How apropos
-
Welcome to the TSP Talk Forums forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, join our AutoTracker, and access many other special features. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. -
Please read our AutoTracker policy on the IFT deadline and remaining active. Thanks!
-
$ - Premium Service Content (Info) | AutoTracker Monthly Winners | Is Gmail et al, Blocking Our emails?
Find us on: Facebook & X | Posting Copyrighted Material
-
20% Off Annual Premium Subscriptions!*
Ends Jan 18... Click Here For More Information
* For new or current subscribers -
Join the TSP Talk AutoTracker: How to Get Started | Login | Main AutoTracker Page
-
The Forum works well on MOBILE devices without an app: Just go to: https://forum.tsptalk.com ...
Or you can now use TapaTalk again!
James48843 Account Talk
- Thread starter James48843
- Start date
How apropos
McDuck
Well-known member
That's a good one.
McDuck
Well-known member
John Edwards makes a public foray, but won't address affair
McClatchy Washington Bureau - 21 minutes ago
McClatchy Washington Bureau - 21 minutes ago
McDuck
Well-known member
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123682426946303905.html
OPINION MARCH 12, 2009
The White House Misfires on Limbaugh
By KARL ROVE
Presidents throughout history have kept lists of political foes. But the Obama White House is the first I am aware of to pick targets based on polls. Even Richard Nixon didn't focus-group his enemies list.
Team Obama -- aided by Clintonistas Paul Begala, James Carville and Stanley Greenberg -- decided to attack Rush Limbaugh after poring over opinion research. White House senior adviser David Axelrod explicitly authorized the assault. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel assigned a White House official to coordinate the push. And Press Secretary Robert Gibbs gleefully punched the launch button at his podium, suckering the White House press corps into dropping what they were doing to get Mr. Limbaugh.
Was it smart politics and good policy? No. For one thing, it gave the lie to Barack Obama's talk about ending "the political strategy that's been all about division" and "the score-keeping and the name-calling." The West Wing looked populated by petulant teenagers intent on taking down a popular rival. Such talk also shortens the president's honeymoon by making him look like a street-fighting Chicago pol instead of an inspirational, unifying figure. The upward spike in ratings for Rush and other conservative radio commentators shows how the White House's attempt at a smackdown instead energized the opposition.
Did it do any good with voters not strongly tied to either party? I suspect not. With stock markets down, unemployment growing, banks tottering, consumers anxious, business leaders nervous, and the economy shrinking, the Obama administration's attacks on a radio talk show host made it seem concerned with the trivial.
Why did the White House do it? It was a diversionary tactic. Clues might be found in the revelation that senior White House staff meet for two hours each Wednesday evening to digest their latest polling and focus-group research. I would bet a steak dinner at Morton's in Chicago these Wednesday Night Meetings discussed growing public opposition to spending, omnibus pork, more bailout money for banks and car companies, and new taxes on energy, work and capital.
What better way to divert public attention from these more consequential if problematic issues than to start a fight with a celebrity conservative? Cable TV, newspapers and newsweeklies would find the conflict irresistible. Something has to be set aside to provide more space and time to the War on Rush; why not the bad economic news?
Here's the problem: Misdirection never lasts long. Team Obama can at best only temporarily distract the public; within days, attention will return to issues that clearly should worry the White House.
Not even Team Obama can forestall unpleasant reality. And among those America now faces is Mr. Obama adding $3.2 trillion to the national debt in his first 20 months and 11 days in office, eclipsing the $2.9 trillion added during the Bush presidency's entire eight years.
Another reality is that Mr. Obama's fiscal house is built on gimmicks. For example, it assumes the cost of the surge in Iraq will extend for a decade. This brazenly dishonest trick was done to create phony savings down the line.
Mr. Obama's budget downplays some programs' true cost. For example, his vaunted new college access program is funded for five years and then disappears (on paper); the children's health insurance program drops (on paper) from $12.4 billion in 2013 to $700 million the next year. Neither will happen; the costs of both will be much higher and so will the deficits.
Mr. Obama's budget also assumes the economy declines 41% less this year and grows 52% more next year and 38% more the year after than is estimated by the Blue Chip consensus (a collection of estimates by leading economists traditionally used by federal budget crunchers). If Mr. Obama used the consensus forecasts for growth rather than his own rosy scenarios, his budget would be $758 billion more in the red over the next five years.
Then there's discretionary domestic spending, which grows over the next two years by $238 billion, the fastest increase ever recorded. Mr. Obama pledges it will then be cut in real terms for the next nine years. That's simply not credible.
Then there's his omnibus spending bill to fund the government for the next six months, laden with 8,500 earmarks and tens of billions in additional spending above the current budget. What happened to pledges for earmark reform and making "meaningful cuts?"
In the face of our enormous economic challenges, top White House aides decided to pee on Mr. Limbaugh's leg. This is a political luxury the country cannot afford, and which Mr. Obama would be wise to forbid. Or did he not mean it when he ran promising to "turn the page" on the "old" politics?
Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.
OPINION MARCH 12, 2009
The White House Misfires on Limbaugh
By KARL ROVE
Presidents throughout history have kept lists of political foes. But the Obama White House is the first I am aware of to pick targets based on polls. Even Richard Nixon didn't focus-group his enemies list.
Team Obama -- aided by Clintonistas Paul Begala, James Carville and Stanley Greenberg -- decided to attack Rush Limbaugh after poring over opinion research. White House senior adviser David Axelrod explicitly authorized the assault. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel assigned a White House official to coordinate the push. And Press Secretary Robert Gibbs gleefully punched the launch button at his podium, suckering the White House press corps into dropping what they were doing to get Mr. Limbaugh.
Was it smart politics and good policy? No. For one thing, it gave the lie to Barack Obama's talk about ending "the political strategy that's been all about division" and "the score-keeping and the name-calling." The West Wing looked populated by petulant teenagers intent on taking down a popular rival. Such talk also shortens the president's honeymoon by making him look like a street-fighting Chicago pol instead of an inspirational, unifying figure. The upward spike in ratings for Rush and other conservative radio commentators shows how the White House's attempt at a smackdown instead energized the opposition.
Did it do any good with voters not strongly tied to either party? I suspect not. With stock markets down, unemployment growing, banks tottering, consumers anxious, business leaders nervous, and the economy shrinking, the Obama administration's attacks on a radio talk show host made it seem concerned with the trivial.
Why did the White House do it? It was a diversionary tactic. Clues might be found in the revelation that senior White House staff meet for two hours each Wednesday evening to digest their latest polling and focus-group research. I would bet a steak dinner at Morton's in Chicago these Wednesday Night Meetings discussed growing public opposition to spending, omnibus pork, more bailout money for banks and car companies, and new taxes on energy, work and capital.
What better way to divert public attention from these more consequential if problematic issues than to start a fight with a celebrity conservative? Cable TV, newspapers and newsweeklies would find the conflict irresistible. Something has to be set aside to provide more space and time to the War on Rush; why not the bad economic news?
Here's the problem: Misdirection never lasts long. Team Obama can at best only temporarily distract the public; within days, attention will return to issues that clearly should worry the White House.
Not even Team Obama can forestall unpleasant reality. And among those America now faces is Mr. Obama adding $3.2 trillion to the national debt in his first 20 months and 11 days in office, eclipsing the $2.9 trillion added during the Bush presidency's entire eight years.
Another reality is that Mr. Obama's fiscal house is built on gimmicks. For example, it assumes the cost of the surge in Iraq will extend for a decade. This brazenly dishonest trick was done to create phony savings down the line.
Mr. Obama's budget downplays some programs' true cost. For example, his vaunted new college access program is funded for five years and then disappears (on paper); the children's health insurance program drops (on paper) from $12.4 billion in 2013 to $700 million the next year. Neither will happen; the costs of both will be much higher and so will the deficits.
Mr. Obama's budget also assumes the economy declines 41% less this year and grows 52% more next year and 38% more the year after than is estimated by the Blue Chip consensus (a collection of estimates by leading economists traditionally used by federal budget crunchers). If Mr. Obama used the consensus forecasts for growth rather than his own rosy scenarios, his budget would be $758 billion more in the red over the next five years.
Then there's discretionary domestic spending, which grows over the next two years by $238 billion, the fastest increase ever recorded. Mr. Obama pledges it will then be cut in real terms for the next nine years. That's simply not credible.
Then there's his omnibus spending bill to fund the government for the next six months, laden with 8,500 earmarks and tens of billions in additional spending above the current budget. What happened to pledges for earmark reform and making "meaningful cuts?"
In the face of our enormous economic challenges, top White House aides decided to pee on Mr. Limbaugh's leg. This is a political luxury the country cannot afford, and which Mr. Obama would be wise to forbid. Or did he not mean it when he ran promising to "turn the page" on the "old" politics?
Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.
budnipper1
Active member
Although I'm not disputing most of what Karl Rove said in the WSJ article, I would just say that I do not trust Rove any farther than I could throw him. I'm betting that Rush would say that he does not need or want Rove's help either.
Even so, I still enjoyed the read. Thanks.
Even so, I still enjoyed the read. Thanks.
James48843
Well-known member
Can I ask you folks not to post stuff in my thread?
There are a lot of places you can post stuff on this board, but I would prefer to keep my thread my own, if you don't mind. I am not a big fan of Karl Rover, thank you.
There are a lot of places you can post stuff on this board, but I would prefer to keep my thread my own, if you don't mind. I am not a big fan of Karl Rover, thank you.
James48843
Well-known member
Too much for too long positive here. Taking it off the table, 100% to "G" today.
I am also watching Contrarian Jeff. He's doing well this year. Someone to learn from.
I am also watching Contrarian Jeff. He's doing well this year. Someone to learn from.
James48843
Well-known member
I'm gonna run towards the "last month, best month" method for a while, and see how that works out. Not completely, but a lot. Going 80% "C" today, and 10% each in S and I, just to see how it works for a while.
Good luck.
Good luck.
pointman72
Member
Congrats on your decision yesterday. Hope you find an equally good exit point.
Pointman
Pointman
TradingJoe
Member
S&P volume is very light - does that mean anything. Sitting in G and twitching around watching the the rally.
James48843
Well-known member
Hessian-
Everything I am seeing over the last three days is telling me we are about to pop much, much higher, from a technical perspective. The charts are all lining up for a VERY STRONG upside here, and that's why I am in.
I have no idea how long this is going to last, but all the indicators are telling me up, nothing is telling me down.
Will write more tonight on three different chart indicators which have all aligned over the last three days that tell me higher ahead.
Thanks.
Everything I am seeing over the last three days is telling me we are about to pop much, much higher, from a technical perspective. The charts are all lining up for a VERY STRONG upside here, and that's why I am in.
I have no idea how long this is going to last, but all the indicators are telling me up, nothing is telling me down.
Will write more tonight on three different chart indicators which have all aligned over the last three days that tell me higher ahead.
Thanks.
James48843
Well-known member
P.S.- there is a resistance point at 850, and another one at 875. I am expecting likely 875 before the next pause comes. it COULD happen at 850, but I think 875 is more likely the place to rest. I MAY bail if we make it to 875. Not sure yet.
And ref the question: "S&P volume is very light"-
I'm not sure.
Let's see what happens this afternoon- if volume comes in or not. I think it may.
And ref the question: "S&P volume is very light"-
I'm not sure.
Let's see what happens this afternoon- if volume comes in or not. I think it may.
Birchtree
Well-known member
Volume is usually light at the beginning of new bull legs because there are so few believers in the bullish case. But volume will eventually arrive once we cross 900 on the SPX. We may see a nice bear squeeze after 1500 hours - taking us up another 100 points on the Dow.
James48843
Well-known member
Updated some comments in the P&F chart thread. I'm in - thinking we're going higher. Who knows- but that's where I am at at the moment.
Good luck.
Good luck.
James48843
Well-known member
Well, well, well.
Finally got it done.
Call me the procrastinator - but.....
I just filed my 2008 taxes electronically, and had 53 minutes to spare.
That's a little later than last year, but not my personal record. One year I had three minutes to spare. I am glad I beat the deadline with plenty of time.
Finally got it done.
Call me the procrastinator - but.....
I just filed my 2008 taxes electronically, and had 53 minutes to spare.
That's a little later than last year, but not my personal record. One year I had three minutes to spare. I am glad I beat the deadline with plenty of time.
James48843
Well-known member
I'm bailing out today. We've had a nice run upwards- but I think it's time for a rest. So I am parking on the sidelines- my second move of the month. good luck.
Similar threads
- Article