Please do not invite Stephen back. He’s far too rabidly partisan. Jack always has his pov but isn’t nasty about it. How about another more level-headed conservative????

The man is HALF white, or HALF black, whichever way you call it. Why is it that people selectively forget this?

I think the point that is being missed in the gentleman’s representation of the Republicans McCain and Bush is that Obama’s response was directed towards the REpublican establishment, not those two individuals alone. As I think we are all aware, the most damaging commentary often comes from groups affiliated with opponent candidates rather than the candidate himself. I think this a purposeful attempt to avoid all of the racism that has been directed toward the Obamas from the persistence of the rumor of him once having been or still being a Muslim (which has never been the case) to the characterization of his wife as an “Angry Black Woman.” Why is that they get to throw these arrows and he is not supposed to respond forcefully to their erroneous and bigoted nature?

Stephen Pruiell says it’s lessening of violence in Iraq that makes turning to Afghanistan possible! The point is we never should have gone into Iraq in the first place!! Just imagine if we had stayed in Afghanistan and invested and rebuilt. Iraq was not just a diversion, it was a terrible terrible strategic mistake. But Total, Exon Moibile, BP and what is the fourth thrown out by Sadam 35 years ago? are being reinstated and wasn’t that the point of throwing Sadam out?

Hi, Tom.

I see reining in the President by deficit spending as a bit like reining in an unruly teenager by taking out extra mortgages and going into credit card debt. Reducing presidential power is a great goal, but docking his allowance doesn’t address the core problems, and it can have disastrous side effects.

We should rein in presidential power through narrowly-focused policy, and reserve deficit spending for what it is good for: creating economic growth.

Sometimes I think we live in backward country.

Stephen is the perfect balance to Jack. I value the Friday discussion more when diverse views are presented. Too often it’s one-sided.

I think it interesting and appalling that the blatant untruth about the supposed effect of off-shoring drilling on today’s gas prices that is tacked onto the Paris Hilton etc McCain political ad seems to be beside the point. I guess people will believe anything and everything that makes them feel better despite the facts and reality out there. The same goes for McCain’s military background as an indication for his fitness for leadership. With all due respect to Sen. McCain and his service in the Navy during the Vietnam war, it is ancient history and “true, true and unrelated.” Let us all, media included, pay greater attention to his ever-changing positions on many important issues during his term as senator, and particularly in the last several years.

I’d like to recommend getting Andrew Sullivan back for a conservative view of Obama. I used a CD I made of your early show on Obama with him and others to convince many of my Republican friends (I have a few) to consider Obama. All of them are voting for him in November. Sullivan did it. He’s articulate but represents a totally different viewpoint from Jack (who I always trust will represent my viewpoint better than I can).

I also particularly like Katrina Vanden Heuvel and Glenn Greenwald and I think you should use them both more.

I was hoping that we would hear an independent analysis of the news, but I was struck by Stephen Spruiell’s comments, which seemed like a rehash of the Republican talking points. Jack Beaty was almost as one sided. Janine Zacharia was at least able to take a reporters position.

It was unclear if Spruiell was asked to give an independent analysis, or just to rehash the NR editorial position – a number of times he pointed out that “we”, and I assume it was the editorial “we” he was using, took such and such an opinion.

Perhaps if that could be clarified – whether the person is talking for him/herself, or for an organization, it would provide a base for evaluating the statements made.

Simply having two partisans present current talking points is not analysis.

Beautifully said Marc.

C’mon Tom. Bring it. We can take it.

I was going to comment along the lines of what Marc so eloquently has stated. Between Spruiell’s and Beaty’s constant rants I was turned off by what is usually a very good program.

To me this country seems to be in the throngs of a huge downfall.

I call for the nationalization of the oil companies.

Of course that’s extreme. Alas so is the profits they made this quarter.

Something has to give here, Senator Obama is calling for windfall tax on these robber barons.

I’m all for it, but make it have teeth, if they pass this on to consumer they need to be hauled before the courts. They should be told that we, the people will not take it anymore.

How about investing a few billion in our public education system.

Another billion or two could go into infrastructure which needs… hay wait a minute the amount of profits almost makes up the amount it will take to fix our crumbling infrastructure. That sounds like a win win to me.

The oil companies will do some good for the country and it will help the economy by creating jobs.

They should also help pay for the war in Iraq as well being they all just got some very lucrative sweetheart deals in that country.

Tom,
I listened to the whole show. And I kept saying to myself. Tom, you’re not an idiot.

We ALL play the cards we have. I’m reasonably bright, reasonably attractive, reasonably well-spoken, and I USE these cards.

John McCain has been making hay with his veteran card & his prisoner of war card, and been working hard to make is I’ve got X years in the Senate card work for him, as well make his I’ll-be-a-septegenarian-when-I-take-the oath-of-office card work for him.

If Barack Obama can make the “skinny black guy with a funny name cards work for him, MORE POWER TO HIM! They’ve never worked for anyone else before.

The premise of your show wa so misfocused. I expect more from you.

Tommye Mayer, a WBUR lvolunteer/Member

I wish to commend Jack Beatty for his response to Steven Spruiell’s contention that calling McCain’s Britney/Paris ad race-baiting was “insane”. I was already ranting about the “Harold, call me!” ad, and ‘young black bucks taking our women’ when he began with ‘imagery straight out of Birth of a Nation’- perfectly, exactly, “on point”. Got there ahead of me, Jack, guess that’s why you get the big bucks.
Until I heard that Steve Spruiell was from the National Review(tuned in a bit late), I had concluded that blank and utter ignorance disqualified him from public commentary; after, that it was rank partisanship. Like Jack Beatty, I smell a Rove in all this.

In their discussion of recent American deficit spending, Tom Ashbrook and Jack Beatty both repeatedly either blamed the president (Reagan, Bush) for the large deficit, or gave the president (Clinton) credit for having a balanced budget. Any 8th grader knows that the budget starts in the House, and is also approved by the Senate. The president has no control over the budget, other than the option of vetoing it. These “experts” need to review the U.S. constitution.

Can Jack Beatty please stop being referred to as an “analyst?!”

For me, the word suggests an impartiality, or at least some clear-headedness that would enable one to see all the facts clearly, which Mr. Beatty has long not brought to the table. I would refer to him instead as a “commentator.”

I am hopeful that Senator Obama does not choose Senator Clinton as his running mate. If the GOP ran any ads that featured them both, Mr. Beatty would accuse them of being patently racist, due to the fact that Mrs. Clinton is (gasp) a woman and (gasp) white.

I suspect that it wasn’t the “Call Me” ad itself that led to Corker’s last-minute breakaway from Ford in 2006, but the over-sensitive media’s desire to see racism in any attack against a black candidate.

Finally, many listeners (and posters here) seem to be misconstruing (willfully, I can only imagine) the accusations against Senator Obama of playing the “race card” as taking him to task for bringing up his race. Nothing could be farther from the truth! What was going on here was that Senator Obama was clearly accusing Senator McCain of racism. That was sleazy, and Senator Obama owes Senator McCain an apology.

Your right Mr. Luedke and the Republicans had a majority for the three Presidencies. Recent investigations have also revealed that they, the Republicans had done a lot of sleazy deals with every wing of our economy.

Remember Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff, and the countless others who helped reap what we are now sowing.

I blame the Republicans for this mess, I blame the Democrats for lying down and rolling over like sick dogs and letting this happen.

I blame myself and the American people for being complacent and greedy.

Jeff–

I think you need to get your facts straight. Republicans only had House majorities during two of those presidencies (Clinton (1995-2001) and Bush (2001-2007)).

Let’s not pretend that one party has cornered the market on corruption and unethical behavior. For every Abramoff, DeLay, and Stevens, there’s a Rangel, Jefferson, and Spitzer.

Jeff -

I agree with you! Republicans and Democrats are equally to blame for spending our nation into a black hole of debt.

The founders would roll in their graves if they knew that government spending was something like 50% of GDP. I don’t think even “Communist” China spends that much.

I would strongly encourage my fellow citizens to always vote Libertarian. I would also encourage them to work for efficient, effective, disciplined government: one that knows how to protect children and the environment properly, and suppress force and fraud.

Also, I would argue that the legalization of drugs will instantly put thousands of dollars back into your bank account. The flip side of that is that we need to double penalties for driving under the influence and giving drugs to minors.

Brian

The Republicans have been calling the shots in this country for long enough to lay blame on them for a host of maladies we now see coming to bare on the country.

The Democrats are almost as bad in some areas.
What I hate most about them is the complete lack of spine. They don’t act like an opposition party.

Your right Coby the Dems came back during Clinton who manged to balance to books. I never liked Clinton very much, brilliant man and politician. It does not matter that I like my president, they just need to be capable of of doing the job. Something the current rube in the White house has proven he is incapable of.

As far as corruption goes our country has a pretty good history of this problem. Power corrupts, that’s part of the gambit and human nature. Delay and his cronies really took corruption to the extreme and I would argue they undermined the very core of our constitution and have done the most damage to our country since Nixon.

I don’t like Libertarian ideals as I do like having services such as the Post Office. I also think the problem is not Government and taxes in the abstract, but how things are allocated and how we have become to bureaucratic. Libertarian’s would do away with most of the Government, I’m for a radical restructuring of it in some way.

For starters how about doing away with how they finance getting elected in the first place. These people spend more time raising money than doing anything else.

I would also like to see them approach the job as a public service, which is what it’s supposed to be, not a God given right.

There are many ways that this could work better, the financing of campaign’s has to be reformed. They should all get the same amount of money. The Media companies should be required to give every politician running free air time for ads, as they used to do in Great Britain.