The Obama-lovin' was in full bloom on Wednesday's "Late Night with Conan O'Brien" when interim "Meet the Press" host Tom Brokaw actually said, "I don't remember this level of excitement for a new president since 1960 when Jack Kennedy was elected President of the United States."
Now, in fairness, as I was born in 1960, I don't know what kind of excitement existed for JFK after that November's election was concluded.
However, as Ronald Wilson Reagan beat Jimmy Carter by a far greater margin -- popular and electoral votes -- in 1980 than Kennedy beat Richard M. Nixon twenty years prior, this comment by Brokaw seems to be the typical liberal media member's revisionist view of history (video embedded below the fold, relevant section at 24:11, h/t TVNewser):
Okay, let's look at some of the facts as recorded by Wikipedia, shall we?
In the national popular vote, Kennedy beat Nixon by just one tenth of one percentage point (0.1%) - the closest popular-vote margin of the 20th century...Richard Nixon was the first person to lose but carry more than half the states, winning 26 states. The only other person was Gerald R. Ford in 1976, who won in 27 states. [...]
Many Republicans (including Nixon and President Eisenhower) believed that Kennedy had benefited from vote fraud, especially in Texas, of which Lyndon Johnson was Senator, and Illinois, home of Richard Daley's powerful Chicago political machine. Republican Senators such as Everett Dirksen and Barry Goldwater agreed with this assessment; they believed that Nixon actually won the national popular vote. Republicans tried and failed to overturn the results in both these states at the time--as well as in nine other states. These two states are important because if Nixon had carried both, he would have won the election in the electoral college.
Nixon advisors urged Nixon to pursue recounts and challenge the validity of some votes for Kennedy, especially in the pivotal states of Illinois, Missouri and New Jersey, where large majorities in Catholic precincts handed Kennedy the election. Nixon gave a speech three days after the results came in saying he would not contest the election.
As such, Kennedy's victory was not only historically narrow, but many in the nation felt fraud-ridden. By contrast, as recorded by Wikipedia (for consistency), Reagan's victory over Carter was significantly more decisive:
Ronald Reagan with running mate George H.W. Bush beat Carter by almost 10 percentage points in the popular vote. Republicans also gained control of the Senate for the first time in twenty-five years on Reagan's coattails. The electoral college vote was a landslide, with 489 votes (representing 44 states) for Reagan and 49 votes for Carter (representing 6 states and the District of Columbia). NBC News projected Reagan as the winner at 8:15 pm EST (5:15 PST), before voting was finished in the West, based on exit polls. (It was the first time a broadcast network used exit polling to project a winner, and took the other broadcast networks by surprise.) Carter conceded defeat at 9:50 pm EST.[27][28] Carter's loss was the worst defeat for an incumbent President since Herbert Hoover lost to Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932 by a margin of 18%.
With this in mind, it seems absolutely absurd of Brokaw to suggest that there was more excitement for Kennedy eight days after the election than for Reagan who won by such an extraordinary landslide.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Media excitement
November 13, 2008 - 14:52 ET by UnsaneOh please. The media had their tongues hanging out of their mouths while waiting for Clinton. Watch his 1993 inauguration. ABC's coverage would have led you to believe that it was a liberation from an evil dictatorship rather than an inauguration.
"THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING!!! A WAR ON FREEWILL IS COMING!!!" - Nevermore, "Bittersweet Feast", from This Godless Endeavor (2005)
since when did excitement become statistically quantifiable
November 13, 2008 - 15:35 ET by abeautifulpersonBrokaw has every right to opine that this was the most exciting election in 40+ years. why?...
the HIGHEST VOTER TURNOUT in a hundred years.
when first elected, obama received HIGHER popular vote than reagan.
obama received MORE VOTES than any president IN HISTORY.
a sweep of the SENATE and CONGRESS.
the first non-white ever elected as president...
probably the most watched US presidential election, around the world.
while grumbling and kicking the dirt, you might not have been excited, but the vast majority of americans (AND the world over) were and still are VERY excited.
???
November 13, 2008 - 15:58 ET by dboNice spin APB. 2008 turnout was almost exactly the same as 2004...61%. Which begs the question, if the country is so excited about the Zero, why did no more show up to the polls in 2008 than in 2004? I'd say the people are showing about the same amount of excitement as the stock market.
WASHINGTON, D.C. (November 6, 2008)—Despite lofty predictions by some academics,
pundits, and practitioners that voter turnout would reach levels not seen since the turn of the last
century, the percentage of eligible citizens casting ballots in the 2008 presidential election stayed at
virtually the same relatively high level as it reached in the polarized election of 2004.
http://politicaltick...
Oh now
November 13, 2008 - 16:06 ET by FinerThingsClubMemberInTrainingDon't burn him with facts.
Those are like holy water to Regan MacNeil. May the power of Christ compel you!!!
burnt with facts, eh?
November 13, 2008 - 17:39 ET by abeautifulpersoni think you better have another look at the statistics on wikipedia (which is the reference used by noel).
2008
OBAMA: 66.6 million votes
mccain: 58.2 million votes
4.1 million more than the previous election.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008
2004:
bush: 62 million votes
kerry: 59 million
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004
unfortunately, the point was (yet again) lost on you. being excited is not quantifiable. however, if this is what is being disputed, then i present some FACTS to enforce Brokaw's statement. my FACTS are accurate, but again, when you are too busy installing razor wire and burying cash and weapons in your backyard, you probably don't have time to notice how excited the majority of people are.
Ummm....
November 13, 2008 - 18:07 ET by FinerThingsClubMemberInTrainingLet's define *majority* here.
They way I see it, there are 305+ million people in this country right now.
Obviously not all of those are of voting age, but of that, 66 million voted for your candidate.
How is that a majority of anything?
And if the shoe were on the other foot, I would never make such an asinine assertion. Half of the voting electorate didn't even vote, so majority schmajority.
Take your *excitement* *(which by the way, in one sentence you say is not quantifiable but then in the very next sentence say "you probably don't have time to notice how excited the majority of people are") to your own board. Didn't you get that memo, already, Sparky? We don't give a rat's ass about change/hope and other vapid terms!
guys like you give me too much pleasure to go anywhere
November 13, 2008 - 18:17 ET by abeautifulperson"How is that a majority of anything?" ??!!
"majority schmajority" ??
what a joke. is that your reply?
HA! i'm done here.
Uh, yeah
November 13, 2008 - 18:28 ET by FinerThingsClubMemberInTrainingBecause it just debunked your entire argument about a "vast majority" you stupid, asshat.
PS: Your name? Totally queer!
she stumbles out of a
November 13, 2008 - 23:15 ET by TruthMongershe stumbles out of a backroom cannibus club somewhere, and then into and out of our lives so quickly - I didn't even get to say F*CK *FF
NRA: 50 MILLION GUN ANNUAL MARCH ON DC
Majority of those who voted,
November 13, 2008 - 23:29 ET by balboaMajority of those who voted, perhaps?
Please splain to me Lucy.....
November 14, 2008 - 06:56 ET by old croIf the population of the USA increases every year and the increase in voters is based on population increases 18 years ago, why would a "record" number of people who voted for a particular candidate be news at all?
Vast majority?
November 13, 2008 - 16:00 ET by KarmaCome on, abp. In only one other election in our history have more peolple voted AGAINST the winner.
No representation, without taxation!
For anuglysocialist
November 13, 2008 - 17:11 ET by Unsaneanglysocialist - what??? By the way, why should I give a damn about what people outside of the United States care about who my country's president is? Trust me, the last thing I think about or consider is what foreigners like you think about what the United States does. Especially you as you are nothing more than a whiny parasite.
Even so, your excitement stems not from all the crap you wrote about, but about the fact that yet another Socialist is about to take office. As you worship the State, all you need is a Christ. You got it in the Shahinshah.
I would hope that the Shahinshah received more votes than Reagan - there were about 230 million people in 1980 compared to over 300 million now.
A sweep of the House and Senate? Um, a pickup of House and Senate seats but not a sweep. If it was a sweep, we should be looking at a 435-0 majority in the House, no?
Finally, last I saw, this thing you type about the highest voter turnout in history is unsubstantiated and most likely not even close to being correct. But, like most of what you vomit here on NB, you never ever backup what you say (like your gushing post about how great Canada is that you have yet to every back up).
"THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING!!! A WAR ON FREEWILL IS COMING!!!" - Nevermore, "Bittersweet Feast", from This Godless Endeavor (2005)
suggestion: wipe foam from face and reread my statements
November 13, 2008 - 17:48 ET by abeautifulpersoni did NOT say "highest voter turnout in history". if you spent more time reading what i wrote and less bashing out your rage at your computer keyboard, you'd see exactly what i wrote.
dems have the president, senate and congress: a sweep. when you win 3 of 3, its a sweep.
so please, have a look at the numbers on the links i provided. ouch.
why do you give a damn? why would you bother to respond if you did? sucks when someone who doesn't even live in your country has to set you straight.
Contrdictions collapse
November 14, 2008 - 06:20 ET by UnsaneA hate-filled Socialist spewing a hateful, condescending post, demanding I wipe the foam from MY face?
Contradictions never cease collapsing.
By the way, you are STILL wrong. According to my almanac, the last Presidential election snared 60% of the population's votes. I'm not all that sure this last election hit that level. So you are off by 96 years. Perhaps you need remedial math? That can go with your remedial American history and government. The popular vote is less critical than the electoral college, and from what I have seen, this wasn't an electoral blowout.
"THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING!!! A WAR ON FREEWILL IS COMING!!!" - Nevermore, "Bittersweet Feast", from This Godless Endeavor (2005)
Focku Ozzhole... -
November 13, 2008 - 23:16 ET by TruthMongerFocku Ozzhole...
- Ahnold Shvatzanaytah
NRA: 50 MILLION GUN ANNUAL MARCH ON DC
one more thing
November 13, 2008 - 17:56 ET by abeautifulpersonanyone using blow-outs as examples of excitement obviously don't get the drama of a close race.
if you've ever watched a sporting event, its not the match where one side totally whups another as the exciting match, its the close one that typically generates the real excitement.
BUT, much to your angst (and therefore MY pleasure), this past presidential election wasn't close and was VERY EXCITING. many parties with friends and family were thrown both inside american borders and beyond.
BLAM! BLAM!
November 13, 2008 - 23:18 ET by TruthMongerBLAM! BLAM! BLAM!
considdah dat a deevorce...
- Ahnold Shvatzanaytah
NRA: 50 MILLION GUN ANNUAL MARCH ON DC
Again, for the parasite anuglysocialist
November 13, 2008 - 23:27 ET by UnsaneI get the drama of close races. Check out Super Bowl XXXII sometime.
BUT, much to your angst (and therefore MY pleasure), this past presidential election wasn't close and was VERY EXCITING. many parties with friends and family were thrown both inside american borders and beyond. Well, not really. On Election Night I was too busy doing what you disdain: working. I responded to the news of your beloved Shahinshah's election by dumping money into my IRA because I knew the markets would tank. Beyond that, I had too much work to do to care.
See, anuglysocialist, I am not the parasite YOU are. YOU feed off of ME in so many ways. I drive the economy forward through various gigs and actions, and have done hundreds of things you dare not dream of. This is primarily because unlike you I don't sit around waiting for the State to toss me a bone or to feed, clothe and shelter me. I have too much ambition to do that.
Of course you enjoyed the election. You cannot live without the pampering of the State. It's pretty amazing...I remember thinking when I was 4 how cool it would be if I could pour my very own pitchers of water instead of asking other people to do it for me. Or thinking about how cool it would be to be an adult. I never dared dream that there are people like you who can't wait to crawl back up into the womb and be treated like a helpless waif. If anything, I pity your pathetic existence.
How sad must it be to dream of becoming a slave, and worse, becoming angry when you realize that not all of us share that dream!
And as for those around the world: of course they celebrated. You, like them, regret and resent American greatness. You and they are all miserable and being Socialists, all of you will not rest until everyone is completely miserable. And you also know what I know: under your beloved Shahinshah, America will be weak and whiny. Just like you like it. (By the way, did you commemorate 11 November in as passionate a fashion? Doubt it. But in reality, you and all the rest of the world need to drop to your knees and kiss the nearest ass of an American vet every 11 November, because you wouldn't have the freedom to bitch and whine so much without them.)
"THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING!!! A WAR ON FREEWILL IS COMING!!!" - Nevermore, "Bittersweet Feast", from This Godless Endeavor (2005)
OooooooooooAhhhhhhhhhh.....
November 14, 2008 - 07:02 ET by old croA reply to a TrulyBeautifulB**** that I enjoyed reading!
OOOH! ABP
November 13, 2008 - 17:23 ET by ahusserYou sound so excited that your master won. Basking now in his warm fuzzy glow. Tingle time.
"...no civilization, no matter how rich, no matter how refined, can long survive once it loses the power to meet force with equal or superior force." - Bernard Knox
Complete nonsense
November 13, 2008 - 17:52 ET by ArminiusReagan beat Carter by a higher percentage of the popular vote than Obama beat McCain. In addition, in 1980 Reagan won a far greater portion of electoral college (a better measure since the U.S. population is much greater today than it was in 1980) than Obama won. Obama's victory was miniscule when compared to Reagan's 1980 victory.
Brokaw has not seen this level of excitement since 1960 because he lives in a liberal bubble. Even Suzanne Malveaux at CNN is smiling these days.
reagan: got 50.7% of the popular vote v carter, OBAMA got 52.7%
November 13, 2008 - 18:10 ET by abeautifulpersonMY POINT IS: excitement is not quantifiable by statistics, so this commentary is utter bunk.
but my numbers are accurate. see here:
http://en.wikipedia....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008
reagan can thank James Anderson who took 6.6% of the popular vote in 1980.
Yeah but.... Comrade
November 13, 2008 - 18:14 ET by Clear thinkerYeah but....
Comrade Obama got a much higher percentage of the illegal votes.
14 Year Old Proves Obama Intolerance
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
...and in 1984 Reagan got
November 13, 2008 - 18:20 ET by dbo...and in 1984 Reagan got 59% of the vote. ABP doesn't quite grasp this "% of turnout" vs "real raw data" thing. I think it's kinda like a dog whistle or something.
Oh snap!
November 13, 2008 - 18:26 ET by FinerThingsClubMemberInTrainingThere is some truth to that, most def.
I worked the polls in Ohio. It was a hot mess to say the very least.
And let's not get started on what we called the "Green Vest" freaks. These were intimidators that stood outside of the polls (not within 100 feet of course) that would great people on their way in. They wore these vests that said, "You have the right to vote, ask me why!" I didn't want to explain to him that there was actually no right to vote. (The truly sad thing--these asshats were attorneys!) They said they were bipartisan. I asked if they were as bipartisan as ACORN was.
That's why I earned the nickname, "Republican Saltine"
Oh gotta love that hope and change!
you guys are ruining her
November 13, 2008 - 23:20 ET by TruthMongeryou guys are ruining her brainwashed stupidity with your patriotic intelligence - and she won't even say thanks
NRA: 50 MILLION GUN ANNUAL MARCH ON DC
abp...from your source
November 13, 2008 - 18:56 ET by LionKingReagan got 50.7%
Carter got 41.0%
That means Reagan beat Carter by 9.7%. BIGGER!
Does it hurt to be so wrong so often?
again, can't read
November 13, 2008 - 20:16 ET by abeautifulpersonheh heh.
back to your cage,
November 13, 2008 - 23:23 ET by TruthMongerback to your cage, toots
http://www.dailykos.com/
NRA: 50 MILLION GUN ANNUAL MARCH ON DC
There was nothing wrong with his reading
November 14, 2008 - 10:06 ET by ArminiusIt's just that you, Mr. Reads John as "James," got caught fudging statistics. Reagan beat Carter by nearly 10 percent. Obama did not beat McCain by as much.
Reportedly, Brokaw was on Obama's short list for VP. I think that explains Brokaw's excitement this year and his forgetfulness regarding the excitement that was present in 1980.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2008/11/04/obama-brokaw-caroline-kennedy-said-nbc-anchor-made-obamas-short-vp-list
again, can't read
November 13, 2008 - 20:16 ET by abeautifulpersonheh heh.
It was John Anderson
November 14, 2008 - 09:58 ET by ArminiusBut you were close for a liberal. Anderson was an Illinois Republican who ran as an independent in 1980. If he hadn't been in the race, Reagan would have won a vast majority of Anderson's votes.
Interesting because
November 13, 2008 - 14:54 ET by FinerThingsClubMemberInTrainingI think that 58,000,000+ people would disagree with that sentiment.
It's all about perspective. And anyone working at NBC/MSNBC clearly only has one.
No No No No!!! Didn't you
November 13, 2008 - 15:16 ET by motherbeltNo No No No!!!
Didn't you get the memo???
We're all united now!!!
Oprah says so!!
Votes don't equal excitement
November 13, 2008 - 14:59 ET by islero47I voted McCain (actually, I voted Palin), but that doesn't mean I was excited about McCain. Quite the contrary. Reagan's win means he obtained much greater popularity, but I'd have to say that the insane passions I've seen flying around do indicate that Obama's probably the most excited-about President (elect) we've had in history. I don't know if people were even quite so excited about George Washington.
Obama's a personality cult, so excitement is all his zombie followers have.
Sarah Palin/Jason Lewis 2012
Obama, pathological nacissist: http://www.faithfree...
JFK image
November 13, 2008 - 15:01 ET by TexndocObama is so obsessed with the JFK image that Michelle should keep him at home nights and out of open-topped limos. Tom Brokaw is just playing along. Remember the "non-official official Obama portrait" painted months before the election? Arms folded, head down, walking deeply in thought painted in brown/gold tones....hey, JFK's White House official portrait has him with arms folded, head down, walking deeply in thought painted in brown/gold tones...
Tom Brokaw and the rest of
November 13, 2008 - 15:04 ET by TN MomTom Brokaw and the rest of MSM skips right over Ronald Reagan. Just because they do, doesn't make it so!
Ronald Reagan would cream Obama. Tom Brokaw knows it. I know it. Millions know it.
Speaking of Obama's Inauguration: I expect it to be very low-key with soooo many Americans jobless/homeless.
It is easy to see...
November 13, 2008 - 15:07 ET by 3strikeswhat Tom Brokaw is referring to.
Since John Kennedy was assasinated, he's become a martyr in the eyes of Liberals. They wipe JFK's mistakes from memory. They ignore the fact that his policies would be more closely aligned to the ideals of Conservatism especially when it comes to foreign policy. And they conjure up this fantasy land called Camelot.
The fact that they are so able to ignore actual history about the man's presidency, also allows them to create a fantasy about the man's election.
Isn't it funny that JFK's ideology can be more closely compared with George W. Bush than Barrack H. Obama?
3strikes - and they forget the Berlin wall...
November 13, 2008 - 15:34 ET by Gary HallA view holds that the construction of the Berlin Wall began just months after Nikita Khrushchev sensed a great weakness in JFK during their first meeting. Naturally, if all of this had occurred during a Republican administration, the MSM and our college professors would have kept one of history's most abhorrent events, on the table of public discussion, being blamed on that Republican for the rest of time.
"I don't remember this level of excitement for a new wall, since...."
I think
November 13, 2008 - 20:08 ET by ahussercomrade Putin feels the same. Exploiting the lame duck and the weenicrat pres elect.
"...no civilization, no matter how rich, no matter how refined, can long survive once it loses the power to meet force with equal or superior force." - Bernard Knox
I was 7 yrs old when Kennedy
November 13, 2008 - 15:08 ET by marpelI was 7 yrs old when Kennedy was elected, and I saw him in a motorcade the day before he was shot.
There was tremendous excitement on the part of Catholics when he was elected. My Mother was thrilled. My Dad, who was a Republican until he died, was very disappointed. He had voted for Nixon. My Dad used to say that Kennedy was a Communist. And he was kin to Lyndon Johnson (my grandmother was a Johnson). He liked Johnson, not for his politics, but for the fact they had known each other as kids.
My recollection was there was a lot of excitement in the Catholic community, that's it.
And then there is this?
November 13, 2008 - 20:34 ET by general companyI woke up the day after the election in Dallas, my flight left late so I decided to do some sight seeing. I went to see to the King Tut artifacts, witch was awesome, but then we went right down the road to the Book Depository and the Sixth Floor museum. It was very interesting to me, I was only a couple of months old when he was killed. The displays reminded me (type of clothes cars etc) of time gone by, when Men almost always wore Suits, and Woman dresses. By the time I was half way through it was getting very surreal to me. Then I happened upon this
http://www.orwelltod...
It has confirmed to me that we have always had very drastic points of view. There are many parallels here.
BTW, one of the things that realy creeped me out, were the nimrods running in the middle of the road to stand on one of the 2 Xes where JFK was shot to have there photos taken, they all had goofy smiles like they were standing on Elvis's front porch in Graceland. I thought it to be very inappropreate?
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Just exhibiting more of that liberal bias...
November 13, 2008 - 15:15 ET by killbill2...and lack of realistic perspective. Slightly less than 50% of the Country... NOT THAT EXCITED...
I was excited
November 13, 2008 - 15:19 ET by dtaI was really excited about voting for NotObama.
Excitement?
November 13, 2008 - 15:21 ET by Army BratMethinks he mistakes apprehension for excitement...then again, folks like him often think everyone feels as they do. Twit...
Happy Trails...
If "excitement" is the
November 13, 2008 - 15:21 ET by Chris NormanIf "excitement" is the same thing as terror, then, yes, I'm very excited...
I'm trying my best
November 13, 2008 - 15:26 ET by FinerThingsClubMemberInTrainingTo have some positivity here (although I totally respect and understand those that would just rather say, GFY to Pres-Elect BO). I will give him the benefit of the doubt until (or more likely until "when") he screws up.
I live in OH and I can't even begin to describe the insane ads that we were bombarded with portraying him as some sort of centrist.
He knows he's inherited a mess and he knows that he can't go all left-wing loony until his second terms. So hopefully it won't be that bad.
??????
(These are the things I have to tell myself to get my feet to the floor in the morning!)
JFK CUT TAXES.... will 0bama do the same???
November 13, 2008 - 15:28 ET by upcountrywaterhummmmm
First Mutt's Viet Nam 2
IranianUranium
how much debt, deficit and economic disaster...
November 13, 2008 - 15:44 ET by abeautifulperson... did JFK inherit?
somehow, i doubt he and obama or obama and reagan are in the same position.
the thing is, if/when obama turns this complete disaster around, everyone, including the crybabies on this thread, will benefit. so all the folks wanking out there, its win-win for you.
what if, just that gazillion-to-one chance happens and obama turns out to actually fix this greedy mess, mend fences with a bunch of enemies out there and turn this listing ship around. will anyone here actually admit they were wrong? or is it a case of just trying harder to find fault?
abp, a recession hit in the 60's, a TAX CUT FIXED IT.
November 13, 2008 - 16:06 ET by upcountrywaterApparently, it's fine for a Democratic President to push for tax cuts
that will spur economic growth, but not for a Republican like Ronald
Reagan, and now George W. Bush. To say that JFK's tax cut was any
different is a blatant lie. In a way, Kennedy's tax cut could have
benefited the rich even more. Any tax cut from rates as high as over
90% will have a much larger impact than a tax cut on tax rates from 20
through 50%.
Actual quote from Kennedy: "An economy hampered by restrictive tax
rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget - just
as it will never produce enough jobs or profits." Yep, JFK was a
supply-sider, one of those greedy, rich, white, [insert liberal
buzzword here] politicians who likes to cut taxes.
John F. Kennedy - the last, and one of the few, good Democrats.
read the whole thing here
First Mutt's Viet Nam 2
IranianUranium
well...
November 13, 2008 - 16:08 ET by killbill2Obama was selling "Change" and clearly you were buying... nothing like an entirely nonspecific-hollow-single-word-meaningless-mantra by which to rule the world...
Why doesn't he start "Change" with an extremely intelligent, rational decision like busting the union strangle hold on the automakers? Oh wait... the UAW's got him in their pocket... no change there.
Bush just "Changed" the Presidential moratorium on offshore drilling... maybe Barry will keep that change. Nope, gotta change that back. Does that still count as "Change"? ...or is it... "more of the same."?
I despise people like you who think it's about personality, I don't dislike Obama at all. In fact, I don't care about him one way or the other personally... but if you want to bet his policies and agenda will turn this Country around you're gonna need to give me better odds than a gazillion to one.
I'd be happy if Obama does
November 13, 2008 - 16:27 ET by dtaI'd be happy if Obama does turn the economy around. I think most consider it unlikely though. Socialism/communism has historically led to misery and poverty. So the question to me is whether he will behave according to his established socialist/communist record before the election, or the semi-centrist presidential campaign.
Again for anuglysocialist
November 13, 2008 - 17:17 ET by Unsaneactually fix this greedy mess Please. You and the Shahinshah are the greediest people anywhere around, constantly looking to steal from the successful and producers like the parasites you all are.
mend fences with a bunch of enemies out there I want my enemies defeated. This includes YOU. To paraphrase a Florentine realist, people love the United States at their pleasure but people fear and respect the United States at the pleasure of the United States. The Shahinshah may want to keep that simple little fact in mind.
But, I will credit the Shahinshah with one thing: because of the Socialism He portends with His plans to punish and steal from the successful, and everyone ditching the market as a result: I am entering the market and snapping up the shares in the hopes of making a profit in about another decade or so. (Instead of sucking the tits of the State, anuglysocialist, you might want to try it sometime. It is better to be an individual than a slave, a waif, a serf.)
"THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING!!! A WAR ON FREEWILL IS COMING!!!" - Nevermore, "Bittersweet Feast", from This Godless Endeavor (2005)
I will admit it ..... just
November 13, 2008 - 20:24 ET by dark_dsI will admit it ..... just like I admited I was wrong and deluded when I was socialist lefty when I was in my 20s ... I have no problem admiting I was wrong ....the left sees the world how they want it or hope it to be .... my world view says that our enemies dont respect anything but strength .. and some dont even respect that ....if talk works great ....if turning to socialism proves somehow that capitalism doesnt work then fine .... I doubt that Obama will somehow alter human nature but if he does I will say I was wrong
Another imbecile who's
November 14, 2008 - 11:10 ET by NL207Another imbecile who's lifetime measures their grasp of history.
There was a shallow recession in progress [60-61] when John Kennedy took office. It had actually started in 1960 at the end of the Eisenhower years. It was not a serious recession as recessions go, certainly nothing like 73-76, but it was persistent. Kennedy had inherited an oppressive income tax rate from the prior Democratic Congresses. The top rate was 90%. Yep, that's right, 90%. It dated from the Roosevelt [FDR] years. Kennedy recognized, quite correctly that it was destoying / preventing capital formation and stagnating economic growth. He got the Congress to reduce tax rates on the rich in the short term and then make a permanent cut in 1963, down to 43%. It was successful, the economy enjoyed more or less healthy growth until later Democrats again raised these rates back to bout 70%.
A quote from Kennedy on this subject: "The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrents to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system — and this administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in 1963."
Reagan inherited a recession coupled with double digit inflation and unemployment rates from dimwit Carter. Just to give you a taste of how bad this was, I can recall home mortgages being let with interest rates in the 21% range. The Reagan remedy was the same as the Kennedy RX: cut taxes on the rich and working classes. Under Reagan, top tax rates went down to 35%. Later, the idiot Democrats imposed the AMT.
Once again, we face a bad economy caused in large part this time by liberal gocverment fiscal policy and triggered by corrupt Democrat mortgage lending policies and fraud committed by Democratic leaders of Fannie / Freddie. The RX is again the same: control government spending and cut taxes. What will knucklehead Obama do? Raise taxes and spending.
JFK excitement
November 13, 2008 - 15:46 ET by 10ksnooker-- was non-existent when he won the election. No one really cared. It's one of those age old liberal myths. The assination removed the JFK warts.
What did JFK ever do, except come very close to accidently blowing up the world and starting WWIII. Well he did wire tap some black leaders.
It was left to Johnson to start the Vietnam war with a lie, so JFK doesn't even get that creidt
I recall
November 13, 2008 - 20:12 ET by ahusserthat Kennedy did threaten to nationalize the steel industry. But I don't remember why as I was too young to really understand.
"...no civilization, no matter how rich, no matter how refined, can long survive once it loses the power to meet force with equal or superior force." - Bernard Knox
The media need to stop the
November 13, 2008 - 15:50 ET by suzycreamcheeseThe media need to stop the fawning and @ss kissing and focus on the screw ups this administration is making before Obama is even sworn in! Who cares about all these glittery comparisons. I'm worried about the economy! I can't believe half the country was duped into electing this man.
The more they slobber all
November 13, 2008 - 15:59 ET by mattmThe more they slobber all over themselves, the more ridiculous they look. And if Mr. Hussein Obama screws up - he will take the MSM down with him.
Crazy talk
November 13, 2008 - 19:57 ET by general companyAnd if Mr. Hussein Obama screws up - he will take the MSM down with him.
Who would ever acknowledge he screwed up? Cant happen.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Good evening GC
November 13, 2008 - 20:05 ET by cocodrieI'm praying that his screw-ups don't destroy America.
It's easy to see why there was "excitement"...
November 13, 2008 - 16:28 ET by c5thenIt was in the news rooms at the newspapers and TV stations and magazines. Why? because the vanguard of the liberal brainwashed automatons was just entering the journalism trade newly indoctrinated by the liberal arts colleges. Tom Brokaw was just 20 years old and in his first job as junior news reader and weatherman. This is when the great liberal tilt in the Main Stream Media began.
In the population as a whole there was worry and trepidation and thoughts of a stolen election. There was fear and confusion because for the first time in living memory a candidate lost the popular vote, took over half the states but won the electoral college.
Hey, I got the wrong "CHANGE"!
Alan Keyes / Sarah Palin - 2012
46% of the country disagrees Tom!
November 13, 2008 - 16:22 ET by RpeggioLiberals just don't get it. Only 52% of the country is suffering from blinding Obama-mania. The country is not united, nearly 1/2 of the country didn't vote for Obama. 46% of the country isn't 'excited' about Obama, we're concerned and wondering who he is and what he will do, thanks to media not asking tough questions and digging into what and who Obama is and how he'll govern.
And Hillary would have won by more than 6%, probably close to double that says the exit polls....And I highly doubt Tom and the media would be comparing Hillary to JFK, and she'd have won by a larger margin.
And margin-wise, Obama beat McCain by less of a margin than Clinton/Dole, Bush/Dukakis, and obviously as stated above, Reagan/Carter. Though I would compare Obama to Carter in terms of his bottom-up anti-business anti-capitalism, anti-free trade, socialist-lite economic views, and I just hope he doesn't generate Carter's economy (double digit inflation, unemployment, 20%+ interest rates).
Nuff said.
You just dont understand
November 13, 2008 - 19:53 ET by general companyOnly 52% of the country is suffering from blinding Obama-mania. The
country is not united, nearly 1/2 of the country didn't vote for Obama.
46% of the country isn't 'excited' about Obama,
Yea, but the 46% dont count, why? Well, because, thats why.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
a complete lack of perspective
November 13, 2008 - 17:08 ET by needleIs there any surprise when a thoroughly biased liberal commentator reveals a complete lack of perspective? We do not have NewsBusters archives that go back 16 years, but those of us who are old enough remember clearly when Clinton was elected (after a 12 year drought) the media was in an unabashed competition to come up with the most stupendous amazing superlatives to crown the event and every subsequent detail. (Essentially that is what the media does whenever a liberal is elected.)
Hey, Tom Brokaw, your lack of objectivity and blatant liberal leanings are showing – even more than usual.
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.
Tom
November 13, 2008 - 18:03 ET by iveseenitallI was in NYC the other day and I ran into Tom B. The coversation went something like this:
Ives: Hey, Tom Brokaw
Tom: Ives, glad to see ya'. But you look kind o' down.
Ives: Yeah, McCain and all, ya' know.
Tom: Haven't you heard, the MSM mandates you be be excited about Barack.
Ives: Why? Is he going to fix the financial situation?
Tom: Probably not.
Ives: Will support the military amd make us safer?
Tom: Not necessarily.
Ives: Will he lower my taxes or fix the schools?
Tom: You mean RAISE you taxes. And no one can fix the schools.
Ives (puzzled): Then why should I be excited?
Tom: Well...you know...because he's... because he's ...Black
Ives: OOOH. You mean he'll be the first Black president, like Dave Dinkins was the first Black mayor here in New York.
Tom: ( smiling and jumping a little): Yeah!
Ives: But we kicked Dave out after one term, and brought in Rudy, thank God.
Tom( annoyed): Just follow the rules and be excited, Ives.
Ives (spinning around): Ok. Barry! Barry! Barry!
Tom: No, No, No. It's Barack, not Barry. He's African, you know, from Kenya.
Ives: Oh, I thought he was an American. Sorry.
Tom ( walking away): And stay off that NewsBreakers, Ives
Ives: See ya', Tom, "my friend". And that's NewsBUSTERS, Tom.
I swear that's how my conversation with Tom went, a few days ago.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
isia... LOL...well, just
November 13, 2008 - 18:06 ET by bigtimerisia...
LOL...well, just keep him in your area will ya...he is nothing but a leftist political pain in the arse here in Mt.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
ha!
November 13, 2008 - 18:13 ET by katainkent*gets really excited then applies intellect - screeeech*
Its SO wonderful all these media elitists are excited. SO happy for their happiness. Shame that 46% of the US (voting population) can't work with the mandate for excitement.
Instead I am extremely concerned about my job, my children's futures and my retirement. With good reason, I think...
member of the Conservative Independant Witness Protection Program since Nov. 5, 2008
That was hilarious. Great
November 13, 2008 - 19:14 ET by muh-oonThat was hilarious. Great description, I think I actually believe it happened.
Excitement? I think he
November 13, 2008 - 18:06 ET by Clear thinkerExcitement? I think he meant to say "Stupidity".
14 Year Old Proves Obama Intolerance
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
The birth of
November 13, 2008 - 18:33 ET by MidAmericaThe birth of the liberals desire for a 'cult' figure in the modern era goes back to FDR. When JFK rose to power they went really bonkers. They lost him and then Bobby and have been wandering in the desert searching for their new 'Messiah'. Well now they have him in the person of BHO, a bi-racial man who can wash away their sins and lead them away from the course and unfair life of a country based on individuals. Yes! He will bring us together! What does 'together' mean to them? It means everyones outcome is not dependant on personal lifes choices or circumstances. We will all share and the state shall be the arbiter on all that is good and fair and right. And sitting on this throne of rightiousness shall be the God/King/President whose blessing we shall humbly accept for being his faithful servants..
Surprise, surprise
November 13, 2008 - 18:43 ET by ConservativeMissourianI must argue that JFK and Obama have more in common (from the MSM perspective) than we may realize: Both are young, male, attractive, Democratic . . . so, of course the MSM made them into massive fads. They are easily marketable. JFK and Obama speak well, carry themselves well, look good on television--all of the very-necessary components to serving a successful presidency, right? "Of course," Ms. Katie Couric would say, "it makes all the difference--just look at me (and my legs)!"
Anybody? The last Democrat Presidency...
November 13, 2008 - 20:30 ET by Dan LaHoodthat finished intact...Harry Truman? This guy is teed up for a big
F
A
L
L.
Anyone who has ever heard Santayana's famous quote about History repeating itself is condemned to repeat it.
SYCOPHANT ALERT
November 13, 2008 - 21:34 ET by sawing battathe bug eyed look isnt "excitement" it's panic.
Wrong Again TOM!
November 13, 2008 - 23:04 ET by BarkerThere hasn't been this much excitement for a rookie since the sensational newcomer Sanjaya.
Really?
November 14, 2008 - 02:37 ET by capitolguyHey Tom Brokaw, I was 15 years old when Ronald Reagan took office. I remember all of the buzz when he won, the anticipation of him becoming president, and the amazing celebration when he was sworn in. Of course, the icing on the cake was when the hostages in Iran were released. Back then, the country was more optimistic than I have ever seen in my lifetime. The one important fact that distinguishes 1980 from 2008; the country was united behind our president because he represented hope, real change, he was proud of America and he truly loved his country. Quite different from today.
No Kidding, CapitolGuy
November 14, 2008 - 05:29 ET by KimberlyI too remember Reagan's inauguration. I was 16. (My stepfather was on his campaign committee. He got to go to the inauguration; Mom made us kids stay home and go to school.) I cried when he announced the hostages had been released. I had never been more proud of my country than that moment, when our President stepped proudly to the microphone and addressed the American people with pride for his country shining in his eyes and singing in his words. I still tear up thinking about it.
Stepdad and Reagan died a few months apart. I thank God that neither lived to see this sorry excuse for a Senator con his way into the office of the presidency.
Dear Tom Brokaw:
Shut up and retire already. Sheesh.
Love and kisses,
The folks at NewsBusters
he gots some pretty big shoes to fit
November 14, 2008 - 05:04 ET by ChattychitoNo little skinny legged mac daddy is even goen to fit in the shoes of JFK. the nedia will have to carry him all the way to make thar happen. so is the media the true Iluminate now exposed for us to see openly. are thee the guys who are running the nation from behind the sceens, cause that's the way it looks.
come on big guys runnig the scenes you better catch up wtih this guy or he will ruin yor plan for global dominiation of free trade. You all better get a move on pretty quick before you loose all you have planned for all these years.
There terrorist groups are comig out of the wood work now he was eleted and they have an agenda to even kill the iluminate. conservative rightwinged. the islams were right he their Kenyan brother wil bring down the the great satan and her whore from within, and all the nations of the world will laugh at her digrace.
troll this you great troll packer
Tom looks bloated in the
November 14, 2008 - 21:14 ET by TN MomTom looks bloated in the photo...must be all the kool-aid he consumes?
Jack Kennedy was elected President of the United States?!
November 16, 2008 - 21:27 ET by fastfoodI wonder what so preoccupid me that I do not recall [Jack] Kennedy having been "elected President of the United States."
Anyone else recall this having happed?
Yeah, "Jack" Kennedy...
November 16, 2008 - 21:45 ET by Indiana Joe"Jack" was a nick-name. He was known as Jack to most of his friends and family. Even in the Navy, he was Jack. I think almost anyone known as "Jack" is really a "John." Other than "Jackson," I don't know of any other form that's shortened to "Jack."
Is that really the first time you've heard John F. Kennedy referred to as Jack? I've always heard that. Even as a couple, it was common to refer to "Jack and Jackie" Kennedy.
Geez, say it enough and it sounds weird... Jack, Jack, Jack.
<edit: Or maybe I misunderstood. Were you debating the validity of the election? It was close, popular-vote-wise.>
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
Jack
November 17, 2008 - 11:39 ET by UnsaneIndeed, recall that when Sen. Bensen shot his famous barb at Sen Quayle in 1988, he called the 35th President of the United States "Jack". (I had to ask my parents, who of course remembered the Kennedy administration in its entirety, about that, as I was a teenager when I saw that debate.
"THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING!!! A WAR ON FREEWILL IS COMING!!!" - Nevermore, "Bittersweet Feast", from This Godless Endeavor (2005)