PrinceHal's Comments (308)

“Thanks for letting me know.

And what will be the White House's line tomorrow? What about the day after that?

And when Sweet Rahm breaks out the bugle for Taps, what will they say when all the votes vanish -- you know, the few that remain until John Q. Sucker finds out how much the law will require him to fork over for his new reformed health insurance?

If you have lots of spare time, see my (MortPersky's) tweets on same subject.”

“Did you get a good look at that picture of Joe over on the home page, Ninj?

Yep, face of putty.

If only that were the worst of it.”

“Don't worry -- lots of people knew. But they don't necessarily talk about it. I'm reminded of the photographer at a big-city paper where I worked years ago. He came back from a presidential campaign trip on John Kennedy''s plane and told his editors that JFK disappeared with a different woman into the back of the plane every so often. Nobody believed him then, even though this particular photographer was an expert, not only at photography but at free-lance making out. Now we all believe him; unfortunately he's now just as dead as JFK, but he did live long enough for this "story" to be believed.”

“All that alleged "WASTE" that's being stripped from Medicare -- can we have the DETAILS, please? Let me quote Sam Stein, above: "Efforts to cut some of the budgetary waste from the system have met with forceful pushback from moderates and Republicans in the Senate."

See, that's supposed to make me think that "cutting budgetary waste" from Medicare is a GOP cause from which "my side" will save me. But I am again NOT being told what this "waste" consists of.

Yes, I know my "Medicare Advantage" will get walloped. And I've read many times that it deserves it, because it's A WASTE! But what will trimming -- or eliminating -- it mean? Will someone tell us old folks the truth, or will we just hear, again and again, that it should be done. And that "my side" -- the ever-loving Democrats led by my "moderate" president -- will make sure Republicans and "moderates" don't rescue these cuts, never mind what they are?

Sorry, even though "moderates" and Republicans are habitually wrong in my book, that doesn't make 'em ALWAYS WRONG. I believe many in the progressive contingent want me to believe just that. But hey, I took Logic 101 back in college, and HABITUALLY WRONG does not equal ALWAYS WRONG. Logic is one of the few things in which no change has occurred in the 60 years since then.”

“These eight names represent "a cross-section of prominent economists"?

Who ever heard of even one of these guys?”

“More to it? Be sure to let us know when you learn what that turns out to be..

What I fear most is that there is LESS here, and in the actual Obama agenda, than we can imagine. LESS than meets the eye has been a hallmark so far.

But I promised to keep my cynicism to myself because the lies and stratagems of THE OTHER SIDE are infinitely more dangerous and abominable. And yet again and again, like just now, I fall off the wagon.”

“OK, so pinning the blame on undeserving scapegoats is a million-year-old human predilection. Fine. Alas for this argument, however, it has absolutely no application to the current case. Choosing the insider team of Geithner and Summers to run Treasury and sticking with them really IS the problem. They are insiders -- financial-business, Wall Street, Goldman Sachs insiders -- who stand for the status quo that has just burned down the house.

They oppose anything that vaguely smells like reform. They are about as far from undeserving scapegoats as it's possible to get. And that goes double for the President who chose them and sticks with them through thick and thin. Can this possibly be the same Barack Obama I voted for and to whom I mailed tiny checks when he was running for high office? While, incidentallly, Goldman Sachs and others were mailing him much, MUCH bigger checks?

Beeblebrox, I hope you can find a case of real scapegoating where your argument actually edifies. May it come soon. This isn't it.”

“When is somebody going to mention what this article tells you, then floats right past: -- this alleged Public Option doesn't even kick in until 2019.

TWENTY-PHANTASTICAL-NINETEEN! Ten years from now!

By that time, the Rethuglicans will have figured out how to get rid of it altogether. But say they haven't: Why do we -- those of us who last that long -- have to wait another TEN YEARS for what may partially resemble a tiny step on the road to relief? Three guesses, folks.”

“Who ARE these people we put in the White House?

Where did they come from? What do they want? Where are their heads?”

“Hey, George Bush aside, there's plenty to criticize about Barack Obama. But Michelle's job is telling the cute stuff. You're on a different kind of campaign when you start talking about Afghanistan (Obama should be "addressing a general's request for forces"), global warming (he shouldn't be "flying to Europe to pitch the Olympics"), health care ("doctors will take out tonsils and cut off feet"), bashing Fox News ("getting into a tit for tat with selected new media outlets") and negotiating foreign policy ("apologizing for our country").

On this serious stuff, better stick to the facts, minus your right-wing spin -- especially if you call yourself "Truthtalker." Otherwise you might sound like you work for one of those mysterious "selected new media outlets."”

“It's no big surprise that the networks are taking Fox's side. As anyone who watches their 6:30 newscasts is aware, they too believe that, for them, freedom of the press includes the right to distort, if not actually lie aboot, any story they report. The difference between them and Fox is only a matter of degree.

Thankfully, that matter of degree stil exists. But with actions like this one, in which they publicly put themselves in bed with a truth-mauling organization like Fox News, for how long?”

“You said it, Senator!

Hope you keep right on saying it.

But once is more than anybody else has mentioned this fact that we have endured for so long, but appear to be stuck with forever.”

“"Partly this is explained by the extraordinary clout of these companies." Or so it says right here.

That's a lot like saying "Jack and Jill went up the hill" is partly explained by the fact that there was a hill.”

“You write this to Cornel West: "But I keep asking myself this question. Will what the first Black President in this nation's history ever be able to do enough for the minority community to satisfy prominent intelectuals like yourself?"

Mr. Anthony, You should first ask yourself why so many, black and white, who voted for President Obama are now disillusioned by the difference between the presentation and the performance of the man they now have in the White House. Remember, we're not talking about the people who didn't vote for him -- nor any of those who would have hated and made trouble for him regardless.”

“So in your book, Liz Warren, one of the few wise ones in our government's employ, is "basically an entertainer who performs on TV shows" while playing to "the mob." And you, sir, you sound like you vastly prefer "intelligent operations" like those run by the big-bank mob of which Geithner and Summers are a part.

Which would certainly explain your differences with Ms. Warren .”

“"Not negotiating in good faith"? He really said that?

They must be in tears! How could anybody say such a thing about such fine people?

You mean old Harry Reid, you! You really know how to hit 'em when they 're down.

Only -- gee, I forgot -- they aren't down. They're up.

It's us -- me and you, Harry -- who are down. Go back to sleep, OK?”

“"But Axelrod says `It shouldn't define the whole health care debate.' "

Or so it says here.

Well, uh, too late, Dave. It has already defined the effing debate.

Say, you don't have access to one of those time-machine thingies that gets you into a meeting back then by any chance, do you? Because without one of them there things, you've got quite a job ahead of you. And one helluva mess behind you, too.

Frankly, I see more of the same in your future. And as a particularly offensive result, in mine and damn near everybody else's as well.”

“Brian-- As one of your liberal brethren who considers himself neither neccessarily big-L nor little-L, I find myself wondering at how well you're digesting Mr. Obama's handling of the health-reform issue, which has been weak, deficient, and could barely earn him a D if anybody on either side were giving out grades. And you, of all people, know they ARE giving grades, few of which are that high.

Seems you blame his floundering on the necessity to compromise. Hell, compromise is his long suit, so long that he compromises first and asks questions later. It's going to be tough to beat back the entrenched interests? When did we find out about that -- yesterday? Why not just call it impossible on Day One, as Obama did, and then keep behaving in public, but only in public, as if you were the leading advocate of meaningful health-care reform?

Forget liberal for a minute and just imagine people who want universal health care and people who don't. Either way, you'd have to be a dunce not to see that it's well-nigh-impossible to get THAT, and looked impossible from git-go. The point is not that he didn't suddenly make it possible. Alas, I don't see him steering the ship even vaguely in the direction of possibility, If anything, the opposite is true. But maybe you're watching a different show. Your turn now to say I'm full of it. --Your pal Hal.”

“WHAT?”

“HIGHEST RATIO? What's all this about "highest ratio"?

Did defending the U.S. ever involve such a thing as massive use of "private" troops, much less having them "outnumber" regular armed forces, before Bush-Cheney started making small troubles into gigantic ones in Iraq?”

“I'd like to know how Sheila Bair feels about this.

Is this her idea or somebody else's? And if somebody else's, whose?”

“So, Swankie, let's say the situation were reversed -- 89 percent of Repubs were black and the other 11 percent were either white or Hispanic. You wouldn't bring it up? Or you'd bring it up and say what? Just curious.”

“Yes indeed, Rachel rocks --- WHEN she has a chance to open her mouth.

But this Meet the Press was rigged to be dominated by two radical conservatives -- Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Dick Armey, a 7-year Republican majority leader in the House who -- through his own organization, Freedomworks -- owns a major share of the shout-'em-down town-hall war against Obamacare.

Coburn and Armey don't come unarmed when they climb aboard the platforms provided by Sunday network "news" shows. They bring along just-long-enough "baloney speeches" which may or may not contain a few grains of truth, like grains of salt in a chocolate cake. They are good at saying, "You'll get a chance to talk later," while talking over perceived enemies like Rachel Maddow who are trying to get a word in edgewise.

And if their baloney isn't working well enough, they get a little boost when the David Gregorys keep their programs swinging from subject to subject, pundit to pundit. Sure enough, such boosts were given to Armey and Coburn by the David Gregory moderating today's Meet the Press.

Everything Rachel Maddow got to say in the few minutes of video still to be found on Rachel's page at MSNBC is to be found in thls HuffPo report. But there's precious little of the Armey-Coburn sound blanket meant to suffocate her speech in her gullet.”

“Thank you, ma'am. You just made a fan out of me.”

“Gramma, you were right the first time, when you say you got snotty. This time, not so much.

Are you defending Lou Dobbs or do you just loathe Keith's vocal impression of him? I'm with KO on Dobbs and with you on the vocal impression.”