«

»

Aug 12 2010

In fairness

Perhaps you think I was unduly harsh to Rachel last night since she came up with this-

Well, I don’t think so at all.  I think it’s a pattern with this administration and I think her ‘special’ interest depends on who’s ox is gored.

The comment section is for you to tell me how wrong I am in that assessment, but the real purpose of this diary is to experiment with MSNBC embeds since Google (and therefore YouTube) has gone evil on Net Netrality and to point out these excellent posts on AmericaBlog (h/t for the Maddow video)-

Please, please, please. Interview an actual liberal as to why they’re upset before just assuming why they’re upset.

by John Aravosis (DC) on 8/11/2010 11:30:00 PM

(It’s a fallacy t)hat the President has passed the bulk of his agenda because he has passed a number of bills that bear the title of his agenda. It’s really not the same thing. While a rose may smell as sweet under any other name, legislation is judged by its substance not by its title. Health Care Reform was a serious disappointment because the President simply didn’t try to push for what he promised during the campaign. Just because he passed a bill is not sufficient reason for praise. We wanted him to at least try to pass the bill he promised us during the campaign. And he not only didn’t get it passed, he didn’t try to get it passed.

Dear Ruth Marcus, how was George Bush so effective when he didn’t have 60 votes in the Senate?

by John Aravosis (DC) on 8/12/2010 03:43:00 AM

I just find all this “woe is us” talk — about how we don’t have 60 votes in the Senate, and that being the reason that Obama fails to fight for so much of what he promised — to be incredibly naive.

2 pings

Comments have been disabled.