From Joe Nocera’s ridiculous and shameful column today:
You know what they say: Never negotiate with terrorists. It only encourages them.
These last few months, much of the country has watched in horror as the Tea Party Republicans have waged jihad on the American people. Their intransigent demands for deep spending cuts, coupled with their almost gleeful willingness to destroy one of America’s most invaluable assets, its full faith and credit, were incredibly irresponsible. But they didn’t care. Their goal, they believed, was worth blowing up the country for, if that’s what it took.
[. . .]
As has been explained ad nauseam, the threat of defense cuts is supposed to give the Republicans an incentive to play fair with the Democrats in the negotiations. But with our soldiers still fighting in Afghanistan, which side is going to blink if the proposed cuts threaten to damage national security? Just as they did with the much-loathed bank bailout, which most Republicans spurned even though financial calamity loomed, the Democrats will do the responsible thing. Apparently, that’s their problem.
For now, the Tea Party Republicans can put aside their suicide vests. But rest assured: They’ll have them on again soon enough. After all, they’ve gotten so much encouragement.
"Much of the country has watched in horror. . . ." I wonder what Mr. Nocera considers "much of the country?" New York, Los Angeles, Chicago? Most Americans who were horrified by what went on in Washington during the debt ceiling debate weren't horrified by the "terrorist activities" of the Tea Party. They were horrified by the out-of-control spending authorized by their elected representatives and their inability to effectively deal with the problem they created. Isn't it interesting that the Tea Party's demands for deep spending cuts are considered intransigent, but the President's demands for a larger debt ceiling increase and higher taxes are not?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't know, it sounded pretty fair and balanced to me.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Fair and balanced" means you allow opposing views a fair chance to be heard.
It's not the same as "unbiased."
So, while Fox can rightly claim to be fair and balanced, because they allow opposing views across the spectrum to be heard, they don't have much to say when folks claim their commentary is biased.
In other words, you show and missed at the "Fox News is evil" setup.
This piece is not fair and balanced. It is biased and pretty weak sauce.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI understand now, Fox is fair and balanced because they allow all different viewpoints to be aired, sort of let a thousand flowers blossom, right. So, the reason they had Glen Beck on so many years, was that the nations lunatics would be fairly represented. I get it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGlenn Beck was on Fox News from January 2009 to April of this year.
Your "so many years" turns out to be two.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTwo years, wow, I guess it only seemed like twenty. Glad to be corrected, thanks. Also glad to note no one defended Beck's lucidity. Just between us, I always thought his shtick was more about making millions from credible fans, than any firmly held political view. Did provide great fodder for Jon Stewart, an appreciated if unintended benefit.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow sad it is that you don't know the consequences of real jihad and real terrorists. Apparently you've been in a coma for the past 20 years or so.
Is there something about the first Amendment that you don't like or don't agree with? Is there a country, like Cuba or Iran where your views would be more in sync? It used to be said that one might not agree with you but that they would defend to the death your right to say it. Those days just don't exist for you eh dude?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGlenn Beck (note the spelling) was on Fox for two years. Before that he was on CNN.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour doing a pretty good job of showing yourself to be someone who shouldn't be taken seriously.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs always, liberals can't say anything nice about anyone who disagrees with them. Such people must be evil, stupid, or insane, if not all three.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTake the credit card from your teenagers and listen to them scream with exquisite hyperbole - you're a Hitler, a Stalin, ad nauseum. Do the Democrats and the establishment media understand how much they sound like the shrill teenager who just had their credit card taken away? Are they so dense they do not understand what a marvelous job they are doing of discrediting themselves?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNocera thinks: "But with our soldiers still fighting in Afghanistan, which side is going to blink if the proposed cuts threaten to damage national security?"
Yes, which side indeed? Of course it will be the Republicans. The Democrats will refuse to make the agreed-upon cuts, knowing that the "trigger" will be pulled, taking a half a trillion dollars from the Department of Defense, insuring the immediate end of the Afghan and Iraq wars. The Dems will also know that by the time the trigger gets pulled the Republicans will have lost the resolve to insist on cuts in spending from entitlement programs, where it's obvious the bulk of the cuts must come if we are to confront our debt situation realistically.
So it's the Republicans who will blink as the Dems realize (as they probably do right now as they sign off on the loan ceiling deal) that it's to their political advantage to refuse to agree to voluntary spending cuts.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's clear that the Tea Partyers should call for the destruction of the state of Israel.
Let's see, terrorists calling for the end of Israel?
The NY Times would be filled with stories calling for the Obama Administration to negotiate with them and address the "root causes" of their grievances.
See? Sometimes you have to think outside the box.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy local paper carried a NYT story today on country star Brad Paisley. It ended by mentioning that after a long string of #1 singles, his most recent, a song celebrating Obama's win, reached only #2. The reason they give?
"It was clear that some of Paisley's fans were turned off by a song that saluted the nation's first black president."
Yup, them country bumpkins are all a bunch of racists.
Actually the author didn't give a reason why "it was clear" that country fans don't like a black president.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseArtists would be grateful to be so unliked that their song only reached #2 in the nation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI found the article you're talking about:
"Before “Welcome to the Future,” Mr. Paisley had had 10 straight No. 1 country hits, a record that stretched back four years. But the song stalled at No. 2, snapping Mr. Paisley’s streak. That may have been coincidence, but it’s clear that some of Mr. Paisley’s fans were turned off by a song that saluted the nation’s first black president — and, perhaps worse, a Democrat."
That's the song they were talking about?
It's not a good song. Judge for yourself:
External Link
I think the only reason it had airtime or reached #2 was because Brad Paisley is an established product.
I normally like Paisley, but this song really was "turn the dial" bad in composition, lyrics and artistry.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYadda, yadda. This is just how a Times columnist makes a play for a wider readership. It's all dust in the wind to me. The Times today is like the Village Voice, only with stodgier typeface.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseApparently, adding trillions to the debt is not considered destructive or suicidal.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse