Dick Morris predictions on the Obama Presidency

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
I thought this would be a good article to put up for some predictions, since Mr. Morris makes many very specific predictions about what Obama can do. Now I've been told that he's the "gilded President. Everything he touches will turn to gold. Look for near universal appraise on the actions during his first 100 days from both the media and the voters." But I'm a bit more skeptical on that.

While I do congratulate him and wish him well, I prefer to speak to specific issues rather than the man, just as I did about Bush.

So here's the article, I bolded what I considered "measurable" predictions:

The Republican Party will make big gains and regain much of its lost power.

There, isn't that what you really wanted to say?

I think the "Republican Party" Morris wants back is dead. It will be a reborn party that arises from it's ashes that will make "big gains".

I really have to wonder why you even bothered posting this tripe? Like Harvey said, I want my 30 seconds back.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: nobodyknows
Originally posted by: alchemize
I thought this would be a good article to put up for some predictions, since Mr. Morris makes many very specific predictions about what Obama can do. Now I've been told that he's the "gilded President. Everything he touches will turn to gold. Look for near universal appraise on the actions during his first 100 days from both the media and the voters." But I'm a bit more skeptical on that.

While I do congratulate him and wish him well, I prefer to speak to specific issues rather than the man, just as I did about Bush.

So here's the article, I bolded what I considered "measurable" predictions:

The Republican Party will make big gains and regain much of its lost power.

There, isn't that what you really wanted to say?

I think the "Republican Party" Morris wants back is dead. It will be a reborn party that arises from it's ashes that will make "big gains".

I really have to wonder why you even bothered posting this tripe? Like Harvey said, I want my 30 seconds back.
And like I told Harvey, go rub yourself out on a Bush thread if you want to clutter up this one.

 

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: nobodyknows
Originally posted by: alchemize
I thought this would be a good article to put up for some predictions, since Mr. Morris makes many very specific predictions about what Obama can do. Now I've been told that he's the "gilded President. Everything he touches will turn to gold. Look for near universal appraise on the actions during his first 100 days from both the media and the voters." But I'm a bit more skeptical on that.

While I do congratulate him and wish him well, I prefer to speak to specific issues rather than the man, just as I did about Bush.

So here's the article, I bolded what I considered "measurable" predictions:

The Republican Party will make big gains and regain much of its lost power.

There, isn't that what you really wanted to say?

I think the "Republican Party" Morris wants back is dead. It will be a reborn party that arises from it's ashes that will make "big gains".

I really have to wonder why you even bothered posting this tripe? Like Harvey said, I want my 30 seconds back.
And like I told Harvey, go rub yourself out on a Bush thread if you want to clutter up this one.

You post a hit piece that you claim yopu disagree with and then get nasty with people who also disagree with it? Apparently you like to dish it out but can't take it.

I think you're the one doing all the rubbing. I suppose you couldn't resist "Dick". I hope you feel better now. :laugh:

:p
 

NeoV

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
9,531
2
81
Dick Morris is like a turd that won't go down when you flush, it just sort of floats back up and circles around a few times.

This is the idiot that threw away his career by letting hookers - some of whom may have even been she-males - listen in on private conversations between himself and president Clinton.

Now, he's beyond bitter at the Clintons, was hoping and praying that Hillary would have won so he maintained even the slightest bit of relevance, and is another Faux News Lackey - with little or no real knowledge of anything political other than running a campaign - he's no expert in any way, shape, or form, on matters of economics, foreign policy, or just about anything else he's making wild accusations and predictions on in this drivel.

Fern - please tell me you are kidding when you say we are seeing a 'disregard for national debt' - you mean like the one we've seen for the past 8 years?
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
I think if Dick Morris were to retract these two conflicting statements, some of us might be able to take him more seriously. Oh wait, probably not.

On November 5, 2007, when asked about Hillary Clinton's claim of experiencing sexism during the Democratic Presidential Primary debates in the months prior to the Iowa Caucuses, Morris commented that "when a woman wants to be President, she shouldn't complain based on gender. I'm going to take my toys and go home because the big boys are picking on me. What happens when the boys in the Middle East or the boys who run Russia or the boys who run China start picking on you? Are we going to have a President of the United States saying the boys are picking on me? This is what Hillary always does. Whenever she gets under fire, she retreats behind the apron strings."

On September 2, 2008, during the Republican National Convention, Morris said, in reference to personal attacks on 2008 Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin and her children, that "a man would never have had to go through this." Morris elaborated that the attacks on her ability as a mother of five to balance family life and the duties of the Vice Presidential office reflected a "deep sexism that runs through our society."

Oh my, the hypocrisy Dick, the hypocrisy! :laugh:
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: nobodyknows
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: nobodyknows
Originally posted by: alchemize
I thought this would be a good article to put up for some predictions, since Mr. Morris makes many very specific predictions about what Obama can do. Now I've been told that he's the "gilded President. Everything he touches will turn to gold. Look for near universal appraise on the actions during his first 100 days from both the media and the voters." But I'm a bit more skeptical on that.

While I do congratulate him and wish him well, I prefer to speak to specific issues rather than the man, just as I did about Bush.

So here's the article, I bolded what I considered "measurable" predictions:

The Republican Party will make big gains and regain much of its lost power.

There, isn't that what you really wanted to say?

I think the "Republican Party" Morris wants back is dead. It will be a reborn party that arises from it's ashes that will make "big gains".

I really have to wonder why you even bothered posting this tripe? Like Harvey said, I want my 30 seconds back.
And like I told Harvey, go rub yourself out on a Bush thread if you want to clutter up this one.

You post a hit piece that you claim yopu disagree with and then get nasty with people who also disagree with it? Apparently you like to dish it out but can't take it.

I think you're the one doing all the rubbing. I suppose you couldn't resist "Dick". I hope you feel better now. :laugh:

:p
Wow that's quite original, and mighty tolerant too! Let's bring out the gay slurs! I don't have much of an imagination, so I'll stuck with go fuck yourself.

 

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: nobodyknows
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: nobodyknows
Originally posted by: alchemize
I thought this would be a good article to put up for some predictions, since Mr. Morris makes many very specific predictions about what Obama can do. Now I've been told that he's the "gilded President. Everything he touches will turn to gold. Look for near universal appraise on the actions during his first 100 days from both the media and the voters." But I'm a bit more skeptical on that.

While I do congratulate him and wish him well, I prefer to speak to specific issues rather than the man, just as I did about Bush.

So here's the article, I bolded what I considered "measurable" predictions:

The Republican Party will make big gains and regain much of its lost power.

There, isn't that what you really wanted to say?

I think the "Republican Party" Morris wants back is dead. It will be a reborn party that arises from it's ashes that will make "big gains".

I really have to wonder why you even bothered posting this tripe? Like Harvey said, I want my 30 seconds back.
And like I told Harvey, go rub yourself out on a Bush thread if you want to clutter up this one.

You post a hit piece that you claim yopu disagree with and then get nasty with people who also disagree with it? Apparently you like to dish it out but can't take it.

I think you're the one doing all the rubbing. I suppose you couldn't resist "Dick". I hope you feel better now. :laugh:

:p
Wow that's quite original, and mighty tolerant too! Let's bring out the gay slurs! I don't have much of an imagination, so I'll stuck with go fuck yourself.

:shocked:

I guess the "dish it out but can't take it" remark struck a major nerve. :laugh:

I'll leave now so can troll your own troll thread in peace, troll.
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,251
1
61
Wow... The backlash in this thread is strong.

I prefer to take the wait and see approach. Obama hasn't acted like a left wing nut so far, but Morris has created an interesting puch-list for people to follow over the next year or so.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: Evan
^ Fern, that's just a sad response. Reagan raised taxes and spending
Reagan raised taxes? I don't think so. Tax rates, particularly those for individuals, were much lower under Reagan than before. Prior to Reagan's 1st act (ERTA of '81) individual rates were as high as 70% IIRC.

The 1986 tax act was another very big/extensive piece of tax legislation. While there many many changes, the bigest change IMO was the elimination of all kinds of 'loopholes' (Although they are often referred to as 'loopholes' technically they weren't; they were legislatively approved/enacted benefits for a variety taxpayers engaged in various activites). Accordingly it could be said the '86 act raised taxes (although it was revenue neutral) they still remained much lower than they were before Reagan.


, Morris is out to lunch with his analysis because it isn't actually based in reality (is this really Dick Morris btw, because if so it's pretty pathetic).
Yes, it is Morris. Google the opening sentence of the article and you'll see it's a Morris piece (along with his wife) hosted on many web sites.

And as a financial professional, you know damn well the banking system won't be nationalized, we have many banks that don't need bailouts and many of the big are already locked into long-term loans.
No where in my comments did I refer to "nationalization". I commented on the yet unknown effects of common stockholders as a result of the structure of gov plan - purchase of preferred stock and loans.

While I have argued elsewhere that this program is not nationalization per se, I do acknowlege that the gov is likely in a very strong position as compared to other investors. (Frankly, I'm sort of happy that it is in such a strong position because it's our tax money). So I think it fair to question what impact will result on common stockholders. We've not seen this before, no one really knows.


Why would Obama suddenly change all that, he's no economist. It's just asinine to think he's going to entirely nationalize the banking system, and any such extreme scenario would be temporary in the first place (much like nationalizing the railroads during WWII).
I haven't mentioned "nationalized?

Also, what part of stimulus package to jumpstart confidence in the economy can be construed as a socialist guise to raise the national debt when the overwhelming consensus among economists is that a package is necessary in the first place?
I haven't mentioned "socialist"? I.e., you haven't addressed any of my remarks on the stimulus package.

Bush supported these same plans and raised national debt into the trillion territory for the first time in history last year. Bush was no socialist by any stretch. Fairness doctrine "support" has been debunked again, and again, and again. It's not going to happen in its previously proposed form, get over that paranoia when the reality says Fairness Doctrine hasn't actually happened, oh and of course the clamoring for it to happen is virtually nil (though I'd love see examples).

Here's your 'examples":
Pelosi, Durbin and Feinstein have all expressed support for the Fairness Doctrine

And this from Wiki:

[edit] Support
Some Democratic legislators have expressed interest in reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine,[18] although no one has introduced legislation to do so since 2005.

In June 2007, Senator Richard Durbin (Democrat of Illinois) said, "It?s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,? [19] an opinion shared by his Democratic colleague, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts.[20] However, according to Marin Cogan of The New Republic in late 2008, "Senator Durbin's press secretary says that Durbin has 'no plans, no language, no nothing. He was asked in a hallway last year, he gave his personal view'?that the American people were served well under the doctrine?'and it's all been blown out of proportion.' " [21]

On June 24, 2008, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (who represents most of San Francisco, California) told reporters that her fellow Democratic representatives did not want to forbid reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine, adding ?the interest in my caucus is the reverse.? When asked by John Gizzi of Human Events, ?Do you personally support revival of the ?Fairness Doctrine???, the Speaker replied "Yes." [22]

On October 22, 2008, Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, told a conservative talk radio host in Albuquerque, New Mexico, "I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view," and "All I?m saying is that for many, many years we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country, and I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since." [23]

Senators John Kerry & Charles Shumer have publicly expressd support for the reintroduction the Fairness Doctrine

You might be interested to know that reintroduction of the fairness Doctrine would not require any legislation. The FCC can simply implement it by itself. Also be aware that Pelosi has forbidden any legislation to come to the floor that would prevent the FCC from doing so (outlaw the FD)

Given the abundance of support expressed by much of the Dem leadership in both Houses for the Fairness Doctrine I think it simply ridiculous to say anything's been debunked. I.e., no basis to call those worried about it "paranoid" or "morons". The FD is very much 'in play'

See above bolded comments

Fern
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
Originally posted by: Fern

See above bolded comments

Fern

Fern, you realize how dumb the argument for the fairness doctrine is, right? You admit he is on the record repeatedly stating his opposition to it, but then say 'well he might just change his mind later'. That's your argument? Really? You only make yourself look bad by perpetuating the insane fearmongering coming from the ultra-right.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Fern

See above bolded comments

Fern

Fern, you realize how dumb the argument for the fairness doctrine is, right? You admit he is on the record repeatedly stating his opposition to it, but then say 'well he might just change his mind later'. That's your argument? Really? You only make yourself look bad by perpetuating the insane fearmongering coming from the ultra-right.

My argument that it is possible is based on the number of heavy-weight Dems who publically support it. Also to implement it, Obama really need do nothing himself.

As to his position of no support expressed before elections, I long ago lost confidence in such stuff said by politicians (I don't care from which party).

The Dems are in power and the Dems favor it. It's that simple. I'm not saying that they will certainly bring it back, I'm saying there's NO basis to claim it's dead and that nobody supports it (clearly they do - I forgot to add Barbara Boxer above as a supporter). It's a legitimite concern. Next up on the radar screen for this issue is who Obama appoints as FCC Chairman and replacements for the retirering members (He'll likely get to pick 2 new members and I think the Dems will have 3 out of 5 slots).

Also, if it did come back I wouldn't be surprised if was done in typical Washington fashion: Under a new misleading name as part of package of 'reform' for obstensively different purposes.

The Dem leadership clearly wants it back; will Obama stop them? We'll see.

Fern
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: bozack
The only questionable outcome in this piece is that of the FD...and as someone said above the leadership in the Dem party wants this to happen...so who knows.

Everything else I see as either going to happen, or already happening...so why so many regard this as a buch of chicken little is beyond me.

Come on Matt, you should know better than to hitch your horses to that weasel's wagon.

Why is that Red? honestly I don't see these predictions as being that far off...and honestly I hope Obama is a disaster so should these come to pass then that would be great :)
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
Originally posted by: Fern

My argument that it is possible is based on the number of heavy-weight Dems who publically support it. Also to implement it, Obama really need do nothing himself.

As to his position of no support expressed before elections, I long ago lost confidence in such stuff said by politicians (I don't care from which party).

The Dems are in power and the Dems favor it. It's that simple. I'm not saying that they will certainly bring it back, I'm saying there's NO basis to claim it's dead and that nobody supports it (clearly they do - I forgot to add Barbara Boxer above as a supporter). It's a legitimite concern. Next up on the radar screen for this issue is who Obama appoints as FCC Chairman and replacements for the retirering members (He'll likely get to pick 2 new members and I think the Dems will have 3 out of 5 slots).

Also, if it did come back I wouldn't be surprised if was done in typical Washington fashion: Under a new misleading name as part of package of 'reform' for obstensively different purposes.

The Dem leadership clearly wants it back; will Obama stop them? We'll see.

Fern

Uhmm, yes Obama does need to do something. First of all he would need to appoint an FCC chair that wanted to do it, and then he would have to approve of the FCC chair doing it, as Obama would be his boss.

Your argument is basically that people who are not in the FCC chair's chain of command support something, so he's going to implement policy in direct opposition to the stated policy of his boss, because... you just decided that he didn't mean it. You're simply buying into the ultra right's paranoia.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Fern
Also, if it did come back I wouldn't be surprised if was done in typical Washington fashion: Under a new misleading name as part of package of 'reform' for obstensively different purposes.

Well first of all, after 8 years of laws like the "Clear Skies Act," the "Patriot Act" and other ridiculous packages of reform that typically did the opposite of what their names suggested, you should be used to it by now.

The Dem leadership clearly wants it back; will Obama stop them? We'll see.

Fern
You're just as bad as Hannity, Rush, et tal with your FUD. Obama's statements indicate he clearly opposes the Fairness Doctrine and I could easily argue that he would veto it even if the Dem-led Congress introduced it.

So where does that leave us. Nowhere. Get back to us when an actual bill starts wending its way through the Congress.
 

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: K3N
Obama is not a socialist. A socialist would be in favor of freezing foreclosures, providing subsidies for families to heat their homes, support in bailing the common people. Obama is a wall street fascist who will drive down the standards of living savagely by continuing to give handouts to the financiers only.

1st 100 days of Obama will indeed be as exciting as Jimmy Carter's.

We will be wishing for the good old days of Jimmy Carter.

When you had all 4 wheels on your trailer?

lol :laugh:
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,458
987
126
Originally posted by: Baked
What do you call subsidizing farmers, bailing out the big 3 motor companies, and giving free vacation/bonus money to executives of financial institutions? God forbid anybody calling that socialism. :roll:

The first two could be deemed protection of national interests. Its more protectionism than socialism.