First Obama/Romney debate?

What did you think?

My $0.02—Romney won it. He seemed comfortable and serious. He didn't make any gaffes. Obama wasn't his best.

So, advantage Romney. But I don't think it was a game changer or that Obama seemed "listless" (CNN term). Obama was reasonably effective and Romney was merely good, not great. And I don't think any debate is going to change the outcome, unless it involves Obama shouting the Fatihah and shooting a baby koala on stage—and Romney leaping in front of the bullet.

Yeah, Obama seemed flat. I think deep down he felt a little guilty spending his anniversary on stage talking yet again about all the same stuff. And he was playing with the lead--something he won't do from now on. I expect his team will be working round the clock to find stuff Romney said 6 or 8 weeks ago that he contradicted tonight.

Debate#2 will be different. I'm not just saying that because I hope it's true, but I think Obama will definitely shift to the offensive.

~~1-2

Sorry, I was busy reading a fantasy story about unicorns and fairy wars. I prefer to spend my time on things that are nearer to reality.

The debate didn't change my mind, but it was a relief, actually, that Romney wasn't as bad as I feared based on his last month's showing. (After all, he could be president--it's not out of the question.) He tried to appeal to the center, but the devil is in the details--and his previous actions and utterances.

I watched the debate, having completely forgotten that for the next week there will be nothing by analysis and recapping of same.

Romney was more aggressive and came off a little mean, and Obama was excessively low-key and mild. I wonder if his mind was on the Turkey-Syria conflict.

Romney was in his element....money and how to manage it. Problem is, who are his handlers ? Who are those who are going to benefit by Romney's managment skills. I don't doubt that he has them. Guess most thinking individuals understand this.

As much as Romney doesn't understand the average middle class individual, I don't think Obama understands "stupid". It has been pointed out that Obama did not mention Bane Capital, 47% or Romney's flip flop positions. How MANY times do people need to hear it ? Pretty sure, though I don't know the man personally, he would be as flumuxed as I am by, the idea that there are still undecided voters, and the need to repeat something over and over is the only way to reach the attention span of many voters. Even at that I am sure there will be individuals who enter the voting both and play eenie meenie minie moe.

One of Obama's flaws is his inability to relate to those whose thought processes stop just shy of moroonic.....The talking heads are all up in arms but in reality, the average talking head has a job that, when done well in relation to ratings, requires exciting the masses, most of whom want to hear the same thing repeated over and over till most thinking people have turned off the television set.
I don't believe Obama relates all that well to this....hasn't from the get go.

Was a very good move to start the debates with this subject. It is Romney's strongest asset.....things may go down hill from here. None the less, not sure how an hour and a half on stage can change several years of campaigning issues. Romney is a managed man and his party isn't even sure who is doing the managing and which way they want him to go....which ever way gives them back the power and that seems to be on a sliding scale of some kind.

I read and watched the debate at the same time. I thought Obama was purposely fluctuating between being "presidential" and "down to earth". It was evidently Romney's "etch a sketch" moment when he changed his projected policies from what he and his party had been stating before the debate. If I am not mistaken Romney suddenly had a new tax and health care agenda. Obama had to adjust to this during the debate.

It has been pointed out that Obama did not mention Bane Capital, 47% or Romney's flip flop positions

I don't think that would have worked out to his benefit. It's hard to directly attack someone else personally in such a venue, as attacking Bain or the 47% would have looked, and it would have given Romney a chance to look at the camera and say something sincere. It would lower Obama, kicking away one of his strengths. You save that stuff for the advertisements, preferably by surrogate organizations.

Curious debate strategy. Obama could have snuffed the life out of the Romney campaign but instead allowed it to move off life support. Rather than going big, rather than taking the kill shot, Obama went small, content to inflict small, unmemorable wounds. In politics, passivity is death. Rather than quoting Lincoln, I would prefer Obama to channel Machiavelli.

Romney, in contrast, got the job done. He ran away from Ayn Ryan. And he ran over the inept Jim Lehrer (talk about an empty chair). He recanted his pledge to cut taxes by 5 trillion. So I look forward to the next iteration of his tax policies and budget priorities. And the Tea Party response. Romney's attempt to resuscitate the "death panels" mantra of the Palinoconservatives received a proper beat down from the President. This was the only excessive embellishment from a candidate who makes many.

>8 timspalding:
I agree with you....it was one of the issues that the MSNBC talking heads were having tantrums about. But then, the talking heads make a job out of Bain and the 47%.
I did not like the format of the debate by the way, not merely because Romney looked better than Obama, but it kind of left the door open to bully one another. "Talk over" each other. Obama backed off and Romney took up most of the time and that may be a personality difference but in reality the only thing we learned last night is that Romeny can say what people want to hear, no matter what he has said before. We already know that.
I believe Romney would be great on the country's fiscal issues....I think he could get our house in order but I don't think that the beneficiaries of that fiscal order would be the middle class. Would guess Romney to be much better than Obama on "immediate" money issues....Obama thinks too far ahead. Should be someone in the middle somewhere.

>9 theoria:
"Romney, in contrast, got the job done. He ran away from Ayn Ryan. And he ran over the inept Brian Lehrer (talk about an empty chair). He recanted his pledge to cut taxes by 5 trillion"

Yeah, for an hour and a half ! He is good at recanting...and then canting again.

Obama's performance must have been truly pathetic if as so many are claiming 'Romney won the debate'. Romney's demeanor is always at least somewhat uptight. But really I don't if these debates are more purposeful than shows like 'America's got talent' or 'Dancing with the stars'. I did not watch--well, I still have a job to do--at least until the last day of February 2013 which day I'm figuring on retiring. The job requires me to be at work at 4am and there are some expectations that I should be relatively awake and ready to go. Mistakes are frowned upon though I do have thick skin when necessary. In any case I don't think I missed much. I've sat through a few of these before and they tend to be a bit boring and generally (I have the sense anyway) there's a lot of stretching of the truth.

It would be more interesting to me if they'd invited Mr. Johnson and/or Mrs. Stein to take part. It might liven things up a bit and what would happen if one of them were said to have won?

10> I thought I heard that the President took more of the time than Romney? I think it was 4 minutes more for the President.

And he ran over the inept Brian Lehrer (talk about an empty chair…

I see a lot of spleen against Lehrer on Twitter too. I think it's classic sour grapes and blame-shifting. Lehrer's questions were simple and fair, and he got out of the way to let the candidates talk. One fact is indisputable. If Romney had talked for four minutes more, people would be screaming bloody murder about how that was why he'd won the debate. Lehrer should have never allowed Romney to dominate, etc. But, in fact, Lehrer let Obama talk 10% longer than Romney, and Obama still lost. So now the problem is that Lehrer wasn't assertive enough. Pivot, pivot, pivot.

Obama backed off and Romney took up most of the time

Wow. No, quite the opposite—Obama took up 4 minutes longer. It's not often partisan fantasy can be so easily and so indisputably corrected. Wanting something to be true is no substitute for it being true.

I am not sure how you define who wins and who loses. If you watched with the sound off, Romney clearly had the edge.

Neither made a major gaffe. Romney was more on message, and Obama had some serious moments of meandering. Romney had Obama in the corner a few times, but Obama never really had Romney close to the ropes.

Romney should get a slight bounce by this. He held his own with the President, that was all he needed to do. At times it almost felt like Obama was not there. He never landed a punch.

Part of me wanted to hear Obama go after Bain or the 47, but Tim is right in #8. It would not have looked Presidential. What he could have said, at one point was something like, "True, you never said you would cut $X trillion from the budget, but your plan assumes tax cuts that equal about that amount. Do you disagree with the figures?" Or, "My cuts to medicare are closing loopholes in delivery. You like that when it comes to taxes, why not medicare?" Or, "Your VP candidate proposes a budget that includes a $XXC cut to medicare. Did you know that when you chose him?"

The real loser was Jim Lehrer, who just looked out of his element.

Instead of bringing a drone to the battle, Obama brought a swiss army knife.

Did the president mention education overmuch? It seemed that he raised it at every opportunity.

And when he did, he did not frame it to his advantage. He could have compared Race the Top with NCLB favorably, and talked about how most states are now getting waivers from NCLB, but he just went on about a program that few probably know about.

>13 timspalding:
"Wow. No, quite the opposite—Obama took up 4 minutes longer. It's not often partisan fantasy can be so easily and so indisputably corrected. Wanting something to be true is no substitute for it being true."

Haven't had the television on today, nor have I checked any of the news items about the debate. Was going on what they said last night....which was probably more about the meandering of Obama and the directness of Romney. Personally I don't care who won. I don't believe an hour and a half debate is the measure of the man.
Personally I don't have anything against Romney other than the fact that he has no clue what being "middle class" means. He has no notion of what it means to operate without a safety net. AND he is allowing himself to be handled. He can not be himself. Which is the reason he is flipping and flopping all over the place.
He is so inconsistant , I don't think that, if the "hatred" for Obama wasn't so intense, many would be able to take him seriously.

Which Romney do you believe in ? Last night's Romney or the other Romney who was on the tape about the 47 %?
OR the one who was govenor of Massachusetts ? The one who "havests" companies and takes away jobs or the one who has empathy for children and makes sure they all have health insurance ? The one who isn't going to lower taxes for the wealthy or the one who is ? THAT is the problem with Romney. Which one will he be when he takes the oath of office ?

Obama is pretty consistant. He doesn't change his mind much. And to give him credit he stays cool. Was AGAIN accused of not working with Congress. When clearly it is the other way around.

No doubt about it....Romney was very clear about what he said last night. Was impressive even. BUT, was it the real Romney ? Who is Romney ? We know that he can sell himself to make a buck.....what else do we know....what we see is at odds with what he says.

What is the hatred for Obama?

Not my country. But I'm seeing quite few FB statuses claiming that Romney told far more untruths/misstaements during the debate than Obama. Somewhat surprised to see this hasn't been mentioned here yet?

Does it count as winning if you're lying when you do so. I don't know that he actively knew that what he said wasn't true. But apparently some of his debate points are contradicted by his own website!

Will try and find links later.

Someone's been keeping track of all Romney's lies: Chronicling Mitt's Mendacity Vol XXXVI

I guess the question to ask is: "Will it really make a difference which one gets the office?" Neither one of them has any understanding about everyday issues for everyday people, so the masses will be just as screwed after January as they are now. No lasting changes will come about after this election.

It would be good if there were fines for lies made in a political context by a candidate or a person associated with the campaign and for broken campaign promises. A Truth In Politics Act (TIPA law) could establish a $10,000 payable by the person making the false statement - each offense, each day, the lie is not corrected with an equal exposure with which the lie was given.

>19 richardbsmith:
He is "different" !

Former Governor John Sununu said something to the affect that Obama is "lazy" "disengaged" and "not very bright"

Hm-m-m-m-m wonder where all that comes from ?

>20 reading_fox:
What we saw at the debate was Romney the sales man....the guy who talks companies into selling out so that he can "fix" them. He does "fix" things.....either by actually making the company more efficient (which no doubt means downsizing, cutting benefits for employees and/or cutting pay to employees) OR he "havests" the company and a whole bunch of people are out of work. By todays standards he is a successful business man.....all of his actions are profitable for someone. How ever the profitability is concentrated, rather than benefiting many, it piles profits up into tidy 1% piles. Piles which are shifted around to off shore accounts but in the big picture are showing that corporate profits are doing just fine in the U.S.A.

Lying to Mr Romney is part of the "sale" He is good at what he does. I am surprised that people are taken back.

How does one debate with a lier ? Obama, at the debate, looked to me like someone who just let the guy ramble on with his lies......what was he going to say ? If I were Obama, by this time, I would be disgusted with anyone who thought Romney was leadership material......he is a salesman and a money manager. The two are not exactly synomymous with honesty. Given the state of this country and the problems facing us internationally, I would find debating a lier, a total waste of my time. A show....a game....played out for the power mongers and money makers.

Where does all that come from?

Truth is a slippery eel. Spin is a job skill, transferable from one profession to another. Catching a politician in a real lie is extremely difficult, it is all about your statistics and my statistics, your interpretation and my interpretation, are you a strict constructionist of the constitution or do you believe in the constitution as a living document which can be understood in realities which are not 18th Century?

Good luck at convincing the American voters that Romney lies.

It seems as though most people have made up their minds and it is now a race to get the voters to vote, and to avoid falling flat on your face.

"Truth is a slippery eel. ... Catching a politician in a real lie is extremely difficult, it is all about your statistics and my statistics,... your interpretation and my interpretation, ....

Good luck at convincing the American voters that Romney lies."


Yah, particularly when most of the American public can't add a row of numbers and is interested only in appearances and sports. But I must say, I liked the suits and the haircuts.

I think Obama was just so surprised that Romney would literally say ANYTHING there on stage, and Obama probably thought "well everyone can see this is ridiculous, so I'll just stand here while he embarrasses himself."

So when Romney WON the debate, I think Obama walked off stage thinking, "What the hell just happened?" It was like the now famous Packers/Seahawks game: he saw what happened, then he saw the call made by the refs, and suddenly it was over.

In a weird way it reflects our culture, really: you're only lying if someone proves it, you're only cheating if you get caught. If Romney convinces enough voters that he's not going to cut taxes for the wealthy and this 4.8 billion dollar number is 'just a figment of everyone's imagination' then he just might win.

Now the ball's in Obama's court to show the people that Romney will literally do or say anything it takes to win. It's a unique dilemma.

21> Re Romney's mendacity Mr Romney was simply displaying the skills of a used car salesman: say anything to close the deal.

#28 I think Obama walked off stage thinking, "What the hell just happened?"

Perhaps Obama could do with some coaching from John McEnroe.

Yep. It's just standard business ethics, which is to say, none.

>26 maggie1944:
"Truth is a slippery eel"

Yes it is. What choice did Obama have other than to keep bringing up stuff that Romney said, only to have Romney deny that he said it ? Other than to bring up the stuff that had been designated as not appropriate for a debate.

>28 jasonseidner:
"In a weird way it reflects our culture, really: you're only lying if someone proves it, you're only cheating if you get caught. If Romney convinces enough voters that he's not going to cut taxes for the wealthy and this 4.8 billion dollar number is 'just a figment of everyone's imagination' then he just might win"

How sad is that ? And then we wonder why "Big Brother" is constantly looking over our shoulders. Best way to muck up our freedom is to take liberties.

A quote from Mark Twain that everyone is familiar with I am sure {stolen from wiki}:

"Figures often beguile me," he wrote, "particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: 'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.'"

I bet statisticians hate that remark. Statistics don't lie if you know what you're doing with them, but you can sure use them to lie to others if they don't.

Sure don't you know that 93% of statistics on the Internet are just made up on the spot!

34> Come to think of it *I* hate that remark. Statistics are a tool that improve our understanding of the world. To have a popular saying that statistics are all just a lie just excuses people from having to work to actually try to understand an issue. If I hear someone misusing statistics I'd rather point out the flaw in their argument rather than just throw up my hands and say its all garbage.

I hate Romney too. Can I join?

But seriously the way some of you are going on Romney is the only one of the two that ever plays fast and loose with the truth. Is Mitt believable is the question? Not to me but I'm sure to a lot of people--yeah, he is. OTOH I've learned to my regret not to believe everything that comes out of Barack's mouth either but to some it seems he's a combination of George Washington, Abe Lincoln and Clark Kent.

>37 lriley:
but to some it seems he's a combination of George Washington, Abe Lincoln and Clark

Not so sure about that......what Obama does says as much about him as what he says...the same can be said for Romney. Perhaps more people like how Obama conducts himself over the actions of Mr. Romney. Obama is also very consistant.....if he is lying, he is consistant. Romney is all over the place.
Mr Romney is the shining example of business in America today....what he does, how he talks, his life style and his competativeness.....if one likes how things are going, there is no reason not to vote for the man.
Obama stands for something else altogether...the only thing they have in common is competativeness.

It is good to be competitive and consistent.

>39 richardbsmith:
"It is good to be competitive and consistent."

Yes it is. It is even better to be competitive and honest. Good luck !

>28 jasonseidner:
"It was like the now famous Packers/Seahawks game: he saw what happened, then he saw the call made by the refs, and suddenly it was over."

One of the reporters, on the field, interviewed Tate (the Seahawk who "caught" the last touchdown) right after the game, before he went to the locker room. She asked him if he felt that he had caught the "winning touchdown" Tate laughed and said "I don't know about that but we will take it" Not sure many people paid much attention to the clip and of course by the next day Tate swore he "caught" the ball. Not that this has anything to do with the conversation...or...maybe it does. Big deal here in Wisconsin !!! The ref's were not much better last weekend either. Must be off their cheese or something.

Romney now supports gun control and believes in the scientific theory of evolution.

Romney has been all over the place on many issues, but he's has always supported evolution. I'm happy to find out you no longer favor beating children.

#43 Well done! ;-)

In the Three Rs, the s stands for statistics.

You can find Romney's stance on evolution here: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/11/romney-elaborates-on-evolution/

This does seem to be a issue where he is not playing etch-a-sketch.

This does seem to be a issue where he is not playing etch-a-sketch.

No, he was in favor of evolution before, being the only candidate in the Republican debate to favor it. He's in favor of it now. He says there's no conflict between religion and science, and if schools are to discuss creators and intelligent design and so forth, it should be done in a religion or a social-studies class, not a science class. Did you not read the article?

I misread you Arctic! Apologies.

47> Did you see the not in that quote? I think Arctic was backing you up.

Edited. Apologies.

Awesome meltdown by Chris Matthews after the debate. Watch it and soak up the yummy non-partisanism!

Around the 1:40 mark:“We have our knives out! We go after the people and the facts! What was (Obama) doing tonight — he went in there disarmed!”

Eliminationist rhetoric! Advocating violence!

It is nice, though, to see a member of the MSM admit that they go after the facts with knives drawn.

Matt Welch:

"That wasn't a debate so much as Mitt Romney just took Obama for a cross country drive strapped to the roof of his car."

Classy.

Does Chris Matthews and the rest of MSNBC claim to be non-partisan? It seems that they're trying to be the counterweight to Fox News.

Well, I worded that badly. My bad.

#53

I dunno. I don't know many people who view them as anything but, though...

>53 jjwilson61:
MSNBC stopped being non-partisan somewhere during G. W.' s second term. They headed further off to the Left when Sarah Palin was being taken seriously by Fox News. Since Obama has been in office and had to endure all of the flack, nastiness and down right disrespect from the Right for the past four years...they have given up all pretense of being anything but against what ever it is the Right is selling.

Even Andrea Mitchell, who plays her cards pretty close to her chest was appauled by Sununu's remark about Obama being "lazy", "disengaged" and "not very bright". She asked if he wanted to take it back....he said "NO" She shook her head. Would imagine there will be a small shift in her way of thinking as well. The Right is it's own worst enemy at this point in time.

One can not be fair and balanced when confronted with such disrespect and nastiness. The urge is to start fighting back.

Jon Stewart called MSNBC out on partisanship when he was attacking Fox News.....said that MSNBC was taking it's cues from Fox.

>53 jjwilson61: LOL. The MSM was objective and neutral... until Fox News came along and introduced partisanship!

>53 jjwilson61: Does Chris Matthews and the rest of MSNBC claim to be non-partisan?

>55 Jesse_wiedinmyer: I don't know many people who view them as anything but...

Huh? I had to translate this piece by piece to see what it says.

(1) I don't know many people who view them as anything but (non-partisan?)...
(2) I know few people who view them as anything but (non-partisan)...
(3) Few people view them as not non-partisan...
(4) Few people view them as partisan... ?

>57 Carnophile:
"The MSM was objective and neutral... until Fox News came along and introduced partisanship!"

That is not what I said.......they stopped being nonpartisan when Bush was in office....Jon Stewart compared Fox News with MSNBC. I did not. MSNBC has been moving further to the Left for some time...many of the anchors who did a fairly decent job of not showing a lot of their political leanings have given up. I suspect Andrea Mitchell may be next. It has to do, in part , with lack of respect, lies and the liars who tell them and the out right audacious reporting that is Fox News. Not sure how a reporter, unless they totally HATE Obama, can keep emotion out of their face when Sununu says something like he did. It is distasteful....
For every action their is an equal and opposite reaction.

A digression: Something that has been preying on my mind for a while is this - When I was in elementary school, in the early 1950s, there was a large immigration into the USA from Europe (post WWII) and we heard a great deal about public schools being a vital, important, element in helping everyone become fully a citizen of this fine democracy. (More context: this was against the fear of communism over running Eastern Europe). So, there were a great many nongovernmental, nonprofit agencies which provided English instruction and civics instruction. Many people were studying to become American Citizens!

But the public schools were identified as the one, unifying experience all American citizens would have and that it would assure that all citizens had learned the basic values which made democracy possible.

Values? For example, being civil in your discussion of public issues; and, being well informed and voting based on your rational careful consideration of facts; and eschewing making decisions based on emotions; and, knowing the meaning of words such as propaganda.

Now my point: how is the growth of the Charter Schools Movement and the flight from public schools going to affect the goals I just outlined? How will we ever expect to have reasonable politics again if we do not have some common education as to what it means to be a valuable citizen?

>59 maggie1944:
Thank you Maggie !
I don't think we are heading down the path of civil discussion (that much is evident even on Librarything) It is now acceptable to make up one's own facts and form an opinion based on what you want to believe rather than what is real.
The concept of being a valuable citizen seems to have turned around into looking at citizenship as something that is owed to you and that which is owed to you, would be how much value you can take from society. There really is nothing to unify us now, we can make up our own reality and dare anyone who challenges it OR lie and change it. No wonder people feel disconnected from Washington.
However, you have witnessed what happens when it is suggested that perhaps we should spend some time being invovled in some fashion. Not a pretty picture ! Someone even mentioned guns and shooting....not surprised !

BTW, I just finished reading 1492: The Year the World Began and will say that it provided a lively and new way of looking at the modern world and where we are today in relation to East Vs West, Religion Vs Religion, modernity Vs traditions. Recommended to those who like to read popular history, global perspective.

The problem is that we no longer hold people accountable for HOW they accomplish something--all that matters is that they accomplish it. When players started taking steroids in sports (and raised the bar for what fans should expect from them) players who never would have considered taking the drugs before had to make a decision: do I NOT take them and continue hitting 35 home runs a year (a very respectable number) or do I take steroids so I can keep pace with the players who are now hitting 60?

I think Obama finds himself in a similar position after that debate. He watched Romney "win" the debate in spite of the blatant dishonesty Mitt exhibited. Does Obama resort to the same tactics to keep pace with a guy who will say/do anything to win? If we (as a culture) don't value honesty and make them accountable, why should they?

I agree that is a huge issue today. I am still flabbergasted that Romney can be called a "winner" when he has at minimum back tracked on many of his Campaign Positions, and at worst continues to lie.

>64 faceinbook:
If there is no pride in what we stand for, if it is all about winning, why is it so surprising ? Winning is all about self interest and has very little to do with integrity. Doesn't matter HOW we win...it just matters that we are declared the winner. A new low in the political theater.

64>

For some reason it didn't always feel that way. Perhaps i have a bad memory but when I was little integrity meant more--perhaps even more than the outcome.

That's why I think Romney is such an odd duck: he seems like he wants to 'be' the President (as in holding the title) more than he wants to be President (as in doing what it takes to fix the country). I think Romney will say or do anything to get the job: BECOMING PRESIDENT is his only real goal. What he does if he gets in there isn't even his concern (hence, the promises he makes in all directions).

~65

Perhaps a new title could be invented "President, the Real President, For Life"? I am sure that many of us would be happy to see that title handed out left and right if the recipients would just return home to tend their respective duck ponds and promise never again to show their respective faces in public.

~64

And, face, this line about how degenerate the spirit of all other Americans has become and how you would like to restore "our greatness" by enslaving the younger of "us," is getting a bit old. Could you find another theme to rant about for a day or so?

>65 jasonseidner:
"For some reason it didn't always feel that way. Perhaps i have a bad memory but when I was little integrity meant more--perhaps even more than the outcome."

The first really contentious election I remember well was the Kennedy - Nixon race. My father was a Republican and a minister. Keeping in mind that in the 60s there was a much bigger division between Catholic's and nonCatholics, my father along with many felt that if a Catholic was President the Pope would "run" the country. I remember plenty of discussions amongst the adults in my home.....one of my school projects at the time was to write a theme on who I would vote for if I could vote and why. Of course, I chose Kennedy....this riled my father to no end. However, even at a young age I liked the idea of civil rights and equality. My father and I had a few discussions, I'm sure he was often amused by my outlook.....was only 10 yr old at the time.
My father's lesson after the election has stayed with me my entire life. That lesson was one of respect for the office of the President of our country. He shoke my hand after the election and conceded, claiming that if we lost that respect we were on the way to losing what this country stands for. Given the response of the country when Kennedy was assasinated I think my father's attitude was certainly more prevelant than today. I hate to imagine what would happen today if Obama were assasinated.

My father, by the way, was a pilot in the Air Force during the Korean conflict. He had no choice. He was homesick and hungry (did not like the army food.....hitch hiked home for one of my Grandma's meals). And yet, he respected the office of the Presidency till the day he died......wonder how that happened ?

Well, again, even though Kennedy wasn't your father's choice he was still the President, and being president was worthy of your father's respect. That's been the biggest change I've noticed: that people don't deem Obama as "their" President. Party trumps country, so much so that hating Obama and doing everything possible to prevent him from succeeding has become a 24/7 effort.

I think what many don't realize is that this "hate" thing is very much a money-making product, from Rush to Ann Coulter to Fox News. It would not surprise me to find out that these "haters" don't really mind Obama that much at all--that in the end, hating him and objecting to everything he stands for is just to get ratings and make money. That's not to say they love him either, but hate makes money. The NBA discovered that a few years ago when they saw the anti-Lebron James attack: more people tuned in to the NBA finals to root AGAINST James than to root FOR anyone else.

That's what the GOP counts on: if you can't get people passionate FOR Romney than get them passionate AGAINST Obama. In the end, hate has actually become the stronger emotion.

#69--FWIW the idea that any of Reagan, either Bush or even Clinton was 'my' president never occurred to me. Just for an example as soon as GW invaded Iraq that pretty much finished any such idea that I was going to feel any responsibility for what he was up to. I didn't vote for him, never liked him and he and his VP can go fuck themselves. Similarly when Reagan fired the PATCO strikers any chance of his redeeming himself or his presidency was just about done and in both cases they went on and added a lot more fuel to the original fire anyway.

Now it may be true that Obama reaches out to Republicans a lot more than other POTUS's reach out to their opposition but there is nothing really innocent about any of these guys and as far as ordinary voters there is an ideological divide between those who see themselves as democrat and/or left and/or progressive and those who see themselves as republican and/or right and/or conservative and/or libertarian even if the actual policies of the two major parties very very often coincide. So I don't really get why people are surprised that Obama is reviled because it comes with the territory.

70>

I don't know--for some reason I don't remember that "He's not MY president" line prior to Obama. There has always been separation, but I don't remember ever hearing it to that degree.

I don't know--for some reason I don't remember that "He's not MY president" line prior to Obama. There has always been separation, but I don't remember ever hearing it to that degree.

This is hysterical! The VERY PHRASE originated as an attack on George W. Bush. Conservatives appropriated it to use against Obama. And now you claim they invented it!

Here's the first reference I could find—a Time magazine article I could find, a minor brouhaha when a sixth grade teacher in Colorado wore a "He's not my president!" button to school. The date December 2003.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1006297,00.html

Google around a bit. You'll find lots of buttons, t-shirts and mugs about how Bush isn't your president—even now, after four years.

Oh, here's an earlier one. The NYT reports on crowds in New York in 2001—July 2001—chanting "He's not my president" during a visit by Bush.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/11/nyregion/in-new-york-bush-visits-sites-evocati...

A Google news search finds no mentions before Bush—at least going back to 1900. This was invented as an attack line against Bush.

I very much doubt that the phrase itself originated in 2003. I'd bet my britches that hippies were saying it about Nixon back in the day.

I don't know. I think Google News might have picked it up if so.

Google Books shows the phrase appearing in 1970, then later against Reagan, but it appears in dialogue between characters in novels, and is very rare. Use as a slogan appears to trace itself to Bush/Gore fight (early 2001). In that context it was a sort of election protest. Larger use of it appears to have grown out of that usage.

Google Books: http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=%22he's+not+my+presi...

Come to think of it, there was a certain segment of the population that absolutely detested FDR. So I don't believe the sentiment is particularly recent.

Our societal memory only goes back to the '50s or at least that's the era that stands out to us as the good ol' days, probably because that's the childhood memories of the oldest members of society now. In the 50's that attitude of the President being "my" President despite his party was prevalent, perhaps nearly universal, but go back a decade or two from that and I don't think that attitude would have been so common.

So I think what you're seeing in growing disrespect for the President is actually a cyclical pattern where most people only remember part of the cycle.

>72 timspalding:
Yes indeed, it did start with Bush, however Bush, the silver tongued devil, stated that anyone one who didn't agree with him was a "terrorist", UNAmerican, UNPatriotic and nonsupportive of the troops. That came with a backlash. Not to mention the debacle in Florida......much like the now famous Seahawk vs Green Bay Packer game.....everyone saw what they saw....the judge made the call and it was all over.

As far as respect goes....pretty certain that, at any given time, there were those who did not like the sitting President, probably some who actually "hated" the man for what he stood for but NEVER was there such a lack of respect at the top.....by those who should be setting an example. The example now is to dig in your heels, lie if you need to, do what it takes to get the power back in your hands....and don't admit you had anything to do with the mess we are in.....it fell on Obama, he should have fixed it....Bad Obama ! BS

Do you think that Lincoln could assemble a "team of rivals" now ? True elected officals who would work together for the "people" ? I doubt it.....we "the people" could fall off a financial cliff and the powers that be will stand around declaring someone else at fault.

It IS different since Obama took office.....mean, nasty, untruthful, disrespectful and it isn't only at the top....the flag waving started during Bush...whocould mount the Biggest flag on their car antenna ?.....who "supported the troops " ? Of course it wasn't those who thought that Iraq was a mistake.... one was either with the President or with the enemy.

Let's see...if I remember it correctly my father-in-law's comment when I said that Iraq was going to make a mistake:

"If you love Sadam Hussain so much why do you go over there and hold hands with him ?"

Bush gave all kinds of block heads like this a license to sound sane ! When clearly they are nuts ! They haven't gone away...just dug their heels in a little further. Unfortunately, I could not divorce myself from my country and Bush was indeed my President but what a sad sorry thing it has been for the U.S. ever since !

>75 jjwilson61:
The problem isn't with the people....we've been divided on issues forever...the problem is with our leaders. Our Congress has never been so dividied that we could not move in any direction what so ever. Has it been at odds before ...of course (some one is going to spout off about the caning on the floor of Congress over the Civil War) but we have members of Congress who think Obama is Muslim, a noncitizen and has had association with terrorist organization. They have "used" this garbage to widen the divide between people in this country. Rather than acting like the leaders they were elected to be, they have done nothing but try to obtain the power for themselves.
There is a difference between dislike and disrespect.

FWIW, I'm not arguing that disrespect for the president is new. This slogan is new—but not an anti-Obama thing originally.

>78 timspalding:
it did start with Bush I think.

FWIW, in North Carolina we were saying "He's not my Senator" about Jesse Helms back in the '80s.

Having said that, when I bumped into him at a Duke basketball game, I was with my children, and introduced them to him, telling them he was public servant and deserved our respect. I hated almost everything the man stood for, but it was important to teach my kids that ALL public servants are deserving of respect.

Those who sit on the sidelines and crow have every right to do so, but to me its like all the hot air about third party candidates. There are things you can do to at least try and change things. I realize if you are a Republican in Berkeley or a Democrat in MS it does feel like rolling Sisyphus's stone. But then, more happens at the local level than at the national level. You can get involved in non-partisan local races, and really make a difference there.

That was part of the strategy for the Republican take over of the South. When the ran people for state legislatures, the candidates had done their time as city council members or whatever the local equivalent is.

Personally just getting yourself elected whether it's mayor, congressman, senator, POTUS doesn't mean I'm going to respect you. Respect is something that needs to be earned.

Speaking of politicians--I was watching video on youtube recently of the British miner's strike in 1984. At about the same time there was the skirmish between Britain and Argentina going on in the Falklands. One of the miner's wives in one particular video comments about Maggie Thatcher characterizing the miner's and their families as 'the enemy within' (which Thatcher did actually say)--something that left her a bit non-plussed because this lady also mentioned that she had a 'hero' of a son currently fighting Maggie's war in the Falklands. It goes to show the disconnect between those in power and those they supposedly represent. Politicians certainly would like us to all be on board with their programs even when their programs are literally poisonous in the longer or shorter term to those who put them in power.

As far as when 'not my president' was coined--it doesn't matter--the same sentiment has existed for as long as I can remember.

>81 lriley:
Personally just getting yourself elected whether it's mayor, congressman, senator, POTUS doesn't mean I'm going to respect you. Respect is something that needs to be earned.

There should be respect for the "office"......this does not always translate to respect for the person. If we do not have respect for the "person" we have a chance to elect someone different in four years...don't think that there should be such blatant disrespect for the office of a public offical.
We treat officials from other countries with respect...whether we agree with them or not. Of course now that is seen as a negative. Apologizing, bowing and appearing to be generally respectful is seen as a weakness.

"As far as when 'not my president' was coined--it doesn't matter--the same sentiment has existed for as long as I can remember."

Really, within the Congressional body ?

Personally just getting yourself elected whether it's mayor, congressman, senator, POTUS doesn't mean I'm going to respect you. Respect is something that needs to be earned.

My son was in the military academy and thought about military service. I told him he was welcome to, an that I would support him, but...if he joined the service, rank, not personality was what mattered. If they person above you has more stripes than you, they get your respect, whether they are an idiot, or saint.

He just nodded his head, and said, "Now I understand why I had so much trouble here."

That a person a) chose to put themselves up as a candidate, b) did the work it takes to be a candidate, c) garnered enough votes to win, and d) is serving their community deserves much more of my respect than the person who just sits back and bitches, even if I agree with the latter more than the former.

#83--you'd almost have to believe the old saying that anyone can grow up to be POTUS. And certainly Obama and/or Clinton would seem in some respects to fit that description but I'm afraid there is a lot more going on beneath the surface because people who run for high office are certainly vetted in ideological terms and they have to be able to raise huge amounts of money and these days that kind of money is easiest to raise from large corporations--not from small donors. The campaign finance laws that allow huge donors to insinuate themselves (and also legislation favorable to themselves) into our electoral system has of course been systemized and protected by these same high office politicians. I mean if you want to go on believing that this is all on the up and up--good for you--but I certainly don't believe it at all.

We are talking apples and oranges here. You keep wanting to jump the gun to the presidency, and I am talking about paying dues by doing what it takes.

#85--we all have our obsessions I guess.

Arctic is talking practical politics; the nuts and bolts of forming a party, getting elected, and being able to make a difference (good or bad).

Saying that the current system is flawed is probably correct; but saying that doesn't get you elected.

Your choices are to work within the system that exists, in an attempt to change it; try to figure out a way around the system; or remove the system altogether. Arctic is providing you with the basics of 'A'. 'B' is rarely successful, and not on a large scale basis. 'C' is outside the scope of the discussion.

#87--the way I see it Arctic wants me to come at it from his angle--which is fine. I'm thinking more in terms of quid pro quo.

I think disrespect for an office holder, even POTUS, has always existed to some degree, even in the Congress. Reading US history can give some very colorful examples; however, I think what is different is that we have this new media environment in which expressions of poisonous disrespect are spread wide; and expressions of such hatred often come from people who do hold public office.

My recollection is that the goal, the ideal, was to express respect for the office (which ever one, from dog catcher to president) and your attempt to defeat your opponents was in the rough and tumble fight of politics. Politics was seen as the way in which large groups of people make decisions, and somewhere along the line, respect for the office was seen as a functional essential.

"My esteemed colleague" was a phrase we heard often. Do you ever hear it now?

Yes because the Rules of Order require it. Or something like it.

88

I don't care if you come around to my way of thinking. As a matter of fact, I am really hoping you do not, because I suspect we would differ what a third party should look like.

>77 faceinbook:
“... but we have members of Congress who think Obama is Muslim, a noncitizen and has had association with terrorist organization.”

Perhaps part of the problem is that so much of Barack Obama’s past has not been shared with us. I don’t know and don’t care if he’s Muslim, but his actions certainly show a deference to Islam, and he’s had a very close and long-term association with a supposedly “Christian” pastor with a clear history of condemning the U.S. He has consistently refused to acknowledge islamic extremism (the Ft. Hood massacre was just workplace violence? Seriously?), and he has emboldened (and denied) Muslim violence around the world (at least he finally gave up on the ridiculous "spontaneous demonstration" excuse for what has all the clues of an Al Queda attack on our Libyan consulate). I don’t know and don’t care if he’s a non-citizen (tell me: who was his elementary school teacher, his childhood neighbor, his first girlfriend? Those people tend to come out during a presidency). Regardless, there’s no question that he did not have anything close to a typical American experience during his formative years, and he hasn’t demonstrated much appreciation for American values as an adult. Have you ever wondered what really shaped his values?

Known association with terrorists? Obama has done an excellent job of hiding his radical past, which includes very close association with terrorists.

A synopsis of his history is referenced in this short documentary clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZb134WAErg&feature=related, and I recommend we all look into all the facts that have been ignored about his life.

>92 TrippB:

I'm not voting for Obama. But I know disingenuous character assassination when I see it.

Hi Tim. I'm very ingenuous, but I'm really wondering if you ever take any time off!

And, it wasn't meant to be character assassination. I don't dislike the guy. It's just that his history has been almost completely ignored. Can't his past be questioned just a little? i haven't seen much serious vetting of him yet.

TrippB, Perhaps you are reading the wrong sources. I have read a rather long, and somewhat revealing, article by a former girl friend. I would say her comments made him sound like a pretty typical college student.

And as far as "associating with terrorists", I think one needs to define the word more carefully. There are many patriots who have passionately critiqued our government, our "way of life", our culture and so on. I was a part of the Civil Rights movement during the 1960s and was very opinionated against the travesty that was continued prejudice and discrimination against our black Americans in the South. I raised money and sent it to the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. I am quite sure that in some people's eyes this qualifies me as a terrorist.

Absurd.

I think since many reputable and believable sources have stated unequivocally that the President is an American citizen, was born in Hawaii and has been a practicing Christian. I think continuing to ask these questions is evidence of having not done your research.

>92 TrippB: Perhaps part of the problem is that so much of Barack Obama’s past has not been shared with us.

You might enjoy Barack Obama: The Story by David Maraniss. One anecdote from Indonesia has young Obama being chased down the street by stone-throwing neighborhood kids, who take exception to his race. Obama's mother declines to intervene saying something like 'he needs to learn to deal with it.' There's another story (in this book?) from a former girlfriend (white) who found him a bit inaccessible, and who predicted that he would eventually find happiness with a strong black woman.

Lots of info out there.

>93 timspalding:
Thank you Tim.....it is reassuring to hear reason from the Right. I know it's there...but it is very nice to actually here it.

>94 TrippB:
I would argue that G.W. Bush was allowed to lock away many of his records from the "past". Bush's drug use, his alcoholism, his school records, his driving record.
Romney seems to be glossing over a lot as well. We don't know much about his financial history. We don't even know what he really stands for, other than his record as Govenor which is totally different than what he is saying now. This doesn't seem to bother 45% of voting Americans.
As Maggie said there is a lot of info out there about Obama...probably a lot more than about Bush the lesser and Romney.

Unless this bother's you to same degree, I would be suspect as to why the lack of info available on Obama bothers you so much.

>97 faceinbook:

I'm uncomfortable being classed with the capital-R "Right," but thanks.

I think voting for Romney, given his stance on economics, his choice of Paul Ryan, and now foreign policy, easily classifies one as capital R "Right."

I'm deciding between Romney and throwing it away on the libertarian because I'm luke-warm on Romney. Nor do I agree. The Capital-R right implies some sort of special group of ideologues, separate, I think, from simply voting for someone. About half the American people are going to vote for Romney. I wouldn't characterize them as all belonging to the capital-R Right. Would you?

Can we classify all those who vote for Obama as being part of the Left?

Given how conservative he is on most things, no.

It is all relative, I guess. In Maine you are probably a moderate. In Alaska you could be a liberal, and in Mississippi you would be a pinko.

This probably my reaction to how far right the basic political debate has moved.

>102 Arctic-Stranger:

If it's all relative, there's no reason to take as the "center" what it was at some earlier point in your life. What's your point of reference, the 1970s? Sure, under Carter, I'd be extreme right on economic issues and a crazy lefty on social issues. Meh.

I would settle for Reagan as the center these days.

It is my theory that since very, very few Americans actually show up to participate in political party organizations and few have the experience of trying to actually put down on paper their agreed upon values, and goals, for political action that as a consequence using terms to describe people is an exercise in futility.

Being a Republican or Democrat is pretty meaningless if you never interact with fellow Ds or Rs to identify what needs to be done. People are losing practice in finding political solutions so of course their choices are less grounded in reality. That's my theory.

So, calling someone a Republican with a capital R is pretty meaningless since less than 1% of those people so self identified had anything to do with creating a Republican platform. Same for the Democrats.

>101 timspalding: Can we classify all those who vote for Obama as being part of the Left?

Sure, and it's already been done. (We probably consume some of the same media.) But it doesn't necessarily follow that this is a probing or particularly well-informed label.

True, the "center" has shifted. How could it be otherwise? Has it ever been otherwise? Culture, both broadly speaking and in more partisan political terms, is a dialectic and is never fixed.

But it doesn't necessarily follow that a relativistic "meh" addresses the present. (Are the laziest hippies now on the "right?"...I wonder...)

If anything, a shifting center invites individuals to examine their reflexes.

Capital R "right" can conceivably mean lots of things. That's also true of a putative "left."

Go figure.

TrippB>

When you say we don't know President Obama's history, that's fine--but I'm going to put this birther talk to rest once and for all.

Let's say I go to England and meet a British girl. We hook up, she gets pregnant, and we decide to get married. A few months later she gives birth to a baby boy, and we stay in England for the next 2 years.
After that I'm offered a new job in the U.S and we move here, where we live for the rest of our lives.

Since that child is the child of at least one American citizen, that child is considered both British AND American. IT DOES NOT MATTER where he was born. So even if Obama WAS born somewhere else (which he wasn't) it still doesn't matter.

John McCain, to give a prime example, was born in Panama when his parents were stationed there. No one ever even mentions this. He's an American because at least one of his parents was. That's it--case closed.

So even if Obama was born in Kenya or Indonesia or France it doesn't matter: his mother was from Kansas and she was 100 percent American.

Just like the President.

>107 jasonseidner:

I think birtherism is absurd. For starters (and, really, enders) it requires the Obamas to place birth notices in Honolulu papers fraudulently, when the only POSSIBLE advantage to doing so would be to allow their young son to become president. That's beyond crazy.

However, your point about citizenship isn't the slam dunk you think it is. The Constitution doesn't require someone be an American citizen, but a "natural born citizen." There are two schools of thought on this—that you must be born within the jurisdiction of the US, or merely to be born a citizen. McCain, born on a military base in the the Panama Canal Zone, which was outside the 50 states, but not outside the United States insofar as the Canal Zone was officially an unorganized US territory at the time. Even so, this WAS raised against him. (See this NYT article on it http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html ). The case of Romney's father, George Romney was more like what you're talking about—he was born a US citizen, but in Mexico, and it certainly was raised as an issue against him. As Romney faded quickly, the issue was never tested.

So, I think birtherism is stupid, stupid, stupid, but your argument isn't entirely correct. If Obama HAD been born in Kenya, there'd be a case against him—a case I think he would and should win, but a case.

That's a good point, Tim. I guess my thought was simply that even if these people could prove that he wasn't born here that still might not be enough, so why waste so much energy when they can't even prove THAT much?

No, I get you. It's a fair point. One gets the sense that many birthers aren't really after legal technicalities, but a more basic accusation of "foreignness." I think that's terrible, while also acknowledging the awesome weirdness of having a black president with two Arabic-derived names, in 2008 not 2108.* Although I'm not a huge fan of Obama, I think that's an awesome step for this country, and not one I would have predicted.* But some just can't get past that.

Even so, to get into your argument concedes too much ground. The main claim is so absurd… well, some nonsense just needs to be ignored.

---

*I think it was John Stewart who said that the election of Obama messed everything up because, before Obama, black presidents in TV shows and movies were always how we knew the action was happening in the future.**I figured out first black president would be Republican.

OH YE OF LITTLE FAITH!

Did you not know that many, many years ago, a group of dedicated evil radical Muslims decided to invent radical Islam, and hatched a plot. They took a Kenyan baby from a small African village, and transported him to Hawaii so he would look like an American Citizen. Then they secretly swept him to Indonesia for radical doctrine training (this was the same time they were plotting the soviet invasion of Afghanistan, thus leading to Al Qaeda) and then back to Hawaii to finish his "education."

It was very simple plot really. All he had to do was become the first Black President of the United States. They deliberately renamed Osama bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein so that this young black man would have an easier time winning with the name they gave him---Barack Hussein Obama!

And now you know....the rest of the story.

>111 Arctic-Stranger:

Now that you put it that way, it's starting to look doable.

Be careful, you guys. Some fool will come along, read this, and believe it is 100% true!

Isn't Romney from Kolob?

Resident alien.

>107 jasonseidner:: I said I don’t care if he was born in the US. The whole birther thing never interested me, and I thought it was a ridiculous allegation for exactly the reasons you describe. The questionable birth certificate that was finally produced did raise a few suspicions, but even that isn’t much of a concern. Read my post again and check out the link to the clip from author Dinesh D'Souza: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZb134WAErg&feature=related

My point was that he does not exhibit the attitude of someone whose allegiance is American. His actions and even his words tell me he’d like to diminish the USA in a variety of ways....and he’s doing a great job of that so far. Spending us into an outrageous amount of debt, enabling and encouraging our enemies, trampling the Constitution, pandering to the easily exploited (and increasing their numbers to record levels), repeatedly saying one thing and doing the opposite, and his other abuses of power are what have added a new dimension to the term “crooked politician.” As President, he’s failed, unless his intent is really very different than what he promised. My concern is that he's actually succeeding in a nefarious plan, and it'll be much worse when, as he whispered to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, "After my election I have more flexibility." That statement, which he thought was confidential, should be a warning to any patriotic American. Why can't he share his plans with us now?

It's time for Obama to go.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/10/opinion/conspiracy-world.html?smid=pl-share

That aside.

http://allthingsd.com/20121006/jon-stewart-vs-bill-oreilly-live-on-the-web-prett...

I picked up from the other debate that assassins make the most.

~117

I really liked this passage:

"To live and seethe in that world of conspiracy theories means rejecting any form of objective reality. When unemployment numbers make the administration look good, they are obviously “cooked.” When poll numbers put Mr. Obama ahead, they are skewed. Birth certificates are forgeries. Safety-net programs are giveaways to supporters. Health insurance reform is socialism. And campaign donation disclosure is antibusiness."

And why I generally detest Obama these days as the lying scum he is, I am still not quite convinced that he should be joining in the refrain to this song: http://artists.letssingit.com/paul-gilbert-lyrics-i-am-satan-svwzp4v

116>

Let's start with your line, "trampling the Constitution". Would you mind enlightening me a bit about what he's done?

40 years from now, it will be revealing to know the President's sleep pattern leading up to the first debate. Perhaps, he has had a lot of almost sleepless nights hunting the enemy since that embassy attack. He put on a good show telling jokes before going to work on Osama bin Laden.

>116 TrippB:
"Why can't he share his plans with us now?"

Why can't Romney ? Why did Bush carry out his plans but lie about the reason ?

"Spending us into an outrageous amount of debt, enabling and encouraging our enemies, trampling the Constitution, pandering to the easily exploited (and increasing their numbers to record levels), repeatedly saying one thing and doing the opposite, and his other abuses of power are what have added a new dimension to the term “crooked politician.”

Are you referring to Obama or Bush ? Cause if you check out what took place from 2000 to 2008, you will find that most of what is going on now was started then....we were in free fall by the time Obama took office. He may not have fixed it as fast as you would like nor did he necessarly try to accomplish a fix the way you would like to see him do it but to lay the blame on him is rediculous given the amount of evidence as to what has taken place since 2000.

How is it possible to blind one's self to the facts ? In order to "fix" something, one has to look at the truth. You may not like Obama but putting Romney in charge is going back to where the problems started in the first place. Obama may be struggling with a fix but Romney will NOT be an advocate for the middle class no more than Bush/Cheney were.

One obvious reason politicians do not share plans is because in order to accomplish anything a President must create agreements with other branches of government (legislative) and with the bureaucracy (technocrats, experts) and with the vested interests who lobby everyone involved. So no plan is ever created which stays the same from day of announcement to day of implementation. Plus once a plan is announced the entire media establishment and the bloggers begin to rip it apart. Do you wonder anything ever gets done?

Tax code reforms? Really? You think this has a chance? Real debt reduction? Environmental response to climate change?

As far as "trampling the Constitution" goes, it was Bush signing the Patriot Act that almost made me a Libertarian.

~123

Well, I'm glad it didn't push you over the edge. I mean, endorsing liberty as a principal value in the present state of this society is so silly and futile.

>124 lawecon: Yes, well there are still things that I want the government to force down the throats of the people, so I guess that still tips me over to the liberal camp.

I am often tempted by libertarianism. And then I talk to libertarians, and am cured for another year or so.

A-S, must say I agree with you, but I can't say I'm surprised.

Apparently I am not the only one. Ron Paul was able to harness much energy, almost all of it dissipated as steam when people found out what he really wanted.

From Ron Paul's website:

"Some argue that Social Security and Medicare benefits are a right because people pay into these programs their whole lives..."

Yes, what a ridiculous notion! Actually asking that the government try to live up to its promises...what bosh! It's much more important to maintain fiscal responsibility, and you can trust people who are advocating abandoning other responsibilities to do the righ thing.

FWIW I like a lot of Paul's foreign policy statements--that's where any affection on my part for him stops. His son as well. It's what it is. I can say he seems to me to be fairly consistent in his views from one election cycle to the next. That's a + in my book as well.

I'm very much in favor or the social safety network programs. I'm not in favor of government operations like the USPS I work for--being privatized. Not that it matters so much to me personally anymore as I'm retiring at the end of February--but people take (my opinion anyway) a lot of what goes on amongst the 'real' federal workforce for granted.

That there are jobs--that there are standards to be kept as far as safety, pay etc. are good things--that some people might see these good things as not necessary restrictions is IMO the wrong way to look at them.

I have generally been fond of interstate highways and national parks, too.

#131--me too.

I kind of like that my food does not poison me. Now, if only the steroids used for people with back pain did not poison them!

A long article in the Consumer Reports that I read last night about arsenic in rice claims that our food does poison us. The FDA may look into it. Rice producers are claiming that there is no problem. I wonder whether we will be protected.

Robert

~130

I understand your position, but I don't think that you "get" the alternative. I don't think you do because you have never seen the alternative in action. In your experience it is the USPS or people can't communicate in writing over a distance. (Yes, I know about email, but you get the drift.)

That is pretty much the way all these arguments go: I am for "the social welfare net" because people would otherwise starve in the streets. I am for public schools, because otherwise people would be grossly ignorant. (No, I'm not going to take the obvious cheap shot.) Etc.

Yet, somehow, it is never: I am for the monopoly state dairy collective because otherwise we wouldn't have milk and cheese.

Think about it. Why not? What distinguishes education and cheese in terms of the conditions of production and distribution?

What distinguishes the USPS from private - not "privatized" but private industries? (Hint: It isn't scale of production and hasn't been for a long time or we wouldn't have fed ex etc.)

~133

Yah, of course, people were always poisoned by their food before the FDA........ Some might even have had arsenic in their rice.

~134

"A long article in the Consumer Reports that I read last night about arsenic in rice claims that our food does poison us. The FDA may look into it."

Why would they bother doing that? (No, I'm serious. It is very much like the question of why the police would find the actual perpetrator of a crime, rather than just some accused.)

I noticed you are NOT defending compounding pharmacies.

~138

I haven't been hired as defense counsel in any particular case. And unlike some people, I don't think that I have intuitive knowledge of the nature of reality without particulars.

Are you saying that all compounding pharmacies regularly poison people? My goodness, then why is the recent one case national news? Very mysterious.

But I'm sure you know, and since you are an advocate of unconditionally love and forgiveness, I know that you are someone I'd want on the jury if I was hired as defense counsel.

I think I favor public schools because it avoids have whole swaths of the children educated in a single ideology. I do not favor charter schools, or private schools, because I think the electorate should have one common experience, and should be educated as to their roles as citizens in a representative democracy. I do not like the idea of children going to a Moslem school for all 12 years and never having the opportunity to meet and exchange ideas and opinions with atheists, agnostics, Jewish, and/or Christian children not to mention autistic children or children with Down's Syndrom.

I do know what the alternative looks like in at least some cases.

I am a big fan of charter schools. Education is not a one-size-fits-all thing.

I noticed you are NOT defending compounding pharmacies.

Compounding pharmacies have a place. Ac common one is reformulating a drug so it can be more easily taken. For example, drug X is only available in big lumpy pills, but someone has throat cancer.

#135--if you're asking me what I think--progress is what it is and will eventually destroy USPS--unless it can find a way to reinvent itself (not likely) and progress is always inevitable. Those things that can't keep up technologically will sooner or later fall by the wayside. That is historical evolution in a nutshell. Those things you are personally involved with though you have more of an emotional investment in. The faster the world moves forward the more anti-pathetic towards progress at least some individuals will become--but that's all a matter of degree. I think I have more than my fair share of antipathy though. I don't worry so much about the company per se--worry much more about most (not all) of the people who will continue at least for a short time (hopefully more than a short time) to work for it. I tend to wish them the best. That's life--you work with people--you build relationships--though mostly fleeting ones.

Anyway logistically USPS is beyond both UPS, FEDEX etc. Just a larger network capable of reaching practically every address every single day. Both UPS and Fedex use USPS to cover areas that aren't profitable for them. Basically the need for delivery service in the future is moving more towards parcels, packages which is towards UPS, FEDEX. USPS has really become a special needs service. It's for old people who won't buy computers or cell phones and who take up most of the places in their local newspapers (another dying industry) daily obituary section. It's for rural people who need a small Post Office to shoot the shit with their friends in. It's for people who need a cheap way to send books or other people stuffing boxes with food products to relations sitting out their lonely lives in state or federal prisons. And then there's the goofy holiday stuff--little kids sending letters to Santa, the Valentines, Easter, Christmas and Birthday cards. And there's still a ton of people who don't want their checks wired into a banking account--they want it in the mail--don't ask me why. We do send packages out cheaper still and I don't think any of USPS, UPS or FEDEX or any other private delivery company has a heads up on quality of service.

But do non-regulated compound pharmacies have a place?

>119 jasonseidner:: If you haven’t paid attention to Obama’s repeated abuses of the Constitution’s intended limitations of power for the Executive Branch, then this really isn’t the best place to list them all (and I’d rather not type them all out). Just as a start, how about his broad and over-reaching use of presidential directives; his mandates to Executive Branch agencies to pick and choose which laws to enforce when Congress and the majority of the American people reject his pet projects or he has a whim to fulfill; his failed backdoor attempt to use the UN to circumvent the 2nd amendment (www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/10/the-u-n-arms-trade-treaty-are-our-2nd-amendment-rights-part-of-the-deal/); or his his deployment of military forces without Congressional concurrence? In 2007, Senator Barack Obama said, “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” That sure changed after he was elected president (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/mar/23/barack-obama/barack-obamas-libya-intervention-flip-flop-what-he/). There are plenty of other examples that show his apparent attitude that the Constitution does not apply to him, and I can’t figure out whether he continues his abuses because of extreme hubris or ignorance. It can only be one or the other, and I’m leaning toward his hubris.

>121 faceinbook:: “Are you referring to Obama or Bush ?” I’m referring directly to Obama. And I’m getting tired of the incessant blaming of everything on President Bush. Bush has been gone, and very quiet, for nearly four years. No more excuses, please. Regardless, I’m focusing on what has been done since Obama’s been in power. It isn’t a matter of Obama not fixing things fast enough, either. The real issue is that Obama’s demonstrated direction will never lead to improvement. Every indicator shows that America’s condition has gotten worse under Obama, and it will keep getting worse as long as he’s allowed to continue wreaking havoc.

“How is it possible to blind one's self to the facts ?” Exactly!

>122 maggie1944:: Agreed. Still, when Obama makes a direct statement to a foreign representative that his position will be different when he’s no longer facing the consequences of the American voters, I take that as a clear message that he isn’t being forthright with us before the election. I fear what he might accomplish when he’s unleashed in his final term. At least with Bush, even if I didn’t agree, I knew his position before and after his elections. Obama has shown he’s still holding a few cards up his sleeve, and he’s too much of a risk for America.

What's people think about the VP debate?

Myeh. I was bored.

I think Biden kept the ball in the air for his boss. A weak performance would have been construed as a trend. Too many smiles at first, but with split screen it did serve purpose of distracting from Ryan's words.

Ryan's demeanor was pleasant enough, and he competently delivered the Romney line. He couldn't, however, distance himself from his own past actions and statements. This is someone who aspires to be one heartbeat from the presidency. Brr.

> 140 I do not favor charter schools, or private schools, because I think the electorate should have one common experience, and should be educated as to their roles as citizens in a representative democracy.

Maggie, there are charter schools that do this and more, e.g., those sponsored by community colleges and university. My sons attend(ed) high school in a community college. Their classmates were incredibly diverse, including habit-wearing nuns, hijab-wearing Muslims, veterans, a 50-something Polish guy, and many more Africans and African-Americans than ever before. To graduate from HS, all were required to pass a political science course on the US system. Much more flexible for students not well served by the public system, e.g., my youngest, an aspiring engineer, who was not on track to take calculus in his public high school, is now in Gr 12, taking calculus III, in an honor society (Phi Theta Kappa), and showered with brochures from many universities, including elite ones.

As for elementary schools, in a bad area of Detroit, there's a charter school that feels like an oasis of normality in a very scary place. Once an RC parish school, it's still located in that building, in a bankrupt school district that I think has just been taken over by the state. While there might be less need for charter elementary schools where we live (wealthy, highly educated), I don't think there's any doubt that this charter school is a blessing for parents and students in places like Detroit.

>145 TrippB:
"Every indicator shows that America’s condition has gotten worse under Obama, and it will keep getting worse as long as he’s allowed to continue wreaking havoc."

That is blatantly not true !!

LOL Oh my lord ! Every indicator during from 2000 to 2008 showed that we were spending money faster than at any point in history. We were losing jobs. The banks and hedge fund managers were making BIG money while ripping off the average joe. Corporate America was booming and the bulk of our people were heading towards the end of a cliff. If you did not notice....OR you did notice and simply didn't care enough to say anything, you have no right to speak now ! Some of us noticed....some of us knew that we were in deep doo doo.....some of us wondered at the profound misguided perception that allowed G. W. Bush to win a second term. IF the Republican party does not acknowledge that Bush/Cheney changed this country in some harmful ways, they are not going to fix anything, in fact they are going back to Bush policies to try and prove that it will work.

It takes at least twice as long to get out of a hole than to dig one. Obama has not had 16 years to fix a giant mess.

>147 TrippB:
Perhaps you were bored because Biden is a good man.....and he stands for something. Ryan, on the other hand, stands for many things, the details of which he doesn't seem to want to share. Biden has experience, Ryan has a dream that comes straight off the pages of a novel. Could have been boring cause there was no one to point a finger at and blame for all our current woes ?
I don't blame Bush for all of our issues but I do know that the first step to change is acknowledging our mistakes...haven't seen that coming from most of those on the Right. They are blaming !

>145 TrippB: And I’m getting tired of the incessant blaming of everything on President Bush. Bush has been gone, and very quiet, for nearly four years.

No no no, you've got it all wrong! Bush is only responsible for everything bad that started while he was President, but not for good things.

For example:
Start of recession: Bush must take the blame.
Start of attempt to get Bin Laden: Bush doesn't get to take the credit. The credit goes to Obama.

There is a certain "principle" at work here, which the casual observer can infer without too much difficulty.

On the issue of Obama and the constitution, a piece by George Will from a couple of days ago on recess appointments.

145>

Perhaps you're a lawyer and this is your area of expertise but to say "trampling" the Constitution is just a blatant attempt by you to insult/belittle/disparage/scorn, etc.

Many US Presidents have "violated" the Constitution over the years in many different ways, with names like FDR, Lincoln, George W Bush and LBJ topping the list. Your little claim that Obama is "trampling" it implies that he's giving it a blatant disregard that's never been seen in US history. Interesting. So odd to see someone from the GOP suggesting the act of a democrat is leading us down a path that's going to take away our freedom/ruin our country, etc.

So let's try this: can you name a president in US history who DIDN'T violated the Constitution--never once? Unless you're going to say William Henry Harrison (who only served a month, and hardly that) I think you'll find it hard-pressed to do so.

>153 jasonseidner: One could make the case that this is how the Constitution was intended to work. That it's guidelines were meant to be constantly tested and re-tested against new circumstances: laws are passed, then challenged, acts are made, then evaluated and either upheld or reversed.

Take one example which leaves Republicans in a state of agitation: recess appointments. Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama have all made recess appointments, Reagan coming out on top with 240 over 8 years. So it seems Obama's appointments are a continuation of an Executive Branch tradition (N.B. I thought conservatives respected tradition), and are not part of a Constitution busting, Manchurian candidate's plot. Obsession precludes comparative analysis though.

It IS ok to not like Obama without demonizing him. Well for some same people at least.

>155 theoria:
Read the George Will link in 152.

~145

"If you haven’t paid attention to Obama’s repeated abuses of the Constitution’s intended limitations of power for the Executive Branch, then this really isn’t the best place to list them all (and I’d rather not type them all out). Just as a start, how about his broad and over-reaching use of presidential directives; his mandates to Executive Branch agencies to pick and choose which laws to enforce when Congress and the majority of the American people reject his pet projects or he has a whim to fulfill; his failed backdoor attempt to use the UN to circumvent the 2nd amendment (www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/10/the-u-n-arms-trade-treaty-are-our-2nd-amendment-rights-part-of-the-deal/); or his his deployment of military forces without Congressional concurrence?"

Just out of curiosity, where have you been since WWII?

>150 faceinbook:: OK. I shouldn’t have said “every” indicator. But let’s look at a few.

Jobs: There are a lot of statistics, so I’ll go with a source many people consider relatively neutral. CNN fact-checkers report there has been a net increase of just 300,000 nonfarm jobs under Obama. That doesn’t even cover the number of workers trying to enter the job market. Worse, if you count government jobs, there are 400,000 fewer people working today than when he took office.

Income and the public dole: Under his presidency, the middle 20% of households have experienced a 4% drop in income, and the poor have done even worse. The number of people on food stamps is up 43%. Welfare is at an all-time high. Meanwhile, the rich have gotten richer at a rate faster than under Bush.

National debt: $10.6 trillion in January 2009. Now it’s $16 trillion. If Bush was driving us off a cliff, Obama’s strapped us to a rocket heading straight down (ironic, since he’s pretty much wiped out NASA). Under his socialist plans it will only get worse.

Foreign relations: Despite his apology tour and drastic increase in foreign aid, many experts are saying that our Middle East relations have gotten much worse.

“Perhaps you were bored because Biden is a good man.....”
Now that is funny. I was bored because I had every expectation that Biden would eventually come off his leash and spew a few ridiculous Bidenisms. I love those, but he was surprisingly controlled. My compliments to his trainers. Still, what was up with those bizarre grins and inappropriate laughter? His laughter during the discussion of the terrorist murders of Americans in Libya was particularly offensive. I also don’t think a “good man” could be so comfortably condescending and rude. Rather than actually participating in a civil debate, he chose to constantly interrupt Ryan, who was the perfect image of patient, intelligent, leadership. I have no doubt who I’d rather have one heartbeat away from the presidency.

>153 jasonseidner: “Many US Presidents have "violated" the Constitution over the years in many different ways, with names like FDR, Lincoln, George W Bush and LBJ topping the list.”

When my son was in pre-kindergarten, he and another boy were caught throwing rocks at cars next to the playground. When I talked with him about his unacceptable actions, he said, “But the other boy did it first.” I had to explain to him that someone else doing it first doesn’t make it right for him to do it, too. He was only four years old, but he managed to grasp the concept. I’m surprised so many people have trouble with that one.

I'll stand by the trample description for Obama's record. I don’t think any president since FDR has so blatantly disregarded the Constitution. But don’t worry, if President Romney does it, I’ll call him out, too. Despite any appearances to the contrary, I'm not a Republican and have no allegience to the GOP. I just want responsible leadership, strong defense, a government that isn't controlling everything I do, and less distribution of my meager income to welfare recipients--be they individual, corporate, or foreign. It's clear that Obama doesn't want any of those things.

~160

So, what can we expect you to do when Romney is elected and joins the pack of rock throwers? Come on, be specific. (I rather suspect that we can expect you to apply for a position with the new administration, but, hey, that's just my real world cynicism coming to the fore.)

If Romney throws rocks, I'll complain on LT's Pro & Con, of course...and at least 17 people will read it!
(sorry Tim!)

160--

You're right--everyone doing it doesn't make it right; however, when you say he"s "trampled" the Constitution you"re suggesting that (in comparison to his predecessors) he has done something unbelievably bad or remarkably different.

To then admit that EVERY President has done this at one time or another means you're just spinning it--you're merely using the words to infer exactly what you want people to believe. it's like calling someone who swats a fly a "murderer": while it technically may be correct it"s obviously ridiculous.

My take on your categories:

Jobs, income and the public dole: There's simply no question but that the recovery has not been very strong—being both slow and halting—as measured against previous recoveries. Efforts to spin this from the Obama administration are not convincing, and indeed damage his credibility.

Far more credible has been the (logically incompatible) explanation that this crisis is uniquely bad—both qualitatively worse and, as a financial disaster, qualitatively—different. The worse the crisis the more Obama's C+ starts to look like an A-. Unfortunately, it's hard to gauge just how low a curve Obama's economic record is to be graded on. One possible measure would be the projections of his own economic team early on in the crisis—about how the stimulus would prevent unemployment from reaching eight percent, and by Q3 2012 (ie., now), would be at 5.5%. This projection proved completely and utterly false. Now, it's clear the administration didn't itself grasp how bad things would get—fair enough. But these estimates were also part of the mix when the administration spent all its political capital to ram Obamacare through Congress, rather than focusing on the main problem, the greatest recession since Roosevelt. I'm inclined to give Obama a lot of slack for an economy which was terrible, but I blame Obama for not realizing the extent of the problem, and for the resulting lack of focus.

As for the public dole and so forth, they're just consequences of the recession, and the basic structure of the American economy—that the middle class is being pulled apart by the increasing importance of highly-skilled, educated workers. In the long term the answer is not class warfare or calls for "more manufacturing," but policies that improve education, information infrastructure, etc. Obama has not lead there, but I don't see a Romney administration of doing so either. I stand with Tim O'Reilly that any foreigner who graduates from an American university with a BS should find a green card stapled to their diploma. I don't see that happening.

National debt: A terrible shame. It might be worth it if it got out of the hole, but it didn't. Keynesianism may work, but it can't become a permanent policy. With the US economy still in bad shape, we can neither cut spending nor raise taxes anytime soon. Meanwhile, Obama failed to lead on the long-term problem—entitlements. Needless to say, nobody else is leading there either. Ultimately, we're going to need a rate shock before we get serious about our debt. That may not happen for years or even decades. I hope that, when it does, this generation loses all its retirement savings and can't pay for its meds. That's what we deserve for our selfishness in creating enormous debts and passing them onto our children.

Foreign relations: My main concern is Iran, and I'm not confident of my assessment there. I certainly worry that Obama's "red line" with Iran—an actual weapon—is nonsense. The path to getting a weapon has various choke points, and the end of the process is one of the worst points to draw the line. At the same time, the administration seems to have coordinated fairly effective sabotage and sanction measures, slowing their progress and raising the cost for Iran. The recent collapse of their currency is particularly encouraging. Lastly, while I question some of the administration's policies, they are at least not incompetent. The last administration was. I suspect Romney would be competent, but it's a major point in Obama's favor.

Well said, although I can’t give Obama an A-. I have no faith in Keynesianism, and his incessant pandering to the “vulnerables” in our society takes away a few points. I have no confidence that he has America’s or our poor’s best interests in mind, and his actions tell me he wants to keep our poor completely dependent on his party’s bogus benevolence. When you look at his experience with real poverty in Indonesia and Kenya, there’s no question that America’s poor, with their very comfortable government housing, cable TV, “Obamaphones,” and other luxuries, have little in common with true poverty. It seems as though he’s using them only to ensure the necessay percentage of votes. No surprise from a politician. They remain in their place while too many of his bailouts have resulted in his friends/donors/mystery recipients receiving huge amounts of federal funds. The man strikes me as a very capable manipulator and blatant hypocrite.

Iran is undoubtedly the main concern at the moment. In my estimation, there's no way yet of knowing what will happen. Cyber attacks only go so far. However, I don't think Israel will hold off on self-preservation, and we'll likely be deeply involved whether the action is proactive or reactive. That will set off a chain of events that I'd rather not think about too much.

shrug the implimentation of the costitutution Changes until the Mr Bush Jrs time. The president had no control over state militia,which where controled by their state and acted to defend their state ( most often from natural disasters). Things changed under Mr Bush as the Republicans passed laws to centralise control of the military. and increase central control by big government and reducing states rights and powers. Allowing The president to order the Militias into Afghanistan as easily as he could the regular army. This was To my mind a bigger change to the constitution than anything Mr Obama has done. It is clearly something that the framers of the constitution would have objected to If the Constitution has been trampled on at any point in the recent past it was then. but no the Constitution was designed to change and adapt and it does change and adapt.

Interesting: according to Bulls, Bears and the Ballot Box, written by Lew Goldfarb and Bob Deitrick, Democratic administrations outperformed Republican in 11 of 12 economic indicators, including Average Annual Stock Market Return, Percentage of Months in Recession, Average Annualized Change in Personal Disposable Income Per Capita, and Average Annual Trade Balance.

The only category in which Republicans did better was Average Annual Employment Rate. (OTOH, another calculation states that "Democratic administrations have a better record for full employment than do Republicans. Democratic administrations had an 18% correlation with low unemployment compared to Republican administrations for the administrations since Franklin Roosevelt's. Clinton has the best record, followed by Kennedy/Johnson, Reagan and Carter." http://arts.bev.net/roperldavid/politics/busleadersrep.htm)

Since the Great Depression, Presidents ranked in economic performance, first to last : JFK/LBJ, FDR, Clinton, Eisenhower, Truman, Reagan, HW Bush, Carter, Nixon/Ford, GW Bush, Hoover. Obama would be somewhere near the middle but was not included because his term was incomplete.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/08/10/democratic-presi...

I find myself thinking that this very slow recovery, and not very healthy economy, may have something to do with global conditions where no longer do the so called "first world" nations have the luxury of consuming a disproportionate share of raw materials and manufacturing a disproportionate quantity of consumer goods. There are a great many new actors on the field, and the so called playing field may be in the process of being leveled.

>164 timspalding: Lastly, while I question some of the administration's policies, they are at least not incompetent.

OH MY FUCKING GOD!!!!

>169 Carnophile:: remarkable vocabulary, and such a erudite contribution to the discussion. )-:

>164 timspalding: while I question some of the administration's policies, they are at least not incompetent.

What the fucking fuck!?!?!?!?!?! What have you been smoking, drinking, injecting, eating? Whatever it is, it’s pure voodoo.

Actually, never mind, I see your point. The foreign policy situation has obviously impro...

Er, the economy is plainly being handled compete....

Er, at least he has been a uniter and not a divi...

Er, at least he managed to increase his party’s popularity and increase their presence in the national legis...

Er, at least he has been objective and neutral in enforcing the la...

Er, at least he argued persuasively for his signature agenda item, making it a popular...

Er, at least he has held to his oath of office regarding upholding the Consti...

Er, at least he kept all his promises regarding, e.g., closing Guatan...

Er, at least the national energy situation has impro...

Er, at least he was consistent with his own condemnation of starting wars in countries that haven’t attacked us...

Er, at least he didn’t invade Libya without Congressional authori...

Er, at least he is as good at public speaking as his supporters always claimed...

Er, at least his administration has been ethi...

Er, At least he managed to choose a VP who avoids putting his foot in his mou...

Er, At least he has been consistent with his condemnation of the growth of the debt under the previous adminis...

Er...

Obama hasn’t gotten a budget passed in three years, leaving the federal government without a budget. The last two years, every Senator from his own party voted against his budget proposal.

End of discussion on competence.

What the fucking fuck

I was specifically referring to foreign policy. But the point is general.

You seem to be unable to distinguish between competence and other measures of a policy. Competence is the implementation of a policy. If the policy was bad, it may still go wrong.

For example, you write:

"at least he didn’t invade Libya without Congressional authori(zation)." What aspect of this is about competence? As a practical matter, he didn't need the authorization. And the intervention worked. Gaddafi was driven out. No Americans died.

"at least he has held to his oath of office regarding upholding the Consti(tution)." What aspect of this is about competence? This is policy. Put bluntly, a dictator could be competent.

I don't think competence is everything. I disagree or have serious doubts about much of Obama's policy. But I have to admit he's not Bush. Bush's policies were generally more to my liking, but he screwed up everything he touched. He was a bad manager. He picked bad people (eg., Brownie). He was undisciplined. He was incurious. He was a complete fuck-up.

Obama is not a fuck-up. He may not be the greatest manager in history, but he's no Bush. I can't make up my mind about Romney. I think he has the smarts and discipline Bush doesn't have, but I hope he doesn't run the country with the ineptness he's run his campaign!

>173 timspalding:
This is ridiculous, ridiculous post, to the point of being intellectually clownish. But I'm still so agog that I can't respond in any thorough way; I will simply note that you said this:

Lastly, while I question some of the administration's policies, they are at least not incompetent. The last administration was. I suspect Romney would be competent, but it's a major point in Obama's favor.

Frankly, I think you're being disingenuous when you say you think Obama is implementing bad policies competently... let alone that you find that to be a point in his favor. Given that people are implementing bad policies, we don't want them doing so competently. We want them doing so as ham-handedly and ineffectively as possible.

Bush was freaking brilliant compared to Obama. Stop getting your perception of the world from NPR and the NYT. Seriously, branch out a bit.

Bah. I should have just stuck to post 172 and exited the discussion. 172 is the terminal punctuation mark on any discussion of the Obama administration's competence. There really just isn't anything more to say.

~169

">164 timspalding: Lastly, while I question some of the administration's policies, they are at least not incompetent.

OH MY FUCKING GOD!!!!"

Yah, despite my utter disgust with The Republican Line this time around, that is just too much. You can say a lot of things about Obama, but if measuring his performance against his promises is the topic, he is totally incompetent. (Or a lying scumbag.)

Maybe I missed something, but I don't recall one campaign promise about universal medical care. I do recall numerous campaign promises about ending futile wars, restoring basic American liberties, taking a tougher stand on liberty issues worldwide and "fixing" immigration. The only performance in any of those categories has been negative. "Incompetent" is the nicest possible interpretation.

Frankly, I think you're being disingenuous when you say you think Obama is implementing bad policies competently... let alone that you find that to be a point in his favor. Given that people are implementing bad policies, we don't want them doing so competently. We want them doing so as ham-handedly and ineffectively as possible.

There's some truth to this, but it also partakes of a certain sort of partisan manichaeanism. The president—all presidents—do many things which involve governing, not merely pushing this or that left- or right-wing policy. Responding to Katrina well was not a partisan question, but simply one of competence. Running the occupation of Iraq was mostly about governing too—picking good people, monitoring progress, allocating resources, etc. In both cases Bush failed utterly.

On the question of the economy, is it your contention that, because he's a Democrat, we should root for Obama's economic policies to fail? Is the point of electing people to help the country, or to make sure your guys and your ideas as triumphant, irrespective of the results?

Again, there's some truth. Should we root for Obamacare to succeed? I think not, because, even if it succeeds in the short term, I think it can only lead to grief in the long-term, both economic and as regards freedom. Thus I made the point particularly in respect to foreign policy—the part of the president's job that involves talent and judgment the most. I fear that Obama may make the wrong choices in foreign policy, but, in a crisis transcending politics, I trust him to handle the matter competently. That is not how Bush handled them.

Bush was freaking brilliant compared to Obama

We are all entitled to our opinions. But I don't think even most Republicans would agree with you there—that is, if they distinguish between intelligence and ideology. You will note that the most common attacks on Obama refer to his intentions, ideology and so forth, not his intelligence per se.

Bush was freaking brilliant compared to Obama. Stop getting your perception of the world from NPR and the NYT. Seriously, branch out a bit.

You should learn to make arguments, not attacks.

This is ridiculous, ridiculous post, to the point of being intellectually clownish

High praise.

but if measuring his performance against his promises is the topic, he is totally incompetent

That's not how I measure it. Promises are campaign tools. It is entirely appropriate to ask whether a candidate delivers on his promises, but it's not the measure of competence.

I'm defining competence narrowly—do you understand issues? do you pick good people? do you listen well to your staff? do you manage the office well? etc. On that score, Obama seems competent to me. Bush does not. Similarly, while I have somewhat similar feelings about the policies of Carter and Obama, I see a distinction—Carter was a terrible manager; he micromanaged. In the famous example, Carter became involved in question of time at the White House squash courts. Obama seems to be a better executive than that.

Let's imagine it in reverse--that 9/11 happened under Obama and then Bush came in and killed bin Laden 2 years into his first term. Who would be incompetent THEN?

Some individuals here sound like religious zealots: once they're convinced the earth is 6000 years old no amount of evidence--not even an 80 million year old fossil--will ever change their mind. They hate President Obama and that's that.

Laugh if you want--you know who you are.

>174 Carnophile:

I'm still so agog that I can't respond

Reminds me of a conversation with my grandmother many years ago when the subject turned to sex.

Let's imagine it in reverse--that 9/11 happened under Obama and then Bush came in and killed bin Laden 2 years into his first term. Who would be incompetent THEN?

Right. The spin would be very different. The incompetence of Obama and the competence of Bush would be self-evident to many. Anyone who thought otherwise would be a "clown."

I also feel confident that nobody on the right would be whining about the president not getting congressional approval for air campaign against Libya if the president were Republican. Back when Bush, Sr. invaded and occupied Panama, it was the Democrats whining about Congressional approval. Grenada, Lebanon, Panama, Somalia, Haiti, Kosovo…. it's always the party out of power that claims the President failed to seek Congressional approval. There may be a correct constitutional interpretation, but let's not pretend the politics here aren't the main thing.

I know Carnophile will call me an intellectual clown for this, but I think there's something to be said for positions that aren't all 100% in one direction. I distrust someone who thinks Obama and his administration is everything bad and nothing good, just as I distrusted those who thought Reagan was an unmixed evil. Such perfect alignments are rare in reality, but common in opinions. In my experience opinions of this nature tend to be the product of ideologies so strong—so clownishly exaggerated—that they determine everything.

For what it's worth, I'm not inclined to give Bush that much blame for 9/11, and I think the jury's out on how much credit Obama deserves for Bin Laden. But I think we can blame Bush for the many failures of the Iraq War. As for Iran, the jury's still out. If Israel ends up attacking on its own, I think we can declare Obama's efforts a failure, with bonus points or demerits on how he handles that turn of events. If Iran gets the bomb, we can declare it a disaster.

Bush was freaking brilliant compared to Obama.

Well said. If only Romney and Ryan would say that!!! It would be a perfect attack for them. After all we all know how well Bush performed. The honors he received at the convention showed us how his own party reveres him.

I like to think Carnophile is using "brilliant" in the British sense. The American sense, relating specifically to intelligence, is not easy to justify.

Tim--

But in spite of 9/11 Bush got re-elected and some say Obama doesn't deserve a second term in spite of getting bin Laden. It's amazing how backward some can be when their ideology (the cart) is in front of all evidence (the horse).

That's one reason I respect you Tim: your ideologies don't steer your position. I don't agree with every position you take, but at least I know that you're open minded enough to weigh all the available evidence.

>183 jasonseidner:

Thanks. But, again, I don't think Bush deserves most of the blame of 9/11. (Clinton deserves much of it, and the president does not control everything that happens out there!) And I don't think Obama's second term should be determined by his killing of Bin Laden. It's not clear how instrumental he was in it, and Bin Laden's heartbeat is not the only metric by which to judge a President. Remember that Saddam Hussein looked like he might never be caught too—he hid for nine months. Bush got him. But his capture didn't null the many things Bush screwed up.

"Frankly, I think you're being disingenuous when you say you think Obama is implementing bad policies competently... let alone that you find that to be a point in his favor. Given that people are implementing bad policies, we don't want them doing so competently. We want them doing so as ham-handedly and ineffectively as possible."

The president is head of the executive. It is the job of the executive to administer. If you truly want an ineffective administrator as President. Then you have little understanding of the duties of an american Citizen.

It is to congress you should look primarily to set policy. that is their job.

Have to say my main complaint with Obama is the promises ignored. To a certain extent that is par for the course with any major office holder and the more major the more par for the course. It's almost a good enough reason to vote for someone who is not going to win. That probably sounds cynical. Even so I think there was good reason to believe back in those heady days leading up to the '08 elections wherein he was going to break down all these racial barriers that he would also shut down Guantanamo--more or less put the kick in the ass to people like Cheney and his legal enablers. Didn't happen. To the Obama administration Iraq is done but that is a matter of perspective--Afghanistan got ratcheted up and I think at least a few people who voted for him are thinking WTF!--meanwhile it's as if people like Carnophile here thought the whole shebang--at least the G.W. Bush part was a big success story.

I have to say that whatever shred of faith I have in this political process of ours has pretty much evaporated. The idea that a Romney administration would be some kind of corrective though is what I find to be ridiculous. In fact it's horseshit. Our main problems IMO our internal not external. Both parties seem intent on block the others initiatives no matter what--but sometimes I think that's better.

Tim, I echo 183. I don't always agree with you but I do respect you.

Especially in the morning.

Ditto, of course. I save my disrespect for the crazy obnoxious, who are a small group indeed.

Does everyone here agree that both political parties have fallen into the trap of opposing their opposite party, no matter what the issue, no matter what the proposed legislation? I am thinking I've only heard of Republicans who sign a pledge that promises to block all tax increase issues, no matter what, no matter when, no matter what for.....

And as far as I know it has only been Republicans who have declared that their one and only priority is to replace the current President, again no matter why.

Again, Maggie, I've said many times on various posts here that that"s predominantly a product of both cable TV and the Internet. Go back 25 years ago and you didn't"t have this 24/7 hate that we have today. Sure, the parties always opposed each other (and often tried to block each other"s progress) but hate didn't grow with every passing minute. Today hate is a PRODUCT--it"s the one thing people rally around that unifies them. And seeing that hate repeated around the clock magnifies it even more.

And while I"ll admit there's always been disdain for the other side, that disdain used to fade after the elections were over. Not anymore. If anything, that hate for whoever wins will go up almost immediately after this election is over, once again fueling the fire of stagnation that we currently live within.

Media fragmentation is one cause, but polarization is a much deeper trend. See The Big Sort for how it's playing out across other parts of American life.

I'm not saying the media is the cause, I'm saying that it fuels the momentum. When people can sit around 24/7 reading/writing/conversing about how much they all hate the same thing, well, it only makes their position seem all the more unified.

Right. Media fragmentation leads to homophily. Homophily leads to a spiral of confirmation and groupthink leading to extremism.

I feel like I've seen this for a long time. Growing up in Cambridge, MA, socially-confirmed political extremism, coupled with extreme hostility to the other side, was the norm, not the exception.(1) I've recalled it before, but when it was announced at my school that Reagan was shot, people cheered. That sort of thing was pretty unusual in 1981. It's become increasingly common.

Note, I'm not picking on leftists. Indeed, it's my feeling that nastiest polarization of the last decade or so has been on the right, not the left.

---

1. But even there it's gotten worse. Republicans—and we're talking Cambridge Republicans, who often support same sex-marriage, etc.—are down to 6% of the electorate.

BTW, I was old enough when John F. Kennedy was shot to remember there were people, early on, who cheered and were happy. When he was alive he was not the hero or icon he came to be after his assassination.

Thanks for the referral to The Big Sort. I'll take a look at it.

Yah, I remember that as well. All of which, I think, proves that HATE and ideological intransigence are nothing new. Strangely, all that is new is that they have become a profitable business model, as more of the population becomes stupider and less susceptible to logic and facts. OUR public schools have worked.

>175 Carnophile:
"Bush was freaking brilliant compared to Obama. "

OH MY LORD!! (since capitalization seems to be the new norm) If I were a swearing person, I would drop the "F" bomb. However, it does explain a few things. It seems that there are some people who fail to see the difference between bluster & bravado, and intelligence & class. This is a problem.

Yept. Always thought that Lenin was a very intelligent and classy guy. Oh, wait, I bet that isn't what you meant........

"Bush was freaking brilliant compared to Obama. "

That just shows how appearances can be deceiving. As it turned out, Obama was brilliant compared to Bush.

BTW, #172 is a pretty cheap shot, now isn't it Carny? The Republicans in Congress have stymied every move he's made for the last two years.

BushCo was the textbook example of incompetent.

197 I can understand why you prefer idiots.

>197 lawecon:
It isn't lack of intellegence that determines whether one is "good" or "bad"...it is how one uses that intellegence. Bush wasn't all that smart but the people behind him were. If Bush had been smarter, they could not have accomplished what they did.
Romney isn't stupid either......how he uses his smarts is another story.

Electoral politics has always been rough-and-tumble; sitting presidents have been accused of treason and selling their souls (and the country) to Hell. (Martin van Buren.)

But for many Americans, the Federal government was a vague, distant power until the mid-20th Century. It's difficult to sustain anger and hate towards a group that has little impact on your life.

~199

Careful, Arctic, one might start taking performance as an indicator of intelligence.

Whether one is a "successful" President has been an interesting issue for historians. Lyndon Baines Johnson had a long list of "successes" and yet declined to stand for re-election again due, in part, to the Viet Nam war. I am not sure intelligence and success in the office are necessary partners. Truman was considered in his time to have been a failure, and yet many historians consider him to be one of the greats. Of course, looking over the whole crop perhaps it does not take a great deal to be one of the greats.

A little perspective can be helpful in keeping the temperature of the discussion a little cooler, and perhaps even dispassionate.

Update after the second debate: I retract my earlier post in which I said I didn’t dislike Obama. I can’t take any more from him. In tonight’s debate, Obama claimed, with either feigned anger or desperate dramatics, that he immediately described the Libyan attacks as terrorism. What a crock. Obama was referring to 9/11 when he referred to “terrorism” after the Libyan attack, and he tried for two weeks to blame the murder of our people in Libya on a bogus youtube video excuse. In Obama’s own words, the terrorist murders of our ambassador and three other Americans were dismissed as a mere “bump in the road.” Barack has spent his entire term trying to claim there is no such thing as Islamic terrorism, which could be attributed to a strategy to reach out to our enemies, but even that clearly has no credibility with the terrorists. They very obviously don’t respect him, either. Even now, Obama is content to let Hillary Clinton take all the blame for our failure to protect an American consulate. What a pathetic leader, and I’m amazed Hillary hasn’t said enough is enough and publically slammed him yet.

He also actually tried tonight to spin Fast and Furious, the executive branch operation in which American guns were delivered to known Mexican criminals who then used them to murder an untold number of Mexican citizens as well as American law enforcement agents. By letting others take the blame (his usual method), he might have had a leg to stand on if he hadn’t enacted executive privilege to help his attorney general withhold Fast & Furious documents demanded by Congress. We still don’t know the truth, and, if Obama has his way, we never will.

Obama had nothing to show me his vision will lead to a better future, and his past is a demonstrated failure. Enough. No more excuses. No more Obama. I’m more than ready to give anyone else a chance as president.

Romney's bumbling aggression didn't play as well tonight as it did during the first debate ("Binders full of women"?). The President exchanged his swiss army knife for a bayonet. Edge to the POTUS.

Second debate thread?
http://www.librarything.com/topic/143578

TrippB May I suggest you read The war of the flea. although it predates 9/11 by decades. it will give you valuable insight into the objectives and means of terrorists and the governments that oppose them. It will I think throw new light on your understanding of the War on Terror as it is currently being fought.

>204 TrippB:
"that he immediately described the Libyan attacks as terrorism." That is not what he said ! He said claimed that he called it "an act of terror". Which it was.....I find it interesting now that we are dividing "acts of terror" from "terrorism". All the same no matter who does it for what ever reason.

Fast and Furious was an off shoot of an action started during the Bush administration.

Thanks, faceinbook. That is what I heard, and thought, too.

Why are people flagging lawecon. I think his post is right on target. I told my wife last night before the debate the Republicans would claim Romney won and the Democrats would say Obama won. The two parties inhabit two different worlds. Obama didn't address the facts of the Republican world and Romney didn't address the facts of Obama's world. What we as Americans must do here is discern which world comes closest to representing the real world. I've got my money on Obama's world.

BTW, who gives a fuck whether Obama called Benghazi a specific act of terror (same as terrorism, sort of, what with terrorism being a philosophy or ideology, and the attack on the consulate in Benghazi being an act, a manifestation of the philosophy or ideology, or, an act of terror)? In what world is rushing to judgment before the facts are known a good idea? Oh, yeah, in the Republican world (see Iraq, Origins of War). However I don't really believe the war in Iraq was the result of a rush to judgment. I connect the two because the IAEA was on the verge of telling the world definitively that Iraq had no WMD. Had to get the war started before they could make that announcement. Who was it said BushCo was more competent than Obama?

Because he's attacking two other members' minds. "You two are wrong" is different from "You too have empty heads."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/04/fast-and-furious-bush-administration_n_...

It is pretty convienient to blame the Obama administration for every damn thing they've done but in reality, this one was in the beginning stages during the Bush administration. Since we American's refuse to deal with our gun laws, we leave the border police little choice but to try and track the never ending supply of weapons flowing across the Mexican boarder....no laws are in place to help them. Is it a shame that the guns were used to shoot an American, definately but it makes no difference where the heck the gun came from....the police were trying to establish a pattern, those American's who sell the guns are only making money. The gun in question could just as easily come from the second source as from the first.

Guys, there's a thread started for the 2nd debate and this one is getting quite long...

~211

"Why are people flagging lawecon."

Because I irritate most of the people posting to these threads by being uncompromising in telling them the truth. They don't like mirrors. It makes them feel like what they are..........

~212

What utter hypocritical tripe.

Face blurts out one of her usual intuitively based "observations." Maggie says she agrees with her. I point out that it is unsurprising that these two reach similar conclusions. This is, in Tim's world, saying that they have empty heads. Of course, if that is what he also concluded about face's original comment, then it is understandable that he would reach that conclusion ........ (thought so). Could everyone please flag Post # 212 due to its implications? Waiting. Waiting. Waiting...............

>217 lawecon:

"I point out that it is unsurprising that these two reach similar conclusions."

I would argue that there is nothing wrong with pointing out that we both came to the same conclusion and the reason you feel differently, however it was your inference as to what you feel about us personally that drew the flags.
I would agree with you. You did not say that anybody had an empty head. You did however infer that two of us were bird brains. Most often this stuff flies, not sure why it didn't this time but you really had no point to your post other than that. Perhaps that is why ?

218> My inner pedant bids me mention that you have confused "infer" with "imply".

>219 SimonW11:

Probably.....which seriously sheds more light on the fact that Lawecon may be a tiny bit correct in his opinion. However, some opinions are best kept under wraps.
Corrections, on the other hand, if taken in the right way, can be a learning experience. Especially if one isn't inclined to get their feather's ruffled.

There is no excuse.

This is, in Tim's world, saying that they have empty heads

Can you explain what "Minds of a feather" means? Were you comparing them to, say, birds? Alluding to quills? No really, what does it mean?

Face blurts out one of her usual intuitively based "observations." Maggie says she agrees with her. I point out that it is unsurprising that these two reach similar conclusions. This is, in Tim's world, saying that they have empty heads.

LibraryThing allows you to say "Your post is stupid." It does not allow you to say "You are stupid." Is it unclear why "Minds of a feather" seems to many as about the people?

"This is, in Tim's world, saying that they have empty heads"

Can you explain what "Minds of a feather" means? Were you comparing them to, say, birds? Alluding to quills? No really, what does it mean?

=================================================

It is a reference to the well known saying "birds of a feather flock together." But here we are are talking about minds, not birds. What could you have imagined it meant? I would say something additional about your obvious and oft displayed biases, but it would then just draw another raft of red flags.

But as I said, if in your perspective that face's post evidences an empty head, and that Maggie's comment of agreement evidences a similar perspective, well, perhaps you should then also be red flagged. You are reading what you want into my short comment, and what you are reading is very uncomplimentary to face and Maggie. What is sauce for the goose..... (Look it up since you seem to have a problem with recognizing old sayings.)

Honestly, Tim, if you have any interest in having serious and civil discussions in these forums, you are going about it in completely the wrong way. You are encouraging the barren tools you have created to be grossly misused - both excessively used in some cases and not used at all in other cases of blatant abuses.

How is a person who holds a stupid opinion not a stupid person, at least with regard to said opinion? When the stupid takes over the entire person, which for many in this country seems to be the case, how does that not mean the people who hold those opinions are stupid? It's hard sometimes to separate the opinion from the person. That's just a form of political correctness and whitewash.

Possibly, but if we're trying to have a civil conversation, then it follows that everyone should try to not gratuitously insult those they're talking with.

The poster in question likes to troll around and provoke for the sake of provocation, with a loose regard for accuracy. If anyone else had made the comment, it might be excused as a sloppy attempt at humor. Experience has taught us that the poster does not aim for levity.

>224 geneg:
Would guess that unless one knows everything about an individual, it is inappropriate to call them stupid. Especially on this type of format. Not everyone can write clearly what it is they would actually say if they were talking face to face. One may be stupid about economy but very intellegent when it comes to gardening....or they may not be able to see things full circle but are great at getting from point A to point B.
Stupid is not a good title to slap on someone simply because they don't, to your way of thinking, sound like they know much about what they are saying. Again, this format should be especially forgiving as we can not read body language or hear the intonation of a voice.
Would say that many people are stupid about a lot of things but there really aren't that many stupid people. Lazy is a different matter all together.....people often appear to be stupid because they are lazy...thinking requires work...there are a lot of lazy people !

Oh, I have no doubt stupid people can be highly intelligent. I see it all the time. You confuse stupid with dumb. Dumb people aren't very smart. Stupid people continue to do the same thing through failure after failure without ever once looking at their results and asking themselves if what they are doing is not working. BushCo was stupid. How can you explain declines in the standard of living for most Americans through the Reagan years, GWBush, and BushCo? It's the ideas that they cling to while evidence continues to build that the ideas are detrimental to America. Doubling down on failure is stupid.

~225

So, if I understand your point, Ridgeway, you have formed a dislike of me. So any time I express any negative opinion you flag the post.

Tim, can one flag posters for inappropriate flagging? Do you monitor such behavior (when you aren't engaging in it yourself)?

I haven't flagged you. I skip your posts because the posts are boring and usually just make fun of people. I don't dislike you. I don't know you. I dislike your tendency to disregard the accuracy of the facts you present. I don't have time to fact check everything you say, so I don't bother.

I suspect that most of us who follow these threads read some comments with great interest, and skip the ones that don't advance the subject at hand. Jobs, families, books to read, etc...

227> What an eccentric definition of the word 'stupid'.

While I am displaying my pedantry. could I also point out to whomever it is in this forum that renders brouhaha as brew ha ha. That this too grates on my sensibilities. Brouhaha is a perfectly respectable word. Why not use it?

It's hard sometimes to separate the opinion from the person.

Yes, it is, but this principle is a common one used, for example, by many parliaments and other meetings around the world. You can say Senator X's proposal is stupid. You cannot call Senator X an idiot.

The same principle applies in many online venues. At Wikipedia, for example, the rule is:

"Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other contributors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks."

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks . Much the same policy is in effect at MetaFilter ( http://faq.metafilter.com/ sv. "Why was my MetaFilter comment deleted?") and many other sites.

Yes, it can be a distinction without a difference. But it has some effect in keeping people to talking about ideas not people. And unlike a more general standard of "don't attack others," which might be thought to apply to strong opinions in general, it is easier to spot when people go over.

Definition of AD HOMINEM
1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.

Here, definition 2 is the one used. It's almost impossible (in any discussion involving human interactions, e.g politics, sex, religion, etc.) to avoid appeals to emotion.

It IS possible to avoid attacking or impugning a poster's character.

"Character" is too small, though LibraryThing does not allow you to say "So-and-so has fine character, they're just a retard."

#230--actually I think #227 is an excellent post. The one caveat I have with it (since he brought up the G.W. Bush administration) is about seemingly stupid stuff that IMO was actually deliberately malicious to gain certain ends but on just on its face could be construed as stupid--they didn't care if then or even later on they would look like oafs as long as they got what they wanted. To use another example our free trade deals the past 20 years or so which has led to the erosion of our manufacturing/industrial base and the outsourcing of countless well paying jobs--all the facts argue that these deals don't work for the general populace yet they do work for the well to do--especially the super rich. The same tired arguments come up every single time one of these deals are in the works--the same crap that it's good for American business and American workers--and for the life of me I can't believe any of these politicians that continue time after time to support them actually believe the shit they're spewing but they are usually handsomely rewarded for their lying and posturing. That however has been the history of politics and politicians since almost forever.

But don't you see? When one does malicious things that have detrimental impacts on our country, while they may have required a lot of brain power to design, the fact that it is harmful, intentionally so in some cases, makes the thing stupid.

BTW, thank you for your support in understanding my idea of stupid.

>231 SimonW11:
I grate on your sensibilities ! Reading my posts must be like chalk down a blackboard.....I can't spell worth a damn, don't use punctuation properly (probably one of the reasons I can read a novel that is written without thought to punctuation and/or paragraphs and such) and I use the wrong word sometimes. Hm-m-m-m, sorry about that. Had the same problem in school way back when, now it is worse, since I am that much older.
I don't notice these things as a rule, as long as I get the gist of what is being said. Will make note to self : Brouhaha. Although somewhow "brew" and "ha ha' doesn't seem so far fetched.

Why do I suddenly want a beer? And why is there no TurboDog in the fridge? I blame you, faceinbook.

>238 RidgewayGirl:
I didn't finish off the TurboDog...have to trust me on this !

~238

Personal attack, personal attack !! Let's get out those red flags people !!

This is a particularly inopportune time to be responding all the way back to Facinbook’s post #208, but I’ve been busy, or distracted, or one or the other. Fast and Furious was initially a very legitimate criminal investigation that had great potential to track criminals linked to Mexican drug trafficking organizations. Somewhere along the way (after January 2009, I’m guessing), it appears to have become politicized, which led to our Secretary of State parading in front of a long stack of weapons in Mexico and droning on about guns from the USA.

The premise that drug cartels depend on US guns for their reign of murder and dominance of all things Mexican is absurd to anyone remotely familiar with their capabilities, but such an allegation by government representatives could conceivably be spun as a convenient expedient for gun control....not that such fraudulent manipulation would be used by any honest president, or attorney general, or a supreme court justice, even if they all happened to have a documented history of wanting to keep law-abiding citizens from possessing the ability to defend themselves.

Now, please go back to flagging and TurboDog, which also reminds me I have no TurboDog in my fridge, either, and that is not a good thing. I do have a few ShockTops, if anyone’s interested.

In my book Too Big to Know by David Weinberger, posts like (210, 240) fall under juvenile baiting.

Reading my posts must be like chalk down a blackboard..... chalk fingernails? how about seeing papercut someone else's eye, women say stepping on a stonefish is worse than childbirth pain…

>240 lawecon:
"Personal attack, personal attack !! Let's get out those red flags people !!"

Ah, that explains a lot......

Considering my own poor grammar, spelling and pure carelessness, I know it must be amazing to discover I have any lexical sensibility.

#241--funny that's not what I got out of Sylvia Longmire's book Cartel and she's been active in enforcement on that issue for a long time. She specifically writes in her book how the cartels procure weapons in the United States often (but not always) very legally but with the aim of manipulating the laws of this state or that--many of which are red states with some proximity to the border.

>245 lriley:
Watched a documentry on guns in the U.S. Can not recall what it was called but it was pointed out that one of the difficulties was the amount of guns that are allowed to be purchased at one time. I don't think that there is a limit. If I remember correctly this issue was addressed by lawmakers and they did not do anything about it.

#246--states have a lot of control over gun laws.

>247 lriley:
I know....Wisconsin just passed the conceal carry law, along with the castle domain thing.

#248--yeah you guys can bring firearms onto the state assembly floor or up in the viewing sections but you can't bring camcorders or any other device that might record what's going on.