Patterico's Pontifications

8/27/2012

David Brooks vs. David Brooks on Paul Ryan

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:31 am



David Brooks says Paul Ryan just isn’t being realistic on the economy:

Ryan said that it was silly to come up with a debt-reduction proposal that didn’t fix the single biggest driver of the nation’s debt.

This is the sort of argument that makes a lot of sense in a think-tank auditorium. The problem was there were almost no Democrats who endorsed Ryan’s Medicare reform ideas. If Ryan was going to pinion debt reduction to Medicare reform, that meant there would be no debt reduction.

But Ryan had another way forward, noting: We’re going to have an election in 2012; the country will choose between two different visions; if we Republicans win, we’ll be able to reform Medicare our way and reduce the debt our way.

In other words, Ryan was willing to sacrifice the good for the sake of the ultimate.

In order to get this ultimate solution, though, Ryan was betting that three things would happen. First, he was betting that Republicans would beat Obama. Second, he was betting that Republicans would win such overwhelming congressional majorities that they would be able to push through measures Democrats hate. Third, he was betting that a group of Republican politicians would unilaterally slash one of the country’s most popular programs and that they would be able to sustain these cuts through the ensuing elections, in the face of ferocious and highly popular Democratic opposition.

To put it another way, Ryan was giving up significant debt progress for a political fantasy.

. . .

It’s obvious why candidates talk about the glorious programs they’ll create if elected. It fires up crowds and defines values. But we shouldn’t forget that it’s almost entirely make-believe.

This claim is amply refuted by a famous pundit who said the opposite in April 2011. And you’ll never guess who it is. Oh, right. You read the headline. OK, it’s David Brooks:

Over the past few weeks, a number of groups, including the ex-chairmen of the Council of Economic Advisers and 64 prominent budget experts, have issued letters arguing that the debt situation is so dire that doing nothing is not a survivable option. What they lacked was courageous political leadership — a powerful elected official willing to issue a proposal, willing to take a stand, willing to face the political perils.

The country lacked that leadership until today. Today, Paul Ryan, the Republican chairman of the House Budget Committee, is scheduled to release the most comprehensive and most courageous budget reform proposal any of us have seen in our lifetimes. Ryan is expected to leap into the vacuum left by the president’s passivity. The Ryan budget will not be enacted this year, but it will immediately reframe the domestic policy debate.

His proposal will set the standard of seriousness for anybody who wants to play in this discussion. It will become the 2012 Republican platform, no matter who is the nominee. Any candidate hoping to win that nomination will have to be able to talk about government programs with this degree of specificity, so it will improve the G.O.P. primary race.

The Ryan proposal will help settle the fight over the government shutdown and the 2011 budget because it will remind everybody that the real argument is not about cutting a few billion here or there. It is about the underlying architecture of domestic programs in 2012 and beyond.

The Ryan budget will put all future arguments in the proper context: The current welfare state is simply unsustainable and anybody who is serious, on left or right, has to have a new vision of the social contract.

. . . .

It also creates the pivotal moment of truth for President Obama. Will he come up with his own counterproposal, or will he simply demagogue the issue by railing against “savage” Republican cuts and ignoring the long-term fiscal realities? Does he have a sustainable vision for government, or will he just try to rise above the fray while Nancy Pelosi and others attack Ryan?

And what about the Senate Republicans? Where do they stand? Or the voters? Are they willing to face reality or will they continue to demand more government than they are willing to pay for?

Paul Ryan has grasped reality with both hands. He’s forcing everybody else to do the same.

Of course, if they don’t — if they run from reality and demagogue the issue — Brooks will be there in another 16 months or so to blame it all on Ryan.

Unreal.

What could have changed between April 2011 and now? I’ll tell you: Paul Ryan is now the GOP nominee for the vice presidency. And while it might be OK to pretend to be a conservative every so often just to maintain a facade, it simply won’t do to actually praise a VP candidate for courage at the moment it matters most. To do so would be . . . gauche. People would turn away at the New York Times water cooler.

Or maybe the crease in Paul Ryan’s trousers has simply become less sharp in the last 16 months.

Thanks to Milhouse.

83 Responses to “David Brooks vs. David Brooks on Paul Ryan”

  1. You’re welcome.

    Milhouse (8acf6a)

  2. if Ryan had voted for Simpson-Bowles does Brooks really think that it would have made a damn bit of difference to food stamp?

    what a whore. A bought and paid for National Soros Radio whore.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  3. I think there’s a crease in David Brooks’ brain.

    Elephant Stone (65d289)

  4. David Brooks likes free theater tickets and cocktail parties on the upper west side. What did you think he was going to write???

    … and Brooks is no more guilty than 90% of the Ivy League educated (or wannabe), northeast Republicans who are a filthy stain on the party.

    Their corrosive RINO influence is everywhere. Brooks just one of many.

    Rodney King's Spirit (aeda60)

  5. Oh, and the larger point is this is from the NORMAL LEFT PLAYBOOK — during primaries or non-election periods always go with the more moderate republican and then once that republican wins then smear him as crazy, radical, etc. This story is on page 4 of the Left’s playbook.

    Rodney King's Spirit (aeda60)

  6. Brooks aches to be accepted by the cool kids.

    MostlyRight (4f90a6)

  7. What could have changed between April 2011 and now?

    — His fellow Journolisters got to him.

    Icy (9d4709)

  8. RKS, David Brooks graduated from (SHOCKA!) the University of Chicago.

    Icy (9d4709)

  9. I’d say Brooks is a feckless toad, but that would be unfair to toads.

    @PurpAv (ef3af8)

  10. As per Tim Geithner when questioned by said Paul Ryan, the Obama Administration doesn’t have a plan at all, it simply doesn’t like Ryan’s. That’s Creased Pants Brooks’ idea of leadership.

    Bugg (403960)

  11. Well done. This ought to be widely linked.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  12. Brooks engages in an argument with himself, and loses.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  13. ________________________________

    David Brooks is squishier and perhaps not much more nutritious and fulfilling than a bowl of Jell-o. However, I would guess that in the world of the New York Times, he’s considered a staunch conservative. Speaking of his place of employment….

    Politico.com, 8-25-12: The executive editor of the New York Times is disputing an accusation of liberal bias [throughout the pages of the newspaper] made by her very own public editor, Arthur Brisbane.

    Mark (925bec)

  14. I guess Mr Brooks just wasn’t impressed by the crease in Paul Ryan’s pants.

    Gregory of Yardale (f3aeed)

  15. You can add a few U’s to the list of wannabees, UoC is one, Northwestern, Cal Berkley … great school. Leftist in nature as with most U’s

    Rodney King's Spirit (aeda60)

  16. The problem with centrists is that they are always following the conventional wisdom. Basically, this means they parrot whomever spoke last.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  17. There does seem to be a contradiction – about what it means to be serious.

    April 2011 David Brooks says to be serious is to offer a serious proposal.

    His [Ryan’s] [budget] proposal will set the standard of seriousness for anybody who wants to play in this discussion. It will become the 2012 Republican platform, no matter who is the nominee…..it will remind everybody that the real argument is not about cutting a few billion here or there. It is about the underlying architecture of domestic programs in 2012 and beyond.

    The Ryan budget will put all future arguments in the proper context: The current welfare state is simply unsustainable and anybody who is serious, on left or right, has to have a new vision of the social contract.

    August 2012 David Brooks says to be serious is to propose something that has a chance of actually happening.

    Paul Ryan has a great campaign consciousness, and, when it comes to things like Medicare reform, I agree with him. But when he voted no on the Simpson-Bowles plan he missed the chance to show that he also has a governing consciousness. He missed the chance to do something good for the country, even if it wasn’t the best he or I would wish for….to put it another way, Ryan was giving up significant debt progress for a political fantasy.

    Ryan’s fantasy happens to be the No. 1 political fantasy in America today, which has inebriated both parties. It is the fantasy that the other party will not exist. It is the fantasy that you are about to win a 1932-style victory that will render your opponents powerless.

    I think David Brooks thought of Ryan’s proposals as a bit of a bluff – something to move the Democrats along.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  18. #17 Pretty soon a serious proposal is only a proposal which the President will sign on.

    By that line of reasoning you present, the only thing that is serious is not one’s own proposal but the oppositions proposal.

    To me, a serious proposal is one that solves the problem 100% while leaving both side wanting more.

    Rodney King's Spirit (aeda60)

  19. There does seem to be a change of opinion:

    April 2011 David brooks:

    …the real argument is not about cutting a few billion here or there. It is about the underlying architecture of domestic programs in 2012 and beyond.

    August 2012 David Brooks:

    Ryan said that it was silly to come up with a debt-reduction proposal that didn’t fix the single biggest driver of the nation’s debt…Ryan was giving up significant debt progress for a political fantasy.

    What in April 2011 would have been ” cutting a few billion here or there” in 2012 he says would have been “significant debt progress”

    It should be noted that in 2011 he is not endorsing Ryan’s no vote in 2010 on the Simpson Bowles Commission – he’s just not complaining about it, and he’s praising Ryan for something else.

    And suppose Ryan would have voted for it and it would have gone to a vote. Does he really think it would have passed?? Would Obama have endorsed it then? Would the Tea Party republicans have voted for it?

    In 2011, he probably didn’t think so.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  20. I didn’t stop the boldface after “political fantasy.

    It should be like this:

    August 2012 David Brooks:

    Ryan said that it was silly to come up with a debt-reduction proposal that didn’t fix the single biggest driver of the nation’s debt…Ryan was giving up significant debt progress for a political fantasy.

    What in April 2011 would have been ” cutting a few billion here or there” in 2012 he says would have been “significant debt progress.”

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  21. David Brooks doesn’t believe that:

    …the Republicans would beat President Obama [AND] that Republicans would win such overwhelming Congressional majorities that they would be able to push through measures Democrats hate AND that they would be able to sustain…cuts through the ensuing elections, in the face of ferocious and highly popular Democratic opposition.

    That doesn’t mean David Brooks doesn’t think it shouldn’t happen – it means that he thinks that somehow the Democrats have got to stop hating these proposals.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  22. Here is someone else at the New York Times, December 2011, saying Simpson Bowles wasn’t really a failure:

    The Success of Simpson Bowles

    That, in turn, links to this:

    http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/11/24/why_we_should_be_thankful_for_the_fiscal_commission_98767.html

    Why We Should Be Thankful for the Fiscal Commission By Josh Barro

    In my view, the probability that 14 commission members would sign onto a consensus report was zero all along; so was the probability that we would get a comprehensive deficit reduction deal out of the 112th Congress, absent a sovereign debt crisis or other economic crisis that forces the hands of elected officials.

    Instead, I view the Commission’s purpose as furthering a long-range process: driving an elite discussion about deficit reduction options so that, when the right economic time comes to actually close the budget gap, we have a clear vision of the steps we will need to take-and what compromises politicians will be willing to make. Viewed from this frame, the Commission has been a success, in part because it could not reach consensus and released several reports instead of one.

    But here comes David Brooks, in August 2012, to say that something should actually have happened then

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  23. Comment by Rodney King’s Spirit — 8/27/2012 @ 9:54 am

    To me, a serious proposal is one that solves the problem 100% while leaving both side wanting more.

    I can’t follow that. Both sides wanting more?

    One side wants to oversolve the problem?

    One side wants more spending cuts and the other side wants more entitlements or tax increases?

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  24. Comment by SPQR — 8/27/2012 @ 8:49 am

    Exactly, and he’s the resident-intellectual at the NYT.
    No wonder New Yorker’s seems so dense.

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  25. 24- “seems

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  26. Jammie Wearing Fool’s lead in to WaPo/ABC poll, the mouthpiece of the Kremlin:

    “As we head into the GOP convention it appears Mitt Romney has the momentum in a new Washington Post poll. Amazingly the sample is 31 D/22 R/39 I, an absurd +9 for Democrat respondents, and Romney still has a slight edge. What you smell is fear and panic at Obama HQ.”

    The Huns are at the gate setting fire to the siegeworks.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  27. “To me, a serious proposal is one that solves the problem 100% while leaving both side wanting more.”

    Rodney King’s Spirit – That’s just Finkelman talk!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  28. That doesn’t mean David Brooks doesn’t think it shouldn’t happen – it means that he thinks that somehow the Democrats have got to stop hating these proposals.

    And he thinks Ryan is a fantasist?!

    Milhouse (8acf6a)

  29. Apparently the Media’s pet RINO’S have a singular trait of having two faces.

    Their locations vary according to the degree of excremental content that their opinions contain.

    Sometimes they are located on the obverse of the primary cranial fascia whilst other times they are located near (even embraced by) their anal sphincter.

    (see Charlie Crist et al for examples)

    jcw46 (b4329c)

  30. #27, Well I did not say which side comparatively speaking “sacrificed more.” That is the art of negotiation. Something Conservatives routinely fail at.

    Rodney King's Spirit (aeda60)

  31. #23, if I need to explain then not sure you read the thread carefully. Point is the reasonableness of a proposal has nothing to do with the position of either side. The reasonableness is based on the objective result (Goal) desired from the proposal and how best to achieve that Goal. So when Leftists and Conservatives discuss economic growth, both want the same thing, but wish to get at it very differently. A reasonable proposal (in this case) is one that a) does achieve growth and b) can be supported by bot sides.

    So if a Leftie thinks you get growth by more and more taxes and you don’t think it then there is no possibility for a reasonable proposal from the left so long as more and more tax hikes are included b/c what can be reasonable about it if growth is desired and taxes hurt that cause.

    However, if the the goal is to give more free crap to people who don’t deserve ti buy votes and the Left says more and more taxes is good to achieve that goal, then it would be unreasonable for a Conservative to disagree if that was the desired result.

    Rodney King's Spirit (aeda60)

  32. That was the “evil” David Brooks from episode #31

    Neo (d1c681)

  33. “That doesn’t mean David Brooks doesn’t think it shouldn’t happen – it means that he thinks that somehow the Democrats have got to stop hating these proposals.”

    28. Comment by Milhouse — 8/27/2012 @ 11:32 am

    M: And he thinks Ryan is a fantasist?!

    Exactly.

    Didn’t he himself say there that both parties have the fantasy that the other party will not exist – that is, they campaign that way, and wait for that to happen before they try to do anything.

    I think he may be attributing some sincerity to the Democrats and that may be his problem.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  34. Realistic would be, let’s say, no, they can’t win everything, but Democrats can take such a shellacking that they don’t think an issue is good any more for them.

    If you think the Democrats are cynical the way they play the Medicare issue that may make sense.

    If you think they are principled, it may not make so much sense.

    Paul Ryan may not really be hoping for a 1932 style victory.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  35. Maybe it is also that some Washington Democrats talk very nice to David Brooks so he thinks things are easier to work out than they are.

    Or he thinks the opposition is principled.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  36. Earlier someone else (at Real Clear Market) thought things will happen when something forces it to happen. (at the “right economic time”)

    The thing would be to have something on the table
    people could take up.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  37. 28.

    It all depends on what you want to fantasize about: winning an election, or a political compromise.

    One cause for favoring one fantasy over the other may be that having rejected one idea as fantasy, a person can’t bring himself to recognize that something else is even more unrealistic.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  38. Racism and stupidity exist on both sides. For a nice summary of Obama’s tacit defense of black racism against whites, see http://tinyurl.com/8tzcy5w

    Gary (7e2b48)

  39. #38, Spam spam spam spam

    Milhouse (8acf6a)

  40. this should be a bigger story Mr. instapundit must be lollygagging

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  41. Is Brooks old enough for dog food and a wheelchair ride off a cliff?

    mg (44de53)

  42. Off topic, but tonight Occupyrebellion threatened Le Stranahan’s wife. Read about it here.

    Aaron "Worthing" Walker (23789b)

  43. No, that is not a threat. It’s pretty vile, though.

    Milhouse (8acf6a)

  44. Actually not pretty at all. Just vile.

    Milhouse (8acf6a)

  45. ____________________________________________

    What you smell is fear and panic at Obama HQ.”

    Speaking of bad smells, the following has a certain stench hovering over it:

    theblaze.com:

    The Democratic National Committee is raising a number of eyebrows after announcing that it will be hosting Islamic “Jumah” prayers for two hours on the Friday of its convention, soon after denying a Catholic cardinal’s request to say a prayer at the same event.

    Up to 20,000 people are expected to attend the Friday prayers and Jibril Hough, a spokesman for the Bureau of Indigenous Muslim Affairs (BIMA), said the purpose of the event is to hold political parties accountable for the issues faced by Muslim-Americans. In particular, the event will target the Patriot Act, the NYPD, the National Defense Authorization Act, and anti-Shariah sentiment.

    Siraj Wahhaj, the “Grand Imam” for Jumah at the DNC, is often considered a “moderate” because he was the first Muslim to give an invocation in the U.S. Congress, but as Robert Spencer notes, he has a number of troubling ties to dangerous radicals. In the early 1990′s the man reportedly sponsored talks by “the Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel-Rahman in New York and New Jersey mosques, and told his followers that the United States will fall unless it “accepts the Islamic agenda.”

    ^ Liberals were useful idiots for Communists/Communism during the 20th century, and now they’re occupying the same role for Islamicists/Islam in the 21st century. The left apparently is stuck on stupid.

    Mark (cf1ca8)

  46. 45. Via SDA:

    http://blogquebecois.com/2012/08/hospital_terror_in_denmark.html

    Sweep the vermin out, followed by hosing, squeegeeing and a new coat of paint.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  47. Sweep the vermin out

    Equating religious adherents with vermin … you really want to go there?

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  48. Today David Brooks wrote a horrible column that maybe he thinks is funny.

    Only a really partisan Democrat could find this funny:

    The Real Romney

    I’ll just quote one of the less bad paragraphs:

    Romney is also a passionately devoted family man. After streamlining his wife’s pregnancies down to six months each, Mitt helped Ann raise five perfect sons — Bip, Chip, Rip, Skip and Dip — who married identically tanned wives. Some have said that Romney’s lifestyle is overly privileged, pointing to the fact that he has an elevator for his cars in the garage of his San Diego home. This is not entirely fair. Romney owns many homes without garage elevators and the cars have to take the stairs.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  49. That is a strange column. I could not figure out what point, if any, it’s trying to make. It sounds like random silliness, like 1066 and All That, Twisted Tales from Shakespeare, the Molesworth books, and others in that genre.

    Milhouse (21636c)

  50. This is a nice takedown. Brooks obviously doesn’t even bother to skim the columns his research assistants write these days. I’d call him a poodle for the liberals, but that would insult a fine breed of dogs.

    Unfortunately, the NYT, like Obama, is completely incapable of being shamed.

    Beldar (8e9db8)

  51. Today David Brooks wrote a horrible column that maybe he thinks is funny.

    — Oh great, now he thinks he’s Dave Barry. *eye roll*

    Icy (c5308a)

  52. That’s an incredible link, Sammy. Thanks for pointing it out.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  53. David Brooks is still featured on the PBS Newshour each week as the “conservative voice” debating Shields on the week’s political events, as well as guest conservative analyst elsewhere. He absolutely must be replaced on Newshour before the election. His conduct in 2008 and now 2012 shows he is not only incapable of representing conservative/Republican thinking but Brooks is actually a wily fox in the henhouse. We must uniformly and forcefully start tweeting and writing PBS to make it happen to replace him. The weeks when others such as Nial Ferguson, Rich Lowrey or James Pethakoukas (or however Greeks spell it) sub for him on newshour show how horrible Brooks has become as a philosophical touchstone for conservatism.

    As I type this Brooks and Shields were being interviewed by Gwen and Woodruff as part of the PBS convention coverage. There were four pro-Obama people discussing Republicans. Horrible.

    elissa (202946)

  54. @51 Apparenly Bill Buckley found his parody-style amusing enough to hire him at NR. But then those Blackford Oakes tombs of his weren’t exactly knee-slappers.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  55. Any bets on how long funding for CPB/PBS lasts in the budget bills (Yes, the Senate will pass a Budget Bill next Spring – finally!) for FY-2014?

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  56. @53– Why… if you get your way, PBS will be denied Federal funding and all but cease to be. Then the conservatives can cheer adding more to the unemployment lines as part of their economic legacy by knocking Big Bird, Kermit, Brooks, Shields et al., out of their TV gigs.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  57. IMP is on a bender again.

    JD (ca5af2)

  58. Since Big Bird et al, are funding providers for PBS, if CPB/PBS goes away, independent channels/stations/networks will be panting at the door trying to sign them.
    Brooks, Shields, not so much.
    Another blazing display of ignorance by IMP.

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  59. Brooks, Shields, not so much.
    Another blazing display of ignorance by IMP.

    Comment by AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! — 8/30/2012 @ 2:18 pm

    Big Bird and company always like to have guests on the show- maybe they could be up in the theater box with the old-men Muppets.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  60. The audience is probably too intellectual for them.

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  61. @#58. =yawn= ROFLMAO, Oscar. Y’all can go after Moyers, too: “Romney is not just after Big Bird and friends. He has proposed eliminating all federal funding for PBS, the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. Stripping all federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting — which helps fund PBS — would save around $450 million a year.” -source, CNN Moneyline.

    Farewell, Bill… and ‘Downton Abbey.’ Or as Mitt would say, “Adieu.”

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  62. Moyers….Oh yeah, that guy who did LBJ’s bidding to get dirt, via the FBI, on Goldwater staffers in the wake of the Walter Jenkins scandal.
    That Moyers!
    I thought he’d died.

    I would think that the Left would welcome the demise of Downton Abbey; unless, of course, it was going to conclude with all the “swells” being chopped to bits by the downtrodden workers – which would be an acceptable re-writing of history by the Left, for the Left.

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  63. DCSCA,

    One of the tragedies about the left, is that you guys don’t understand Econ 101.
    Solyndra is an excellent example. The lefties are always claiming there’s money to be made in all of these green energy industries.

    Then why did Solyndra need all that gov’t money ?
    Solyndra would be funded by T. Boone Pickens if there were money to be made. (See “Pickens” and “wind energy” to find out if there’s money to be made in that endeavor.)
    Big Bird, Ernie, Bert, Grover, Oscar, Cookie Monster, and the rest of the gang generate tons of revenue—they don’t need to be on welfare. And as much as I love Cookie Monster, the American taxpayer should not be paying for his cookies—particularly when he throws half of them on the ground when he gets excited.
    Sesame Street can be self-sufficient.
    There’s a lot of good programming on PBS, and if there’s a big enough loyal audience, they will come to it if the station becomes a commercial station. Or, the station could continue to do fundraising as they always have, and use self-generating merchandising revenue, as well as continued corporate underwriting and maybe some commercials…but they don’t need to be underwritten by the American taxpayer, particularly when we have such an annual federal deficit and accrued national debt.

    Elephant Stone (65d289)

  64. Here in Los Angeles, our “old time” PBS station – KCET TV&Radio – dropped their PBS affiliation because it seems that their PBS “Dues” were getting to be a bit more than they wished to cover. I don’t know the particulars, but it sounds like PBS charges the stations according to their market size, so a station in L.A. was paying a lot, to effectively underwrite a station in (say) Boulder CO or some other very small college town.

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  65. @63- =yawn= Space X is a better example. That privatize space thang Whoops, can’t mention that. Thanks for playing.

    @64- FYI, the various cable system footrpints in LA had quite a number of PBS channel overlaps- in areas as many as five regional PBS affilates were carried from Anaheim to OC stations, etc., which was redundant to KCET’s programming when it took PBS network feed.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  66. IMP is an intrepid wannabe JounoLista.

    JD (ca5af2)

  67. IMP is an idiot, there is no excuse for Fed subsizing upper class yuppie’s TV.

    SPQR (f2d612)

  68. “And as much as I love Cookie Monster, the American taxpayer should not be paying for his cookies—”

    Hmmmmm. But subsidizing the petroleum industry’s ‘cookies’ is okay– ROFLMAO. Tragic, indeed. And FYI, $450 million is roughly the cost of one F-22. One. =eyeroll=

    But it’s encouraging to see the Right try to go after PBS again and again and again and again and again. As Christie might say, “How sweet it is!”

    “FIDO says it couldn’t be any better.”-NASA PAO, STS-1, 4/14/81

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  69. You are an idiot, IMP. Go sniff Rush’s armpits.

    Didn’t Obama eat FIDO?!

    JD (ca5af2)

  70. DCSCA,

    We realize it’s difficult for you to defend the indefensible, so the best you can do is type, “yawn.”
    Barry Obama handles these type of challenges by…sitting down with People magazine to chat about Snooki !

    From the cradle to the grave, y’all want to be taken care of by the government…not just doctor’s bills, food stamps, free condoms, and housing subsidies, but free Big Bird, and free “Downtown Abbey.”

    To paraphrase what Paul Ryan succinctly stated in his home run speech, “Everything is free, except for the people.”

    Elephant Stone (65d289)

  71. The International Man of Parody deploys his feared “non sequitor” weapon and flops again. Footprints on dick.

    SPQR (f2d612)

  72. SPQR, I honestly think there is something wrong with the fellow. People like that should just have their own blog.

    Simon Jester (aa2652)

  73. @70 – Do post where they’re handing out free flatscreen TV’s with free cable access and free utilities to power same. Oh, that’s right, you, ‘build it all … yourself.’ =eyeroll=

    And rather than paraphrase, better to simply quote the core of Lyin’ Ryan: “I love Ayn Rand.” The Objectionist Rand. The Athiest Rand. The ‘don’t vote for Reagan’ Rand. It is your misfortune that he is not on the top of your ticket. Perhaps in 2024– after Obama’s 2nd term and Hillary Clinton’s 1st & 2nd terms. In a dozen years, he’ll only be… what… 54. Matured- and still young, with a good, solid three decades of government work experience to trumpet. =eyeroll= Where’s Sarah? Where’s George? Where’s Dick? Where’s Bachmann and Cain… oh you’re ‘akin’ hearts. Instead, we get Reagan TV. Priceless. Please, we want our, we want our, we want our M-T-Ron!!!

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  74. Again, beyond parody.

    JD (ca5af2)

  75. OBAMA ADMIN THREATENS LEGAL ACTION OVER SEAL’S BIN LADEN BOOK…

    teh chutzpah is amazing, given the White House leaks of info that indisputably made America less safe.

    http://www.breitbart.com/system/wire/TX-PAR-NWH02

    Colonel Haiku (cb4f3e)

  76. DCSCA,

    I absolutely love it…the Obama Zombies’ only path to victory, is to say, “Don’t vote for them ’cause the guy with the washboard abs once read Ayn Rand when he was in college !”
    This is not the re-election meme of an Administration that is confident the Prez has a successful record to run on.

    The lefties want free condoms, free food, and free interviews with People magazine.

    …for every citizen in each of the 57 states !

    Elephant Stone (65d289)

  77. DCSCA:

    Blah, blah, blah. Talking points are great for going blah, blah, blah over and over again.

    I’m not really too concerned about how the GOP tries to swing independent voters, because, it’s the economy, well, you know, stupid.

    The President has had four years to put up or shut up. For some reason, he and you, keep talking about squirrels. I don’t give a crap about squirrels.

    Of course, I’m ready to give Mitt a chance because I’m predisposed. However, for God’s sake, why do you want to keep the current state of affairs going for another four years? Has it been that good for you?

    Ag80 (b2c81f)

  78. By the way, I feel sorry for these people telling how much the Romneys helped them during hard times.

    They are about to become the biggest targets of hate and vitriol unseen since Mia Love spoke.

    They seem to be brave people, though. I just hate to think of what they will be going through in the next few weeks.

    Ag80 (b2c81f)

  79. Actually, DCSCA, read your post aloud. If it was muttered by a smelly homeless guy out at Mission Park, it would fit right in.

    Seek help.

    Simon Jester (aa2652)

  80. We’re a bunch of volunteers and opening a brand new scheme in our community. Your site provided us with valuable info to work on. You’ve performed an impressive task and our whole group can be grateful to you.

    colloidal silver,colloidal gold,silver water,purest colloids,mesosilver,colloids for life (82d5c7)

  81. Thanks a lot for sharing this with all of us you really understand what you are speaking approximately! Bookmarked. Kindly additionally discuss with my site =). We may have a hyperlink alternate arrangement among us

    don't click here (a7a1cc)

  82. IMP is on a bender again.

    Work From No Home (1109e7)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5047 secs.