Tuesday open thread
And after it there came so long a train
Of people, that I ne’er would have believed
That ever Death so many had undone.
When some among them I had recognized
I looked, and I beheld the shade of him
Who made through cowardice the great refusal.
Where will you travel today?
February 12, 2013 - 8:06 AM
The liberal media slams Dr. Benjamin S. Carson, a pediatric neurosurgeon, who at National Prayer Breakfast decried political correctness, health care, wealth redistribution, and the national debt with Obama seated nearby with a very uneasy look on his face.
Sandy Crowley on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday morning opined:
“I think it’s really–not really an appropriate place to make this kind of political speech, and to invoke God as support for that kind of view.”
Dr. Carson is neither a Republican nor a Democrat and his speech was not political, just common sense. His plain talk has struck a note with the the American people and it has gone viral, except with liberals. They fear him like they fear the tea party movement that was so effective during the midterm elections in ’10.
If you can take it, you can see his moving speech at:
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/02/07/Dr-Carson-Prayer-Breakfast-Speech-That-Slams-Obama-Debt-Right-In-Front-Of-Him
Poor Obama, he hates facing the truth!
Check out Cal Thomas’ column on this subject tomorrow.
If Cal Thomas is writing about it, it must be rubbish.
Applaud the speech as you like, it was grossly inappropriate at the Prayer Breakfast. Who knew a pediatric neurosurgeon could also be a right wing boor.
#’s 3 & 4, Thanks for your very predictable response! I’ll wager you have not seen any of his speech as the liberal media has ignored it except to criticize.
The public response to Dr. Carson has been overwhelmingly positive.
He obviously was invited to the Prayer Breakfast to say exactly what he said as his views are well known. He has been expressing basically the same view for years in writings and speeches.
I love it when liberals get so exorcised, especially Obama! You have not heard the last of Dr. Carson.
Geez, he invoked God at a prayer breakfast? The nerve.
And NW, Thomas was critical of the speech and of Carson.
What Sandi is actually saying is that she can’t believe there is a prominent black neurosurgeon that would dare disagree with President Obama.
Well I guess our “responses” were as “very predictable” as your offering John R. You would lose that wager.
Sure the right wing public response has been “overwhelmingly positive”. I do not find the same in all circles however.
YOU brought it up, so let’s be careful in assigning who is “so exorcised” about it, shall we?
I am curious as to the thoughts of those economic thinkers on this site (not me, I’ve been told) on the currency devaluations going on around the world (Argentina most recently and most spectacularly).
Big picture thoughts?
89hoo, please speak for yourself and allow me the same courtesy.
Oh I’m sorry Sandi. Does that man you won’t be ascribing racial motives to those of us who didn’t vote for Obama because of his policies? Or will you continue to project your own viewpoints and speak for others? Just trying to understand the rules you play by.
#9 The dollar retains it’s relative superiority. All currencies are debased and inflation creeps. Real standard of living falls in relation to such.
What the left misses is the rich get richer & the poor get poorer, precisely due to the policies that devalue currency.
Some countries (China, etc.,) will enjoy balance of trade advantages for their exports…American imports will cost more, and, be too expensive domectically to compete with cheaper imports.
Dr. Carson is articulate, bright and plain spoken. His views on PC are right on the money.And he is right about the “dumbing down” of America.Great speech!Thank you John R. for sharing it.
12 – well, the US has been devaluing currency right along with them, and not just indirectly (through tax, spend and borrow policies) but directly, through all the various phases of currency expansion (they call it “quantitative easing”).
#14 Yes, I know. That’s why I said, “relative” superiority. Further, it is in large part due to our devaluation that other countries are forced to follow suit….to keep their imports (to us) underpriced & our exports to them overpriced.
Getting further and further from a real economy and closer to a banana republic with every headline.
John R, in your post #1, you admit Carson “decried political correctness, health care, wealth redistribution, and the national debt” and in the same post you state “his speech was not political.” This is known as Cognitive Dissonance. Considering the topics he touched on and the audience (members of Congress and the President) this was inherently a political speech. To state otherwise is simply naive.
I am a Liberal, and proud of it. I have no fear of anyone exercising their Constitutionally guaranteed First Amendment right to free speech, nor do I fear the Tea Party, as they are going the way of the Whigs.
Oh, and by the way, the host of the CNN show you cite is Candy Crowley, not Sandy Crowley.
Stupid capitalism and their banana republic economies.
Dr. Carson has addressed the Prayer Breakfast before. He KNEW the protocol and the non-partisan, faith based nature of the event. It is not supposed to be a political event.
The President is the one who stuck to the spirit of the event. Dr. Carson used it as a political tool. Like I said, applaud that as you like, but do not dare comment on the coarsening of this nation when you have done so. That hypocrisy will not go unnoticed either.
18 – yeah, crony capitalism, not free market capitalism. It’s like the difference between football in the US and football in England. Not even close to the same thing.
President Rubio.
21 – I need to know more about Rubio before I endorse him (or not). Just giving a partisan response to a partisan speech is not enough, in my line.
Did we see the same speech?
SO Sandi..A pediatric neuro surgeon stands up and advocates for a flat income tax that treats all equally and doesn’t hurt/target higher wage earners, he advocates for a more efficient use of healthcare dollars by allowing consumers to have healthcare spending accounts, he claims PCness is hurting/dumbing down a nation, he claims exhorbitant spending and the ensuing debt is bad for the nation…and THIS is the coarsening of a nation?
23 – Sandi, I suspect you and I could have attended in person, as personal guests of the President, and seen two entirely different speeches.
No..We did not. Rather than watch a liar lie, I watched `Hardcore Pawn` and observed what socialism does to a city and its people.
Actually I was responding to the “President Rubio” remark,. Maybe Jim Lucas saw the Spanish version?
Yes BUD, I happen to think that a blatantly political speech at a prayer breakfast not associated with partisan and political speech IS just adding to the coarsening of our national psyche. Are there no places where we can put down the partisan hammers? Why is that supported? If it had been a political speech excoriating the right wing agenda, you would be agreeing with me and we all know it.
27 – I would have the same response regarding Rubio’s speech.
Sandi interesting…
A bespectacled, soft spoken black man without mentioning parties or blaming individuals, states his positions respectfully and professionally. This will coarsen the nation’s psyche.
I’m just not feelin’ it.
OK, you can think he is President Rubio as you both like, but I think you are wrong again.
Science should study the political mind to see why two people (or two million) can see the exact same thing and receive it so differently. It bears scrutiny. Frankly, I am glad NOT to respond like a right winger and I have no doubt they feel the same, but WHY do we respond so differently to the same thing? I am willing to bet that in an experiment with Obama and Rubio trading speeches, the reaction would be the same. I find that fascinating.
31 – you’ve enforced my point about there being little to differentiate the parties and their governance. Both parties tap into an “us-against-them” mindset, play against each other, play off each other…and wind up in the same place. The Republicans are jubilant or mad when the Dems are in office, the Dems are excited or angry when the Republicans are in office…and Leviathan grows without pause.
Note neither Obama nor Rubio offered plans to control the growth of government; neither Obama nor Rubio offered plans to shrink the purview of government; neither Rubio nor Obama offer tax plans that differ in any real degree; neither Rubio nor Obama offer spending plans that differ in any real degree; neither Rubio nor Obama offer foreign policy positions that differ in any real degree…both are partisan in that there is only one real party in Washington. But it’s crucial to make people think there are choices.
BUD, I am “not feelin’ it” on what being “a bespectacled, soft spoken black man” has got to do with the price of tea in China.
It was in fact a very good speech, delivered pretty well by a professional on several levels, but it was an angry speech IMO delivered in the wrong venue with the wrong intentions and that is what struck me.
There are very, very precious few places anymore where anything is bi-partisan or without political rancor and that does coarsen society.
I am not trying to get you to agree with me, but I believe am just as correct in my opinion as you believe you are in yours. Hell agreeing with Cal Thomas alone has me apoplectic, but in this one instance, the man is right.
I know what Thomas is saying, but in a world where the President has the ultimate bully pulpit, to be used at any and every opportunity, any chance to respectfully raise an opposing voice and alternative viewpoint should be allowed.
I think there is plenty “to differentiate the parties” and even the individual agendas, that is what we vote on. Bbut governance is not so much about the particular power of whomever is elected as it is the real power in this nation, and it is not the political parties. In truth, I no longer know if it ever was, nor that we can do a thing about it.
It is our reaction to the process that continues to fascinate and appall me.
Well geez 89Hoo, you are in luck, because it was “allowed” and at least in some circles, roundly applauded as the greatest thing ever. Why do I think such antics will be less appreciated when the shoe is on the other foot? Yeah, it’s probably just me.
Well it was allowed, yes, but there are those that would not have allowed it, had they the option. And you are absolutely correct that the comments from all sides would be mirrored if the situation we reversed.
#6 darn it all, now I’m going to have to watch the stupid video AND read Cal Thomas’s lame column.
‘Hoo, I am glad to say we agree on many things….basically a Libertarian, Constitutional, free-market perspective…..but once again I must differ with what I see as a Don Quixote naivete POV reference the dems & the GOP. Especially this president and some GOP. Perhaps you did not see/hear the Rubio speech. I realize some dislike his lack of Obama “charm”….but try the substance:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/12/politics/pol-rubio-sotu-response/index.html
Either way, unlike some, we are free to disagree.
35, 39 – Sandi, Jim L – I agree with both of you that there is plenty to differentiate the rank-and-file of the parties, as you two probably typify those differentiations. There also distinctions in the party platforms, which theoretically lay out the principles and roadmaps the parties follow.
But I see very little to distinguish what happens when they govern. Both follow a variation of tax/spend/print/spend/spend/spend/print/etc. fiscal policy, with the result that we are trillions in debt and getting more and more in debt. Oh, sure, the parties quibble of small things, but when you are trillions in the hole, a billion here or there, to substitute for another billion there or here, is irrelevant.
Both follow economic policies that require central government planning; both fear a truly free market and sound currency (not enough flexibility, you know). Any differences are cosmetic only.
Both adhere to an adversarial foreign policy that interferes in the affairs of other sovereign nations, and both feign surprise (or maybe its not feigned, which is almost worse) when the other nations love theirs as much as we love ours, and when the other nations get pissed at, and respond to, these interventions. The nerve.
So, no, in a practical sense, there is no significant difference.