes, I could invest every cent I had in the production and marketing of bridles for wasps, and then I could say that 'I am no better off in terms of the finances involved' than a single mother whose husband died serving his country in Iraq who works at Target while caring for her three children. It does not make our situations equivalent. And it will not, no matter how many different ways you try to rephrase your initial, faulty premise.

  • June 26, 2012, 12:03 a.m. CST

    I think were missing each other here red ned

    by DoctorWho?

    And no, not doing anything 'purposefully'.<p> The situations are not equivalent. Obviously. I am arguing against the the notion that they are somehow wildly inequitable. That's what beanr was getting at... As if taxing people who make 250k more because will help the other guy. People want to control outcomes and engineer results so such "inequities" are "rectified". <p> How about a nice government agency to assess everyones net worth? Factor in locale, entitlements, dispensations, cost of living, housing etc. How do you adjudicate such things?<p> You said you know the situation from both sides. Well, so do I. This speaks to the fluidity of ones income, wealth etc. Nothing is static. I used to make a LOT more money than I do now. I plan on making that amount again and more. I don't need my hard working, successful neighbor to be taxed more in order to achieve this.

  • June 26, 2012, 1:37 a.m. CST

    Did you miss the second part of what he said?

    by prof_zoom

    It. Can. Be. Funny how it's not believable that a college kid would ask that... yet a debate about that very topic ensues in a talkback. Uh huh.

  • June 26, 2012, 2:18 a.m. CST

    Aaron Sorkin Is Kind Of A Douche

    by Chief Joseph

    http://www.blackbookmag.com/aaron-sorkin-is-kind-of-a-douche-1.50074

  • June 26, 2012, 6:30 a.m. CST

    LIBRULZZZ!!!!1!!1!11!!!

    by Jethro Bodine

  • June 26, 2012, 6:35 a.m. CST

    I love being a liberal. I wish the president were as liberal as I am.

    by Jethro Bodine

    But this isn't a monarchy. Oh well. Make do with what you have. Guys like coughlins laws think anyone who's more liberal than they are, are liberals, period. Liberals in coughlins eyes: Dick Nixon Ronny *Thank me for Scalia* Raygun Spiro Agnew George HW Bush George W Bush Barry Goldwater Lonesome Rhodes Jesus HAL 9000

  • Sorkin can write compelling stories, but his characters are not real people and his grasp on reality is very wanting. And every interview I've seen him do or have read shows what a complete, out-of-touch asshole he is. Although he has written some interesting movies. I love A Few Good Men and The Social Network. However, I think the casting in A Few Good Men is more of why it works as a movie, plus it's an adaptation. And The Social Network played too much with the facts. The American President was too much of a liberal's wet dream and for me, The West Wing was unwatchable past the first season, which was a great behind the scenes look at politics. When the show turned into a liberal fantasy and soap opera, it was unbearable. Sports Night wasn't that good, and neither was Studio 60. I'd say on the whole, he bats well under .500

  • June 26, 2012, 8:59 a.m. CST

    *controlled even

    by Gary Makin

  • June 26, 2012, 9:05 a.m. CST

    Wow, coughlins and I completely agree about Sorkin

    by SergeantStedenko

    I think all that coke has distorted Sorkin's grasp on reality.

  • And as a liberal, Obama and the current Democratic Party are far from representative of my values. In contrast, thanks to the Tea Party and their Koch-head financial backers, the current Republican Party is about as far right as you can get without a being a complete Fascist Plutocracy.

  • They are good at showing up and voting Republican, but not so good at choosing candidates. As far as being as far right as possible, please give me details of what the Republicans have done in the last year and a half in control of one half of Congress that is "about as far right as possible". And tell me how you think the Koch Brothers control the leaderless Tea Party. And tell me how wanting the government to stop spending more than it takes in is as far right as possible. Please, focus like a laser beam and be specific. No more sweeping generalizations...

  • June 26, 2012, 9:24 a.m. CST

    Some examples of how the Democratic Party is Right of Center:

    by SergeantStedenko

    Passing of the National Defense Authorization Act which allows the government to indefinitely detain American citizens without due process. Even Al voted for this. Obama's policy of assassinating enemies of the state, including a US citizen. Obama and the Dems let the phone companies off the hook for spying on US citizens for the government passing a bill that made it impossible for citizens who were spied on to sue those companies. Obama and the Dems allowed the ban on assault weapons to expire without an extension of the ban and at least to my knowledge no one even lamented its expiration, except for James Brady.

  • June 26, 2012, 9:25 a.m. CST

    Even Al Franken voted for the N.D.A.A.

    by SergeantStedenko

  • The Paul Ryan Budget.

  • That's the American Dream at work right there.

  • People have to have money to purchase goods which stimulates the economy and right now people don't have money. Most of the wealth has accumulated to the top 1% of earners. That small amount of people can only buy so much. it's Economics 101.

  • Thinking that more tax cuts is going to do anything. We've already tried this for 14 years and what has it wrought? The wealth has continued to Trickle Up.

  • June 26, 2012, 10:22 a.m. CST

    red ned

    by CountryBoy

    First off, I think I completely misunderstood your original point! I THOUGHT you were saying Obama's plan used to be the Republicans'... and those rotten Republicans changed sides just to thwart him. Now I think what you meant was that OBAMA wrongly changed (hence your word "betrayal"), whether the Republicans did or not. If I'm right, then for my dumbness I fully apologize. However, when you said Republicans "lurched to the right," and I disagreed, I still don't see how I was wrong. You appear to assume the change was made in bad faith, and all I'm saying is that there are good reasons for it. Should the government force us to buy insurance? Does the situation warrant this? Would that solution help appreciably? Why can't good people think differently from you on this? I never said your Louisiana example "didn't mean anything," I said it wasn't as stark as you claim. And I explained why. As for NATASHA Richardson (sorry, Ms. R, wherever you are), you said: What you're remembering is a bit of nonsense that made the rounds on some conservative blogs during the healthcare debate, in which an anonymous 'doctor' was said to have written that Richardson would have received a much speedier CT scan if she had been injured in the United States because most of the resorts here would have been able to airlift Richardson, once she had allowed herself to be treated, directly to a facility where the epidural hematoma could have been drained. Well, here's the quote: "It's impossible for me to comment specifically about her case, but what I could say is ... driving to Mont Tremblant from the city (Montreal) is a 2 1/2-hour trip, and the closest trauma center is in the city. Our system isn't set up for traumas and doesn't match what's available in other Canadian cities, let alone in the States," said Tarek Razek, director of trauma services for the McGill University Health Centre, which represents six of Montreal's hospitals. My point was the doctor's last line, specifically "let alone in the states." He clearly thinks (and he should know) that Canada's system can't compare with ours. I wouldn't call his opinion a "questionable anecdote." I don't think my points are so outrageous, or deserve such condescension.

  • June 26, 2012, 10:24 a.m. CST

    And dr. who?, thanks fort your support

    by CountryBoy

    Didn't see your post before.

  • Democrats left of center. That's really funny. A couple of things you don't like doesn't make the party right of center. That's laughable.

  • Focus like a laser beam...

  • Businesses won't spend money to expand and hire because the economy is unstable, because people don't have money to buy their goods, because of stagnant wages and high unemployment. It's a vicious circle that the business are actually perpetuating themselves, not Obama. I think it's funny to believe corporate giants fearing evil socialist Obama. If that's the case, what a bunch of PUSSIES!

  • June 26, 2012, 12:08 p.m. CST

    totalreality, everything you say is straight from Rush Limbaugh's playbook

    by SergeantStedenko

    You're hatred of women gives you away. Why should I bother having a dialogue with an automaton? Plus, your belief that having a businessman in the oval office is going to make a difference is naive to say the least. You should look and Mittens' record as a governor not as a businessman. If he leads this country like he did Bain Capital then he is going to be the worst socialist leader in history, buying out the private sector just to destroy companies and kill jobs for profit.

  • Plus, I could give you 10,000 words right now on liberals hatred of women, just in the last 4 years alone...

  • Guess what, liberals don't hate those people because they are "women", we hate them because they are asshole politicians. But, because they are women they have to play the gender card to garner sympathy. As Rush Limbaugh might say, "If you can't stand the heat, then get back in the kitchen." Of course, I am well aware that Limbaugh hypocritically claims that liberals are being sexist when they criticize Palin, et al, while he does actually make sexist jokes about liberal female politicians like Hilary Clinton.

  • Vulture capitalism is not something that we should applaud nor make the model for our economy. Doesn't fit the American Dream that I signed up for, anyway.

  • However, Bill Maher and David Letterman are still on the air and they've used that kind of language MANY, MANY times, over and over again. It's not just those 3 women you've mentioned. It's Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Condoleeza Rice, Ann Romney, S.E. Cupp, etc, etc, etc, The Obama team even did it to Hilary in 2008. It's insulting women in a way you wouldn't insult men. It's demeaning them in a sexual way. I will give you examples and you llink you dozens of examples if you want. I'm sure if I had enough time I could show you over 100 examples, from all over the Leftist spectrum, from liberal politicians, to liberal commentators. There are countless examples of sexism from Democrats and liberals. To try and make it seem like that is a Republican mantra is lame and dishonest...

  • What's funny is, you'll go on and on about not being socialist and Obama's not socialist and Democrats aren't socialist, blah, blah, blah, but then you'll post something as asinine as that, saying profits are evil. WAAAAHHHH!!!!! Life sure is tough. Have to blame somebody if not everyone makes as much money as someone else...

  • It really explains why someone would enjoy this show. I'm looking at you, Greek God of the TV Section...

  • And why were they all demeaned in gender specific ways? And sexualized to humiliate them and their daughters? Why couldn't you just concentrate on attacking their ideas? Why were the attacks, especially on Palin, almost always devolved into attacks on her looks, sexual activity, etc, etc, etc? There was no reason for this at all...

  • The Tea Party, in certain parts of the country, lost me when they nominated people like her. She has no experience doing anything, let alone governing, and I can't believe in Delaware they thought it would be a good idea to have her represent them...

  • June 26, 2012, 3:24 p.m. CST

    coughlins, totalfantasy makes your case difficult with his rampant sexism

    by SergeantStedenko

    I will concede that there is sexism on both sides of the political spectrum. But, I think it is hugely disingenuous for Rush or any other Right Winger to claim that liberals are more sexist than conservatives. Equally maybe.

  • June 26, 2012, 3:26 p.m. CST

    red and blue

    by rich

    here is an attempt at an honest opinion, without flame thorwing. It really pisses me off that for years, the right leaning folks fought like dogs for George W. Bush. basically the same conversation going on here where each side lives in a different reality. at the end of those 8 years, I don't know how anyone can really debate the hole we were left in. Mountains of Debt, a financial system litterally on the brink of dissaster. 2 seemingly endless wars. It was almost unimaginably miserable and hopeless. we other choice did we have but to pass a massive stimulus package ? (that had alot of tax cuts if i remember correctly). I believe anyone who calls the stimulus irresponsible is either completely misinformed, or some kind of anarchist who wanted to see society and government collapse. All analogies are flawed, but say the house was engulfed in flame, and the stimulus was a fire truck, a very expensive fire truck for a very big house.. Now the right becomes the tea party and is litterally up in arms because the house is wet and charred. deficit? are you fucking kidding me? after Bush and Reagan you are going to crucify the democrats because of emergency deficit spending that was required to bail out the massive mess that George Bush made? I mean. How dare you say something like that. Really. What kind of fucking nerve does that take? Do you really even hear youvself? have you not a glimmer of self awareness or shame? There is no credibilty on the right, just a game. there is no intellectual honestly, there is no facing reality, there is flame throwing and hypocricy. There is fear. brietbart, ann coulter, james okeiff. these people were taken seriously and in right leaning circles still are. It's shamefull. It's pathetic. It's fucking terrifying. the right is morally and intellectually bankrupt and it's god damn shame because the "left" aint no party either. I long for the days when I could consider the reupblicans the adults. Its staggering how fall they have fallen. It's depressing

  • June 26, 2012, 3:27 p.m. CST

    I failed my attempt by the way. but that's where I am at.

    by rich

  • Do I find it ironic at best and hypocritical at worst that someone who made his vast wealth by dissolving business and eliminating jobs is now claiming he is the only one who can create jobs as President? It was no accident that Romney said that he liked to fire people.

  • June 26, 2012, 3:35 p.m. CST

    Also, totalfantasy, I do listen to Limbaugh from time to time

    by SergeantStedenko

    for as long as I can stomach listening to a privileged white man just bitch and bitch incessantly about how bad everything is. And they say liberals love to complain about America.

  • June 26, 2012, 3:45 p.m. CST

    beanr, don't you know that it wasn't Bush's fault, it was just the economy?

    by SergeantStedenko

    Yet, everything that happened when Obama was in office is all his fault alone, like the massive unemployment that increased to 8+ percent within his first 6 months in office. Yeah, that was all Obama's fault before even one single damned policy of his went into effect.

  • June 26, 2012, 3:48 p.m. CST

    If America is not the greatest country then who is?

    by Saen

    Make an argument or stfu with your america hating eurofag bullshit.

  • June 26, 2012, 4 p.m. CST

    goals

    by rich

    Bush was a success because his achieved his goal to get government out of the way. to make government completely ineffective. to turn government into a paper thin charade to be bullied by business interests. that is what conservatives want. and that's what they got. and their retort will be that that I want huge all encompassing government to contorl them and make a billion laws to control every aspect of their life. because they are children. intellectual dishonesty, it's fucking pathetic

  • That talking point is about as deep as a Code-Pink bumper sticker.

  • June 27, 2012, 1:28 a.m. CST

    Beanr Bush was dealing with a totally Dem Congress for his last two years

    by Darth_Inedible

    Yes Pelosi the glassy eyed harpy and Reid the flamboyantly corrupt weird uncle from hell didn't really set the tone for a confident economy and financial system. You can chart a line straight down from that first minimum wage hike to the '08 crash. I sense that you have zero understanding of the Bush years. Bush was a BIG GOVERNMENT Republican from the start. The majority of financial deregulation you seem to be whining about happened in Clinton's last year with the Glass-Steagall repeal. Bush actually tried to crack down on Fannie and Freddie lending but got blocked by Barney Frank in Congress. Obama had EVERYTHING for his first two years and all we got was a Constitutionally questionable healthcare power grab and various other far left goodies.

  • Yes Clinton started the housing market runup with his 1995 National Homeownership Strategy. Strange that you never hear about this isn't it? http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/9506280210/clintons-homeownership-plan-2-edged-sword-lenders

  • June 27, 2012, 4:37 a.m. CST

    Newsroom

    by MegaBeth

    I watched the first episode. I thought it was very poor. Preachy, overly melodramatic, poorly acted, lousy dialogue. I will not watch Episode Two. Oh yeah.. Team Romney RULZ! Team Obama DRULZ!

  • June 27, 2012, 7:43 a.m. CST

    Glass Steigal

    by rich

    congrats big boy, you know what glass steigal is. What a big brain. 11 turned the Congress and the Democrats in to pussies. not that wern't before to some extent, but it sealed the deal for a couple of election cycles. In the 02 midterms Republicans turned 911 into a massive political wedge and pretty much accused democrats of being terrorists by association. It worked very well. When people are scared they become conservative, in fact the conservative brain is in large part differentialed by fear responses and being less with change. in many ways conservative are fine people, which makes it all the more frustrating to me. post 911 politics could be a freaking dissertation in abnormal phsychology. The republicans used 911 to ram a hard hard right agenda up americas ass. economically it was a dissaster. for about 4 years republicans not only controled the government, but the democrats showed little effective opposition. they got some balls in 06 but alot of the damage was done. and even then their opposition didn't even approach the fillaburstering and Absolute incompriomise going on today. yes alot of things happen in the world and they all play into the economy, but the fact is Bush era republicans basically made government completely innefective, on purpose. The took their hands off the wheel and let corporate and social conservative interests drive our country into the ditch. NOW. why this is relevant now. The republicans havn't changed. they have the same policies, in fact, their response to their massive failure is to think they wern't conservative enough. To cut more taxes, to have less regulation, the defund and weaken the government even further. they so were wrong that it hurts them to think about it and they can't accept it. they are still wrong. the free market is an economic engine that needs tending, it's not fucking god. Even Adam Smith wasn't in favor of pure free markets, the government, while limited, must play a firm role in maintaining order. Less government is only better to a point and then it goes bad, sometimes quickely. the same would be true the other way. If circumstances call for it I'll fight equally against some extreme left faction who's taken control of our country for ill effect. but folks, Barrack Obama and today's democrats aren't that. not even close

  • And I thank you for confirming what I've been saying for years, that Bush was touting that everyone should own a home and he had a big hand in the housing bubble. As you see from darth_indelible, everything bad that happened during Bush's term was all Clinton's fault: 9/11, the housing bubble, the economic collapse, the Iraq War, Hurricane Katrina, all Clinton, except for the Great Recession, that was Obama's fault.

  • June 27, 2012, 10:45 a.m. CST

    The House of Un-American Activities....

    by workshed

    ...would have strung up everyone associated with The Newsroom. Seems that fascist body has now been replaced by the American media en mass. The Newsroom's opening scene should be seen and heard by everyone who lives in, and loves, that country.

  • He has even come out and said that he was wrong about deregulation and that the banks took advantage of the situation.

  • June 27, 2012, 11:33 a.m. CST

    Fannie and Freddie were only a fraction of the problem

    by SergeantStedenko

    but if you listen to some conservative pundits you would think they were the sole problem and all the big banks who needed to be bailed were just innocent bystanders.

  • ripped my mask off? a little melodramatic don't you think. you think I am what? a LIBRULZ! I am just a guy with a family and a job who doesn't want to watch my retirement evaporate when I am 61 years old due to lack of financial regulation + unchecked greed. I'd also like to know that if god forbid me or someone in family get's really sick that we don't go fuckgin bankrupt due to it. everyone is the world is not a divine money seeking "entrepenuer". why don't you go ram atlas shrugged up your ass. All is well until it's not well and then... accoring to Mitt and the GOP, tought shit, you should have paryed harder. Conservatives think are so fucking smart, but what they are good is deluding other people and themselves. It's all justified greed. That' why they make such a good match with the evangelical chritisans. If you stand real close to god, maybe you'll look good. Just like bush stood behind the troops for 7 years. and what the hell does low college mean? you douchebag. I went to a better school than you.

  • June 27, 2012, 1:43 p.m. CST

    Republi-rage

    by googlewacked

    Good christ almighty. The problem with political discourse in america is that the tea party nut jobs don't debate the issues. They debate the lies they peddle. And so debate nothing.

  • June 27, 2012, 2:01 p.m. CST

    Both beanr and googlewacked-I can tell you're not serious thinkers

    by DoctorWho?

    beanr-Because if you are so concerned about going "bankrupt" if your family gets sick (as well you should be!) and think that OBAMACARE is the answer then you haven't done your homework. i want massive health care reform TOO!. EVERYBODY KNOWS IT NEEDS TO BE FIXED. But Obamacare is a nightmare, a monstrosity and a HORRID piece of legislation. Absolutely HORRID!<p> And you just accept it blindly.<p> And googlewacked- Right of center people constantly defend and explain positions. you just don't want to hear it. Goofball lefties (not garden variety liberals...which there are few of left anyway) live in echo chambers and have their positions repeated back to them constantly through schools, pop culture and the old media. When confronted with actual opposing views, the other side is dismissed as racist, homophobic, greedy, blahblahblah. <p> Just like you and beanr both did in your posts. Go figure.

  • June 27, 2012, 2:04 p.m. CST

    Actually, in this case...

    by DoctorWho?

    ...not racist or homophobic but... "douchebag" and "nut job".<p> But hey, it's still early in the day.

  • June 27, 2012, 2:26 p.m. CST

    big difference

    by rich

    douchebag \ nut job and racist \ homophobe are two very different things. one is name calling, and one says you are horrible person. for all I know you call your mom everday. I will say that most conservatives I know are pretty god damn sensitve about being called racists and homophones. but I don't see any real people calling them as such, just tv show hosts. fear. has anyone actually called you a racsit or a homophobe. You've accused me of doing so a few times now when I havn't. greedy yes, assuming you support economic policies of the GOP. Have you even known anyone unable to get health care because of a prexisting condition? Have you ever seen a company cooincidentally decide to let go someone who's rang up alot of health care bills. Alot of Obama's ideas, including the ACA are rooted in conservative thought, at least they used to be before the right drove off a cliff. And all you can say is IDIOT, IDIOT, NOT SERIOUS THINKER.. LOW COLLEGE. you offer nothing to support but some half ass blaming clinton bullshit you read on the national review. seriously. I there were any conservative thinker who actually had a basis in reality that could convince me that they were right and my life would be better with Mitt Romney policies, I would listen. I've waiting for one for years, but they are all full of shit. they are all salesman. the GOP is all marketing. the underlying goal is to shrik government, lower taxes and get rid of laws that get in the way of making money. they even admit it. the rest is all smokescreen. I would certainly sleep better if I didn't think they were mad foools. have I RIPPED MY MASK OFF now? to reveal...... LIBURL:Z

  • June 27, 2012, 2:32 p.m. CST

    but seriously

    by rich

    tell me how conservative policy will make my life more secure. and be detailed, becase that's what you like. and I don't mean 1970's conservartive policy. I mean Paul Ryan and Grover Norquist policy. 1. healthcare for my family in the case that tomorrow we find out someone has some freak rare desease that very expense to control. I know Blue Cross will try to get out of paying it if they can. 2. job security and a stable economy, assuming I am a hard working production person. which I am. 3. reasonable secuirty in exchange for moderate growth in my very "conservative" retirement investments cause those are the things that a feel were co letely FUBAR following 8 years of George Buhs and the kind of policies that Mitt Romny wants to go back to.

  • June 27, 2012, 2:45 p.m. CST

    bush's right wing agenda

    by rich

    I already explained this. Bush turned our government into a paper thin charade to be bullied by business interests. I don't think he failed at all, he was a glorious success. but is the right wing agenda. it's underfunding the government and staffing it with people either incompetant or complicit in the game. it's using pat robertsons college to staff the justice department. Old roomates of buddies for fema. a fox in charge of every hen house if you will. and then blaming the government for being so horrible thus creating this awsome feedback loop. government is bad, elect us, we'll make it worse, so we can say government is bad. when the other side get's a little power, stonewall anything to change things and then blame them for how bad it is. after all they LUVVVVVV government so much, why can't they fix it. how I am wrong?

  • June 27, 2012, 2:57 p.m. CST

    Sure beanr

    by DoctorWho?

    "has anyone actually called you a racsit or a homophobe" Yes...and why? Because I proposed that we shouldn't have wide-open borders with Mexico. A racist? Yep. And why? Because I disagreed with Barrack Obama. Oh yes...because there's simply no way ANYONE could possibly have policy disagreements with the Unicorn Prince. So it must absolutely be because he's BLACK. <p> "Have you even known anyone unable to get health care because of a prexisting condition?" Yep. Sucks doesn't it? And this means people who vote republican are evil? It's a complete non-sequitur.<p> "Have you ever seen a company cooincidentally decide to let go someone who's rang up alot of health care bills." Nope. Did republicans do that too? And somehow the monstrosity of OBAMACARE is the ONLY remedy to fix this? This is all you've got?<p> You react emotionally and are prepared to run blindly off of a cliff because you demagogue every issue.<p> And I'm not trying to "convince you" that I'm right or that you're wrong. I just want clarity! You clearly want something akin to the European system of socialized government...you know, the same model that's working out so wonderfully over there as we speak. That's fine. Just be clear and come out and say it. None for me thanks.

  • June 27, 2012, 2:59 p.m. CST

    Hey beanr...

    by DoctorWho?

    Bush isn't the prez anymore dude. Let's talk about our current prez shall we.<p> Oh wait, I see...you probably don't want to go there huh?<p> Nice try.

  • That's the whole point dude! THEY ALL LOVE POWER! You seem to trust one side as benevolent do-gooders and the other as sadists. You're caught in the matrix big time. The founding fathers understood human nature and that's why this "limited government" thing is kind of important. It won't be some brazen totalitarian take over....they always come bearing gifts and goodies.

  • June 27, 2012, 3:29 p.m. CST

    rather than answer my question

    by rich

    italking about bush is valid, because Romney effectively wants to go back to the same policy. but. you are right. Bush is gone and i cna't complain about him forever. nor do I want to. I think Obama is doing an ok job of keeping this mess together. If think he works hard and I think he a trynig his damndest to find compromise between our polarized parties. I'd prefer he stood up the GOP better, but that's not him. I am not in the least bit dissiapointed that he is far less LIBRULZ that some hoped, because I am not a LIBRRRRULXZZZ. The stimulus was necessary, painful but necessary. he offered hug compromises in the form of tax breaks, and a much smaller package that many wanted, but he got it done. the hole we were, and still are in, is massive. and on his taking office we were still in free fall. you don't bounce out of that hole. you claw your way out, maybe slowly. we are far for 'good' but were are reasonablly stable. we can't really control events in europe and who knows what shoe will fall next. (and I do believe that austerity is the wrong course) but compared to 4 years ago I see things being as much better. when obama says (yes it was a big gaff) that the private sector is fine, that's really what I see in my life. also it's true that loss of public workers is the difference between where we are now, and something much closer to a healthy unemployment number. it sux that the stimulus didn't keep unembployment under 8%. but it prevented it being 25%. things were bad, they were real fucking bad. and conservative policies of degregulation (and maybe more so ineffectively enforcement of actual regulation) played a large role. eliminating glass steigal was a bad idea IMO, and clinton was in there, but I still think it was still a we want smaller government rigth wing idea Obama care is based in conservative ideas. He offered HUGE compromises in terms of passing something that got done. If we can avoid looking at the republicans sliding scale of logic, what was passed was exremily amenable to previous conservative though.. I'd like to see national health care. If obama really had his way he'd probably go that way, but he deals with reality. what else? he's looking for solutions and he's offering huge compromises to gain GOP support. and they are basically flipping him off. they've stated, on the record that their idea of compromise is him doing everything they want. that their overiding goal is ending his presidency, and they will play chicken with the economy in persuit of that goal. I know you don't want to talk about Bush. No conservative in their right mind would WANT to talk about bush. but he happened, and he litterally left us with a country on the brink of collapse. and Mitt wants to go back to those policies. Mitt's rhetoric actually sounds to me like Sarah Palins, mean and nasty and completely misrepresentative of reality

  • June 27, 2012, 3:44 p.m. CST

    not true

    by rich

    "seem to trust one side as benevolent do-gooders and the other as sadists. " i don't believe that. I believe in a pendulum or sorts, because statis is impossible in the real world. the welfare state got out of control and resulted in a conservative revolution, a big wave is more accurate. now. 30 years later. conservatism has outlived it's purpose and has becoem more of a problem them a solution. they are the corrupted power. like a said 10 posts ago, there is no left that I can see. 30 years from now. when whatever comes next reaches it's apex of corruption, I'll want that gone too. the right has reach what appears to me to be an apex of corruption. their ideas are not based in reality, they are based in ideology. and they've proven to not work. it's all lies. everythin out of Mitt Romney's mouth is some kind of distortion, not even exageration and hyperbolie, outright distortion. black is white. he'll say anything to anyone, sometimes opposite things on the same day. It's hilarious. sure all polititians want power, and they are all fucked in th end, but today, right now but I don't see the same level of cynisism and outright scumbaggery on the left. believe me I am looking. every day. the GOP hasn't yet owned up to the bush dissaster. instead they've doubled down on the same bullshit, and it's terrifying. you can't white wash those 8 years. .

  • Your partner up there, darth_indelible just blamed everything wrong on the person 2 presidents ago. Unlike him and a lot of conservatives I am able to criticize Clinton and Obama and all other Democrats if they do things I don't agree with, because my brain isn't plugged in to the Left Wing version of the Right Wing propaganda hate machine 24/7. Don't pretend it doesn't exist.

  • June 27, 2012, 4:03 p.m. CST

    Doctorwhat?

    by googlewacked

    Loving the rage. The fact that you were compelled to use the meme "obamacare" demonstrates that you are not a serious thinker. I'd be as well trying to have a serious discussion with a potato. A potato who's obsessed with fictitious "death panels". Get fact why don't you.

  • June 27, 2012, 4:34 p.m. CST

    "Right Wing propaganda hate machine 24/7. "

    by DoctorWho?

    Example please.

  • June 27, 2012, 4:36 p.m. CST

    googlewacked

    by DoctorWho?

    Loving the zero substance of that answer.

  • June 27, 2012, 4:38 p.m. CST

    "Obama care is based in conservative ideas"

    by DoctorWho?

    Okay...Yes or No: Is seizing control over one-seventh of the American economy and forcing every American to buy a commercial product a conservative idea?

  • You mean something like this: ""And that means no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: if you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like you health-care plan, you will be able to keep your health-care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what."<p> Lie. Already happening.

  • June 27, 2012, 4:52 p.m. CST

    How about when he..

    by DoctorWho?

    ...REPEATEDLY promised to broadcast the upcoming health-care debate and vote on C-Span?

  • June 27, 2012, 4:53 p.m. CST

    I also thought it was funny when...

    by DoctorWho?

    ...referred to Bush as “unpatriotic” for borrowing $4 trillion over eight years. What term would Obama use to characterize his borrowing $5 trillion in less than four years? “Extremely unpatriotic”?

  • June 27, 2012, 4:56 p.m. CST

    Tomorrow's the ruling from SCOTUS right?

    by DoctorWho?

    I have a bad feeling you'll be celebrating tomorrow beanr. I've got a bad feeling about it.

  • June 27, 2012, 5:13 p.m. CST

    Sorry- "...^THEN^ upcoming debate"

    by DoctorWho?

  • June 27, 2012, 5:26 p.m. CST

    Let's play some more "he'll say anything to anyone"

    by DoctorWho?

    How about when Obama, Biden AND Tim Geithner were telling everyone we were going to have the big recovery summer?<p>

  • June 27, 2012, 8:37 p.m. CST

    Yes or no

    by rich

    Ouch. Is that you glenn beck? Jees, whose mask is comming off Seizing control? Healthcare is not a product. It is not broccoli. If you have a heart attack you dont shop for a doctor and make a choice to purchase a service If you cant affird care you arnt turned away Healthcare is what happens when people get sick and need help in a civilized world. Whether you choose to purchase insurance or not. And besdies that the mandate came out of conservative ideas. It is romneycare, there is no denying that with any credibility But obama agreed to it. So its bad. Its really that simple.

  • June 27, 2012, 9:03 p.m. CST

    The mandate is not a good idea...I don't care WHO came up with it.

    by DoctorWho?

  • That's why it is taking it's toll on health care as we speak...before it's even been implemented. Oh, sorry...you weren't aware of that were you? <p> He doesn't "work with others". If you're not in his inner circle...to bad. He's not reaching across the aisle looking for compromise. Man you really ARE drinking the Kool-Aid.<p> Irwin Stelzer (in the Weekly Standard I think) had an article about how Europeans refuse to do any political favors for Obama. Favors that they would have done for Bush...He reported them saying that he is because this president cold, removed and self-absorbed when with them. <p> Chris Matthews even stated how Obama doesn’t want to mingle with people...or even like them generally. Members of his own party note that they don't feel comfortable with him.

  • June 27, 2012, 9:18 p.m. CST

    And pardon my lame typos...

    by DoctorWho?

  • June 27, 2012, 10:37 p.m. CST

    a hot girl with two doctorates in economics

    by kabong

    Oh, stop it.

  • June 28, 2012, 7:34 a.m. CST

    Irwin Stelzer

    by rich

    Irwin Stelzer tdidn’t so much “report” that Barrack Obama is a big doo doo head that no one in Europe likes him. He heard from some people That is the definition of heresay. It’s complete opinion, and then to extrapolate that and say they all like George Bush so much and they would do him favors (no examples of cousre). That’s rush Limbaugh thinking, seriously. It’s not, as you would say, SERIOUS thinking. Irwins got an academic pedigree, for sure, and he’s tied into the “intellectual” conservative world. He’s also very close to Rupert Murchoch. and he said bad things about Obama? Shocker. Irwin is very involved with the American Enterprise Institute. They call themselves non partisan, but that’s a stretch. the Bush administration was chock full of them. Bush keeps coming up here. But you thought he was terrible. I would seriously love to have a time machine and go back to say 2006 or 07 and see what you thought of George Bush. You guys cannot just pretend that Bush didn’t happen, or pretend you had big problems with him while at the same time continuing to support the same underlying apparatuses of government and policy goals. Bush was a name, a brand, a very successful brand for the GOP through his family and his personal faith he was able to fuse the 2 main factions of the party.

  • June 28, 2012, 8:50 a.m. CST

    You guys cannot just pretend that Bush didn’t happen

    by rich

    actually you can. and you are and events beyond the control of either party may result in it being a succesfull strategy.

  • Yes! Romney did it when he was Governor of Massachusetts. Go ahead and deny the truth. The Individual Mandate in ORomneycare was a Republican idea. Obama was actually against the Individual Mandate, but decided to accept it as part of his tactic of compromising with the Republicans. Well, we all saw how that worked out for him.

  • June 28, 2012, 1:28 p.m. CST

    OROMNEYCARE IS CONSTITUTIONAL!!! SUCK IT!!!

    by SergeantStedenko

Top Talkbacks