Online Now 3230

The Bucknuts Hot Spot

The place to be for topics too hot for any place else

On this Board 77
Record: 9642 (12/28/2012)

Online now 3163
Record: 10904 (2/4/2012)

Boards ▾

The Front Row

The place to discuss inside information, the latest rumors and scoop on the Buckeyes

Around the 'Shoe

Anything and everything football related that has to do with your Buckeyes

The Best Damn Recruiting Board

If it's football recruiting, OSU-style, it's cussed and discussed here

Bucknutin' But Net

Talk a little Buckeye basketball with your fellow Ohio State hoopsters

The Bucknuts Hot Spot

The place to be for topics too hot for any place else

The Buckeye Babe Thread

Share your favorite pix, a special lady in your life or someone else's life

Reply

Obama Abandons His Own Agenda

  • "Super excellent" (sorry, Seattlebuckfan) lead editorial was in this past Wednesday's WSJ about the way POTUS has basically put his entire agenda on hiatus, at least until he secures re-election. Why should we be surprised? We've seen him flip-flop on issues of extension of tax cuts and national defense/national security by adopting W's policies, and common sense states when you're in over your head you should stop digging. To me there are two things going on here - first he's recognizing the impotence of his major initiatives, and second, he's pragmatic and doesn't want to be a one-term president. Would be curious to know what our left-leaning friends think about all this, as there's been increasing angst from big-money liberal donors about how easily he's abandoned them and the platform they thought they'd bought and paid for. My favorite line from the editorial: "But then, 9.1% joblessness and 1.8% growth have a way of concentrating the political mind." We'd be in a much better place if he'd extend the hiatus to himself, and not just his agenda....

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303848104576385620186823528.html?KEYWORDS=obama+hiatus

    The Obama Hiatus - The Administration takes a two-year holiday from its own agenda..

    President Obama's re-election machine is already running full bore, but has his entire Administration also decamped for the campaign trail? We ask because the towering ambitions of Mr. Obama's first two years have suddenly gone into abeyance in his third, apparently to be deferred until years five through eight. The White House is more or less conceding that it doesn't have a chance of winning a second term unless his major policies go on hiatus.

    This holiday from committing liberal history began in December with the White House-GOP deal that extended the Bush tax rates through the 2012 election and added a payroll tax cut on employees to 4.2% from 6.2%. These proposals came from the same Democrats who only months earlier had increased payroll taxes to finance their health-care bill and routinely claim that tax rates don't matter to the private economy. But then, 9.1% joblessness and 1.8% growth have a way of concentrating the political mind.

    Next came the much-ballyhooed White House scrub for "excessive" regulation, even as hundreds of new rules mandated by the legislation of the first two years continue to be written and to slow business investment. But at least the rule review persuaded the Environmental Protection Agency to stop treating dairy farm milk spills as if they were Gulf oil leaks. That should help next year in Wisconsin.

    Picking up the vacation pace, this week the EPA delayed by two months the carbon regulations that it wants to impose, even as it resists bipartisan attempts on Capitol Hill to kill them altogether. Next up may be a delay in pending regulations meant to harm coal-fired power, before opponents gather enough votes to kill them. The EPA has already yanked an entire rule that would have forced thousands of businesses to install new industrial boilers.

    Maybe the White House should short-circuit all this by dispatching EPA administrator Lisa Jackson to an undisclosed location through November 2012.

    Also this week, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission voted—five to zero—to delay by six months the derivatives swap rules that were due this month under the Dodd-Frank financial re-regulation. The alphabet soup of financial regulators will eventually add tens of thousands of pages to the Federal Register, but for now they are conceding that the derivatives market isn't the calamity they claimed it was in the rush to pass the bill.

    Then there's health care. Over the last year, the Health and Human Services Department has granted at least 1,372 temporary waivers to ObamaCare mandates, most notably for price controls on private insurance companies. Many have gone to Democratic allies like unions, but many more went to ordinary businesses and even states. HHS has already given a pass to Nevada, New Hampshire and Maine, and another dozen or so have applied or are expected to ask for exemptions.

    This is less political favoritism than a panicked, ad hoc bid to minimize pre-election insurance disruptions that can be attributed to a law that is still widely reviled. If the law isn't enforced, maybe voters will forget it passed. In its New Hampshire reprieve, HHS admitted that ObamaCare would "destabilize the individual market," though it neglected to mention that this is what ObamaCare is meant to do. Just not yet.

    By the way, this waiver process isn't in the law's statutory language. HHS has simply created it via regulation. In other words, the health bureaucracy knew the rules they were writing would be destructive and have created a political safety valve. They have even found a way to override ObamaCare's cuts to the Medicare Advantage program that were counted as "savings" to make the health bill look less spendthrift. Medicare Advantage offers insurance choices to one in four seniors and is popular in, well, Florida, so seniors also get a two-year reprieve.

    Why aren't liberals deploring this betrayal of their programs? Perhaps because even they can't ignore reality forever. Mr. Obama's epic fiscal binge, waves of new industrial policy and the political allocation of credit haven't created the boom they promised. If business can now be persuaded that the government assault is over and start to invest again so the economy improves enough for Mr. Obama to win a second term, then a two-year delay in fulfilling their dreams is well worth it.

    Liberals figure that as long as Mr. Obama can be re-elected next year on another hope-and-change platform, it will be too late to hope to change anything and he can then return to his legacy project of building a tax and entitlement state on the European model. The economy may benefit from Mr. Obama's temporary amnesty, but the real lesson of this hiatus from liberalism is that it should be shut down permanently.

    "You're only young once, but you can always be immature."

    excabuckeye ●

  • "Liberals figure that as long as Mr. Obama can be re-elected next year on another hope-and-change platform, it will be too late to hope to change anything and he can then return to his legacy project of building a tax and entitlement state on the European model. The economy may benefit from Mr. Obama's temporary amnesty, but the real lesson of this hiatus from liberalism is that it should be shut down permanently." ... An outstanding summary and really the bottom line which most Americans hopefully realize. A leopard doesn't change his spots...

    sryan2 ●

  • Even if he is reelected he won't be able to get any of his liberal agenda passed not with A Republicn House and soon to be Senate.

    pazbuc ●

  • excabuckeye said...

    "Super excellent" (sorry, Seattlebuckfan) lead editorial was in this past Wednesday's WSJ about the way POTUS has basically put his entire agenda on hiatus, at least until he secures re-election. Why should we be surprised? We've seen him flip-flop on issues of extension of tax cuts and national defense/national security by adopting W's policies, and common sense states when you're in over your head you should stop digging. To me there are two things going on here - first he's recognizing the impotence of his major initiatives, and second, he's pragmatic and doesn't want to be a one-term president. Would be curious to know what our left-leaning friends think about all this, as there's been increasing angst from big-money liberal donors about how easily he's abandoned them and the platform they thought they'd bought and paid for. My favorite line from the editorial: "But then, 9.1% joblessness and 1.8% growth have a way of concentrating the political mind." We'd be in a much better place if he'd extend the hiatus to himself, and not just his agenda....

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303848104576385620186823528.html?KEYWORDS=obama+hiatus

    The Obama Hiatus - The Administration takes a two-year holiday from its own agenda..

    President Obama's re-election machine is already running full bore, but has his entire Administration also decamped for the campaign trail? We ask because the towering ambitions of Mr. Obama's first two years have suddenly gone into abeyance in his third, apparently to be deferred until years five through eight. The White House is more or less conceding that it doesn't have a chance of winning a second term unless his major policies go on hiatus.

    This holiday from committing liberal history began in December with the White House-GOP deal that extended the Bush tax rates through the 2012 election and added a payroll tax cut on employees to 4.2% from 6.2%. These proposals came from the same Democrats who only months earlier had increased payroll taxes to finance their health-care bill and routinely claim that tax rates don't matter to the private economy. But then, 9.1% joblessness and 1.8% growth have a way of concentrating the political mind.

    Next came the much-ballyhooed White House scrub for "excessive" regulation, even as hundreds of new rules mandated by the legislation of the first two years continue to be written and to slow business investment. But at least the rule review persuaded the Environmental Protection Agency to stop treating dairy farm milk spills as if they were Gulf oil leaks. That should help next year in Wisconsin.

    Picking up the vacation pace, this week the EPA delayed by two months the carbon regulations that it wants to impose, even as it resists bipartisan attempts on Capitol Hill to kill them altogether. Next up may be a delay in pending regulations meant to harm coal-fired power, before opponents gather enough votes to kill them. The EPA has already yanked an entire rule that would have forced thousands of businesses to install new industrial boilers.

    Maybe the White House should short-circuit all this by dispatching EPA administrator Lisa Jackson to an undisclosed location through November 2012.

    Also this week, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission voted—five to zero—to delay by six months the derivatives swap rules that were due this month under the Dodd-Frank financial re-regulation. The alphabet soup of financial regulators will eventually add tens of thousands of pages to the Federal Register, but for now they are conceding that the derivatives market isn't the calamity they claimed it was in the rush to pass the bill.

    Then there's health care. Over the last year, the Health and Human Services Department has granted at least 1,372 temporary waivers to ObamaCare mandates, most notably for price controls on private insurance companies. Many have gone to Democratic allies like unions, but many more went to ordinary businesses and even states. HHS has already given a pass to Nevada, New Hampshire and Maine, and another dozen or so have applied or are expected to ask for exemptions.

    This is less political favoritism than a panicked, ad hoc bid to minimize pre-election insurance disruptions that can be attributed to a law that is still widely reviled. If the law isn't enforced, maybe voters will forget it passed. In its New Hampshire reprieve, HHS admitted that ObamaCare would "destabilize the individual market," though it neglected to mention that this is what ObamaCare is meant to do. Just not yet.

    By the way, this waiver process isn't in the law's statutory language. HHS has simply created it via regulation. In other words, the health bureaucracy knew the rules they were writing would be destructive and have created a political safety valve. They have even found a way to override ObamaCare's cuts to the Medicare Advantage program that were counted as "savings" to make the health bill look less spendthrift. Medicare Advantage offers insurance choices to one in four seniors and is popular in, well, Florida, so seniors also get a two-year reprieve.

    Why aren't liberals deploring this betrayal of their programs? Perhaps because even they can't ignore reality forever. Mr. Obama's epic fiscal binge, waves of new industrial policy and the political allocation of credit haven't created the boom they promised. If business can now be persuaded that the government assault is over and start to invest again so the economy improves enough for Mr. Obama to win a second term, then a two-year delay in fulfilling their dreams is well worth it.

    Liberals figure that as long as Mr. Obama can be re-elected next year on another hope-and-change platform, it will be too late to hope to change anything and he can then return to his legacy project of building a tax and entitlement state on the European model. The economy may benefit from Mr. Obama's temporary amnesty, but the real lesson of this hiatus from liberalism is that it should be shut down permanently.

    Progressives Break Up With Obama..... This is just one of many articles over the last several months.... so the WSJ is dead wrong... this is a huge topic at the Netroots convention.... and Obama will not be getting my vote...

    MINNEAPOLIS — President Barack Obama is decidedly “not [the left's] boyfriend anymore,” progressive supporters of gay- and immigrant-rights said on Thursday, rebuking the White House for breaking promises to the left while also asking them for money.
    The message to those in the room for “What to Do When the President is Just Not that Into You,” a Netroots Nation panel, was be more demanding, don’t take no for an answer and compromises aren’t good enough.
    Lt. Dan Choi, who was discharged from the military for running afoul of its anti-gay Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, provided a visual when an Organizing for America volunteer stood up and asked him to support Obama in 2012. The man said he did not support gay marriage — “civil unions?” he offered weakly — and Choi promptly ripped up an Organizing for America flyer he had been given and threw it back in the man’s face.
    The four panelists — Choi, immigration reform supporter Felipe Matos, America Blog writer John Aravosis and Fire Dog Lake Founder Jane Hamsher — said they are planning to hold the White House’s collective feet to the fire for its decisions on civil rights, whether it would hurt Obama’s reelection chances or not.
    “I would probably vote for the president in the end, but I’d also do everything that I can to shame him,” said Aravosis, who writes about gay rights issues. “But I don’t think they realize how damaging that is.”
    Although Obama signed a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in December, the panelists decried his failure to take a hard stance for gay marriage.
    “We always say we simply expected what he promised,” Aravosis said “The White House would rather not engage at all — at least with the big stuff. We were told he’d be a fierce advocate, and he’s been not fierce at all and not much of an advocate.”
    Advertisement
    On immigration, Obama has been even worse, panelists said. He continues to deport a record numbers of undocumented men and women and has failed to pass the DREAM Act, which would give undocumented youths who graduate from college or serve in the military a pathway to citizenship.
    At the same time, the White House has courted the votes of the gay and immigrant community.
    “We’re angry, and we know he’s courting our vote right now,” said Matos, an undocumented man who lives in Miami. “He went to Puerto Rico, he went to Texas… we’re onto him. [As] a friend of mine said, we are not the type of people he wants to mess around with.”
    Immigrants rights supporters are beginning to mobilize against Democrats — including Obama — for 2012.
    “That’s the big threat that the president is scared of: That we’re not scared to stand up anymore,” Matos said. “We’re willing to go as far as we have to go to pressure him to stop the deportation of DREAM Act students.”
    One way to ensure Democrats do not take progressive votes for granted is to stop voting for Democrats, Choi said.
    “How many people here are lifelong members of a particular party?” he asked, prompting hands around the room to raise. “That’s a lot of people. And I think that’s a major problem.”
    Source: Huffingtonpost
    © 2011, LLNews. All rights reserved.

    GO PACK GO!!!!! Go Brew Crew!!!!

    Seattlebuckfan

  • Seattlebuckfan said...

    Progressives Break Up With Obama..... This is just one of many articles over the last several months.... so the WSJ is dead wrong... this is a huge topic at the Netroots convention.... and Obama will not be getting my vote...

    So who will you be voting for?

    signature image

    www.miamiproject.miami.edu/

    Buckeye Warrior

  • Buckeye Warrior said...

    So who will you be voting for?

    A green candidate of my choosing which I've already said a ton of times.....

    GO PACK GO!!!!! Go Brew Crew!!!!

    Seattlebuckfan

  • Seattlebuckfan said...

    A green candidate of my choosing which I've already said a ton of times.....

    Yeah, I get that. I thought maybe you actually narrowed down to someone with a name.

    signature image

    www.miamiproject.miami.edu/

    Buckeye Warrior

  • excabuckeye said...

    'Super excellent' (sorry, Seattlebuckfan) lead editorial was in this past Wednesday's WSJ about the way POTUS has basically put his entire agenda on hiatus, at least until he secures re-election. Why should we be surprised? We've seen him flip-flop on issues of extension of tax cuts and national defense/national security by adopting W's policies, and common sense states when you're in over your head you should stop digging. To me there are two things going on here - first he's recognizing the impotence of his major initiatives, and second, he's pragmatic and doesn't want to be a one-term president. Would be curious to know what our left-leaning friends think about all this, as there's been increasing angst from big-money liberal donors about how easily he's abandoned them and the platform they thought they'd bought and paid for. My favorite line from the editorial: 'But then, 9.1% joblessness and 1.8% growth have a way of concentrating the political mind.' We'd be in a much better place if he'd extend the hiatus to himself, and not just his agenda....

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303848104576385620186823528.html?KEYWORDS=obama+hiatus

    The Obama Hiatus - The Administration takes a two-year holiday from its own agenda..

    President Obama's re-election machine is already running full bore, but has his entire Administration also decamped for the campaign trail? We ask because the towering ambitions of Mr. Obama's first two years have suddenly gone into abeyance in his third, apparently to be deferred until years five through eight. The White House is more or less conceding that it doesn't have a chance of winning a second term unless his major policies go on hiatus.

    This holiday from committing liberal history began in December with the White House-GOP deal that extended the Bush tax rates through the 2012 election and added a payroll tax cut on employees to 4.2% from 6.2%. These proposals came from the same Democrats who only months earlier had increased payroll taxes to finance their health-care bill and routinely claim that tax rates don't matter to the private economy. But then, 9.1% joblessness and 1.8% growth have a way of concentrating the political mind.

    Next came the much-ballyhooed White House scrub for 'excessive' regulation, even as hundreds of new rules mandated by the legislation of the first two years continue to be written and to slow business investment. But at least the rule review persuaded the Environmental Protection Agency to stop treating dairy farm milk spills as if they were Gulf oil leaks. That should help next year in Wisconsin.

    Picking up the vacation pace, this week the EPA delayed by two months the carbon regulations that it wants to impose, even as it resists bipartisan attempts on Capitol Hill to kill them altogether. Next up may be a delay in pending regulations meant to harm coal-fired power, before opponents gather enough votes to kill them. The EPA has already yanked an entire rule that would have forced thousands of businesses to install new industrial boilers.

    Maybe the White House should short-circuit all this by dispatching EPA administrator Lisa Jackson to an undisclosed location through November 2012.

    Also this week, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission voted—five to zero—to delay by six months the derivatives swap rules that were due this month under the Dodd-Frank financial re-regulation. The alphabet soup of financial regulators will eventually add tens of thousands of pages to the Federal Register, but for now they are conceding that the derivatives market isn't the calamity they claimed it was in the rush to pass the bill.

    Then there's health care. Over the last year, the Health and Human Services Department has granted at least 1,372 temporary waivers to ObamaCare mandates, most notably for price controls on private insurance companies. Many have gone to Democratic allies like unions, but many more went to ordinary businesses and even states. HHS has already given a pass to Nevada, New Hampshire and Maine, and another dozen or so have applied or are expected to ask for exemptions.

    This is less political favoritism than a panicked, ad hoc bid to minimize pre-election insurance disruptions that can be attributed to a law that is still widely reviled. If the law isn't enforced, maybe voters will forget it passed. In its New Hampshire reprieve, HHS admitted that ObamaCare would 'destabilize the individual market,' though it neglected to mention that this is what ObamaCare is meant to do. Just not yet.

    By the way, this waiver process isn't in the law's statutory language. HHS has simply created it via regulation. In other words, the health bureaucracy knew the rules they were writing would be destructive and have created a political safety valve. They have even found a way to override ObamaCare's cuts to the Medicare Advantage program that were counted as 'savings' to make the health bill look less spendthrift. Medicare Advantage offers insurance choices to one in four seniors and is popular in, well, Florida, so seniors also get a two-year reprieve.

    Why aren't liberals deploring this betrayal of their programs? Perhaps because even they can't ignore reality forever. Mr. Obama's epic fiscal binge, waves of new industrial policy and the political allocation of credit haven't created the boom they promised. If business can now be persuaded that the government assault is over and start to invest again so the economy improves enough for Mr. Obama to win a second term, then a two-year delay in fulfilling their dreams is well worth it.

    Liberals figure that as long as Mr. Obama can be re-elected next year on another hope-and-change platform, it will be too late to hope to change anything and he can then return to his legacy project of building a tax and entitlement state on the European model. The economy may benefit from Mr. Obama's temporary amnesty, but the real lesson of this hiatus from liberalism is that it should be shut down permanently.

    Help me please? Who owns the WSJ?

    dave1954

  • dave1954 said...

    Help me please? Who owns the WSJ?

    You're not as smart as you think you are, so I'll humor you by answering your question. Dow Jones & Company, a division of News Corp. publishes the Wall Street Journal, and News Corp. is 85% owned by 485 different institutional investors, according to its latest quarterly release. The WSJ has been around since 1889 and is the number one newspaper in the US, which just might have something to do with its credibility and professionalism. Alas, News Corp. also owns Fox, but maybe you believe Fox News controls what's published in the WSJ? Please. I suppose only stories that come from media outlets George Soros controls are credible?

    Maybe this editiorial written after News Corp bought the WSJ in 2007 will enlighten you, as well.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118592457581183994.html

    "You're only young once, but you can always be immature."

    excabuckeye ●

  • excabuckeye said...

    You're not as smart as you think you are, so I'll humor you by answering your question. Dow Jones & Company, a division of News Corp. publishes the Wall Street Journal, and News Corp. is 85% owned by 485 different institutional investors, according to its latest quarterly release. The WSJ has been around since 1889 and is the number one newspaper in the US, which just might have something to do with its credibility and professionalism. Alas, News Corp. also owns Fox, but maybe you believe Fox News controls what's published in the WSJ? Please. I suppose only stories that come from media outlets George Soros controls are credible?

    Maybe this editiorial written after News Corp bought the WSJ in 2007 will enlighten you, as well.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118592457581183994.html

    What's the diff when the entire premise of the article is blatantly false???.... as I said from Netroots nation and before... Libs and progressives have been both aware and fed up with Obama's lip service... so the article is just yammering... They have been plenty vocal about their displeasure and I have C&P'd some of those articles here...

    GO PACK GO!!!!! Go Brew Crew!!!!

    Seattlebuckfan

  • Seattlebuckfan said...

    A green candidate of my choosing which I've already said a ton of times.....

    Seattle, this is one I just don't get.

    Why bother voting?

    I have never understood symbolic voting. It takes you out of the decision making process.

    Though often asked, God does not take sides in politics or college football.

    TimMcM

  • excabuckeye said...

    You're not as smart as you think you are, so I'll humor you by answering your question. Dow Jones & Company, a division of News Corp. publishes the Wall Street Journal, and News Corp. is 85% owned by 485 different institutional investors, according to its latest quarterly release. The WSJ has been around since 1889 and is the number one newspaper in the US, which just might have something to do with its credibility and professionalism. Alas, News Corp. also owns Fox, but maybe you believe Fox News controls what's published in the WSJ? Please. I suppose only stories that come from media outlets George Soros controls are credible?

    Maybe this editiorial written after News Corp bought the WSJ in 2007 will enlighten you, as well.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118592457581183994.html

    And you might not be as smart as you think you are. Your " News Corp. is 85% owned by 485 different institutional investors," is true but really misleading. It is disingenuous at best, just misdirection at worse.

    Afraid to print the real truth about News Corp? News Corp is Rupert Murdoch's company and as Chairman & Chief Executive Officer he calls all of the shots. It is true that he only owns 12% of the stock but:
    "How can Murdoch do this stuff with only about a 12% stake in a giant public company? It's because only about 30% of News Corp.'s shares have voting power, and Rupert Murdoch and a family trust own 40% of them. And it's because he's Rupert Murdoch, known as a dominating personality." http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/02/24/missing-from-murdochs-family-deals-news-corp-shareholders/

    Murdoch has another 15% to 20% of the voting stock in his back pocket and has three children who happen to be on the Board of Directors. Anyone who really understands how corporations work would have known that this company, which was founded by Murdoch, is his.

    Though often asked, God does not take sides in politics or college football.

    TimMcM

  • TimMcM said...

    Seattle, this is one I just don't get.

    Why bother voting?

    I have never understood symbolic voting. It takes you out of the decision making process.

    I just feel sold out by Obama, Tim.... Maybe that will change but I doubt it.... I'm still a Lib and a Dem thru and thru......

    GO PACK GO!!!!! Go Brew Crew!!!!

    Seattlebuckfan

  • Seattlebuckfan said...

    I just feel sold out by Obama, Tim.... Maybe that will change but I doubt it.... I'm still a Lib and a Dem thru and thru......

    I am wondering if the people of Florida that voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 regret it?

    signature image

    mtnbuck ●

  • TimMcM said...

    And you might not be as smart as you think you are. Your " News Corp. is 85% owned by 485 different institutional investors," is true but really misleading. It is disingenuous at best, just misdirection at worse.

    Afraid to print the real truth about News Corp? News Corp is Rupert Murdoch's company and as Chairman & Chief Executive Officer he calls all of the shots. It is true that he only owns 12% of the stock but: "How can Murdoch do this stuff with only about a 12% stake in a giant public company? It's because only about 30% of News Corp.'s shares have voting power, and Rupert Murdoch and a family trust own 40% of them. And it's because he's Rupert Murdoch, known as a dominating personality." http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/02/24/missing-from-murdochs-family-deals-news-corp-shareholders/

    Murdoch has another 15% to 20% of the voting stock in his back pocket and has three children who happen to be on the Board of Directors. Anyone who really understands how corporations work would have known that this company, which was founded by Murdoch, is his.

    In this case, his "calling all the shots at News Corp" has been to pretty much leave alone what's worked for so many years at The WSJ. Have you ever actually read one? I can understand your skepticism because, for the most part, the publication and its readers lean right and are pro-business/pro-free market, but then they were long before Murdoch entered the picture. I've been reading it almost daily for over 20 years - feel free to provide some facts and data to show his controlling ownership of News Corp has changed the editorial slant a whole lot at Dow Jones/WSJ because your Fortune article doesn't. The WSJ has always been among the two or three most trusted worldwide publications serving the business community, and has a long tradition of "calling them as they see them" when it comes to business news, political ineptitude on the left, and sometimes even on the right. Back in the day they were quite vocal when Slick Willie, Hillary, and their cronies were wrapped up in Whitewater, the Rose Law Firm, Vincent Foster's mysterious suicide, Monicagate, etc. Who knows? There might even be a few wealthy liberals/elitists/progressives out there who read it to help keep track of all their money.

    "You're only young once, but you can always be immature."

    excabuckeye ●

  • Seattlebuckfan said...

    What's the diff when the entire premise of the article is blatantly false???.... as I said from Netroots nation and before... Libs and progressives have been both aware and fed up with Obama's lip service... so the article is just yammering... They have been plenty vocal about their displeasure and I have C&P'd some of those articles here...

    I hear you, but what about his (pick your poll) 45-50% approval rating? That tells me only some of the better informed Libs and Progressives and some big money donors are on to him. Maybe the 2nd to last paragraph should have started "Why aren't more liberals...?"

    "You're only young once, but you can always be immature."

    excabuckeye ●

  • Seattlebuckfan said...

    A green candidate of my choosing which I've already said a ton of times.....

    What exactly would a "green candidate" do?

    signature image signature image signature image

    Downtown ●

  • mtnbuck said...

    I am wondering if the people of Florida that voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 regret it?

    Didn't vote for Nader, Mtn....Did vote for Gore...

    GO PACK GO!!!!! Go Brew Crew!!!!

    Seattlebuckfan

  • TimMcM said...

    And you might not be as smart as you think you are. Your " News Corp. is 85% owned by 485 different institutional investors," is true but really misleading. It is disingenuous at best, just misdirection at worse.

    Afraid to print the real truth about News Corp? News Corp is Rupert Murdoch's company and as Chairman & Chief Executive Officer he calls all of the shots. It is true that he only owns 12% of the stock but: "How can Murdoch do this stuff with only about a 12% stake in a giant public company? It's because only about 30% of News Corp.'s shares have voting power, and Rupert Murdoch and a family trust own 40% of them. And it's because he's Rupert Murdoch, known as a dominating personality." http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/02/24/missing-from-murdochs-family-deals-news-corp-shareholders/

    Murdoch has another 15% to 20% of the voting stock in his back pocket and has three children who happen to be on the Board of Directors. Anyone who really understands how corporations work would have known that this company, which was founded by Murdoch, is his.

    Rupert Murdoch is one of the smartest business men in the game. He seen that ALL of the media leans Left or is blatantly Left so he started a News Organization that leans Right. The result is the fact that Fox News crushes all competitors, COMBINED. The WSJ isn't going under like the New York Times. Maybe the lesson here is that the Media should be more balanced and they might get some Conservatives to watch their broadcast. CBS News is going to try to do that. I will wait and see how they cover the election.

    signature image

    www.miamiproject.miami.edu/

    Buckeye Warrior

  • TimMcM said...

    Seattle, this is one I just don't get.

    Why bother voting?

    I have never understood symbolic voting. It takes you out of the decision making process.

    A "symbolic" vote is respectable. When you vote, you have the right to complain about our leaders and the direction of the country. If you don't vote, you have no voice and no right to complain if you aren't willing to do something about it. Symbolic voting does not take you out of the decision making process. It makes politicians wake up when they look at polls and see that they are losing votes. It makes them try harder to get your vote.

    Just my opinion though.

    signature image

    www.miamiproject.miami.edu/

    Buckeye Warrior

  • I wish more voters were as thoughtful (and courageous) as you, Seattle, and chucked party loyalty to vote for who they believed would best govern our nation. While I am more liberal than conservative, I do not support many actual Democrat policies while I support many Republican ideas. Bottom-line, neither party fully represents me. I voted for third party candidates in 2 of the last 3 presidential elections, including 2008. More and more people are realizing who the Democrat AND Republican parties really support -- and it's not middle- or lower-class USAmericans. Time for real change, and not just people who pay lip service.

    TimBucktoo

  • I get humanitarians, but why the support for illegal immigration from other quarters. I am strongly opposed to it. I have known far too many people from other nations who did not have the benefit of sharing a 1200+ mile border with the US who waited in line to gain a green card or citizenship -- and others who left because they were denied citizenship. For the record, I have no misconception that all "illegals" are Mexican. Where is the fairness in granting citizenship to well over 12 million people just because they were able to walk, climb, drive, or fly across the border? Since childhood, I was taught that dishing in line was wrong. Why should illegal immigration be any different?

    Besides, illegal immigration drives down wages. Why pay one construction worker $25 to do what another construction worker would do for $15? After Hurricane Katrina, immigrants, often undocumented, were bussed into New Orleans by contractors to do work at $10-15/hr when the government paid contractors $40-45/hr. The workers typically slept 20-30 in trailers. This was told to me by a friend who did contract work down in New Orleans. It's not that illegal immigrants do what USAmericans will not. Illegal immigrants do what USAmericans will not at substandard wages, often in dangerous conditions with no benefits.

    This post was edited by TimBucktoo on 6/19/2011 at 2:57 PM

    TimBucktoo

  • Seattlebuckfan said...

    A green candidate of my choosing which I've already said a ton of times.....

    Seattle...though this is your right...I'm left wondering if you'll have second thoughts when there is NO VETO power sitting in the White House...I most certainly wanted a "more left" President, but the alternative CANNOT be left to happen...haven't you seen enough evidence of Rethuglican greed, agendas and ideology to scare the living hell out of you? My God, all you have to do is look at the first 3 months of governorships in Ohio..Florida..Wisconsin...and Michigan to see the writing on the wall............

    Though President Obama has been somewhat disappointing...have you given serious thought to the previous 8 years? Is your memory that short that you've forgotten the HELL of President GW Bush...or have you forgotten that this country has been ruled by Rethuglicans from 1968-2008, for 28 of those 40 years...and 8 years of Clinton and the prosperity of his presidency...do you want a Commander-in-Chief that can go to war and kill thousands of young Americans because "he wants to"...you want another right wing idiot that will squander 5.6 TRILLION in surplus...do you want an evil Vice President that is a bigger asshole than his boss and doesn't mind saying publicly that "DEFICITS DONT MATTER"...have you forgotten about the TRILLIONS spent on 2 wars with no end in sight...have you forgotten that the aforementioned GW Bush's trampling of our rights and Constitution...are you willing to put someone in office that wants to take from the poor and give FURTHER and MORE to the rich and corporations in this country...do you wanna take the chance that, as a woman, your rights would be slashed...have you forgotten the PARTY OF NO has been NO HELP whatsoever to this President in any way, shape or form...hows all those jobs going that was promised from the right during the 2010 campaigns...have you forgotten that the Rethuglicans in both Congressional houses have done NOTHING but cut programs for the poor...the elderly...the homeless...veterans...and LIED TO EVERY AMERICAN about it...even on the Senate floor...now, they want to change the rules to the only safety nets that the elderly and disabled in this country will ever have to keep them ABOVE the poverty line...do you want roads, bridges, hospitals, prisons sold and privatized for profit...haven't you seen enough of that in the insurance / healthcare industry to make you physically ill...do you honestly think an insurance company should be making life and death decisions for ANY AMERICAN...you wanna hand over the Presidency to the party of greed...or as I call them GREED OVER PEOPLE...I cannot believe you are even willing to take THAT CHANCE...

    The apathy of the left is the only thing that can stand in the way of another 4 years of a DEMOCRATIC presidency...I cannot fathom even the idea that we would once again be ruled by right wing nut morons and their 100 year old strategies for American life...I know I'm not looking forward to child labor...a fascist corporate state...alley-way abortions...the "right" to kill an abortion doctor...or who gets to vote...no rights to bargain a better wage or working conditions...

    I'm DAMN GLAD that you are exercising your rights here...but I do not think in my wildest imagination that you want any of those things I mentioned above...afterall, THEE ALTERNATIVE IS PURE EVIL...............just sayin

    roxannereggie ●

  • Seattlebuckfan said...

    Didn't vote for Nader, Mtn....Did vote for Gore...

    My point is that a vote for "green" candidate is a vote for a republican.

    If the 97,000 some odd people that voted for Nader in Florida had voted for Gore, Gore would have won the Election. It is my opinion that the world would have been a much different (better) place without GWB as president.

    I am sure, that at the time many of these Nader voters, thought they were making a "statement", or where disappointed in some way. I wonder how they feel now?

    All of us are somewhat disappointed in some of the things that Obama has done. Lets not make it an easier road for the likes of Romney or Gingrich. Maybe Obama will grow a pair in his second term, we can only hope.

    signature image

    mtnbuck ●

  • mtnbuck said...

    My point is that a vote for "green" candidate is a vote for a republican.

    If the 97,000 some odd people that voted for Nader in Florida had voted for Gore, Gore would have won the Election. It is my opinion that the world would have been a much different (better) place without GWB as president.

    I am sure, that at the time many of these Nader voters, thought they were making a "statement", or where disappointed in some way. I wonder how they feel now?

    All of us are somewhat disappointed in some of the things that Obama has done. Lets not make it an easier road for the likes of Romney or Gingrich. Maybe Obama will grow a pair in his second term, we can only hope.

    Actually, Mtn, that's what I wrestle with... will he grow a pair and even more important can he? If I thought he would I might vote for him again but I have real doubts... altho he did accomplish a lot of good during the small lame duck congress session....

    And I do get where you're coming from Rox.....

    GO PACK GO!!!!! Go Brew Crew!!!!

    Seattlebuckfan

Ohio State
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports