« Does the media care about blatant campaign fraud? | Main | I can't believe it »

This post is racist

Howard Stern sends a microphone to Harlem to interview Obama supporters and hilarity ensues. But what's even more hilarial is that the folks who are all smug and condescending toward those who don't know the candidates' positions completely misrepresented McCain's position on stem cells themselves.


I'd heard that audio before and it's still funny stuff.

The juxtaposed political positions aren't nearly as funny as this guy Sal being able to find at least three people who believed Sarah Palin was Barack Obama's running mate!

The sad thing is that these folks are probably no less ill-infomred than most far-Left Liberals.

Apparently regular Liberals agree. The Minneapolis StarTribune endorsed Norm Coleman over far-Left kook Al (Stuart Smalley) Franken yesterday!


So Barry,
What are the positions of the McCain/Palin ticket on stem cells? Cut spending? And what kind of stem cells? Please enlighten us. You seem to know something the rest of the country is apparently missing.

By the way, just curious. What did you think of the ingenious comments of Palin on fruit-flies (Drosophila) research?

"So Barry,
What are the positions of the McCain/Palin ticket on stem cells? Cut spending? And what kind of stem cells? Please enlighten us. You seem to know something the rest of the country is apparently missing."

You're missing the punch-line here!

That piece playfully suggests that many Obama supporters not only aren't familiar with (or apparently even interested enough to know) his positions, by their own words, many of them don't even seem to know that Sarah Palin isn't his running mate!

Come on! Now that's a real knee-slapper.

I listen to a little cut of these interviews. They were mildly humorous and a lot sad. I don't think they were really racists. Mainly just sad because the average person ( i think white, black, or other) doesn't really know much about the political landscape of our country. i hear something like 80% of people don't know who the current VP is. This is why the slick media campeign the liberal illuminati are putting out is so successful! 5 min commercials and youtube videos are what's winning this think for Obama.

I agree with road warrior. Every interviewee was sad. I'm praying that it was heavily edited to make it that way.

OTOH, I did laugh.

Gramps and Moose Jewel don't believe in this newfangled "science" stuff, just give 'em that old time religion and drill baby drill!

More sad than poor, ignorant, and uninformed people are ... well, Republicans.

"I agree with road warrior. Every interviewee was sad. I'm praying that it was heavily edited to make it that way." (Rachel)

It was a set of funny interviews....most of those "man on the streets" are.

I was trying to speculate on how many people they needed to interview to get those three, but that's hard to say, given that a majority of people couldn't identify pictures of Nancy Pelosi, Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader-Ginzburg.

And even around here, few if any Liberals actually make statements, let alone arguments in favor of things like higher tax rates, more social programs, and that's probably a factor of two things, (1) there really aren't any good arguments in favor of such things and (2) most people don't have the time to develop an ideology - most folks cling to the one they were born into.

JMK: "...few if any Liberals actually make statements, let alone arguments in favor of things like higher tax rates, more social programs, and that's probably a factor of two things, (1) there really aren't any good arguments in favor of such things..."


You mean you don't believe the Obama campaign has made any clear arguments on why they support higher tax rates and more social programs (like an increase in the EITC) for lower income people?

It certainly seems like a lot of other Americans have!

I believe that tomorrow we'll see a major change in direction in this country.

This election may usher in a sea-change the way Reagan's did back in 1980 and FDR's did back in 1932.

Personally, I'm surprised that you JC, would take such pleasure in these kinds of interviews. You've always been a self-described champion of the working class, as incongruous as people like myself tend to find such a claim.

Suffice to say, just because you've repossessed cars and worked in a Fire Dept., doesn't make a guy who's been a pretty savvy investor since his late teens and a scion of family which is both politically and industrially connected, a true member of that class, and I won't even mention the fine school in which I first met you.

I think you tend to see events almost entirely in terms of your own profit and loss. I believe you've decried the recent mortgage bailouts primarily because you see it, very possibly resulting in fewer foreclosures and fewer "short-sales" for people like yourself, who are always willing to profit from such things, just as you had a problem with those fellow "working class youngsters" when you were a teen, who saw your repossessing cars as "profiteering off of other people's misfortunes." I believe your claim was that they, "Didn't understand how the economy works."

Maybe so, but tomorrow, I think a majority of Americans are going to reject the kind of predatory economic policies that you've embraced and what's more, I don't believe that a few bad years will deter them from continuing on this path, because it seems that more people are looking at things from a sense of economic "fairness," rather than from what is necessarily the "most prosperous," in terms of raw numbers, as most people can see that even though your vaunted Supply Side policies may indeed create more prosperity overall, the bulk of that prosperity is concentrated among a smaller percentage of the people - the most predatory percentage, I might add.

Well, first off Gary, I don’t take any “pleasure” in other people’s ignorance.

It is, without question however, pathetically amusing to see people embrace the policies and running-mate of Barack Obama’s opponent in trying to define why they support BO.

On tomorrow’s election, I actually agree with some of your assessment, but not your view of more people embracing some inane sense of “economic fairness.”

As you well know, the Misery Index tells, pretty much, the entire economic story.

We are in the midst of a 16 year run of SINGLE DIGIT Misery Indexes, all under two Supply Side administrations (Clinton and Bush Jr). We’ve had a Keynesian Congress for the past two years and it’s no coincidence that the economy has taken a dive since Pelosi-Reid re-introduced Keynesian policies starting in 2007.

I agree with what you emailed me in early October about why the current credit crisis has been widely misreported – most journalists and other media people simply don’t understand it, because they don’t understand even the most basic economics.

I’d add that they also come at such problems seeking out rationalizations/justifications for their own preconceived viewpoints. That is, as you’ve always said, “The mark of more limited, less intellectually curious students.”

At any rate, that’s why some folks have jumped on Credit Default Swaps (CDSs) and the re-making of Collateralized Mortgage Obligations (CMOs) to blame the Commodities Modernization Act instead of the reckless and irresponsible turbo-charged Community reinvestment Act (CRA) that mandated banks to offer subprime loans to high-risk borrowers, which remains the PRIMARY, virtually sole cause of the current credit crisis.

Moreover, I took out a mortgage in May of 2004 to buy back a property from a family holding trust and my wife and I had to go through pretty much the same approval process I did in 1997, 1994, 1988 and 1986 – three years of tax returns, limits on borrowing based on your debt to income ratio, etc.

I sold one property and bought another property in October of 2005 and in that case no tax returns were required and the mortgage broker told my wife and I that either of our incomes would be enough to take out that mortgage, which was, by my calculations (based on the traditional lending practices used previously) at the top of our lending limit.

So, it was some time during that period when the lending parameters changed drastically.

I do NOT lament the smaller than expected number of short-sales and defaults (foreclosures) at all, although I acknowledge that in times of crisis, clever people tend to benefit from the mistakes that many “smart people” tend to make and that, at least in my view, is how it should be.

The Misery Index demonstrates that Supply Side policies create the most prosperity for the most people.

America suffered through most of its worst post-WW II Misery Indexes in the 1970s, when the bills of years of misguided Keynesian policies came due.

In 1981, we began embarking on Supply Side policies and the Misery Index decreased during Reagan’s tenure on the way to over a quarter century of unprecedented economic expansion and prosperity (1981 – 2007).

Our best years occurred during the years when the Gingrich Congress was in control. After forcing Bill Clinton to accept massive federal spending cuts and a Cap gains rate cut by shutting down the federal government in 1995, those policies brought about NOT ONLY those budget surpluses of the late 1990s, but the LOWEST Misery Indexes in over four decades – in 1998 we saw the lowest Misery Index (6.05) in over forty years (1956)!

Moreover, none of that is surprising to anyone who has looked honestly at Keynesian versus Supply Side policies on an international scale.

Not only do more Keynesian France and Sweden both have significantly higher Misery Indexes than America, the MOST Supply Side (least regulated market) in the world (Hong Kong) has a 6.0 Misery Index, while the most Keynesian nation in the world (Venezuela) has a 27.2 Misery Index, despite being far more resource-rich than Hong Kong.

That’s why I say that despite the fact that Venezuela has more economic equality (a lower disparity between rich and poor) that’s NOT what folks like PE, or Fred, or K or even BW are willing to defend or fight for.

The American people (rich, poor and in-between) are spoiled and they want results – they WANT the prosperity of the 1990s (the “Gingrich years) and they don’t much care how we get it, so long as it’s delivered.

The problem today is that too many people think government can control that or bring it about. The Gingrich Congress didn’t create the prosperity of the late 1990s, they merely got the government at least partially out of the way and let the private sector bring it about.

That’s why I’m CERTAIN that the vast majority of voters who think one Party or the other can “bring about prosperity” will quickly blame that Party if it fails to do so quickly.

The idea that a significant number of Americans are going to be willing to “give a Keynesian administration, with a Keynesian Congress more time, OR accept “more economic equality in place of more prosperity,” is naïve, at best.

Two years!

We probably will have DOUBLE DIGIT Misery Indexes in 2009, that won’t doom either administration. What would, is two straight and worsening years of Misery Indexes.

If an Obama administration takes office and presides over a 10.5 Misery Index in 2009 and then an 11.2 in 2010, that would almost certainly result in widespread dissatisfaction and probably return both Houses of Congress to the GOP in 2010, which could give an Obama the chance to “Clintonize” himself (by capitulating to Supply Side Conservatives) rather than to “Carterize” himself by continuing to fight for failed Keynesian policies.

I don’t necessarily agree with you about the Misery Index dooming the next administration.

While I do agree that the Misery Index will probably hit double digits in 2009 and very possibly get worse in 2010, I do believe that there is a significant number of Americans willing to both give a new direction a little more time and ultimately accept a smaller, but more evenly divided economic pie. In fact, I can point to an essay of yours (“The Tragedy of Affluence,” 1975) which could very easily be construed to be touting some degree of economic contraction as not necessarily a bad thing. I can attest that a fair number of students who’ve read it over the past three plus decades have taken precisely that lesson away from that essay.

As to the Pelosi-Reid Congress, what Keynesian policies are you referring to?

I agree that they do indeed seem to support a generally more Keynesian economic vision, but to date, they’ve had to compromise with the Supply Side GOP because they’ve had such small majorities in both Houses.

The “turbo-charged CRA,” you speak of?

There were many Republicans who went along with that, just as there were many Republicans who took money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and helped to block any oversight and reform in ’03 and ’05.

While loose credit was certainly more popular with the vast majority Democrats, many Republicans in the “Jack Kemp school” embraced it as well, as you’ve noted, as part of the “ownership society.”

In short, I think the GOP unwittingly opened the door to another attempt at refining a re-tooled Keynesianism.

I think this could be a very good development for the American people, so long as it is handled properly. I’m aware that you don’t.

"I don’t necessarily agree with you about the Misery Index dooming the next administration." (GB)

Well, you apparently have more faith in the patience of the American people than is warranted.

Most Americans haven't felt the pain of the credit crisis...but we will.

Wall Street's downturn means lower revenues and how we move forward will determine how bad things get.

Hiking tax rates, as O has supported for "fairness" rather than revenue enhancement, is almost certainly going to REDUCE income tax revenues at a tie we can't afford that...and things will get worse.

IF the Left moves to cut back on Free Trade, that may doom us as much as Smoot-Hawley did in 1930.

"As to the Pelosi-Reid Congress, what Keynesian policies are you referring to?" (GB)

The Turbo-charged CRA, refusing to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac...TWICE (2003 AND 2005), the SHAMnesty Bill, last Spring's "stimulus package" and last month's "bailout package are all Keynesian programs.

If you're arguing that "Many Republicans supported ALL of those things too," I acknowledge that, BUT that doesn't change the fact that Conservatives (BOTH "Blue Dog Dems" and Conservative Republicans opposed them, more often than not, while Liberals from both Parties tended to support them unconditionally.

As to the failures of the Kempian "Ownershiop Society," I've acknowledged those and I was one who was hopeful that it could work, BUT the premise was all wrong.

Owning property doesn't instill a sense of personal responsibility and productivity, INSTEAD more personally responsible and productive people tend to take on the responsibilities of owning property.

The failure of the Kempian ideal can probably be chalked up to the old adage, "You can't get silk from a sow's ear."

It seems you can't get responsibility out of naturally reckless and irresponsible people either.

"In short, I think the GOP unwittingly opened the door to another attempt at refining a re-tooled Keynesianism." (GB)

I completely agree.

After Gingrich, DeLay and Hastert returned to "politics as usual" and abandoned the federal budget slashing, tax cutting Gingrichian ways - that created the budget surpluses of the late '90s, in favor of "feeding at the public trough."

After Gingrich, BOTH Parties gave into the natural inertia of government toward ever more government.

As to The Tragedy of Affluence that was not an economic thesis, as you well know and to apply the psychological and physiological observations in that to economics in terms of lauding scarcity and lack, is to take the wrong lesson from it.

In fact, the charge we are faced with is finding a way to deal with affluence and abundance without allowing it to weaken and ruin us.

I don’t disagree that the American people will have high expectations and not a lot of patience, going forward.

I would caution that the Misery Index, as much of a snapshot as that is, it’s not the end all be all on the economy, not that I believe your claiming that.

I can only say that I hope that the American people won’t solely judge the upcoming administration solely or primarily on the Misery Index alone.

I also desperately want to believe that there are Americans willing to accept a slightly smaller economic pie that is more evenly divided. I think we could all easily do without all those hundred million dollar CEO golden parachutes that serve only to over-concentrate wealth, while little of that wealth ever “trickles down,” to the rest of us.

I am cautiously optimistic going forward with an Obama-Pelosi-Reid run government, although one of the things that concerns me greatly is the legions of misguided and misinformed self-proclaimed supporters of Liberalism and its economic form (Keynesianism) and I’m talking about those individuals involved in groups like MoveOn, the Daily Kos, the Democratic Underground and other such groups.

Too many of the people on those kinds of websites seem to go out of their way to prove your own characterization of Liberals, as emotionally disturbed, misanthropes, true.

With “friends” like that, you don’t need enemies.

"With “friends” like that, you don’t need enemies." (GB)

Now that'll cost you a few friends around here. BW (bluewind) is a certified (or certifiable) "Kos Kid."

I can't disagree more with your view about "many Americans being willing to accept a smaller, more evenly divided pie."

And while I do agree that the Misery Index isn't the "end all, be all," it certainly is a great indicator of just how well...or how badly the economy is treating the people.

We're in our 16th straight year of single digit Misery Indexes....it's not just 2009, BUT if 2009 comes in bad and 2010 gets even worse, then that'll be looking very much like a disturbing trend.

YIKES! "it's not just 2009, BUT if 2010 gets even worse, then that'll be looking very much like a disturbing trend."

Post a comment