Judging from the guests and the first ten minutes this morning’s Meet the Press is going to be a series of softballs that will uncritically allow Evita to spin whatever position she currently holds.
Russert did stay on top of Hillary’s diametric flip on Iraq. I’d sure like to ask her why Osama and Zawahiri cite the Clinton Administration’s failure to respond to the attacks of the 90s as the reason they felt they could launch 9.11. Needless to say, Russert didn’t ask something that “critical”.
She then blathered more twaddle on Iraq. She claims that she would have voted differently if she knows now what she didn’t know then, whenever “then” was. No answer that describe what she now knows that she didn’t known then. Otherwise, for the rest of the interview, just go to Evita’s website “Defarge08” and help her knit baskets.
When asked about her vote to ratify the MoveOn attack on Gen. Petraeus Evita returned to the condemnation of all personal attacks, like when she called Gen. Petraeus a liar to his face. Bill Kristol is so right about these people, everything is about domestic politics. Why is calling a combat general a liar to his face on global television not a personal attack?
Russert simply surrendered the floor to Evita on healthcare so check her website as her statements this morning was a mere repetition of standard position. Hillary provides lots of glittering generalities and attacks on George W but avoids this central question: if the government cannot efficiently run the borders why do you think they could run the entire American healthcare system? Russert gave Evita literally four minutes solid to make a speech on the healthcare issue.
When asked about Norman Hsu; same situation- check her website, mere repetition of standard position. Hillary said that she’s done what they needed to do about Norman Hsu (whatever that means), the Clinton’s latest major Asian donor with a gangster background. Evita opined that the best solution to her relationship with criminal fundraising is the public financing of elections. I guess government control of elections is necessary to restrain the uncontrollable Clinton impulse to engage in and with whatever crimes or criminals are necessary to fund their campaigns and lifestyles. Hillary presents herself as Lon Cheney Jr. in the Wolfman begging to be saved from herself; only the Wolfman was a far more gentile spectre than Madame Defarge actually deciding who goes up the steps.
Russert broached no new ground with Greenspan. Loved Bill Clinton, hates the Bushes, helped Bill Clinton in 92 and George W in 01 and 03. Thinks the modern Democrats are too radical and neither party is good for social security. Generally prefers lower taxes and less spending.
Russert did ask about Greenspan’s role in the insanity of the subprime loans. Reminiscent of his role in the irrational exuberance of the late 90s that burst in 2000 and caused a recession in the first quarter (including a month of Bill Clinton’s last term) of 2001.
Russert even worked Iraq into the interview. Greenspan understands that Saddam was also a threat to the oil supply. We know you don’t like war Tim, but how do you feel about global depression. Greenspan said he believed that Saddam wanted to get control of the Middle East oil so that removing him was essential regardless of the means or the cost. Russert looked like he had been punched in the face upon hearing“realpolitik” answer like that one. That’s right Timmy, give war a chance.
Greenspan closed out with the statement that George HW Bush put the most political pressure on him. However, Papa Bush was pressuring Greenspan to lower interest rates to accelerate the economy to avoid the 91-92 recession. Now I may be crazy, but aren’t recessions bad for a lot more Americans than just the incumbent President? You know, the hundreds of thousands of people who lose their jobs and the taxpayers who are burdened with greater debt as the lost jobs drain the treasury of tax revenues and replace them with greater spending. Russert overlooked the later and focused on the former in a most well timed reminder that everything is political to Democrats.
Don’t’ ever forget that In the liberal world of Tim Russert and the rest of the Democrat leadership, unnecessary unemployment, damaged lifestyles and greater poverty are a price they are eager to pay for political power. After all, one cannot make a good omelet without breaking a few eggs.
Russert did stay on top of Hillary’s diametric flip on Iraq. I’d sure like to ask her why Osama and Zawahiri cite the Clinton Administration’s failure to respond to the attacks of the 90s as the reason they felt they could launch 9.11. Needless to say, Russert didn’t ask something that “critical”.
She then blathered more twaddle on Iraq. She claims that she would have voted differently if she knows now what she didn’t know then, whenever “then” was. No answer that describe what she now knows that she didn’t known then. Otherwise, for the rest of the interview, just go to Evita’s website “Defarge08” and help her knit baskets.
When asked about her vote to ratify the MoveOn attack on Gen. Petraeus Evita returned to the condemnation of all personal attacks, like when she called Gen. Petraeus a liar to his face. Bill Kristol is so right about these people, everything is about domestic politics. Why is calling a combat general a liar to his face on global television not a personal attack?
Russert simply surrendered the floor to Evita on healthcare so check her website as her statements this morning was a mere repetition of standard position. Hillary provides lots of glittering generalities and attacks on George W but avoids this central question: if the government cannot efficiently run the borders why do you think they could run the entire American healthcare system? Russert gave Evita literally four minutes solid to make a speech on the healthcare issue.
When asked about Norman Hsu; same situation- check her website, mere repetition of standard position. Hillary said that she’s done what they needed to do about Norman Hsu (whatever that means), the Clinton’s latest major Asian donor with a gangster background. Evita opined that the best solution to her relationship with criminal fundraising is the public financing of elections. I guess government control of elections is necessary to restrain the uncontrollable Clinton impulse to engage in and with whatever crimes or criminals are necessary to fund their campaigns and lifestyles. Hillary presents herself as Lon Cheney Jr. in the Wolfman begging to be saved from herself; only the Wolfman was a far more gentile spectre than Madame Defarge actually deciding who goes up the steps.
Russert broached no new ground with Greenspan. Loved Bill Clinton, hates the Bushes, helped Bill Clinton in 92 and George W in 01 and 03. Thinks the modern Democrats are too radical and neither party is good for social security. Generally prefers lower taxes and less spending.
Russert did ask about Greenspan’s role in the insanity of the subprime loans. Reminiscent of his role in the irrational exuberance of the late 90s that burst in 2000 and caused a recession in the first quarter (including a month of Bill Clinton’s last term) of 2001.
Russert even worked Iraq into the interview. Greenspan understands that Saddam was also a threat to the oil supply. We know you don’t like war Tim, but how do you feel about global depression. Greenspan said he believed that Saddam wanted to get control of the Middle East oil so that removing him was essential regardless of the means or the cost. Russert looked like he had been punched in the face upon hearing“realpolitik” answer like that one. That’s right Timmy, give war a chance.
Greenspan closed out with the statement that George HW Bush put the most political pressure on him. However, Papa Bush was pressuring Greenspan to lower interest rates to accelerate the economy to avoid the 91-92 recession. Now I may be crazy, but aren’t recessions bad for a lot more Americans than just the incumbent President? You know, the hundreds of thousands of people who lose their jobs and the taxpayers who are burdened with greater debt as the lost jobs drain the treasury of tax revenues and replace them with greater spending. Russert overlooked the later and focused on the former in a most well timed reminder that everything is political to Democrats.
Don’t’ ever forget that In the liberal world of Tim Russert and the rest of the Democrat leadership, unnecessary unemployment, damaged lifestyles and greater poverty are a price they are eager to pay for political power. After all, one cannot make a good omelet without breaking a few eggs.
5 comments:
"why do you think they could run the entire American healthcare system?"
Do you see different doctors on a regular basis? Do you really think our system is efficient? Believe it or not, to see efficiency in healthcare you may have to visit one of those backwards "socialist" European countries. And funny how you don't hear much about those people who travel overseas for healthcare - for cost reasons or availability of care.
Good thing today's R's were not in power when we built our interstate system. We would probably have all these private roads crisscrossing all over the place with no central planning and no general access.
rf - did you forget it was Republican President General Eisenhower that came up with the interstate system?
Also, did you not hear the news last week about the Canadian MP coming to California for treatment rather than to be treated in Canada? Stated the reason as being that the United States is the best place to get treated. They didn't have that treatment in Canada. They would have pass a tax increase to do the research because no one is innovating or researching in Canada anymore.
Please note I said "today's R's". I suspect Eisenhower, just like so many old school R's, would have difficulty identifying themselves with today's R party.
Did you hear of my family member who had to travel to Europe to be able to have an affordable operation? - I didn't think so.
Of course we have the best medical care here for anyone who can afford it or who has good enough insurance coverage. Nobody ever questions that. Efficiency, cost-benefit analysis, and collective results are areas where the huge problems with our system come up. I think people like Eisenhower would realize, with today's evidence, that in the case of healthcare, private sector is not delivering efficiency. And don't even try to go to the biggest red herring of all, the "choice of doctors" that always comes us as the next lame excuse of our current system. With private sector managed care, how many of us really can truly make our own choices?
Just saw the "let's not be like D's" ad by Romney. As much as I dislike him and think he is a huge fake and possibly the greatest flip-flopper of all time, I have to say that ad is brilliant. It correctly criticizes his own party, but it does it by dogging D's. Obviously I disagree with the ad's D argument, and if I ever figured out what the man really stands for I suspect I would disagree with him an awful lot. But still, his team came up with a great ad.
She said that she wouldn't vote for the Iraq War Authorization Bill if she knew what she had been voting on. If she isn't even sure what she is voting for or against, how is she going to do as President?
Post a Comment