Tag Archives: politics

Ed Schultz Wonders If Obama Is ‘Still Alive’

Perry Cobama? One of the great comedy bits from the classic SCTV show was a skit satirizing an ultra relaxed and disengaged Perry Como singing “Still Alive” in a most lackadaisical manner. And now we have MSNBC host Ed Schultz wondering aloud on his radio show if Barack Obama is “Still Alive.” Here is a transcript of Schultz commenting on Obama’s detachment to the extent that Big Ed isn’t even sure he wants to run for president again:

Schultz Warns America: Pay More Welfare Or Become ‘Third-World Country’

The time-temp clock down at the bus station here read 104 degrees this afternoon. We can’t offer readers cooler weather, but perhaps they’ll settle for some comic relief . . . On his MSNBC show this evening, Ed Schultz warned that unless the US pays out more in welfare, we risk becoming a “Third-World country.”  Schultz said it twice, so apparently it wasn’t a bizarre one-time brain camp. Ed’s on a crusade to have unemployment insurance payments extended.  Note: unemployment “insurance.”  So once payments are extended beyond what’s provided for, it’s no longer insurance: it’s welfare. But that didn’t stop Schultz from suggesting that paying more welfare is all that stands between America becoming the next Zimbabwe . . . ED SCHULTZ: It’s unconscionable what we are putting these Americans through.  And I will tell you this: this is how Third World countries get started. A bit later, Schultz floated his cockamamie theory to a “union political consultant,” who was only too happy to agree. SCHULTZ: This is going down the road of a Third World country. This is the issue: what we’re going to do with the unemployed? Tell me if I’m wrong. CHUCK ROCHA: You’re exactly right, Ed.

See more here:
Schultz Warns America: Pay More Welfare Or Become ‘Third-World Country’

Time: ‘Is Bobby Jindal Making Sense?’

While the media have apparently given up — if they ever seriously attempted — on holding the Obama administration to account for its handling of the Gulf oil spill cleanup, Republican governors in the Gulf are a different story, particularly Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal, a potential 2012 presidential hopeful. In a short post at Time.com entitled “Battlefield General: Is Bobby Jindal Making Sense?” , writer Alex Altman cast doubt on Jindal’s handling of the oil spill cleanup while suggesting the conservative governor is hypocritical for his complaints about Obama’s handling of the disaster at the federal level: The notion that Washington should lead is not the only puzzling position taken by Jindal, a small-government conservative. An advocate of offshore oil exploration, he points to environmental devastation as a consequence of the government’s “lack of urgency” but opposes a moratorium on deepwater drilling. More important, in the throes of a crisis, a governor admired for his grasp of policy has sometimes sacrificed caution for speed. For weeks, Jindal blistered the government for dithering over his signature initiative, a plan to build sand berms to safeguard the state’s marshland. The proposal was finally okayed despite objections raised by scientists who questioned the $360 million project’s efficacy. When the Interior Department later halted the sand dredging to protect the existing barrier-island system, Jindal fumed at the “red tape and bureaucracy.” On July 6, the governor railed at the Army Corps of Engineers for denying a local parish’s request to protect coastal waters by constructing rock dikes. (A Corps commander said the measure might do more harm than good.) Of course it’s perfectly legitimate for journalists to raise questions about how Gulf state governors have handled their share of the BP oil spill cleanup, but Altman’s piece assumes the federal government’s response is virtually flawless and Jindal’s disagreements with its strategy and tactics are suspect. What’s more, Altman’s swipe at Jindal’s conservatism distorts the true conservative position that Jindal is staking out. Jindals complaints have largely been that the Obama administration’s regulatory micromanagement has gummed up cleanup efforts. It’s not so much that Jindal wants the federal government to solve the problem as he wants the feds to quit hampering private industry and local governments from solving the problem due to mindless red tape. Time is not alone in setting its sights on bashing Jindal. Last month, Newsweek’s Sharon Begley took a much more stringent tone in her criticism of Louisiana’s Republican governor: Scientists are such spoilsports, always insisting on gathering data on the likely effects of a strategy before implementing it. Politicians are more inclined to just go for it, especially when they’re desperate. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is desperate: millions of gallons of BP’s crude are launching an amphibious assault on his beaches and wetlands. So let’s do the math: desperation + a pol’s “do something” mentality = a loony decision to build 14-foot sand berms to protect the state’s coastline—a decision that bodes ill for the many others the state will face as BP’s oil gushes at least until August. Before this, Jindal was known to scientists as the governor who in 2008 signed a law allowing the state’s public schools to teach creationism (excuse me! “intelligent design”) in their classrooms. The difficulty he has distinguishing science from faith reared its ugly head again when he cast about for a way to hold back BP’s oil. Emissaries from Jindal’s office have made regular pilgrimages to the Netherlands to consult with engineers about protecting the state’s coasts from the next Katrina. Van Oord, a marine engineering and dredging company that is constructing the artificial Palm Islands for Dubai, proposed building what amounts to artificial sandbars. “If you ask a Dutch company that builds artificial islands in Dubai how to protect marshlands and barrier islands,” says coastal geologist Rob Young of Western Carolina University, “of course they’ll say, ‘Let’s make an offshore island!—and shall we put a palm tree on it for you?’ When a politician is faced with an economic or social mess, the “just try something” mentality can be justified. Policies on these fronts cannot be accurately predicted for the simple reason that human behavior is involved. No amount of science can reliably forecast the effects of, say, financial or health-care reform, so a reasonable case can be made for “do something.” Not so when we’re talking about the laws of physics and chemistry rather than human behavior. In these cases, ignoring the science makes politicians seem like petulant children.

View original post here:
Time: ‘Is Bobby Jindal Making Sense?’

‘Overheated Hysteria’: New York Times Editorial Goes All-Out to Attack Arizona Immigration Law

per·ni·cious pər-‘ni-shəs adj .: highly injurious or destructive : deadly Sounds like a pretty harsh word to describe something, right? So whatever the word pernicious is describing must be pretty bad. But leave it to The New York Times editorial board to throw this lingo around like it’s no big deal. In a July 8 over-the-top editorial , the Times ripped the Arizona anti-illegal immigration law over its constitutionality. “The Obama administration has not always been completely clear about its immigration agenda, but it was forthright Tuesday when it challenged the pernicious Arizona law that allows the police to question the immigration status of people they detain for local violations,” the editorial said. “Only the federal government can set or enforce immigration policy, the government said in its lawsuit against the state, and ‘Arizona has crossed this constitutional line.'” Video Below Fold The editorial goes on to whine that the Arizona legislation interferes with the federal government’s ability to enforce immigration law, as if everything is operating so swimmingly under the Obama administration’s direction. But a July 7 post from the Heritage Foundation’s The Foundry blog explains the unconstitutionality claim “nonsense”: First, the Justice Department claims that Arizona is unconstitutionally interfering with the federal government’s authority to set immigration policy. This claim is nonsense. Arizona is not interfering with the federal government’s immigration policy as it is set in the laws passed by Congress. Arizona is simply complementing and helping the federal government enforce its immigration laws. On the other hand, states that give illegal aliens drivers licenses and sanctuary cities like San Francisco that help illegal aliens violate immigration laws do interfere with federal law, but, as evidenced by the lack of federal lawsuits in those cases, this Administration has no interest in suing to stop that kind of interference. The Obama Administration thus appears to only be interested in stopping enforcement of federal law, not its violation. But the Times editorial suggests the Obama administration act against the Arizona government by restricting their ability to enforce the new law. “In the meantime, there are steps President Obama can take,” the editorial said. “He can deny Arizona access to federal databases of immigration status and refuse to allow the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency to cooperate with state officials in handling people detained under the law. The government should end the misguided program allowing local deputies to enforce immigration law after taking an educational course.” On the Fox Business Network’s July 8 broadcast of “Imus in the Morning,” Newsweek and National Journal contributing editor Stuart Taylor, of all people even criticized the Times for its “overheated hysteria.” ” It struck me the exact same way when I read The New York Times as usual this morning and yeah, that word [pernicious] jumped off the page at me and it is typical of The New York Times, overheated hysteria, I think ,” Taylor said. “I tend to agree the law has got problems and is troublesome and that it may be unconstitutional and I think it’s going to be a close call how the courts handle it. But it’s also, a law where you can certainly understand why the people of Arizona think it is a good idea. They’re being overrun by illegal immigrants and their hospitals are full of them. Their schools are full of them. They’re drug dealers in the house next door sometimes. And so the state decided they needed to do something about it. The federal government is not doing much about it but, there are problems with how the state’s law would operate and there are problems of what you call federal preemption that would interfere with federal immigration law. But pernicious is overkill. ”

Read more:
‘Overheated Hysteria’: New York Times Editorial Goes All-Out to Attack Arizona Immigration Law

Michael Moore’s New Job: Oscar Board Member

Deadline Hollywood Daily’s Editor-In-Chief Nikki Finke has declared a Red State Alert over the news that documentary filmmaker and Oscar-winner Michael Moore has just been elected to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ Board of Governors. She writes, Hollywood-hating conservatives are going to have a field day with this (And predictably the L.A. Times’ Patrick Goldstein knee-jerks with this: You could hear the outcry in conservative quarters from a million miles away.) If for no other reason than she saves me from having to spend money on a “Variety” subscription, I love Nikki, but this conservative has no problem whatsoever with Michael Moore being elected to the Academy’s prestigious Board of Governors, because this conservative believes Michael Moore has earned it. Yes, Michael Moore is a liar, a shameless propagandist and an anti-American leftist of the highest order. But he’s also one helluva talented filmmaker and it would be wildly hypocritical for me to believe or argue that anyone should be blacklisted from AMPAS due to their political beliefs. And that’s the only reason I could possibly use to argue against this appointment. In the medium of documentary filmmaking, Michael Moore is one of the very best at what he does, no more or less accomplished than Kathryn Bigelow, who was also elected this year. No more or less accomplished than the other Governors. We Hollywood-hating conservatives are not the ones looking to hold people back based on their political beliefs. If I have an argument with AMPAS it’s not that they should blacklist Michael Moore, it’s why not elect Jerry Bruckheimer, Jon Voight, Michael Moriarty, or Robert Davi to this board? For they are also no more or less accomplished than many of the others. I’m sorry to disappoint those looking for outrage over Michael Moore’s new gig, but we’re not the blacklisters here. I despise everything Moore stands for just as much as the Left surely despises everything Jon Voight stands for. But a blacklist is a blacklist is a blacklist. Big Hollywood will fight Moore in the arena of ideas and expose him as the liar he is any day of the week, and relish it. But my frustration with his agitprop – especially the fact that he’s good at it – isn’t about to turn me into what disgusts me. Crossposted at Big Hollywood .

Here is the original post:
Michael Moore’s New Job: Oscar Board Member

LeBronomics: Could High Taxes Influence James’ Team Decision?

While sports reporters have sought agents and teammates for the inside scoop on where NBA superstar free agent LeBron James will sign, there’s another person who may know The King’s next move: his accountant. In a  July 1 blog post , the New York Post warned that “dysfunctional lawmakers in Albany” could cost the state a chance to bring the coveted athlete to New York. “If  LeBron James  goes to the Miami Heat instead of the [New York] Knicks, blame our dysfunctional lawmakers in Albany, who have saddled top-earning New Yorkers with the highest state and city income taxes in the nation, soon to be 12.85 percent on top of the IRS bite,” the Post said. The tax savings for James in Miami over New York City would be staggering, according to the Post’s analysis. “On a five-year contract worth $96 million — what he’d get from the Knicks or the Heat — LeBron would pay $12.34 million in New York taxes.” Florida has no state income tax. New Jersey and Ohio, the other reported frontrunners to attract James, also have state income taxes, but they are not as his as in New York. Based on a $96 million contract, James would pay  $5.69 million in state taxes  if he re-signed with the Cleveland Cavaliers. If he signed with the New Jersey Nets, James would pay $ 10.32 million in state taxes . The New York Post isn’t the only media outlet using “LeBronomics.” In her  July 8 EconWatch  post, CBSNews.com’s Jill Schlesinger dubbed yesterday’s market rally “The LeBron James rally.” Robert Schoenberger and Teresa Dixon Murray of the Cleveland Plain-Dealer estimated that downtown Cleveland businesses will lose $48 million  over the course of the NBA season without James. Like this article?   Sign up  for “The Balance Sheet,” BMI’s weekly e-mail newsletter.

The rest is here:
LeBronomics: Could High Taxes Influence James’ Team Decision?

CNN and CNN.com Omits Firing of Middle East Senior Editor Nasr

Both CNN and CNN.com have punted on the firing of Octavia Nasr, the network’s senior editor of Middle East affairs, after she mourned the death of Islamist cleric Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah, “one of Hezbollah’s giants,” to use her own phrase, on Twitter. None of CNN’s on-air programming nor the website has mentioned her “leaving the company” since the news broke on Wednesday afternoon. Mediaite’s Steve Krakauer posted an item on Nasr at 3:38 pm on Wednesday about Nasr which included the text of an internal memo from CNN International’s Senior Vice President Parisa Khosravi which, as Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey pointed out , “makes it clear that this was no resignation:” I had a conversation with Octavia this morning and I want to share with you that we have decided that she will be leaving the company. As you know, her tweet over the weekend created a wide reaction. As she has stated in her blog on CNN.com, she fully accepts that she should not have made such a simplistic comment without any context whatsoever. However, at this point, we believe that her credibility in her position as senior editor for Middle Eastern affairs has been compromised going forward. The senior editor acknowledged in the July 6 blog entry on CNN.com that her Tweet was an “error of judgment” on her part, but then continued her eulogy of the deceased Hezbollah spiritual leader: “I used the words ‘respect’ and ‘sad’ because to me as a Middle Eastern woman, Fadlallah took a contrarian and pioneering stand among Shia clerics on woman’s rights. He called for the abolition of the tribal system of ‘honor killing.’ He called the practice primitive and non-productive. He warned Muslim men that abuse of women was against Islam.” Nasr did later qualify this by stating that “this does not mean I respected him for what else he did or said. Far from it….Sayyed Fadlallah. Revered across borders yet designated a terrorist. Not the kind of life to be commenting about in a brief tweet. It’s something I deeply regret.” Other than the July 6 blog entry, a search of CNN.com turned up no stories on the controversy over the senior editor’s Tweet, nor her “leaving the company.” In fact, as of 12:40 pm Eastern on Thursday, Nasr’s bio still appears on the website.

See original here:
CNN and CNN.com Omits Firing of Middle East Senior Editor Nasr

MSNBC’s Maddow: U.S. Presence in Afghanistan ‘Inherently Corrupting’

Happy belated birthday, America, your presence in Afghanistan is “inherently corrupting.” That’s the message Rachel Maddow gave on her July 6 program. During the Bush administration, the Left often argued that the president had distracted America by engaging in hostilities in Iraq, bleeding resources and attention away from the real war on terror in Afghanistan, which had harbored al Qaeda pre-9/11. Now with Iraq all but won following the success of the Bush-approved, Petraeus-executed “surge,” the Left is becoming vocal in its opposition to the war in Afghanistan and finding a platform on MSNBC. Daytime network anchor Dylan Ratigan has been calling for withdrawal from Afghanistan for weeks, arguing that the war in Afghanistan has lasted longer than Vietnam and been a needless waste of money. Now Ratigan’s colleague has joined in the chorus. On the Tuesday, July 6 edition of her eponymous show, Maddow made this argument: If they’re still offering that (referring to Taliban) and we’re trying to make an Afghan government that is not corrupt, to be a viable alternative to that, but our very presence by virtue of the fact that we’ve got to spend a ton of money and we’re foreigners and we’ve got to protect ourselves and all this stuff, our influence here, our presence here, is inherently corrupting just because a lot of money flows everywhere we go. 

Here is the original post:
MSNBC’s Maddow: U.S. Presence in Afghanistan ‘Inherently Corrupting’

Wall St. Journal Reporter Cites Smerconish as a Gaffe Expert: Mrs. Obama Good, Coulter Bad

Jeffrey Zaslow of The Wall Street Journal  reported on political gaffes on Wednesday, and as an expert he brought on Obama-loving former Republican Michael Smerconish. Unsurprisingly, Smerconish bashed Ann Coulter and forgave Michelle Obama as he discussed his “Muzzle Meter” and the severity of scandalous words:   We’ve become a culture that is unforgiving when it comes to poor word choice, says syndicated radio host Michael Smerconish. “We’re far too thin-skinned, starting federal investigations every time someone says something stupid.” He blames political partisanship and a 24/7 media looking for “gotcha” moments. Web sites such as TMZ.com, Politico.com, Gawker.com and TheSuperficial.com traffic in verbal gaffes. Mr. Smerconish, a lifelong Republican who this year announced he is now an independent, has developed a “Muzzle Meter,” asking listeners to help him measure, on a scale of 1 to 10, whether poor word choices are innocent mistakes (a 1 or a 2) or were said with malice (a 9 or a 10). Unlike many of his listeners, he gave Michelle Obama a pass for saying at a 2008 campaign rally: “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country.” “I believe she meant she had never been as proud of her country,” says Mr. Smerconish. However, he gave pundit Ann Coulter a 9 for belittling the activism of certain wives of Sept. 11 victims. “I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much,” Ms. Coulter said.

Follow this link:
Wall St. Journal Reporter Cites Smerconish as a Gaffe Expert: Mrs. Obama Good, Coulter Bad

MSNBC Guest Host Absurdly Claims: President Obama More Conservative than Reagan

So is President Obama more conservative than the late Ronald Reagan? MSNBC substitute anchor Cenk Uygur thinks so. Filling in yesterday for Dylan Ratigan on his 4 p.m. show, Uygur moderated a segment based on the preposition that President Obama’s policies have actually been more conservative than those of President Reagan. “That’s the silliest thing I’ve ever heard,” former Reagan White House political director Frank Donatelli said of the claims. “It’s an incomplete and distorted picture of everything,” he added. Uygur is a host of ” The Young Turks ,” a left-wing internet political podcast. In fact, both his guests disagreed with him, but the liberal radio show host wouldn’t budge. He provided the following as proof: – President Reagan pushed for amnesty for illegal aliens, while President Obama wants to toughen-up border security. – President Reagan negotiated with an enemy country without preconditions (in 1985, with Mikhail Gorbachev). – President Reagan decided to “cut and run” in the Middle East when troops in Lebanon were under attack. President Obama, on the other hand, called for a 30,000 troop surge in Afghanistan. – President Obama refused to raise taxes on those making less than $250,000 per year. President Reagan, however, raised taxes every year of his Presidency after 1981. – President Reagan hosted an openly gay couple at the White house overnight. Uygur, taken aback at the challenge to the accuracy of his claims, wouldn’t let Donatelli get too many words in during the remainder of the segment. Uygur then turned to MSNBC political commentator David Weigel, who confessed that his own views on the matter leaned more toward those of Donatelli. “By his own standards, I think Obama wanted to seem more conservative when he ran for President,” Weigel stated. “But in office he’s acted more liberal than he’s wanted to,” he added. “[Obama] is not a conservative, come on,” he countered Uygur. The guest host also opposed Weigel on whether the American populace is generally center-right or center-left.Weigel admitted that America is center-right overall, while Uygur argued that polls show America as a center-left country. “This is a — at least in rhetoric — a pretty conservative country, and people don’t like change,” Weigel stated. “This is not a center-right country,” Uygur countered. “You look at any poll on the issues, it’s a center-left country. Perhaps Uygur missed this poll . “I totally disagree with both of you,” Uygur wrapped up the segment, thus disagreeing with both of his guests from both sides of the political spectrum. The transcript of the segment, which aired on July 6 at 4:33 p.m. EDT, is as follows: THE DYLAN RATIGAN SHOW 7/6/10 4:33 p.m.-4:43 p.m. EDT (Video Clip) RONALD REAGAN: I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and who have lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally. BARACK OBAMA: And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable. (End Clip) CENK UYGUR, MSNBC NEWS ANCHOR: Yes, you heard that right. Conservative hero President Ronald Reagan pushing for amnesty for illegal immigrants, while our Democratic President calls for a border crackdown. Welcome back, I’m Cenk Uygur in for Dylan Ratigan. The immigration debate, just one reason Obama-Reagan comparisons are abounding right now. We’re breaking it down. Siena College out with its new ranking of the Presidents. Historians put our current President at 15th, with the Gipper ranked 18th. That is going to drive conservatives crazy, but maybe it shouldn’t. So time for a little pop quiz we’re calling “Who’s more conservative?” I’ll give you the policy decision, you decide whether it was President Obama’s or President Reagan’s. We start with foreign policy. Which president negotiated with an enemy country without preconditions? Was it President Obama, or President Reagan?  If you said President Obama, that is incorrect, though he says he’s open to it at some point. (Clip of CNN 2007 Democratic Presidential Debate) Question: Would you be willing to meet separately without precondition during the first year of your administration in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea? CNN Debate Moderator: Senator Obama? SEN. BARACK OBAMA: I would. (End Clip) UYGUR: Republican hawk Ronald Reagan actually did it in March, 1985. At the height of the Cold War, Reagan invited newly-appointed Mikhail Gorbachev, leader of the “Evil Empire,” for a summit in Geneva without preconditions. You will recall President Reagan’s administration was also responsible for trading arms for hostages in the Iran-Contra affair. That would be negotiating with terrorists, literally. Next, which President is famous for his decision to “cut and run” when our troops were attacked in the Middle East? Yep, that would be President Reagan. He withdrew immediately from Lebanon in 1983 after Hezbollah murdered 243 U.S. servicemen in Beirut. Contrast that decision with President Obama’s 30,000 troop surge in Afghanistan. Next, the fiscal policy. Which president refused to raise taxes for anyone making less than a quarter of a million dollars. Yeah, that would be President Obama. On the other hand, and counter to Reaganomics, President Reagan, after initially lowering taxes, raised them nearly every year after 1981, with four significant tax increases. Finally, which President was the first to host an openly-gay couple at the White House for an overnight stay? Well that’s got to be Obama, right? Nope, that would be family-values icon Ronald Reagan. So which President is the real conservative here? Joining us now is David Weigel, politcal reporter and MSNBC contributor, and Frank Donatelli, former White House political director for President Ronald Reagan, and most recently, the chairman of GOPAC. So let me start with you, Frank. Those sound like interesting comparisons. Is there some chance that Obama is actually more conservative than Reagan? FRANK DONATELLI: Well I’m glad the MSNBC interns had something to do for the last couple of weeks. Those are the – that’s the silliest thing that I’ve ever heard. The fact is, that – UYGUR: Which part is untrue? If you say it’s silly, which part is untrue? DONATELLI: It’s an incomplete and distorted picture of everything. UYGUR: So all of that is true, let’s start with that, all of that is true, right? DONATELLI: It’s not all true – UYGUR: Really? Which part is not true? DONATELLI: Reagan negotiated with Gorbachev, but at the same time he built up our armed forces. So to say that he negotiated with Gorbachev without preconditions is silly. It was part of an integrated strategy. It was part – UYGUR: Not it’s not silly, it’s absolutely correct. It’s absolutely correct. Furthermore, Obama has also increased Pentagon spending, and he did a surge in Afghanistan when Reagan ran from Lebanon. That’s got to be true, right? DONATELLI: Not as a part of GDP. Reagan wanted to cut government, he wanted to make government smaller, he wanted to make the private sector stronger. UYGUR: He wanted to. Did he? DONATELLI: Yes. Absolutely. UYGUR: Really? The deficit went up tremendously under Reagan, from 700 billion to 3 trillion. DONATELLI: And some of the taxes went down — [the deficit] wasn’t a trillion dollars every year like Obama’s. UYGUR: No, that’s actually Bush’s, but – DONATELLI: And he won the Cold War, too. Reagan won the Cold War. What did Obama win? Obama hasn’t won anything. UYGUR: (sarcastically) Reagan single-handedly won the Cold War. DONATELLI: [Obama] hasn’t created any jobs. 10 percent unemployment. UYGUR: (sarcastically) Right. I know Reagan won the Cold War single-handedly, nobody had anything else to do with it. DONATELLI: With a lot of other people, including Republicans and Democrats. UYGUR: Let me go to David. David, is it unfair to Obama to say he’s more conservative than Reagan is? Have we stated anything wrong on that count? DAVID WEIGEL: Well I’m going to come closer to Frank than you might expect here. By his own standards, I think Obama wanted to seem more conservative when he ran for President. We remember in the Nevada caucus, in the run-up to that, he gave an interview saying Reagan had been a transformative President, Bill Clinton hadn’t. He was going to be a transformative President. He said liberals had never had someone like this, and then he ran for President saying, as you pointed out, he wasn’t going to raise taxes on anybody. But in office he’s acted more liberal than he’s wanted to, whereas Reagan, apart from the couple reversals early on, you know after ____ when he had to raise taxes again, with amnesty, he was always moving the debate further to the right. I think Obama ran more conservative than he really has been, and had been dealt more reversals as a liberal than Regan was dealt as a conservative. Now you brought up the deficit, that’s true. Regan had the highest deficits since we had since World War II. Obama’s had much higher deficits. And he’s much more apologetic about the reasons he did. Conservatives are still able and willing to say that taxes were lower, that government shrank in some ways. If they can’t defend it at every level, Democrats can’t really defend the way they’ve governed based on the way they ran on. It’s fun to compare a couple of these different, these different issues, and certainly Obama deserves a bit more credit on foreign policy and immigration, if not attacking the very traditions with which the Republican was founded. But he’s not a conservative, come on. UYGUR: No, not come on. You make a good point in that Regan pushed the spectrum further to the right. I hear you on that. But the flip side is the spectrum has already moved, and it’s not like Obama is pushing it back to the left. So I mean, since the spectrum has moved so much, let me ask of you a follow-up question. At this point, when Reagan did it, I don’t know, was it conservative to do amnesty? Now, you know, they’d go ballistic if Obama did amnesty for illegal immigrants and that’s it. Wouldn’t they? WEIGEL: Yeah, I mean, I’d like to see Frank’s answer to that. Because this is something that conservatives wrestle with, explaining why in the year 2010, we’ve actually got better border control than we had two years ago, why this is unthinkable. And I guess there’s space to say – it’s unfair to say that every single thing Obama does is antithetical to liberty. You know, his healthcare plan was not the healthcare plan liberals wanted. It was a variation of the plan Republicans proposed in 1994 as a compromise. So yeah, he’s adapted to a spectrum that’s been shifted to the right. But he’s trying to govern as liberal as possible, and not doing a great job of it, as far as liberals are concerned. UYGUR: I gotta be honest with you, I don’t agree with either one of you. I don’t think he’s being as liberal as he can at all. You know, they are already calling him a socialist, why not actually do the public option, let alone single payer health care? But David asked me a good question. Frank, let me ask you. I think the spectrum has moved. Do you agree that Reagan did amnesty – what now conservatives think is unthinkable? And do you agree that he negotiated with terrorists, which now Republicans think is unthinkable? Didn’t he do those, what you would characterize as very liberal, policy positions? DONATELLI: In 1986, the problem of integration – of immigration – was not nearly what it is in 2010. UYGUR: So it was okay to do amnesty? DONATELLI: The estimates were we had 3 million illegals living in the United States. We now have between 10 and 20 million. So the idea of amnesty didn’t work in 1986, and it’s not going to work in 2010. We need border security, and then we can move onto the other issues. Again, I think the seminal point to be made here is that at every opportunity, Ronald Reagan tried to knock down the size of the federal government. He said in his inaugural address in 1981, government is the problem, it is not the solution. Barack Obama, in just 16 months, has governed in the opposite direction. He believes in making government bigger. UYGUR: I think that, Dave, you say that he tried to make government smaller. He failed utterly then. And David said Obama tried to be liberal. Well, look at the record. It appears he failed. I mean, if Regan had – a final question for you, David. If Reagan had come in and said “I’m going to give the drug companies an absolute monopoly. They get a 12-year patent, nobody gets to import any drugs, and the government can’t even negotiate with them – that would have never worked. That would have been far too right-wing, wouldn’t it have? And now Obama does it, and nobody blinks. WEIGEL: Oh, I think a lot of people blinked. I think a lot of protesters on the right and a lot of liberals on the left blinked about it. No, the point is he’s had to talk more conservative, because Republicans are right. This is a – at least in rhetoric – a pretty conservative country, and people don’t like rapid change. So Obama’s been more hamstrung. But the debate you’re trying to start, I think, is helpful, because it’s not helpful when we pretend that everything Obama does comes not from liberals trying to adapt with a pretty center-right country we’ve got, and are instead trying to pull us back to the progressive, Saul Alinsky socialist tradition. In reality, Obama I think, is a pretty liberal guy who’s operating within these contours, and making a lot of compromises, the way that Ronald Reagan did. But we get completely off track both times, it’s good to take it off track into a different direction like this. UYGUR: Alright, well that was fun, because I totally disagree with both of you. This is not a center-right country, you look at any poll on the issues, it’s a center-left country. The problem is, our politicians tell us they’re going to vote in that direction, and they don’t. And yes, Obama was elected to change the contours. That’s exactly the problem, David. He said “I’m going to bring you change,” and then what did he bring us? He brought us policies that, on the record, that neither one of you can dispute, that are more conservative than Ronald Reagan’s. But it was a fun conversation, and David and Frank, thank you for both coming on here.

Go here to read the rest:
MSNBC Guest Host Absurdly Claims: President Obama More Conservative than Reagan