Well one can only hope our beltway media royality ends the same way.
Well its down to work for the new guy. And the MSM continues much as it did yesterday. By mistake I read this article without first noticing that it is from the Politico.
First, the authors bemoan the fact that so far Obama hasn't had his "Sister Souljah" moment where he could repudiate his base (by attacking a straw [wo]man) as Clinton did. With the thought I guess that that worked so well for Clinton. Then he points out that Obama is unlikely to screw his supporters the way Clinton with NAFTA. This is apparently a bad thing. I mean NAFTA did turn out so well for the working and middle classes and in fact this country in general.
Second, he very briefly quotes "one recent report" which claims that Social Security will go into steep decline after 2011. However, everything I've read is that is just hooey. Most of the reputable economists (those who did fore see this financial collapse) say that Social Security will be fine for the fore see able future. The authors do not even bother to mention that many economists (including the most recent Noble winner) disagree strongly with that "recent report."
The people who own DC or at least think they own DC are going to fight like cornered rats to keep their power. This will include simple lies like the one about Social Security and just listing something as a "good thing" which is in reality a very questionable thing like Clinton's pushing for NAFTA.
Apparently, once a moderate/progressive/liberal is elected to office it is necessary for him to repudiate his base to show he can really govern. Like a real American. They can't stop themselves. It's just as though we aren't in the middle of the greatest financial crisis in the last 75 years. But then of course, they aren't going to hurt. Just the rest of us.
Well its down to work for the new guy. And the MSM continues much as it did yesterday. By mistake I read this article without first noticing that it is from the Politico.
First, the authors bemoan the fact that so far Obama hasn't had his "Sister Souljah" moment where he could repudiate his base (by attacking a straw [wo]man) as Clinton did. With the thought I guess that that worked so well for Clinton. Then he points out that Obama is unlikely to screw his supporters the way Clinton with NAFTA. This is apparently a bad thing. I mean NAFTA did turn out so well for the working and middle classes and in fact this country in general.
Second, he very briefly quotes "one recent report" which claims that Social Security will go into steep decline after 2011. However, everything I've read is that is just hooey. Most of the reputable economists (those who did fore see this financial collapse) say that Social Security will be fine for the fore see able future. The authors do not even bother to mention that many economists (including the most recent Noble winner) disagree strongly with that "recent report."
The people who own DC or at least think they own DC are going to fight like cornered rats to keep their power. This will include simple lies like the one about Social Security and just listing something as a "good thing" which is in reality a very questionable thing like Clinton's pushing for NAFTA.
Apparently, once a moderate/progressive/liberal is elected to office it is necessary for him to repudiate his base to show he can really govern. Like a real American. They can't stop themselves. It's just as though we aren't in the middle of the greatest financial crisis in the last 75 years. But then of course, they aren't going to hurt. Just the rest of us.
No comments:
Post a Comment