Glenn, who has been calling for GM to go into bankruptcy since December 2008, and Jeff de-bunk the spin surrounding GM’s bankruptcy during Episode 39. They explain what this really means for consumers, why you shouldn’t be worried about buying a GM car, and why you should be worried now that the federal government owns 60% of the “new” GM. Even as a progressive Democrat, Jeff worries about the federal government over-reaching in trying to protect GM, and wonders if thee company is too big to fail. Listen as the wheels come off Illinois Sen. Burris’ lame defense of his indefensible claims under oath regarding his appointment to President Obama’s Senate Seat. Glenn and Jeff peel back the ugly truth behind fundraising and lobbying, and offer a new context to understand the Burris situation. Ending with passion, they both enthusiastically endorse Congressman Sestak’s bid for the Democratic Senate nomination in Pennsylvania, taking on flip-flopping Sen. Arlen Specter. They probe Pennsylvania Gov. Rendell’s harsh comments towards Sestak made on MSNBC’s Ed Shultz Show in which he boasted that Sestak would get “killed” in a primary and would end up in political oblivion for challenging Specter, and that he best just keep his Congressional seat. Jeff reminds listeners that President Obama was in the same exact situation when he took on then Sen. Hillary Clinton, and wonders why Senate Democrats and the people of Pennsylvania wouldn’t want a member of the Democratic caucus who is loyal and dependable, unlike Specter. So much intrigue to read through, so many lies and distortions to unfold. It’s another great episode of PoliTalk — always informative and entertaining — it’s your weekly political podcast.
Listen to the current installment of PoliTalk and get yourself informed, inspired, entertained and ready for the day… spread the word… tell two friends, and so on and so on…
President Obama gave the Notre Dame Commencement Speech on Sunday, March 17, 2009. His speech tackled the abortion debate by calling for civility in debate. Referring specifically to the divisiveness that has come from both sides, he said,
Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction, but surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.
Later in the speech he asked,
As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?
The speech ran about 30 minutes. It is worth the investment to watch.
It’s a good sign when any of us can take time to make fun of ourselves and poke fun at others. President Obama did his share and pulled it off well the most recent White House Correspondence Dinner. And he did it solo.
However, I still think the best appearance at the White House Correspondence Dinner to date is President Bush with special Bush impressionist Steve Berry. Granted, President Bush needed a side-kick to make this work, but it is priceless.
Today, I reviewed the new government website “Recovery.gov“. The rhetoric in it is encoraging. It promises to provide visability as to how, when and where the the $700+ billion stimulus package will be spent. I am cautiously optimistic. The proof will be in the pudding, or in this case, the details. If I can see if my home town has received block grants for more police and then I don’t see more police in my town, I can play watchdog and whistleblower. If I can see that $300 million has been allocated to upgrade the transit system where I live, I can play watchdog and whistleblower. Could this be part a new tool in fighting corruption and crowniism? I hope so. However, if this just shows how much money went to a state and it ends there, this will be a sham. Again, I am cautiously optimistic. I give kudos to the idea and the implementation so far. Hopefully this will be a watershed event that dramatically changes how government spends our tax dollars.
Rush Limbaugh is easily one of the founding fathers of conservative talk radio. He is also a brilliant self-promoter and builder of his own nationally syndicated radio talk show. He is arguably the most quoted and most influential commentator among the conservative masses. That said, has he jumped the shark? Has he started the Obama attack too soon? Has he shown that there is no aisle crossing to be done if he were a politician?
You be the judge. Listen to his recent radio commentary from January 16, 2009 (four days before the Inauguration). and review the transcript below from his website:
I got a request here from a major American print publication. “Dear Rush: For the Obama [Immaculate] Inauguration we are asking a handful of very prominent politicians, statesmen, scholars, businessmen, commentators, and economists to write 400 words on their hope for the Obama presidency. We would love to include you. If you could send us 400 words on your hope for the Obama presidency, we need it by Monday night, that would be ideal.” Now, we’re caught in this trap again. The premise is, what is your “hope.” My hope, and please understand me when I say this. I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, “Well, I hope he succeeds. We’ve got to give him a chance.” Why? They didn’t give Bush a chance in 2000. Before he was inaugurated the search-and-destroy mission had begun. I’m not talking about search-and-destroy, but I’ve been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don’t want them to succeed.
If I wanted Obama to succeed, I’d be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he’s talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don’t want this to work. So I’m thinking of replying to the guy, “Okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.” (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here’s the point. Everybody thinks it’s outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, “Oh, you can’t do that.” Why not? Why is it any different, what’s new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don’t care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: “Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.” Somebody’s gotta say it.
What do you think? Has he jumped the shark or is he brilliant at staying relevant and being part of the national dialogue?
Remember to add this blog to your bookmarks or any of the bookmarking services listed as you scroll down the page.
Also, listen to our weekly podcast on iTunes or use the links below.
