President Obama made repeated promises during the campaign about more transparency in government, including specifying that health care debates would be televised on C-Span. But now the Senate wants to have the final discussion behind closed doors, and for the sake of expediency, Obama is not opposing that. Of course, if he DID oppose it, then that opposition alone would probably result in weeks of arguments with Nancy Pelosi et al, which Obama might or might not win, and either way it guarantees that he won’t have a bill to sign by the State of the Union. So Obama renegs on the campaign promise and a field day ensues. Not only is he hearing it from the Usual Suspects, but even his most stalwart defenders are hard-pressed to find an upside to such a blatant disregard for his repeatedly given word.
Basically Obama has just gone all-in on this particular hand. If the result of this gambit is a health care reform bill that improves the life of American people overall, then this is going to be a blip on the radar and nothing more. If someone’s child can receive proper medical care without the family facing bankruptcy in 2011, they won’t give care a crap that C-Span was shut out in 2010. It puts Obama in a position of being able to say during his reelection run, “I regret that I had to go back on my promise, but the result was needed health care reform.” But if this thing falls apart and Obama has nothing to show for it, then this becomes his “Read my lips: No new taxes,” the oft-repeated broken pledge that helped to sink George H.W. Bush’s bid for a second term.
PAD
• 
Sigh. What is a liberal to do? I had such high hopes, but I guess soon the country will once again be under Republican rule. I hold little hope for Democrats this year and Obama.
As an independant I couldnt bring myself to vote for McCain, he didnt seem to understand the America of the 21st century and his grasp of economics was horrible (as evidence of him using former Senator Gramm in his campaign, you know the guy who deregulated the banks so he and his wife could make a fortune in Enron stock and Swiss Banking).
Sorry, but I digress. I want to support the President, but I think I will be staying home from voting for the next several years.
“…I think I will be staying home from voting for the next several years.”
.
Exactly what the Republican party wants…for people to stay home and not vote. Their constant nattering is designed to make people weary of it all so they don’t vote, all while knowing that the Religious Reich will vote en masse for any and all Republican candidates over Democratic candidates.
I can understand your reasoning, but vote anyway. Voting, if nothing else, gives you the right to complain about it.
Saint Dharma
.
I was beginning to think that Obama was trying to become a one termer some time ago. Every time he does anything it seems to break off another fraction of his supporters because it’s not the “hope and change” they were promised. His supporters have been growing less and less enchanted with him with every passing month and, frankly, he deserves some of the disenchantment they’re feeling.
If the result of this gambit is a health care reform bill that improves the life of American people overall, then this is going to be a blip on the radar and nothing more. If someone’s child can receive proper medical care without the family facing bankruptcy in 2011, they won’t give care a crap that C-Span was shut out in 2010.
I think this scenario is more likely than the outraged screams from the dying right wing would have us believe.
My impression of the bill was that most of the big changes are supposed to take place in 3 or 4 years. So is it likely that people will see enough good, if any is to be seen, in time?
.
Conversely, if people believe that the bill, once passed, is a game changer, anything bad that happens will be blamed on it. I know it’s naive to think that everything will be fixed overnight but it’s amazing how many people really bought into the fantasy that a new president would make every sorry aspect of their life magically right itself.
.
Nothing Obama can do about that. Where I think he is making huge mistakes is in the easily preventable areas. He should fire some people over the eunichbomber fiasco. Saying “the buck stops here” is just Washington speak for “nobody is going to be held responsible”. Fire Gibbs and find a spokesman who doesn’t come across as an arrogant ášš. Lead congress, don’t let them lead you–they have a popularity so low it would be a step up if they switched with Ðìçk Cheney’s. Don’t shoot yourself in the foot with poorly thought out forays into racial politics. Take a good hard look at some of the advisers you have surrounded yourself with. It’s an old cliche that if you are getting criticism from both the right and the left you must be doing something right. It’s a dumb cliche. Odds are, you are just doing something so egregiously wrong that even the partisans are in agreement over the wrongness of it.
.
But it’s waaayyyy too early to be talking one term or two. A lot depends on who the republicans run. Nobody is ever so unpopular that they can’t win against a bad opponent. Of course, if things really get bad he might just do what I would do on day 1 of my administration–declare that I will not waste one second of time running for re-election. I mean, does it look like he’s having fun? He’s visibly aged in just 1 year.
.
The irony is that Obama may need what Bill Clinton got–a republican victory in the midterm, followed by Republican overreach. Wish i could say that I thought The Republicans had learned from their failures but I have no such confidence. Yeah, I think they could do a better job than the current group but you can count me as one of the people that thinks the same could be said of a random lottery or a monkey with a dartboard.
.
(my own feeling is that it’s unlikely he will be lucky enough to get that outcome–instead he may get the worst one possible–big Republican gains but not enough for them to take control (and thus the lion’s share of the blame). A congress that will be very hard to get things through. A public humbling. An angrier base than he already has (and they are one angry bunch).
.
Yet, for all that, I’d still bet a small amount of money that he will win re-election.
Although, I have to wonder if maybe the President wants a Republican majority Congress, so he’d 1) have the perfect foils (and scapegoats), and 2) remind the American people why they kicked Republicans out of Congress in the first place, because, I don’t know if you realize this or not, but we Americans have really short attention spans and even shorter memories.
What did you expect? There was no way he was going to allow us rubes access to our government like that. No statist would.
.
Not quite true, Darin. While I have been and still may be lees than thrilled with Obama, the simple truth is that he has made good on getting bills up online to be read before they’re voted on. Most people just don’t bother to look.
.
This will cost him though because (even amongst the people complaining who would never have bothered tuning in to C-Span) the fact that it was TV makes it a bigger deal than the promise he kept.
I’m not certain what reality you have been observing. The “simple truth” is that Obama has not posted a single bill online as he stated he would. The Democrats had a portion from the stimulus bill online, but for not nearly long enough for anyone to digest the material (less than 24 hours, for example) and in pdf format, of course… which prevents anyone from doing word searches and really analyzing what little they did put out. The Dems don’t even let Republicans read the bills on the floor of the House and Senate. There’s no transparency going on here, make no mistake.
.
Darin, part of the reason that there has been no completed health care bill posted online for so long was because there was no finalized health care bill for quite some time. But despite that they still had much of the bills-in-progress such as H.R. 3200 online as far back as July. I know because I looked them up whenever some mouth breathing idiot made claims about things like death panels.
.
And that “which prevents anyone from doing word searches” bit… I use PDF articles a lot. You can do word searches on them easy.
.
Darin: “The Dems don’t even let Republicans read the bills on the floor of the House and Senate.”
.
Really? You mean the Democrats don’t let the Republicans slowly read page after page after page of bills to filibuster the process? Shocking.
.
Things haven’t been 100% for a number of reasons, but you’re distorting the scale of it more than just a wee little bit, Darin.
.
Of course he will be a one-term president…he has failed at preventing terrorist attacks during his term, something that Rudy Giuliani reminded us this week didn’t happen during Bush the Lesser’s time in office.
Hee hee hee.
The Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and shoe bomber Richard Reid both all occurred during Bush the Lesser’s time in office. Number of deaths due to terrorist attacks on U.S. soil during the Bush administration: 2,819. Number of deaths on U.S. soil during the Obama administration: 0.
Oh, and next time be sure to use your sarcasm emoticon!
Number of deaths on U.S. soil during the Obama administration: 0.
.
Which is just killing the funeral home business, so to speak. No wonder it seems so crowded lately.
But, but, but I was using economy in my writing. The “due to terrorist attacks” was implied! Tee hee.
.
Well, it’s not really true that there have been zero deaths… It’s just that the dead are… refusing to stop walking!
Explains the people I work with.
That is, of course, if you don’t count Scott Roeder and James von Brunn as terrorists.
I think it’s far too early to write Obama and his administration off. What I think will be far more important than health care — changed or not — will be what happens in the economy during 2010. If there are a lot more jobs created and unemployment drops or vanishes, he’ll be loved by all (except Fox News). If the economy is stagnant or worse, people will be asking — rightly so — what we got for all the billions in spending that were added to the defecit.
It’s simple. All Obama’s promises come with expiration dates. But like candy, they’re in a secret code that almost no one can understand.
As far as the “posting all bills online for five days before signing,” that one was history almost from day one. The first bill he signed — the Lilly Ledbetter Equal-Pay Law — was only two days after it left Congress, and never posted online.
There’s quite a list of significant laws that weren’t posted for five days before being signed.
Promises, promises…
J.
Doesn’t matter what Obama does or doesn’t do, because you will always be against it. “Just say no!”
Well, Alan, the guy does make it so, so easy, being so wrong about so many things…
.
But I do approve of his “blow up terrorists with missiles from drones” policy. That’s a good one I can cheer for with a good conscience.
.
J.
“But I do approve of his “blow up terrorists with missiles from drones” policy. That’s a good one I can cheer for with a good conscience.”
.
Yeah, because you don’t care about the innocents who get killed in the process.
Are you calling the president a war criminal?
Alan has crossed clearly into troll category, hasn’t he?
“Alan has crossed clearly into troll category, hasn’t he?”
.
Nope, just tired of trying to speak rationally to the radical extremists on the right. Those radical extremists on the right are jihadists in their own special little way.
Nope, just tired of trying to speak rationally to the radical extremists on the right. Those radical extremists on the right are jihadists in their own special little way.
.
Yes, a very special little way that doesn’t involve killing people or actually fighting a holy war. I mean, really, that was as stupid as the people who compare Republicans to Nazis… I just fed the troll, didn’t I?
People vote their pocketbooks, not the nebulous promise of “transparent government”. This will be long forgotten.
I think he may still be a one-termer, though. The commercial real estate bubble hasn’t popped yet. Once it does, there will be another round of bank problems, more bailouts, fewer jobs, etc. We’ll take another hit. Obama will take the brunt of it for not “connecting the economic dots”.
Hey Jerry, you seem to have missed the point up there. Obama and his Dems have not shared their bills with the American people with the kind of transparency they claimed during his campaign. The pdf file they posted was essentially a “picture of a page” and were NOT able to be word searched. Furthermore, that was the stimulus bill, not one of the six different health care bills that were floating around in the House. And the whole reason the Republicans wanted to read the bill on the floor was so that people could find out what’s in it… since nobody wants to take a look at the monstrosity. Obama and the Dems don’t defend the thing, they simply silence serious opposition or calls for debate, regardless where it comes from… whether it’s Republicans, fellow Dems or just plain ol’ rube citizens like you and me.
.
No, didn’t miss anything. I said up top that they haven’t been 100% on a lot of things and that they haven’t been living up to all of their promises. But from having looked up numerous bills online to fact check things said in the media since Obama took office I can safely say that you are greatly exaggerating. A number of bills have been put up for “plain ol’ rube citizens” to read. Many just haven’t bothered.
.
You’re also shooting some of your complaints in the foot. They put some stuff out, but it just wasn’t in a format that you approved of so it counts in your “no transparency” column. The Republicans, rather than wanting to stall the process, wanted to read the bill on the floor so that people would know what was in it since “nobody wants to take a look at the monstrosity.” But they would of course sit around with their TV or radio on for the entire reading of the bill. Oooookay.
.
No, they’re not living up to the hype and they are breaking and bending a lot of promises, but the level of transparency by the administration isn’t quite as bad as you make it out to be.
I think you don’t like that I used the term “statist” to describe Obama.
And please enlighten me: Which bills have the Democrats put up for all to read? It certainly wasn’t the two biggest ones so far, the ones that will have the most impact on the most Americans.
Yeah, their level of transparency (or rather, their opaqueness) isn’t as bad as I’ve made out, it’s actually a lot worse. You’ve got way too many closed-door meetings and too many Congressmen being shut out of their own committee meetings to call any of this “transparent.”
.
I could care less what you call him.
.
As for your question…
.
Obama signed the economic stimulus bill into law four days after it was posted online.
.
Obama signed the DTV Delay Act six days after posting it online for public comment.
.
The White House posted the text of the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act for comment on its blog on March 27, the day after the Senate passed its version of the bill. The House approved it the next week.
.
President Barack Obama signed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act of 2009 on May 22, two days after the bill was finalized in Congress.
.
They made the legislation available for public comment on the extension for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program as it was being hammered out since they said they would likely sign it quickly.
.
The various versions of the health care bill were online as they were being worked on.
.
And, yeah, they’ve posted several bills only after they were signed into law. So, no, they haven’t made the five day window on all of them and they have also failed to post a few, but your take on events reads like someone who believes that Rush and Hannity just tell you the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the unvarnished truth.
.
i.e. Somewhat exaggerated.
I think you don’t like that I used the term “statist” to describe Obama.
.
‘Statist’? Did you guys wear out ‘socialist’ that quickly that you had to go and replace it with some other buzzworld already?
.
Not being familiar with it, I looked it up. Yep, it’s associated with both fascism and communism. That explains a lot as to why you’re using it, Darin.
I still say “SOCIALIST”! 🙂
Joe V.
So, Jerry, as long as Obama partially keeps his promises, that’s OK with you? ALL bills posted before being signed becomes “some,” “Guantanamo closed within one year” becomes “within four years,” “unemployment will stay below 8% with the stimulus” becomes “around 10% with the stimulus,” and the like?
.
I’m not disappointed because I knew he was BSing all through the campaign. Can Obama voters say the same?
.
As far as the “killed innocents” bit, it’s a principle enshrined in the Geneva Conventions: combatants have an obligation to keep away from non-combatants. If they don’t and civilians are killed, the blame does NOT fall on those who pulled the trigger, but those who placed themselves in proximity with the innocent.
.
To do otherwise is to grant license to the bad guys to take hostages all they like.
.
J.
The reason Guantanamo hasn’t closed within a year is because other politicians have thrown up ridiculous roadblocks to closing it. If a politician does everything he can to fulfill a promise and someone else messed it up, then that’s all he can do. As it is, it’ll happen in much less than four years. They’ve selected a prison to move the prisoners to. Some politicians are objected to even that, talking about how scared the people who live learn it are, which of course has nothing to do with reality since the town specifically *asked* to house the prisoners.
.
Obama hasn’t been perfect on his promises, but no President is. If you want detailed info on how well he’s done, factcheck.org keeps a running tally on how he’s lived up to his promises. If you just want to slam him and pretend that a Republican would have been better, then you can listen to the comic stylings of Rudy “There were no terrorist attacks under Bush” Giuliani.
.
You want to know something, Jay? I was just going to ignore you like I’m about to start ignoring Darin because, well, you’re a fûçkìņg moron. But I decided that I would at least tell you why you’re a fûçkìņg moron before I ignore you.
.
I never said that what Obama was doing was ok with me or that I was happy with it. I’ve stated in this thread that I’ve been less than thrilled with Obama’s performance and that he deserved a lot of the criticisms he’s gotten and the growing feeling of disenchantment that he’s getting from his supporters. I’ve stated on this blog and my own as far back as the run up to the election that Obama’s hype wouldn’t live up to the expectation and that he was in some ways an empty suit. I’ve also expressed my less than enthusiastic feelings about some of the things he’s done.
.
The only thing I said here about Darin’s point was that Darin’s statements about Obama not putting bills up online was greatly exaggerated. Oh, I also pointed out that while Obama has gotten some bills up in the five day window he has only gotten some up with two or three days to review them and that he flat out failed to get some up at all until after they were signed. So, yeah, I agreed that he has failed to keep the promise. I just pointed out that the level of transparency up until now has not been as lacking as Darin likes to make it out to be.
.
But you, reading things through your partisan tinted glasses as you love to do, read what you wanted to see here and not what I’ve actually said. Why don’t you and Darin spend some quality time arguing with Alan Coil. The three of you deserve each other.
Obama seems to be yet another politician who is luckier in his enemies than he is in his friends.
.
As for where all this ends up, well, who is the republican who will dethrone him? Palin? Huckabee? Please. There better be some dámņ good dark horse out there.
.
Bill Mulligan: “Obama seems to be yet another politician who is luckier in his enemies than he is in his friends.”
.
I don’t know that he’s lucky with his either his friends or his enemies at this point. Somehow the man brings out the worst in both. I mean, I used to run into a few people that would aggravate me in political discussions, but since Obama took the presidency…
.
During Bush’s stay in office I could say on this blog, other blogs and out here in the surreal world that Bush or his crew were doing some dumb stuff, but criticism “A” was off the mark because of fill-in-the-blank and I would only extremely rarely run into some far left nutjob who would translate that into me being pro-Bush or being just all ok with whatever it was that was going on. I could even point out when criticisms off Palin or McCain were off base without getting garbage like that. But with Obama…WTF?
.
I am constantly running into idiots who translate the statement that a criticism of Obama is off base or exaggerated as being just fine with whatever Obama is doing and supporting him in a way that I never ran into with Bush. I swear, there’s a small army of idiots out there who seem to think that if you aren’t declaring that he’s broken every promise he’s made, a communist Muslim and not a natural born citizen than you’re a far left loon who just loves Obama.
.
I think the only crowd worse than that are the Obama supporters who want to turn any criticism of Obama’s policies or actions into you having a problem with Obama because of his skin color. A lot more of them out there than I would have thought a year ago.
.
The effects of the supposed “Bush Derangement Syndrome” that the Left was said to suffer from seems to have nothing on the effect that Obama has on some his critics and some of his supporters. I’d really like to smack the crap out of a lot of people on both sides lately.
.
Bill Mulligan: “As for where all this ends up, well, who is the republican who will dethrone him? Palin? Huckabee? Please. There better be some dámņ good dark horse out there.”
.
Like I said last year; I think the Republican who takes on Obama successfully is going to be someone we don’t see on the big stage right now. He or she is likely going to have to be someone who makes a splash on the national stage in 2011 or 2012, has a lot of charisma and can focus their message a hëll of a lot better than the currant crop of Republican front runners.
.
Honestly, I think most of the currant frontrunners have too much baggage or they’re simply not as popular with the moderates and the middle as the hard right part of the party think they are. It’s going to have to be a moderate Republican who can electrify the base and the undecided crowd and not simply someone who runs against Obama as not being Obama. Didn’t work for Dole against Clinton or Kerry against Bush. Won’t work against Obama in 2012 either.
I think the Republican who takes on Obama successfully is going to be someone we don’t see on the big stage right now.
.
Which is scary, because it could just as easily mean that they end up throwing another Palin at us.
.
And let’s face it, Obama made his mark during the ’06 Presidential election with his speech at the DNC. There’s no such platform between now and the 2012 election for an unknown Republican to present themselves.
.
It’s going to have to be a moderate Republican who can electrify the base and the undecided crowd
.
Except, the GOP isn’t interested in a moderate. They’re wanting to get rid of the moderates in the party.
I don’t know that he’s lucky with his either his friends or his enemies at this point. Somehow the man brings out the worst in both. I mean, I used to run into a few people that would aggravate me in political discussions, but since Obama took the presidency…
.
Well, that’s what I meant. He’s unlucky with his friends–the adulation and almost scary hero worship stuff was bound to lead to disappointment and, as you pointed out, the ones who scream racist at any criticism are just killing him. People will NOT be bullied into supporting a politician.
.
But he is benefiting–as did Bush–from those who are trying to make it to personal and trying to turn disagreement with a politician into some kind of huge conspiracy to overthrow American society.
.
How much trouble is Obama in? Hard to say. If the Republican wins ted Kennedy’s seat or even comes close, yikes. By any rational count, the Democrat should win there by double digits. (and despite some internet excitement to the contrary, I expect her to do just that.)
Obama seems to be running afoul of the military tradition that the battle plan is the first casualty of contact with the enemy.
I think it’s way too early to say. If he can pull off his big goals by early 2012 (health care, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, and don’t forget about ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’) while improving the economy, people shouldn’t fuss about the details. His problem then would be reinvigorating that base that got him elected but may now be feeling what happens when hope meets reality. You Just KNOW the republicans will show up this time no matter what happens. Still, I’d rather have someone who falls a little short of lofty goals than someone who offers nothing from the start.
Well, he could end “don’t ask don’t tell” with the stroke of a pen. He could close gunatanamo with a phone call. He isn’t doing either because the “timing isn’t right.” I have some sympathy for him with the gunatanamo issue, I mean you have to send these bášŧárdš somewhere and nobody wants them. If they escape or get released and go back to killing americans you will catch holy hëll.
.
But Don’t Ask Don’t Tell??? If you believe in giving civil rights to people who are willing to serve their country, at great risk to themselves you know when the “right time” is? It’s already happened! Every day that rule is on the book is another day Obama should hang his head in shame. He doesn’t even have the excuse of Bush or Clinton in foolishly believing it’s a good rule. No excuses. people will criticize you for it? Boo freaking hoo.
Actually he can’t end Don’t Ask Don’t Tell with a stroke of a pen. It’s a law, not an executive policy. Congress would have to repeal it.
Thank you David, I never realized how convoluted this whole thing is. As I know think I understand it, we have Section 654, Title 10, P.L. 103-160, which the congress passed and codified the ban on gays in the military and we have the Clinton executive order which is the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell part. So it seems to me that the president could just as easily unexecutive order it but that would still leave the law on the book.
.
Still, even if it’s ultimately a losing battle, it’s one worth trying. Obama needs to lead. Depending on the pinheads in Congress to do anything is a fool’s game.
PAD,
Yes, I am afraid Obama is going to be ‘hoist on his own petard’ because he HAS such a large majority in the Congress. Since the Dems have such a large amount of power, and they are afraid it won’t last, they are enjoying flexing their muscles, and seeing how much they can get, or at least, get away with, while they can. With the health care bill, there were so many deals, delays and dilutions in there, that it is apparent that no one was really serious in getting any real reform in. It is just a way to pay off and gain influence in the health care and insurance industry. It is really no surprise that they don’t want to publicize this last batch of negotiations. They really don’t want to expose all the buyoffs and paybacks that will be in there.
I know I am pretty cynical. Or, am I just to realistic… 😉
Yes, I am afraid Obama is going to be ‘hoist on his own petard’ because he HAS such a large majority in the Congress.
.
And yet, Congress hasn’t been the rubber-stamp that the Right screamed that a filibuster-proof Senate would be.
.
Congress, both houses and both parties, was far more complacent under Bush after 9/11 than anything we’ve seen right now. Patriot Act, anyone?
Hi Craig,
But, the petard that is going to get him isn’t that the congress is a ‘rubber stamp.’ It is that they have decided that they don’t really need Obama. Pelosi and company are so busy adding in everything that they want, that Obama really has no effective control on them. I actually think that he is smart enough to know what he can, and should, do, but that the congress critters are out for everything they can get!
I believe Obama has actually said he’s willing to be a one term President if it means doing what is necessary to pass health reform. It doesn’t really work out that way since getting it passed increases his chances, if for no other reason than people like a winner. But anyway, he’s know all along that this was the big, risky fight.
.
I don’t think health reform failing would guarantee a loss, though. It’s three years to the next Presidential election. Clinton lost on health care reform (against many of the same people) and people made a big deal of it at the time, but then Clinton won re-election in a landslide.
.
Plus, I don’t think “This debate will be on C-Span” will have even 1/1000th the emotional impact of “Read my lips, no new taxes.” One is about a network nobody actually watches and the other is about something that people dread so much that they equate its inevitability to death.
“If the result of this gambit is a health care reform bill that improves the life of American people overall, then this is going to be a blip on the radar and nothing more. If someone’s child can receive proper medical care without the family facing bankruptcy in 2011, they won’t give care a crap that C-Span was shut out in 2010.”
Except that many of the reforms won’t kick in until after the 2012 presidential election, and that’s the danger for Democrats this year and two years hence. People are still going to be facing bankruptcy, pre-existing conditions, and recission for several years.
It’s entirely possible that all this thud and blunder could be for nothing, that Republicans could take the White House and Congress in 2012 and repeal the health reform bill before it even takes effect. The Democrats are playing a dangerous game.
The parts about pre-existing conditions kicks in immediately.
.
It doesn’t really matter, though. If Obama can get up on stage and talk about what’s going to happen because the law has already passed, that’s really the same thing as it already having gone into affect. He and other politicians can tell stories about people who have been hurt by these things before, but won’t be again. For the large majority of voters whose lives won’t significantly change either way, they’re going to be hearing stories about other people whether it’s in effect already or not.
.
What really matters, not just in 2012 but in 2010, is the things that *won’t* happen. There will be no death panels, there will be no mandatory abortions. Nobody is going to admit that they believed in those things and were proven wrong, but won’t have the fear of them anymore and their enthusiasm will dip. Some of the people who are screaming right now that they’re determined to go to the polls on election day will be demoralized enough to not bother voting. Elections are largely about enthusiasm, and seeing something become boring reality instead of a terrifying hypothetical saps enthusiasm.
Jason,
But, the problem for the Dems is that, in effect, nothing HAS happened, but ANYTHING could STILL happen! That is the danger in passing laws that don’t take effect until you are ‘dead and gone’ on the government stage…
What do you mean by “ANYTHING could STILL happen!” Do you mean that the bill could change before they sign it? Sure, but that’s true of any legislation. We can only talk about the bill as it stands now. As it is now it’s imperfect, but it still improves the status quo and doesn’t do the ridiculous things that opponents are making up.
PAD
I couldn’t agree with you more about your analysis, but what choice did he have? The Republicans’ goal is to simply NOT have a bill, period. What could they possibly add to the debate at this point?
And don’t tell me Obama hasn’t been patient and trying to woo Republicans to his side. Remember all the hubbub with the committee led by Sen. Baucus, where Baucus hunkered down with a select group of Republicans to iron things out? One of those was Grassley from Iowa, who up to that point was considered at least reasonable on health care issues. But Grassley then goes home, and what does he say? Obama is trying to kill you grandma.
Republicans don’t want a BETTER bill, they want NO bill. If Democrats can find the spine to drive THAT point home, then Obama will be forgiven for some procedural chess moves.
PAD
I am a huge fan of yours going back to your Incredible Hulk days but I feel that you are wrong here. The facts are that Obama is trying to fulfill his pledge to the Late Senator Kennedy and the liberals on the left for healthcare. Also, we as americans are by nature a fickle group. It happend in the 1990’s under Bill Clinton. He had all three branched of government and in 1994, the GOP took over with “Cotract with America” and Bill Clinton seemed to find his footing. I believe that in 2010 that is going to happen again with the Democrats having four senators retiring. I think the GOP will get control of the Senate with maybe a 50-49 split and the tie with goto Joe Biden or maybe it will be a little less. The House is a different animal all together and I see the Republicans getting a huge boost in the rural areas and possible taking a majority there. Now fastforward to 2012 and the only two people that I see even making a challange to Obama is maybe Newt Gingrinch (for all of his BS I still think he is a smart man and as a southern democrat I could vote for him but only if the wheels come off the Obama train) and of good ole Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney. So of those three I can only see Gingrich giving Obama a run for his money espically in the midwest in Ohio and Michigan. The south will to GOP and the North East will vote for a Democrat. The west coast will vote Democrat and just like in 2008 I beleive it will come down to some of the western states and watch the mid terms closely and it might help shed some light on the future. By the way, I graduated with a B.S. in politcal science. LOL yes I can BS my way out of anything! 🙂 One question when is the next New Frontier novel coming out??LOL
Bill,
“As for where all this ends up, well, who is the republican who will dethrone him? Palin? Huckabee? Please. There better be some dámņ good dark horse out there.”
Bill,
For one thing, who says it will Republican who dethrones him? If Obama becomes radioactive – popularity wise – do you really think Hillary Clinton won’t take a shot? She did come very close, razor-thin last time and Obama will no longer be a blank slate.
And really. To dismiss ANYONE three years out is a little silly, but especially two high-profile governors, especially one who has a TV show and won a large share of delegates in 2008 and another who has sold over three million books and continues to draw crowds.
Huckabee has a base but I’m not one of them. I think he’d be slaughtered by almost any Democrat though, so I’m not too worried about him being president. Nothing personal, I just don’t think he did such a great job as governor and the clemency issue will hurt him. He’s more socially conservative than I am and not particularly good at making a strong case for it, in my opinion.
.
Palin needs to spend the next 6 years reading books and thinking about what she wants to do as president. I think she was treated abominably but that doesn’t make her fit for the presidency. Yeah, she may be no more of a nitwit than Biden is but that’s a low hurdle. What she does have is a rock star quality that other candidates would kill for. If she can build on that she could be formidable. But if Obama continues to have bad years like the last one (and realistically he can’t keep dropping that far in the polls because there is a bottom) and if the economy continues to underperform–if we get a double dip recession, God forbid–if things continue to suck, it will be time for a candidate who emphasizes one thing–competence. Not charisma, not let’s take a gamble on an unknown, not “look at me, I’m something new!”. Pure, boring competence. If I were even thinking about running I’d be looking for my cabinet right now. And I’d make dámņ sure they weren’t the same guys who got us in this mess (and it would be nice if they also paid their taxes. Just for the novelty of it).
.
But if the Republican party thinks Obama will just role over or try to run against Bush again they have a much lower opinion of his intelligence than I do. And given how dumb it is for the GOP to be calling for Reid to resign when the BEST thing that could happen to them would be for that dope to stay right where he is up to the day he loses re-election, well, I don’t know what they’re thinking. They already scared off Dodd, which was a huge mistake. They ignored Brown in Massachusetts until a few days ago–he will almost certainly not win but any money sent there would be far wiser than the millions wasted on people like Specter and Chafee. None of this inspires confidence. My opinion of our political class is pretty low right now.
.
No matter how bad things get for Obama I don’t see any real chance of a fight for renomination. The ones in the arty who are angriest are the far left and there is no way they could possibly engineer an overthrow (though I’m sure the possibility of Dennis Kucenich losing to pretty much anyone by an embarrassing margin brings a smile to your face!)
.
If Hillary takes on Obama it will be a bloodfest and the result is an overwhelming Republican victory. Even Huackabee would win. Carter was able to trounce Kennedy when he tried something like that and I think the same would happen to Hillary.
.
“If Hillary takes on Obama it will be a bloodfest and the result is an overwhelming Republican victory.”
I have to respectfully disagree with you there. The nomination process got very ugly in 2008 and I really don’t think that it hurt Obama in the final election. Even if I thought that Hillary had no morals (and I don’t) coming at him after being his secretary of state wouldn’t play well, and wouldn’t help her chances. I think that she is smart enough to know that.
I also doubt that Palin will have any chance of running (effectively) after working at Fox News. How on earth she would bring in any moderates or independents after that?
Well, I’m making some pretty broad assumptions–if Hillary tried to knock Obama off the ticket it could only be because he was in so much trouble already, as carter was when Kennedy tried it. And while it would probably ultimately fail, there would be at least some of her supporters who would be bitter enough to take it out on him. It would not be the same thing as what happened last time, a hard fought battle for the nomination where both sides can emerge with some dignity and still work together.
.
And while the battle seemed ugly at the time, in retrospect a lot of the controversy was pretty clearly made up. Geraldine Ferraro says that Obama is helped by being black and some of his supporters freaked out over how awful a thing to say that was. Harry Reid says he can win because he has light skin and only talks with a “negro dialect” when he wants to and it’s just “Oh that Harry!”
.
My biggest question about 2012m besides who the Republicans nominate: does Obama dump Biden?
I think that it is *extremely* unlikely for Obama to dump Biden. The only example of dumping a VP from American history that I can think of is Spiro Agnew resigning. Biden would have to do something *really* psycho for that to be on the plate.
Well, Ford dumped Rockefeller when he ran for reelection. But yeah, it would look pretty bad, unless Biden had health issues or some other cover story.
As much as I do complain (and rightly so) about the liberal leaning media, I do have to admit even they are noting Pres. Obama’s breaking his promise to be open and transparent, particularly on this major legislation.
.
But one thing to note (and someone else may have – I haven’t read every comment yet): The new health care system wouldn’t start during his first term. So discontent about the actual system would most likely not hit during this term, or at least not as fully as if the system were in place.
.
One little noted fact of the current health bill is that it heavily penalizes the married poor. Their costs will dramatically go up compared to say two individuals living together. So much for it helping those who need it most.
.
Iowa Jim
Again with that tired old trope about the “liberal media”.
I’m not sure the delay will help the plan–people will assume that the plan is in place even though it isn’t and so any complaints about health care will now be seen as Obama’s fault. And i will be very very unsurprised if there was a sudden jump in prices across the board, in anticipation of the eventual implementation. That would also be blamed on the plan, perhaps legitimately so.
.
Plus, I have no doubts that as we are able to leisurely go through this huge bill bit by bit we will find all manner of things that are worth complaining about. Right now it is unpopular–I don’t see how passing it will instantly make it less so. But we will see; I can’t imagine they would let it die now, though there may well be more senators/congressmen who will take the opportunity to demand more monetary concessions for their support.
That will almost certainly be fixed in conference, so I wouldn’t worry about it too much.
Alan,
“Again with that tired old trope about the “liberal media””
Is there anything you say that isn’t tired or trollish? And why aren’t you on another site bashing Bluewater for nand their bio comics for no good reason?
http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1926079
I’d respond to your last sentence, but it doesn’t make sense.
.
And what exactly is trollish about “Again with that tired old trope about the “liberal media””? It’s the truth. There is no liberal bias, but some people just keep repeating it year after year.
Alan,
I think it really depends on what you mean by a ‘liberal bias.’ If you mean a bias for liberal politicians, such as democrats, then there isn’t that much of a bias. The MSM (main stream media) likes to go after politicos on both sides of the aisle, pretty much equally, although it goes after the democrats for different things than the republicans. But, that is mainly to expose hypocrisy when they find it.
However, if you mean, a tendency to support liberal causes and memes, then there is definitely a liberal bias. MSM support for such causes as AGW, alternative energy even when it doesn’t make any sense, ‘feel good’ education, etc. have become so common that it is scarcely noticed. It is treated as a given.
Bill Mulligan,
The more I see, the more I think this will not just be a shift in power, but a true realignment. I just think Michael Steele has to be optimistic.
And, of course, Republicans have to be smart and recruit good candidates. Because I think people are so fed up right now, it is the ideal time for a Third Party movement if the GOP doesn’t just say no but come up with strong ideas and candidates to replace what people will see as a failed status quo. And they need to be a party of optimism and determination that appeals to Americans of all classes and demographics.
Pessimism is no more attractive in a party leader than it is in a high school cheerleader. And in the case of Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Michael Steele, it is unwarranted as well. Despite his prediction, on Fox News, that GOP congressional control will not come “this year,” the Republican Party has a very, very good chance of taking both houses of Congress in 2010.
We are in the midst of a political tsunami. To judge that the water will only ascend a hundred feet or two hundred or three hundred is entirely speculative. Generally, once these things start, they go further than anyone would have thought likely. Only rarely do they fall short.
President Barack Obama’s determination to march ahead with his full socialist agenda, including the imposition of a healthcare system a majority doesn’t want, can only strengthen the winds and the tide that is approaching. The 60-vote Democratic Senate majority is empowering such arrogance and disdain for the democratic process that it is easy to see how it will trigger an equal and opposite reaction in the 2010 elections.
The tsunami of 2010 is qualitatively different from the other slaughters of incumbents that took place in 1994 or 1974 or 1964. In those years, one party overstepped its bounds and the other exploited its rival’s vulnerability. They were classic instances of the voters correcting for the excessive liberalism, conservatism or dishonesty of the incumbent regime.
But 2010 is different. It is not only that Obama is too liberal or that the Democrats have given us unemployment that won’t end, a deficit that won’t shrink, a newfound vulnerability to terrorism after seven safe years and a healthcare system a majority abhors.
2010 will be a unique year because voters have seen the myth of the moderate Democrat exposed. There is no longer any such animal. No moderate or conservative voter can rest on the assumption that his congressman or senator will stand firm for his values in the face of party pressure. The sweep of 2010 will be due as much to this intellectual insight as to any other cause, and this will make it even more powerful.
In the House, party switches have already won the Republicans one seat and more are likely to follow. Among open seats, Republicans will probably lose two and the Democrats six, reducing their margin to 35.
Then there are 28 Democrats who might lose who come from districts won by McCain. Seventeen are very vulnerable and 11 others somewhat less so.
But even these 11 longtime incumbents may find that their constituents cannot be bought by earmarks nor deluded into voting for what they are told is a “conservative” Democrat.
Eight Democrats — six of them freshmen — come from districts McCain narrowly lost and they narrowly won. And 11 others — three of them freshmen — are only slightly less vulnerable.
Republicans need to defeat 35 of these 47 Democrats to take control. Not a task that is at all beyond reach.
In the Senate, the Republicans will easily hold all their open seats except for Ohio, Missouri and New Hampshire. Since Missouri went for McCain, count it likely to send Rep. Roy Blunt to the Senate. Since Ohio is the quintessential swing state, it is hard to see how it does not go Republican as well. In New Hampshire, Kelly Ayotte, the Republican, looks to be ahead, although the state is too Democratic to regard her as safe.
Democrats look to lose at least five seats: in Delaware, Arkansas, Nevada, North Dakota and Colorado. But in a tsunami, Republicans would likely pick up Illinois and Pennsylvania (with or without an Arlen Specter retirement or a loss in the primary), too. Four to go.
Despite Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal’s appeal and his state’s liberalism, the Chris Dodd seat cannot be considered safe in this kind of year. Nor can California’s Barbara Boxer take victory over Carly Fiorina for granted.
For the remaining two seats, the Republicans need strong candidates in Indiana, Washington state, Oregon, Wisconsin and against Kirsten Gillibrand in New York.
A strong candidate can be born or made. Even a relatively weak newcomer can gather strength from the kind of tsunami working its way toward Washington. The irresistible numbers of a GOP landslide make all of these seats winnable.
Winnable, yes, but the stars really have to be in alignment. And realistically, I think the big problem for republicans to do that is time. If the election were held right now it would be a slaughter. Good grief, the Democrats are having to pour money into Massachusetts! For a seat they all but take for granted! Granted, Brown is a very smart candidate and his opponent…well, she puts out adds with Massachusetts spelled wrong. But still, Democrats outnumber republican by something like 3 to 1. I don’t expect Brown to win but he is already a star just for making it competitive.
.
(Note–if by some miracle he actually wins we can expect a few really fun weeks of circular firing squads on the Democratic side of the aisle. But that’s a real long shot.)
.
Here’s the thing though–the election isn’t tomorrow. The Republicans are peaking early. Unless things get measurably worse in the economy I think we will see a swing back to Obama, quite possibly just in time to keep the midterms from being a debacle. I kind of expect 2010 to be a year of problems on the foreign scene and those things tend, at first, to rally people around the leader. Unless he screws it up big time. By now he probably knows that there is nothing to gain by issuing deadlines to the Iranians that they can laugh at. Afghanistan will be a constant problem but unless the Taliban and friends can up their game it will probably not get the attention Iraq did. China can cause trouble but that Saturday Night Live skit had it right; there’s only so much they can do when we owe them so much money (What’s that old line–If you owe someone $1000 you have a problem. If you owe them $17,000,000,000…they have a problem.)
.
So bad times abroad for the USA but not the big immediate kind that test one’s mettle. The slow bleeding kind that take a while to show up.
.
Long story short, Obama and the party he leads are in poor shape but they have time to fix it and I have little confidence in the ability of Steele and crew to take advantage of the problem. If I thought for a moment they had learned anything from their past failures I’d be organizing with them right now. As is, I’m a lot more likely to donate to individual candidates than I am to either party of professional politicians.
.
(One caveat–as dumb as Steele is he seems like think tank material compared to Pelosi and Reid, especially Reid. But here’s where I’m thinking again that the republican are peaking early–they might manage to get Reid to do what Dodd did–retire and let a much more popular democrat take their place, making a competitive seat safe for them.)
.
“But 2010 is different. It is not only that Obama is too liberal or that the Democrats have given us unemployment that won’t end, a deficit that won’t shrink, a newfound vulnerability to terrorism after seven safe years and a healthcare system a majority abhors.”
.
Wow…
.
That’s so far into the land of mindlessly regurgitating the talking points that it’s not even worth seriously discussing with you.
“The 60-vote Democratic Senate majority is empowering such arrogance and disdain for the democratic process that it is easy to see how it will trigger an equal and opposite reaction in the 2010 elections.”
.
Did I miss something? They’ve been in control for how long now and suddenly it’s “arrogance and disdain”?
Really, Jerry?
.
You’re seriously talking about a ‘GOP tsunami’ when the GOP has lost ground each of the last two elections due to the REAL arrogance and disdain that the Bush White House had for everybody?
.
If anything, the tsunami has already come and gone, and the GOP got slammed with it.
.
But then, I guess if “arrogance and disdain” comes in the form of wanting everybody to have health care without it causing them to go into bankruptcy, I’ll happily be arrogant and disdainful toward those who do not want it.
Gah, why did I type Jerry when I meant Jerome. Sorry about that.
I don’t think it needs to take very long for our political class–regardless of ideology–to exhibit arrogance and disdain. It’s kind of inbred. Sometimes they just bother to hide it but inevitably they get into a position where they genuinely and honestly believe that their star has ascended forever and the mask slips.
.
But if you are predicting that the GOP will lose ground even more in 2010 I’ll give you credit for taking a gutsy stand–one that will be proven right or wrong in 11 months or so.
But if you are predicting that the GOP will lose ground even more in 2010 I’ll give you credit for taking a gutsy stand
.
I’m not predicting anything right now. As you say, the election is 10 months away.
.
But a ‘tsunami’ in favor of the GOP seems unlikely, regardless. I mean, let’s be real: yes, the reason many in the GOP got thrown out of office the last two elections was due to Bush. So, I guess you’d have to think people have really, really, really short memories to want to put the GOP back in power after all of 2 years.
.
No, wait, never mind. This is politics; the politicians are counting on not only short memories, but for voters to have a full blown case of Alzheimer’s.
“…imposition of a healthcare system a majority doesn’t want…”
.
“…the Democrats have given us unemployment that won’t end, a deficit that won’t shrink, a newfound vulnerability to terrorism after seven safe years and a healthcare system a majority abhors.”
.
All these statements are untrue, Jerome. A majority WANTS health care reform, unemployment was caused by the major recession that started under the Bush the Lesser administration, under the last Democratic president, these deficit WAS coming down, and the administration of Bush the Lesser had 7 years in which to make massive improvements in our safety, yet they spent most of those screaming that the sky was falling.
.
I think you can do better than just repeating the right wing talking points.
But do they want THIS healthcare reform? The new Gallup poll says that by 58% to 37% they disapprove of the way Obama is handling healthcare policy. Another Gallup poll shows more support for the current legislation but NOT quite a majority.
.
And you should visit Firedoglake and a few other progressive sites to see that opposition to the plan is far from merely just a right wing talking point. A pretty good number of liberals would like to kill this plan dead.
.
“The new Gallup poll says that by 58% to 37% they disapprove of the way Obama is handling healthcare policy. Another Gallup poll shows more support for the current legislation but NOT quite a majority.”
.
You may be right. I’ve seen a lot of the left say that they disapprove of his handling of healthcare as well. However, when asked to elaborate they talk about how Obama didn’t do enough insofar as being a leader on getting this through and how he’s allowed it to get watered down. The type of healthcare plan that we were first seeing taking shape before the compromises and deals was closer to what candidate Obama talked about on a few stumps.
.
It might well be that some of the disgruntled do want this healthcare reform. They just want more of it and a less diluted form of it.
There’s some of that but a surprising number, to me at least, seem to be angrier at what they see as a boondoggle giveaway to the bi pharmaceuticals. Jane hamsher is no right winger, in fact she is pretty intolerant of anyone to the right of Keith Olberman, but she is attacking this bill like a pitbull. For that matter, Olberman said something to the effect of he is willing to go to jail rather than be forced to buy insurance, as this bill would do (last I heard anyway–who knows what backdoor deals are not being broadcast on CSPAN?).
.
So while some think the bill is too namby pamby, others seem to think it is a genuinely bad bill, as in they’d rather get nothing instead of this.
Craig Ries,
Was windering about the “Jerry” thing. No offense taken.
“Did I miss something? They’ve been in control for how long now and suddenly it’s “arrogance and disdain”?
Really, Jerry?”
I was unaware there was grace period in which you could be arrogant and disdainful. I feel a President of a nation in which far more people are unemployed than when he ran – should not smugly give hinself a B+ on national television. And, really, it was less than two years ago when the Democratic Congress – with Bush’s signature, unfortunately – passed the first “stimulus” bill, when the unemployment rate was about 4.7 percent (unemployment was ridiculously low during the majority of Bush’s presidence, continuing the trend that started with Clinton and the Republicanj Congress. This, of course, is conveniently forgotten by most Americans. So I guess by your standard they have bipartisan Alzheimer’s.
And Harry Reid’s cloak and dagger meetings and legal bribery – and Mary Landrieu practically bragging – “I didn’t get $100 million for my vote, it was $300 million – is surely arrogant and disdainful of the public they serve.
And Nancy Pelosi? I never thought any politician would infuriate me more than Hillary, but Pelosi has her beat, in spades. From the CIA accusation because she couldn’t admit she was full of šhìŧ, to being disdainful of those who dared express opposition to health care – isn’t that, you know, a right, even if they were opposing seatbelt laws or something mild by comparison yet alone something this important? – to her responding to a legitimate question about whether or not requiring every American to purchase health insurance is constitutional with this scholarly response, “Are you serious?! Are you serious?!” In other words, “We’re in charge! How dare you question what we’re doing?! More to the point, how dare you question what I’M doing?!Especially when this is something we’ve been trying to get done for decade?! How DARE you imply that there are limits to what the legislative branch can do?! How dare you suggest we might be overstepping our bounds?!”
The woman is a vapid, vile, vindictive piece of work and exhibits extreme arrogance.
It’s funny you should mention health care causing bankruptcies, because I am doing a project on Franken and he dealt with that subject in a very intelligent manner, recently.
Actually, it’s odd. Because Franken, despite his reputation, has been one of the few Democrats I’ve seen who actually tried to engage average citizens – even though they were, gasp, town-hallers – who came vehemently against the bill and he actually talked to them like their opinions mattered AND didn’t just get into the talking points about what was in the bill but said he DIDN’T HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS and said he wanted to not only help them but listen to them.
Is that, really too much to ask? I don’t see Reid or Pelosi or Schumer or the rest engaging opponents, and ESPECIALLY that hands-on. If they do, it’s usually up on a stage or with a favorable crowd.
So, in short, the Democratic Party, including Obama, would be much better off if they acted like Al Franken on this issue – and a little more than two months ago I NEVER thought I’d write that sentence.
But things DO change quickly in politics.
There seems to be no doubt that a lot of people, especially the coveted Independants (and there are more of them than ever) are being repelled by the Democrats. And Republicans will benefit just by being the default party. But for an actual realignment they had better get a solid message going. Stand for something more than “We’re better than the other guy. Who sucks, by the way.”
.
What do you think of John Thune?
Stand for something more than “We’re better than the other guy. Who sucks, by the way.
.
The head of the Colorado GOP the other day called Denver Mayor Hickenlooper “a “quirky version” of Colorado Governor Ritter. Yep, we’re off to a great start here with the rhetoric for this fall’s election.
.
The guy also said that “the focus on this campaign will be on the Ritter record.” Hmm, so we shouldn’t care what the GOP candidate (whomever that will be) is running for or what their record is… it’s all about the guy who’s not even running for a 2nd term.
Kind of like a Democrat who brings up GW Bush while running against someone else?
.
Hickenlooper should make this a pretty competitive race, from what I’ve learned from folks in my once (and fondly remembered) home town.
Kind of like a Democrat who brings up GW Bush while running against someone else?
.
That kind of stuff is relevant, but if it’s the focus of your campaign you deserve to lose.
when the unemployment rate was about 4.7 percent
.
Umm, everything fell apart starting 21 months ago. The banks, the housing bubble. Obama had yet to take office, McCain was on the verge of making his comment about how things were swell with the economy. And while the stimulus may not have worked, it was at least attempt to do *something* to keep things from getting worse. And I don’t recall Bush being forced to sign it.
.
But then, that’s my view of the health care bill. No, it’s not perfect; some of it I don’t want in the least. But I’m sick and effing tired of the “Well, this isn’t perfect, so we should do nothing” garbage that comes out of both sides. And on the issue of health care, this is the attitude of the Republicans. Sorry, that’s no longer acceptable. Health care reform is long overdue. This reform is a start, it’s *something*. It may not even work, but it’s a far sight better than the “Let’s ignore it and hope it goes away” view from the right. The GOP had their chance to do something about health care, and they REFUSED to do so.
.
But, oh no, the Democrats want to do something! Those evil socialist fascist communist bášŧárdš! How dare they think all people should have health care! How dare they think people shouldn’t go bankrupt due to an emergency! Or that coverage shouldn’t be refused on a whim! How dare they care more about everybody in this country, rather than the privileged!
.
Yeah, arrogance and disdainful indeed.
.
“And Harry Reid’s cloak and dagger meetings and legal bribery … is surely arrogant and disdainful of the public they serve.”
.
So you’ve shown that one side is no better than the other. What else is new. The fact remains that quite a number of those currently in Congress have been there awhile… yeah, including Republicans who had their own level of arrogance when Bush was in charge. Why would anybody want to put them back in charge is beyond me. If anything, the GOP arrogance has increased now that they’re the party out of power.
.
And Nancy Pelosi?
.
Again, there’s nothing worse here that we haven’t already seen time and again from ‘the other side’ as well.
.
In the end, there’s no justification for a sweep back into power by the GOP beyond your own political preference to see your party in power rather than the Democrats. And your party has already screwed things up enough recently.
.
Because Franken, despite his reputation
.
Yeah, imagine that. Franken, and by extension of his running for office, the Democrats, was completely trashed by the right. A comedian running for a serious and important office? The arrogance and disdain! And yet, turns out, he’s competent after all! Imagine that!
.
Speaking of, should we get into the continued arrogance and disdain the right shows for Hollywood and actors who dare to have political views? Even as one of their own in Saint Ron only got into office due to his being famous by working in said Hollywood?
.
As for other Democrats and town hall meetings, many have tried. But it’s hard to hold a civil conversation when people are screaming and shouting – having been encouraged to do so – and are not interested in having an discussion on health care.
.
So, I guess my question is: why so many were encouraging people to act like a 2-year old at these meetings rather than hold the very kinds of discussions you want, Jerome? Why aren’t the people who wanted the town hall meetings interrupted being called out, rather than the politicians who tried to hold them?
.
It seems like you’re blaming the victim here.
If you’re arguing for more civil discussions, Craig, you’ve done a whole lot better in the past than in this last post. Sarcasm has its place but as an effective arguing style it wears out its welcome fast.
Bill Mulligan,
“There seems to be no doubt that a lot of people, especially the coveted Independants (and there are more of them than ever) are being repelled by the Democrats. And Republicans will benefit just by being the default party. But for an actual realignment they had better get a solid message going. Stand for something more than “We’re better than the other guy. Who sucks, by the way.”
.
What do you think of John Thune?”
I agree with you. They need a new Contract With America going. They also, and many won’t believe I’m saying this, but they need to stop evoking Ronald Reagan all the time. Focus on his strengths, but to the average voter the Reagan Revolution was a lifetime ago and you might as well keep evoking Abraham Lincoln…uh, which a lot of Republicans do, by the way. Whenever race is brought up, a lot of them say,’Well, Lincoln freed the slaves” Uh, how about talking, forcefully, on how you want the historically disadvantaged to do better and achieve the American Dream NOW. Recruit powerful personalities like Larry Elder to run. Not JUST because he’s black, but because he believes in the message the Republicans claim they do wholeheartedly. Less government. More freedom. That would resonate with people.
They need to have a vision in regard to how they want an education system that the nation can be proud of, rather than fall back on the tired refrain of wanting to abolish tyhe Department of Education. You know what? If Republicans really want to do that,they should do it already, but they still must articulate a vision for how our children and college students can compete better with the rest of the world then.
I want the Republican candidate in 2012 to say, “I’m not the next Ronald Reagan, I’m the first Sarah Palin” or Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum. I want somebody bold enough to say, “I want to get serious about fixing this nation’s problems, and I want to blaze my own path and leave my own mark by doing so.”
But with the factors I listed in one of my previous entries on this thread, it will not be easy, but possible, and IF Obama continues to struggle, it will naturally be that much more likely.
In fact, I heard some poll has people saying that if a new election were held today and Bush 43 could run again, he would beat Obama. If there’s even a shred of truth to that, and if things don’t get better, it could truly be a historic night.
And again, I think the main reason is because people feel they have been sold a bill of goods. Not just by Obama, but by Democrats who claimed to be conservative and, when push came to shove on health care and any one of them in the Senate and less than a handful in the House could have killed it, they chose party over therir supposed conservative principles. People who have been bûllšhìŧŧëd into believing the Democrats were still the party of FDR and JFK – who would likely have to run a s a Republican today – have had the myth of a moderate Democrat exposed. The scales have fallen from their eyes. Seniors are pìššëd. Young people are pìššëd. John McCain is pìššëd. Lindsey Graham is pìššëd. Howard Dean is pìššëd. This is incredible to behold.
And what do you think mighht happen if Sotomayor turns out to be Obama’s Souter? What if Obama, after years of Republican nominees turning out to be slightly more liberal than expected, puts a judge on that helps overturn affirmative action or actually helps repeal “Roev.Wade”?
Three years is an eternity. Heck, one year is an eternity. But, really, how do you see Obama improving his standing before the midterms?
And, to be honest, I haven’t thought much about John Thune at this point. If I had to choose today, I would go for Palin, with Romney a close second. If Fred Thompson really wanted it this time, I would consider him as well.
I saw one poll that had McCain and Obama essentially tied (Obama was ahead by 2, neither had a majority) and the one that came out today has a majority saying they “would probably or definitely vote for someone else.” But that one had no name, so it’s more a measure of Obama’s unpopularity than anything else.
.
But, really, how do you see Obama improving his standing before the midterms?
.
A terrorist attack or some other kind of foreign mess that allows him to flex his muscles. yes, were this Bush we were talking about there would be screams of “suspicious timing” from the usual suspects, but pay that no mind. The point is, people will rally around the president, at least at first.
.
And overconfidence on the part of republicans. 10 months is plenty of time for them to start thinking they have it in the bag and the American people love to humble folks like that–one reason why the Democrats are in the fix they are in.
“A terrorist attack or some other kind of foreign mess that allows him to flex his muscles. yes, were this Bush we were talking about there would be screams of “suspicious timing” from the usual suspects, but pay that no mind. The point is, people will rally around the president, at least at first.”
I really hate to ask this, but what the hëll are you smoking? There have been terrorist attacks (the underwear bomber and the CIA bomber) and there are foreign messes where he is flexing his muscles, humanitarian aid in Haiti and the ongoing situations in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and anywhere else that we are sending predator drones and whatnot, and all I am seeing are attacks that he hasn’t done enough in Haiti compared to George Bush in New Orleans, or that he didn’t do enough about the underwear bomber compared to George Bush (speaking out much earlier, etc) or that he’s not prosecuting the war on terror enough. Bill, you often have a habit of showing your sources and articles but in this one instance I can’t possibly understand your reasoning.
Oh, and at this point I am not impressed by Pawlwntey or Jindal very much at all.
Unemployment is a lagging indicator, meaning that it reflects what happened previously. While an argument can be had whether a percentage or so is on Obama’s hands, the vast majority of unemployment is due to the fact that Bush the Lesser fiddled while America was burning. In fact, that seems to be the entire method of the Republican party…sit around and do nothing while the whole economy, and thus the whole country, collapses. Once everything has collapsed, the wealthy Republicans can step in and own everything, changing this country into a feudal state.
.
This country has problems, and they’re all long term problems with longer than 8 year solutions (at least when we see results). A politician focused on re-election only cares about how he looks in less than 4.
Frankly, if someone can exact change while not caring about the next term, that’s closer to the kind of change I was looking for. Sure, he won’t be rewarded for it, but at least things will be moving forward.
Jerry Chandler,
“But 2010 is different. It is not only that Obama is too liberal or that the Democrats have given us unemployment that won’t end, a deficit that won’t shrink, a newfound vulnerability to terrorism after seven safe years and a healthcare system a majority abhors.”
.
“Wow…
.
That’s so far into the land of mindlessly regurgitating the talking points that it’s not even worth seriously discussing with you.”
Missed this bit of condescension before. I mean, really, the post you took that quote from is about 18 paragraphs long and includes what I feel are historical contrasts, analysis of seats McCain won and that should be in play in 2010 and reasons why I feel there will be unprecedented populist anger, and the best you can do is attack/dismiss part of one paragraph, the contents of which are pretty tough to rebuke.
You may disagree, but to chalk up my entire argument to “mindlessly regurgitating talking points”, well, youb start to resemble what you accuse Jay of being.
Hey jerome, how much are you enjoying watching Robert Gibbs twist in the wind? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCJK4W0EXHw&feature=player_embedded
.
And Martha Cloakely is doing everything she can to make me look like a poor political prognosticator indeed. I’m still predicting she will win, just because I have heard no reports of Hëll freezing over. Though at this point I would not be shocked to hear that Satan did a hat trick.
Fine.
.
“It is not only that Obama is too liberal”
.
And yet the left is just as annoyed with Obama over healthcare and other matter because they feel he has not been liberal enough. And hasn’t he just been so busy with such liberal concepts as expanding loan programs for small businesses, assuring that the Veterans Administration budget is prepared as ‘must-pass’ legislation, sending two additional brigades to Afghanistan, pushing for greater investment in advanced military air technology, making U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional on anti-terror efforts, rolling back the funding cuts that have affected first responders while also increasing federal resources and logistic support to local emergency planning efforts, restore funding (cuts by Bush) for the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne/JAG) program that funds anti-drug and anti-gang task forces across the country, beginning to nullify the Bush attempts to make the timely release of presidential records more difficult, focus the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management’s efforts on removing more brush, small trees and vegetation that fuel wildfires, supporting the Open Fields Incentives legislation that provides incentives to farmers and ranchers who voluntarily open their land to hunting, fishing and other wildlife-related activities, pushing to use the private sector to improve spaceflight, etc, etc, etc…
.
What a far left lib that man is.
.
“or that the Democrats have given us unemployment that won’t end”
.
Yeah, because right up to that pesky election back in November of 2008 we were just ticking along so well. Record low unemployment, our economy just soaring to new heights, the buying power of the American public being stronger than ever… Oh, wait… That’s actually the exact opposite of what things were like when he took office. After eight years of Bush, six of which were also under a Republican controlled congress, the economy was in freefall, the unemployment rate was on the rise and the overall economic collapse was threatening to become the next “Great Depression” if the economists were to be believed.
.
In the last year we’ve seen a slowing in the rate that unemployment is increasing as well as seeing the reversing of a number of other negative economic indicators. We’re actually moving in the right direction again, but it does take longer than a snap of the finger to fix things after they’ve crashed as bad as they did under the stewardship of Bush and Company.
.
“a deficit that won’t shrink”
.
Yes, of course… It will never, ever shrink again. And, of course, the fact that Bush left a staggering deficit for Obama to start with and an economic mess that required governmental intervention means nothing when it’s more fun to blame everything on Obama.
.
“a newfound vulnerability to terrorism after seven safe years”
.
Yeah, because, after all, when Hannity, Beck, Giuliani and Rove talk about the fact that there were no incidents like the underwear bomber under Bush it just has to be the truth. At this time we’re still mostly working under the same system we had at the end of Bush’s time in office. As I said when Bush was still in office; we have to be 100% on 100% of the time. They only need one slip up in the system to have a success. The spat of incidents under Bush throughout his first and second terms were not his fault. You agreed with me back then. I guess your agreement is dependent on the party affiliation of the office holder though.
.
“and a healthcare system a majority abhors”
.
Well, they certainly abhor what they believe about the system. But thanks to the fine work of Hannity, Beck, Palin and other shameless habitual liars a lot of people believe that the thing includes death panels, forced abortions, euthanizing the elderly, etc. A lot of people tend to have less issues with the thing when they find out what is and isn’t actually in the thing.
.
Seriously, the only thing you left out was telling us that Bush “inherited” 9/11 from Clinton. Had you just included that you could be the average Fox News chat show drone.
I came to the conclusion about a week ago that Obama will more than likely follow the same path as Jimmy Carter and be a one term president. Just watch it: over the next few decadea he’ll end up doing far more humanitarian deeds as some great ambassador than he ever dreamed of as president. I suppose only time wil tell…
Bill Mulligan,
“Hey jerome, how much are you enjoying watching Robert Gibbs twist in the wind?”
I’m enjoying it very much. Thanks for the link.
“And Martha Cloakely is doing everything she can to make me look like a poor political prognosticator indeed. I’m still predicting she will win, just because I have heard no reports of Hëll freezing over. Though at this point I would not be shocked to hear that Satan did a hat trick.”
Think you spelled her name wrong, Bill. But since she can’t even get the name of the state she wants to represent correct in an ad, I don’t think she’ll be calling you anytime soon to complain.
I’m still not cocky – and I won’t be sre until the actual election has been called. But moreso than Corzine, the fact that this race is close at all is bad for the Democrats on soooo many levels. Obama has them all in a briar patch they can’t get out of. If Coakley does lose, it will be a 10 on the richter scale, and I guarantee you strong Republican candidates and GOP campaign money both increase exponentially.
Sheila,
“I think this scenario is more likely than the outraged screams from the dying right wing would have us believe.”
Dying right wing, Sheila? Uh, have you seen Fox’s ratings lately? Or recent polls? Or the results in places like New Jersey?
The right is not dying, despite the attempt of moderate Republicans, Democrats and the media to marginalize it. It’s not only alive, but galvanized. And we have the arrogance and out-of-touch actions of Obama, Pelosi and Reid to thank.
Obama has galvanized the Right in a way a McCain Administration never would have.
The right is not dying, despite the attempt of moderate Republicans
.
Yeah, because those moderates are just really ruining the party, rather than the completely off the hinge group that includes the likes of Palin, Limbaugh, and Fox News.
.
But then, this is no surprise. I’ve been pointing out here for awhile that the far right wants to destroy what remains of the moderates in the party, as if that will somehow solve… I don’t know what.
.
It certainly isn’t going to improve the GOP.
.
Obama has galvanized the Right in a way a McCain Administration never would have.
.
By virtue of being black. Yeah, I said it because it’s still true. The Right is depending on the completely unhinged to bring them another victory this fall, a group they keep getting closer and closer to, when they should be completely shunning them.
.
Right now, the Republican Party has no shame. It’s simply victory above all else, even if it means putting the worse kinds of people in power.
Craig, unless you have evidence that the 50% or so of the population that now says they would vote for someone else over Obama is doing it because of racism–and at least some of those people actually voted for him in the first place–why should anyone take that accusation seriously?
.
Serious accusations require serious facts to back them up. Or, to paraphrase a smart man, it’s simply victory above all else, even if it means using the worst kinds of arguments to achieve it.
.
I have to disagree with both you and Jerome on almost the same point–Scott Brown. Jerome says that republican moderates are killing the party–But brown is a moderate. Pro-Choice, pro-gay marriage, etc, he’s not exactly an I heart Huckabee kind of guy.
.
But the fact that republicans are pouring money into him at an amazing rate and that he is very popular with conservatives would seem to indicate that they are not quite as ready to destroy whatever remains of the moderates.
why should anyone take that accusation seriously?
.
Fine, don’t take it seriously because I don’t have evidence beyond what I see and read. But I don’t think you need a lot of evidence to show that there’s still a lot of intolerance and racism in this country, and I don’t think it can simply be explained away if McCain had gotten office, or another Democrat like Clinton (or Kerry, etc).
.
Just today I’m reading comments online about MLK parades. Some of the responses are truly disgusting. Here’s one fine example:
.
“I believe Barack Hussein Obama is an EVIL man who has done and is doing bad things to our nation and its people.”
.
Ahh, there we are again in trying to associate Obama with Muslims, because, as we have discussed in the past, the need to insinuate a link between Obama with Islam and, by extension, terrorism. We saw it during the campaign, and it continues now.
.
This doesn’t even go into the whole ‘birther’ movement and how desperate far too many people are to prove that Obama is some foreign Muslim who’s a terrorist in disguise. Meanwhile, McCain was born in Panama; go figure.
.
It may not be outright racism, it may not be people throwing on sheets and burning crosses. But it’s getting really close at times and I think for more people than you are willing to admit.
.
But the fact that republicans are pouring money into him at an amazing rate and that he is very popular with conservatives would seem to indicate that they are not quite as ready to destroy whatever remains of the moderates.
.
Bill, it’s just my take on it, but the only reason anybody knows this guy’s name is that he’s going for the late Ted Kennedy’s seat. It’s the chance to grab a spot that hasn’t been available for decades; not to mention, and it’s the most important factor, it’s a chance to break up the Democrat’s 60 *now* (and thus spoil the heath care bill) than later on in November.
.
So, it’s not that I think the GOP particularly wants this guy, it’s simply the chance for a victory. Victory in breaking up the 60, victory over the health care bill. If Brown were running in a normal election, I’m not sure he’d be getting this kind of support, or if he’d even be the party’s nominee.
I would agree with that. But saying that conservatives are willing to support a moderate in order to win a seat and saying that they want to destroy what remains of the moderates in the party seem to be two very contradictory statements.
.
I suppose it depends on how you define conservative vs far right. What i see is that people who are usually lumped together as far right extremists–Michelle Malkin and such–are enthusiastically supporting Brown and have been even before it became a real possibility that he could win.
But saying that conservatives are willing to support a moderate in order to win a seat and saying that they want to destroy what remains of the moderates in the party seem to be two very contradictory statements.
.
At face value, it is contradictory. But there’s a lot of unique circumstances surrounding this special election that truly set it apart.
.
I would think many within the GOP would view a win of Kennedy’s seat, regardless of circumstances, as quite the blow to the Democrats. It would be symbolic to hold it, as much as anything else. But it being a special election with the health care bill on the line? Well, it’s no surprise that the GOP would pour a lot of resources into this one, even if they thought the guy had no chance.
.
If Brown loses, nothing really changes. If Brown wins, then Obama’s push for health care reform very likely becomes a failure and ties in nicely to the very title of this blog entry. 🙂
Jerry,
Thank you for responding. I am on a tight deadline right now, and cannot talk about all your conterarguments, but I just had to respond to this one.
“a newfound vulnerability to terrorism after seven safe years”
‘Yeah, because, after all, when Hannity, Beck, Giuliani and Rove talk about the fact that there were no incidents like the underwear bomber under Bush it just has to be the truth. At this time we’re still mostly working under the same system we had at the end of Bush’s time in office. As I said when Bush was still in office; we have to be 100% on 100% of the time. They only need one slip up in the system to have a success. The spat of incidents under Bush throughout his first and second terms were not his fault. You agreed with me back then. I guess your agreement is dependent on the party affiliation of the office holder though.’
When I am talking about newfound vulnerability to terrorism, I am talking about the perception Obama gives off, mainly. And for people to emphasize Obama’s perception to the world in regards to our place in it, to note that he is not as unilateral and willing to work with others, to emphasize these points over and over, that Obama “will help the world like us better”, to emphsize that as one of his strengths and then turn around and say that because I feel the perception is equally important and the perception I have is that he comes off as weak, disinterested, disengaged and that is a problem for America is more than proper, I think – and I don’t need Beck, Hannity, etc. to tell me these things. I only need to listen to the man. You cannot have journalists and commentators commend Obama for saying one of his accomplishments is that the U.S. is less feared, and then chastise me for simply saying that I feel less feared means less respected and weaker. Well, you can, but I certainly don’t have to agree with you.
As for the incident, I have never talked about the specific Christmas day incident itself. What I have taken issue with is that it took our president three days to respond, and a week to not speak in politically correct terms and use the word – gasp! – terror. I take issue that other people in the Administration charged with protecting the country decided the incident was not worth interrupting their vacations. Again,you may have a neutral or positive spin on these things. I don’t. I see a completely disengeged commander-in-chief, who has very little true interest in things like winning Afghanistan and containing Iran. He seems far more interested in cap and trade, health care and a secoond stimulus. Again, you may see these things as a plus or at least differently than I do. But just because I disagree with your perception of things does not make me a drone. I’ve criticized Bush when I felt it was warranted and have had no use for fools like Hastert. The policies are more important to me than people, parties or personalities.
.
”When I am talking about newfound vulnerability to terrorism, I am talking about the perception Obama gives off, mainly. And for people to emphasize Obama’s perception to the world in regards to our place in it, to note that he is not as unilateral and willing to work with others, to emphasize these points over and over, that Obama “will help the world like us better”, to emphsize that as one of his strengths and then turn around and say that because I feel the perception is equally important and the perception I have is that he comes off as weak, disinterested, disengaged and that is a problem for America is more than proper, I think – and I don’t need Beck, Hannity, etc. to tell me these things. I only need to listen to the man. You cannot have journalists and commentators commend Obama for saying one of his accomplishments is that the U.S. is less feared, and then chastise me for simply saying that I feel less feared means less respected and weaker.”
.
You’re serious? Dude, most people I know outgrew the idea of ”Fear = Respect & Strength” back in elementary school. Sure, you can be respected because you’re feared, but more often than not despised rather than respected. What you’re espousing is the bully mentality.
.
There are any number of professional boxers and martial artists out there who can walk down the street in their hometown (and others) and be recognized by the locals and command instant respect from them. Most people respect their ability and, while it does come into people’s minds in a joking manner, most people realize that if they were dumb enough to start something with the guy they’ll get their áššëš handed to them in a very rapid manner. Now, it’s also a fair bet that most of those towns have at least one local thuggish bully who can kick the locals’ áššëš as well and people recognize him when he walks down the street and many of them know, likely from experience, that he can kick their ášš as well. Yeah, some people fear him, but very few likely respect him.
.
Other than respect, there’s another difference between those two men. If a group of idiots decided to one night jump the professional fighter from behind; the odds are pretty good that the locals will do what they can to help the guy. If not jumping in to even up the sides in the fight itself they’ll certainly do whatever they can to help identify the attackers so that they could be brought to justice.
.
Do you think that most of them would do that for the guy they feared? Hëll no. They would more than likely discuss how much he deserved it over drinks at the local bar.
.
Respect and the often false appearance of strength are not earned through fear.
.
We’ve gone from mindless slogans like “with us or against us” and ”bring ‘em on” and the appearance of to many of being a bully to being a country that is seen as powerful, but still one who uses that power in a focused and intelligent way. Obama has made it clear that attacks on America will be dealt with. He certainly hasn’t shied away from authorizing eliminating high value targets with drones or the putting of sniper rounds into the heads or high seas pirates. He’s just made it much more clear for people on the outside looking in who are enemy is and that we actually understand the difference between our enemies and some of the other people around them.
.
The ”newfound vulnerability to terrorism” comment fails in two ways here as well based on your new explanation of it. Fanatical terrorists and zealots won’t care how we appear. The fanatics out there will attack us no matter what. Keep in mind that they did continue to try and attack us here and abroad even after we went after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and showed off our “strength” by invading Iraq. Terrorists, who are not a standing army, who have no true home country to worry about us hitting back at and are not just one big organization with branches all over the world, don’t care about appearances. Well, that’s not entirely true. They may actually like that we appear strong since then they can recruit locals against the big, powerful bully country that is shoving around the weaker, smaller people in the world. It doesn’t have to be true, but the propaganda works and works well when our leaders handle our power like a clumsy bludgeon.
.
It also fails under the idea of Obama creating newfound vulnerability based on what you think are appearance in the world now is. If I punch a solid steel wall with my fist one time and decide that the wall is unbreakable and it’s just gonna keep hurting my fist if I keep punching it; the wall’s “vulnerability” to my punching it isn’t going to change just because I suddenly decide that the same wall isn’t all that strong after all. All my attacks on it are going to do is bloody and break my knuckles while drawing attention to myself.
.
There is no such thing as a ”newfound vulnerability to terrorism” under Obama. That comment doesn’t even work as a statement of opinion. It certainly shouldn’t be called your opinion either. There’s a reason I said what I said in the post you cite in the way I said it.
.
Me: “Wow…
.
That’s so far into the land of mindlessly regurgitating the talking points that it’s not even worth seriously discussing with you.”
.
You: “Missed this bit of condescension before. I mean, really, the post you took that quote from is about 18 paragraphs long and includes what I feel are historical contrasts, analysis of seats McCain won and that should be in play in 2010 and reasons why I feel there will be unprecedented populist anger, and the best you can do is attack/dismiss part of one paragraph, the contents of which are pretty tough to rebuke.
.
You may disagree, but to chalk up my entire argument to “mindlessly regurgitating talking points”, well, you start to resemble what you accuse Jay of being.” … ”When I am talking about newfound vulnerability to terrorism, I am talking about the perception Obama gives off, mainly.” … “I think – and I don’t need Beck, Hannity, etc. to tell me these things.” … “”
.
I only took a snippet of your post from the 14th when I commented, but I could have taken the entire thing as an example of just regurgitating the talking points. The phrase ”newfound vulnerability to terrorism” is, word for word, the fun new conservative talking point of late. Hëll, it’s one of Ðìçk Morris’s favorite lines these days. And I’m sure you know that since everything in your post from the 14th besides Bill Mulligan,” is a giant copy and paste of Ðìçk Morris’s January 12th column ”Memo to Steele: GOP will win” from The Hill.
.
So, no, you didn’t need Beck, Hannity or Rove to tell you those things. You needed Ðìçk Morris. My mistake.
.
”What I have taken issue with is that it took our president three days to respond, and a week to not speak in politically correct terms and use the word – gasp! – terror.”
.
Yeah, because the fact that Obama called it an attempted terrorist attack and discussed the fact that this incident showed us that our process of collecting and using information about potential terrorist attacks was in need of updating in his December 29th statement on the matter doesn’t count for you because he didn’t say the word “terror” as a stand alone word. Or did you even bother seeing what he actually said VS what Fox News commentators said he did and didn’t say before deciding that you would just regurgitate the talking points?
.
”I take issue that other people in the Administration charged with protecting the country decided the incident was not worth interrupting their vacations.”
.
So you’re saying that we’ve been under this newfound vulnerability to terrorism since Bush took six days to respond to the shoe-bomber mess and didn’t see any need to cut his vacation short?
.
I certainly had no problem with either Bush or Obama continuing their vacations. The attempts in both cades were unsuccessful. No plane was blown up and people weren’t murdered in a terrorist incident. I wouldn’t expect or ask that the POTUS drop whatever he’s doing and run back to the Whitehouse each and every time there was an unsuccessful attempt by terrorists to harm Americans. That would be idiotic. I also had no problem with him waiting until he was fully informed of as many of the facts as possible before making his first or second statements on the matter. Much better than rushing out and saying what you think to be true rather than what is true. So, yeah, I did see that as a bit of a positive just as I say the stupidity of his appointees on the matter as a massive negative that initially undercut both his and their ability to effectively speak on the subject.
.
Need more sleep. Too many “are” VS “our” inversions tonight.
.
And, oh… Look…
.
Here’s a video link to Obama addressing the underwear bomber on Dec. 28th. What’s that word just six seconds in to the thing? Sure sounds like “terrorist” to me.
.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/president-obama-speaks-press-hawaii
.
And… What was that word at 1:17? Sure sounds like “terrorism” to me.
.
And again at 2:43, 2:51…
.
And here’s the vid link to the statement from the 29th I mentioned above.
.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/president-obama-updates-press-hawaii-1229
.
Ðámņ Obama and his PC terms like “attempted terrorist attack” and “potential terrorist attacks” when he could have just yelled TERROR” and made the Right happy. How can the man live with himself?
“I really hate to ask this, but what the hëll are you smoking?”
Obviously not stuff as good as you are.
“There have been terrorist attacks (the underwear bomber and the CIA bomber) and there are foreign messes where he is flexing his muscles, humanitarian aid in Haiti and the ongoing situations in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and anywhere else that we are sending predator drones and whatnot, and all I am seeing are attacks that he hasn’t done enough in Haiti compared to George Bush in New Orleans, or that he didn’t do enough about the underwear bomber compared to George Bush (speaking out much earlier, etc) or that he’s not prosecuting the war on terror enough. Bill, you often have a habit of showing your sources and articles but in this one instance I can’t possibly understand your reasoning.”
Because you’re either incapable or don’t want to. By attacks, I’m pretty sure Bill means a SUCCESSFUL attack, the type that brought the country together on 9/11. People would rally around Obama – or whoever is in office at the time – were such a thing to happen.
However, the reason Obama is getting hammered is because he comes off as PC, mamby-pamby and weak. The Ft. Hood shooter was definitely a terrorist, yet Obama and the rest in his Administration treat it like a “typical case of workplace violence” – which is absolute bûllšhìŧ. By braking our vertabraes bending over bckward not to offend people who would support a killer, Obama deserves whatever criticism he gets. The POTUS should not take three days to make a comment on an attempted Christmas Day bombing and a week to sound like his head isn’t in the sand (or somewhere else), either. Sends a very weak message and paints a very unflattering portrait.
“Because you’re either incapable or don’t want to. By attacks, I’m pretty sure Bill means a SUCCESSFUL attack, the type that brought the country together on 9/11.”
I don’t claim to be able to read Bill Mulligan’s mind and tell people what he really means, only what the sentence says.
“People would rally around Obama – or whoever is in office at the time – were such a thing to happen”
Complete and utter bûllšhìŧ. Maybe the majority of Americans would, but the Fox news loving Hannity/Coulter/Rush/Beck/O’Reily/etc types who’ve been teabagging with signs showing him as Hitler, the ones (like you) who keep calling him a liberal socialist no matter how much he dissapoints the progessives by voting for Bush’s wiretap laws, Keeping guantanemo, exapnding the wars, kowtowing to Lieberman about dropping any public option, etc. etc. etc. will keep describing him as a liberal/pacifist/socialist/communist/facist even if he brings in Osama bin Ladin while bowing to Ayn Rand. he has not been bending over backwards to avoid offending terroist lovers except in the mid of people like you.
The only intelligent thing to do with a confirmed absolute Obama hater like you is to take a lesson from the owner of this blog when faced with bald-faced bûllšhìŧ and shroud the anti-Obama troll.
Apologies to those who love proper spelling. It should have been “except in the minds of people like you.”
<i.People would rally around Obama – or whoever is in office at the time – were such a thing to happen.
.
Like hëll they would. Any Democrat in office going back several election cycles has been painted as unpatriotic, unwilling to support this country, etc etc. Will make this country less safe – as you yourself have already accused Obama of doing in your posts in this thread.
.
A 9/11-esque attack on this country under Obama would send an already frothing right-wing into overdrive.
.
The Ft. Hood shooter was definitely a terrorist
.
Because it’s so simple to label *everybody* a terrorist, as the right is so wont to do.
.
So tell me, why should somebody who shoots up their workplace NOT be called a terrorist? Why is this guy a terrorist? Because he’s Muslim and/or Middle Eastern? Because that seems to be the only distinction here as to why he’s a terrorist, and somebody else going postal isn’t.
.
The POTUS should not take three days to make a comment on an attempted Christmas Day bombing
.
What is he supposed to say? The obvious in that he condemns it? And why is it so dámņ important that he say the obvious within whatever time span you demand of him? Or using the terms you demand of him?
.
You’re not going to vote for him – or support him – no matter what he does; just like many of us wouldn’t with Bush on many things. The distinction here, however, is that many of us could find *something* to support Bush on (the war in Afghanistan, for example). There seems to be nothing that Obama or the Democrats could do that you would support or earn your praise.
.
While we’re all here, perhaps you’d like to give your opinion on Obama’s response to the earthquake in Haiti? Was it fast enough for you? Or does it just piss you off that much more that he responded to that within X hours not but the bombing attempt?
Ok, I’m sorry, I missed that there had been a reply to what i really thought was a pretty innocuous statement above…let me go through this:
.
I don’t claim to be able to read Bill Mulligan’s mind and tell people what he really means, only what the sentence says.
“People would rally around Obama – or whoever is in office at the time – were such a thing to happen”
Complete and utter bûllšhìŧ. Maybe the majority of Americans would, but the Fox news loving Hannity/Coulter/Rush/Beck/O’Reily/etc types who’ve been teabagging with signs showing him as Hitler, the ones (like you) who keep calling him a liberal socialist no matter how much he dissapoints the progessives by voting for Bush’s wiretap laws, Keeping guantanemo, exapnding the wars, kowtowing to Lieberman about dropping any public option, etc. etc. etc. will keep describing him as a liberal/pacifist/socialist/communist/facist even if he brings in Osama bin Ladin while bowing to Ayn Rand. he has not been bending over backwards to avoid offending terroist lovers except in the mid of people like you.
.
I love this. I say that people would rally around the president and you say that this is complete and utter bûllšhìŧ. And THEN–in the very next line–you say “Maybe the majority of Americans would, but–”
.
Well hold the presses but you just invalidated the “complete and utter bûllšhìŧ”. You just agreed with me. I mean, when someone says “people will rally around the president” I thin anyone with an IQ above single digits would understand that this does not mean every single living human on the face of the earth. Right? yes, there would be those who would use that or any other issue to attack him. What a profound insight.
.
The question was, what might improve Obama’s standing. My answer was, an attack on the country. You agree that a majority of the people might indeed rally around the president. And then you write a sentence that I can only imagine you’ve been saving up. Should have waited for a better time because it makes no sense once you’ve agreed with me. Jesus!
.
The only intelligent thing to do with a confirmed absolute Obama hater like you is to take a lesson from the owner of this blog when faced with bald-faced bûllšhìŧ and shroud the anti-Obama troll.
.
Then you won’t see this reply. Doesn’t change its validity though. Unless you were referring to Jerome in that part (hard to tell, though it SEEMS to still be addressing me) I can only conclude you are nuts. Saying that people will rally around the president during a time of crisis does not make one a hater of the president. I’m not going to bother with any arguments about how I don’t hate Obama–quite the contrary, in fact–because how exactly could I hope to convince someone who really seems to be determined to find offense by any means necessary?
.
Craig–you are NOT a nut. But it still seems to me that you are conflating “People would rally around Obama – or whoever is in office at the time – were such a thing to happen.” with “Everyone would rally around Obama – or whoever is in office at the time – were such a thing to happen.”
.
Never said that. Don’t think it. Unless you assume that the majority of the people are the “frothing right-wing” what makes you assume that I’m wrong?
So tell me, why should somebody who shoots up their workplace NOT be called a terrorist? Why is this guy a terrorist? Because he’s Muslim and/or Middle Eastern? Because that seems to be the only distinction here as to why he’s a terrorist, and somebody else going postal isn’t.
.
Well, that and it was politically motivated, as opposed to being motivated by being fired. Its point was to instill, what’s the word, terror among an opponent rather than to kill the guy who fired you and then yourself. So apart from missing the point of ever designating someone a terrorist, you have a great argument.
.
While we’re all here, perhaps you’d like to give your opinion on Obama’s response to the earthquake in Haiti? Was it fast enough for you?
.
It was about as fast as President Bush’s response to Katrina, so yeah, I’m pretty satisfied. You?
David the Bold —
.
Really? Really? Obama didn’t take until the 4th day to make honest, informed opinions about the earthquake. Bush, on the other hand, mentioned off-handedly that a hurricane had happened and that everything was fine. Then he played a guitar and sang happy birthday to John McCain. Then he continued his vacation until public uproar forced him to speak, and then all he could say was, “You’re doin’ a helluva job, Brownie.”
.
It’s be nice if you included the truth in your posts once in a while.
Well, the Administration declared a state of emergency before the hurricane made landfall, so there’s that. And troops arrived within 24-48 hours, which is, um, what were the words I used, “about as fast” as the deployment to Haiti. The underlying problem may be that emergency management is by default a local/state responsibility, with the federal government as a secondary resource. The Administration swears it called Mayor Nagin to talk him into a mandatory evacuation of the city; Bush would have had no authority to order one himself if he’d wanted to. Federal troops are legally barred from enforcing criminal law, so short of invoking the Insurrection Act (q.v. Los Angeles riots in 1992) the federal authorities couldn’t have helped with the looting, and Governors Blanco and Barbour both rejected that idea. So I apologize if my normal level of truthiness bothers you, but I’m somewhat handicapped by the fact that I actually know what I’m talking about, which I’ve noticed doesn’t constrain everyone.
“Well, the Administration declared a state of emergency before the hurricane made landfall, so there’s that.”
.
A moot point in comparing Katrina to Haiti. An earthquake cannot be predicted.
.
Monday morning, the levees were breached. 48 hours later, Bush still on vacation.
.
7 days later 40,000 National Guard and others finally deployed.
.
And this was in the United States, not an island almost 2000 miles away.
.
Bush was made of FAIL, and so is anyone who supports his handling of the hurricane Katrina situation.
Bill, you’re quoting Jonathan Roth here, not me.
Well, that and it was politically motivated, as opposed to being motivated by being fired.
.
So, Lee Harvey Oswald was a terrorist? John Wilkes Booth?
.
Sounds a bit silly, doesn’t it?
.
The definition of terrorist has been conveniently expanded since 9/11 so that anybody who the gov’t (and their supporters) want to be defined as a terrorist can now easily be defined as such. On top of that, the Bush Administration decided early on that terrorists have no rights, which made them that much easier to ‘identify’ and deal with.
.
So, going back to the above. If LHO and JWB aren’t terrorists we’re back to square one on just why the Ft. Hood shooter is a terrorist. And again, it seems to be simply that he’s Muslim, and therefore it’s convenient to label him as a terrorist.
Actually, I’d agree that Booth fits the description of “terrorist” pretty well. Oswald doesn’t seem to have been part of any movement — or had any personal inclination that we know of — to destabilize the government or put people into fear. He was a lone nutjob. Booth on the other hand had very similar motivations to, and came from the same movement as, the Klan, which was the prototypical domestic terrorist movement. (And which, I suspect, encompassed zero Muslims. Sorry to rain on your prejudice.) So yeah, I’d say John Wilkes Booth could be fairly characterized as a terrorist.
Re: states of emergency. A moot point in comparing Katrina to Haiti. An earthquake cannot be predicted.
.
Yes, except that the state of emergency declaration is what frees up Federal aid for the states’ emergency responses. It puts the lie to your claim that the Administration did nothing for several days (which in turn gets back to my original statement that Obama’s response was as quick as Bush’s, which I didn’t intend as a dig at either). So do the 2600 troops dispatched 2 days before landfall, the 5300 dispatched the day before landfall, and Gov. Blanco’s assurance on the day of landfall that the LA National Guard could “handle it.” And, again, under a federal system, the states are expected to handle things until they get out of hand, like when levees collapse in major cities, for instance. The initial two deployments more than doubled the strength of the LANG available. That’s nothing to sneeze at. It’s not like FEMA has an army that was sitting by idly– it takes a while to get people called in from their civilian jobs, and while called up they’re under the same restrictions as regular troops. I have honestly never understood why people got so worked up about Bush during Katrina.
.
Really, this is getting embarrassing. Do you ever look up your “facts” or do they get too much in the way of your “truth?” What’s your next argument, that the hurricane was God’s punishment for US foreign policy? (Maybe I should be careful about making throwaway sarcastic comments like that. CJR made one and it’s hijacked the thread.) Since each of us seems to think the other is an idiot beyond reasoning with, maybe we should just let this one go.
Craig, I was responding to your statements that Like hëll they would. Any Democrat in office going back several election cycles has been painted as unpatriotic, unwilling to support this country, etc etc.
.
and
.
A 9/11-esque attack on this country under Obama would send an already frothing right-wing into overdrive.
.
My reply to that was that unless the frothing right wing makes up a majority of the country, I still think my point holds.
.
So, Lee Harvey Oswald was a terrorist? John Wilkes Booth?
.
No, they were assassins. They had specific people they wanted to kill and (arguably in Booth’s case) were not motivated by extending their ideology through the threat of murder. John Brown was a terrorist (more for his actions in Kansas than at Harper’s Ferry). Nat Turner was a terrorist. The KKK were terrorists. The IRA were terrorists. Timothy McVigh was a terrorist. Not a Muslim on the list.
.
Now was the Fort Hood shooter a terrorist or a religious nut? His motivations and possible accomplices may be the determining factor. Not that he’s a Muslim, just that he is sympathetic to Muslim terrorism and may have felt that this was his contribution to same.
.
At any rate, the only political fallout that I see as legitimate from the Fort Hood shootings is that there needs to be some explanation as to why a man who seemed to be sending huge signals of impending doom was allowed to continue to go about his business.
Well, at least one person in the Obama administration thinks the Fort Hood shooting was terrorism: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2010/01/fort_hood_shooting_was_terrorism_us_says.php?ref=fpa
.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The shooting rampage at a U.S. Army base in November was “an act of terrorism,” an Obama administration official said on Friday, as the Pentagon ordered an overhaul of protocols to spot threats within the military.
Craig, I was responding to your statements
.
Bill, the fact remains that you quoted entire sentences and such from Jonathan, then semi-quoted me and used my name. I don’t see how I could be left with anything but the impression that you were directing the entire post, quotes and all, to me.
Sorry to rain on your prejudice.
.
*My* prejudice? WTF are you talking about? No, wait, never mind, Don’t bother, as I really no longer care about whatever it is you’re trying to spout on about.
Craig, I apologize for not making it more clear. The only part of that post I was directing at you was the part after “Craig”. It would have been better to just have a separate post, I guess.
.
I still think I made a valid point.
*My* prejudice? WTF are you talking about? No, wait, never mind, Don’t bother, as I really no longer care about whatever it is you’re trying to spout on about.
.
That would be your assumption that “he’s Muslim and/or Middle Eastern… seems to be the only distinction here as to why he’s a terrorist, and somebody else going postal isn’t.” Rather than refute my counter-arguments — which directly addressed your “well then why aren’t Booth and Oswald terrorists” by explaining why I think one is and one isn’t– you just came back with the same bald assertion.
.
From dictionary.com: “Prejudice. noun
1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.” If you have some actual proof or data backing up your claim that the concept of terrorism is racially or religiously biased, feel free to actually state it. Oh, and explain why a bunch of white Catholics are considered terrorists. (Perhaps you’ve heard of the IRA. Or are they secretly Middle Eastern Muslims, too?)
.
And I know you don’t care about whatever it is I spout. Actually engaging someone else in a discussion would get in the way of your a priori assumptions and set all your straw men on fire. But I do wonder, since you don’t seem to want to listen to me, or Bill, or anyone else who actually wants to debate you, why do you bother posting on a blog?
That would be your assumption that “he’s Muslim and/or Middle Eastern
.
Well, then I guess I’ll just assume you’re Jerome from now on, since you are apparently speaking for him. Personally, I’d like HIM answer to this, since he’s the one that called the Ft. Hood shooter a terrorist in the first place. But then, seeing as he too seems to think I’m hooked on race, apparently I can expect him to also speak for you as well?
.
Perhaps you’ve heard of the IRA. Or are they secretly Middle Eastern Muslims, too?)
.
Yeah, I’ve heard of the IRA (or is this where I channel Bill about sarcasm being unnecessary? Oh, wait, you already said you shouldn’t, yet you do it again anyways.) But in the end, they’re not the ones being discussed here, are they? They’re not attacking this country, are they? You said political motivation was a key factor, so I provided counter-examples to show why even the presence of such motivation doesn’t explain the current climate of how and why people are being labeled as terrorists.
.
It is by no means a race issue or prejudice issue or anything of the sort on my part. It is simply acknowledging what is actually happening: those most often being labeled terrorist are Muslims and/or Middle-Easterners.
.
There remains the political expediency in throwing the word terrorist around to the point that it’s become another buzzword (and a tired one at that). Again, *of course* I know about the IRA, but I can also point to the fact that some eco-groups have been labeled as terrorist (eco-terrorist) since 9/11.
.
I even recall one story where a gov’t official brought forth the notion that people who pirate movies and music could be funding terrorists. Which is really no different than the Saddam-9/11 insinuations. Simply call it or link it to terrorism, because what red-blooded American would support terrorism?
.
And yet, I also recall debates (yes, honest-to-goodness debates!) during the height of the Iraq war regarding those who were fighting us there. The assumption from many was that anybody who was fighting our troops were terrorists. Never mind that if your home was invaded, you might want to fight off the invaders, regardless of who they are. And that’s what we were to many Iraqis: invaders, not liberators. But it’s much easier to call them all terrorists as our own soldiers are dying in a war they should’ve never been thrown into.
.
why do you bother posting on a blog?
.
If I don’t respond, will you just consider it another instance of my refusing to have a ‘debate’ with you? Do you normally go around to various blogs and question why people are there, or did you just save this particular bit of silliness for me?
.
Using the site is a struggle at times since PAD had it updated. It’s harder to keep track of new posts, the nesting really isn’t that useful, among other things. So, I’m sure like others, I miss things that I should respond to, or I simply can’t easily find them again if I can’t respond right away.
.
But now I’ll ask that you to mind your own dámņ business with regards to which posts I respond to and which ones I do not, or how I choose to debate. But if you want to target me, feel free to get in line behind Jerome; one of these days I’ll learn to stop responding to him.
If your first argument had been as coherent as this last post, I wouldn’t have gone after you. But, sadly, it wasn’t, and you can’t retroactively become plausible. Your original statement– the one I still think was indefensible– ran thus:
.
[original post] The Ft. Hood shooter was definitely a terrorist
.
[you] Because it’s so simple to label *everybody* a terrorist, as the right is so wont to do.
.
So tell me, why should somebody who shoots up their workplace NOT be called a terrorist? Why is this guy a terrorist? Because he’s Muslim and/or Middle Eastern? Because that seems to be the only distinction here as to why he’s a terrorist, and somebody else going postal isn’t.
.
My point is as it has always been: that claim is absurd. Terrorism is always a political designation, it’s properly applied to the political use of violence to induce terror. The Ft Hood guy employed violence to try to strike at US Forces at home, where they didn’t expect it, from one of their own. Terror had to have been a primary goal of his. If he isn’t a terrorist, the word has no meaning, and that doesn’t have a dámņëd thing to do with his race or religion, apart from the fact that his association with Muslim extremists was his particular motivation. Usually “terrorism” is applied to violence against nonmilitary targets, but not always.
.
You brought up a pair of assassins. To some extent I suppose all assassins are inherently terrorists, but I think it makes more sense to categorize Booth (striking back at the leadership of his enemy in revenge for his side’s loss) as a terrorist, and not to so categorize Oswald (striking at the President because Oswald was a nutjob). Again, political violence directed against civilians designed to instill fear is the core definition of terrorism. People going postal at their workplaces because they’re mentally unbalanced and/or recently fired? Not so much. Eco-terrorists? Hmm, politically motivated acts of violence designed to intimidate their civilian opponents. Yup, I’ll go along with calling them terrorists. And of course, I would like to point out that such groups aren’t typically allied with Middle Eastern Muslim extremists, going back to your first claim.
.
You’re right that the IRA wasn’t under discussion because they weren’t attacking this country. However, you completely miss the point of why I brought them up. Your claim was that the term “terrorism” is tossed around by “the right” (that homogeneous conspiracy that kinda sorta not really brought down the Clintons) because it’s so easy, and that it’s only applied to this guy because he was a Middle Eastern Muslim. I maintain that your point is flatly disproven by the fact that the US Government, the right, the left, and pretty much everyone outside of Boston or Dublin has always considered the IRA to be terrorists. They’re not Muslim. They’re not Middle Eastern. And yet they’re almost universally considered terrorists. How do you reconcile that with your original point? You twice said that Maj. Hasan’s race and religion were the only reason he was being treated as a terrorist, and that’s just false. It’s false to a degree I can’t understand how you could genuinely believe it. It’s like when that Slate editor wrote that the only reason Obama could lose in 2008 was racism. Really? No white Democrat has won 50% of the popular vote in 32 years, and race is the only reason Obama could keep the streak alive in an election against a war hero? Get real. You’re subscribing to the same fallacy– assuming that because you disapprove of the people making a decision, their decision must be motivated by malice.
.
You can rant and rail at me all you want, drop all the sarcastic comments that you want, but the point remains that your original argument was demonstrably wrong. Deal with it. I suppose I could be wrong in my theory that you just reflexively demonize “the right” for a multitude of sins, particularly racism, and you were jumping at shadows here. Feel free to offer a different explanation. But that’s the “prejudice” I was referring to: not racial bias, but bias against conservatives, of whom you seem to assume the worst, with few if any exceptions.
.
I apologize if you think I was questioning your presence here. It just seemed to me that you were posting comments in a discussion, and then repeating your assertions more angrily after people disagreed with you, rather than actually engaging in the discussion. That simply seems like odd behavior. Your last post however was a rather more thoughtful response to the discussion, so perhaps I was mistaken.
If your first argument had been as coherent as this last post, I wouldn’t have gone after you.
.
Well, excuse me for not being an intellectual heavyweight like you. But I’m glad you found a reason to make it sound like rainbows and puppies for targeting me. And here I thought perhaps it was simply safety in numbers. My mistake. But I’ll be sure to keep an eye out if you give others equal treatment, or whether you truly did just get in line behind Jerome.
.
You can rant and rail at me all you want, drop all the sarcastic comments that you want, but the point remains that your original argument was demonstrably wrong. Deal with it.
.
Well, I’m also glad you’re so smug in your superiority and that your opinion has been deemed so right, and mine so obviously wrong. No, I don’t view the Ft Hood shooter as a terrorist; I think that’s pretty obvious by now. In your words: Deal with it.
.
In the end, I need not bother ‘debate’ this with you further (or has this not yet reached that point?) as it would obviously be wasting time for both of us.
“he question was, what might improve Obama’s standing. My answer was, an attack on the country. You agree that a majority of the people might indeed rally around the president.”
Human nature being what it is, even moderate Americans might react differently to a terrorist attack under Obama as they did to an attack under Bush, even if both leaders used exactly the same methods to deal with terrorism.
When someone like Obama presents a message of peace and optimism, and uses moderate and nuanced speech, a terrorist attack, and the fear that follows, might cause people to feel a sense of disappointment with these messages and turn on the president who promoted them, even if the me
On the other hand a leader who already had an aggressive, somewhat pessimistic outlook on security issues might not be equally penalized for terrorism that occurred on his watch.
Bill Mulligan, I thought it was clear that I was responding to Jerome in my reply. I don’t know how it showed up on your computer. But mine showed a clear reply to you under your comment and clear reply to Jerome under his. In brief:
1. I disagree that “people would rally around the president in case of a terrorist attack” because we have had terrorist attacks lately (fort hood, the bomber, and the holocaust memorial shooting, among others…) and I haven’t noticed any significant rallying around the president.
2. The “people would rally around the president” line I was responding to was in Jerome’s statement, not yours, and I called it bûllšhìŧ because it is. The *maybe* was a qualifier. As I pointed out above, we’ve had terrorist attacks, and Obama hasn’t had any increase in his support that I’ve seen reported anywhere, so why on earth would things be different if there were major 9/11 level casualties? “Oh, wait, I didn’t like him when only a few people died but now that lots of people have, I’ve gotta get behind him.”
3. I started off this post getting ready to type an apology for not being clear who I was addressing, but then I scrolled back to double check and it looks pretty clear that I was not calling you an Obama hater. You and I have had our disagreements on this blog and when we have you have backed up your views with sources and I respect you for that. My comments about being a troll were specifically directed at Jerome because his posts have been uniformly parroting the “Obama is a liberal/socialist/pacifist/etc. line no matter what directions Obama takes. If you think I wasn’t being clear then I apologize, but from where I’m reading this it comes across clearly.
In summary:
I do not think that you are a troll, Obama hater or anything of the sort.
No, I should be the one apologizing–I actually thought the quote “people would rally around the president” was mine, not Jeromes. So I thought everything you said was applying to me. Since none of that made sense and since you have not seemed like a crazy person in the past I should have checked my assumptions a lot more carefully. I’m sorry I flew off the handle like that. Your kind words are deeply appreciated and I will try to make sure in the future they are deserved.
.
I still disagree with you on the issue (and I don’t know that you can legitimately dismiss Jerome as simply an Obama hater but I can’t argue with that with the vehemence I did when I thought it was my own mindset being attacked).
.
After all, “Oh, wait, I didn’t like him when only a few people died but now that lots of people have, I’ve gotta get behind him.” pretty much describes how somewhere around half the country responded to Bush after 9/11. AND let me note the latest Gallup poll which showed, quote, “Prior to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s alleged attempt to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight headed for Detroit on Christmas Day, 45% of Americans approved and 47% disapproved of Obama’s handling of terrorism. Now those who approve outnumber those who disapprove by 49% to 46%, according to the Jan. 8-10 USA Today/Gallup poll.
.
Yes, not exactly a tsunami of support but an interesting change, given that the panty bomber is widely (and in my view correctly) scene as a real failure on our part to connect the dots (Hëll, the dots were already connected and highlighted). And given the sheer blithering incoherence of Napolitano’s initial appearances, I might have expected Obama to catch some of the fallout. But no, his approval rose on the issue. So I think one can make a good argument that it’s just our nature to rally around the leader when we feel threatened. Not every time and as Micha pointed out, a lot may depend on our initial perceptions of the leader.
Fair Enough. I’m just used to what seems like a constant drumbeat. “Obama bad…Obama bad…Obama bad.” And the constant “He’s a liberal socialist/facist/atheist/communist muslim atheist who was created by the Jews and wants to kill your grandma” b.s. that maybe I’m not seeing things as clearly as you are.
I know that some people believe that George W. Bush had to deal with the same, but without rehashing the entire past eight years, I believe that W deserved it because of his actions.
I – personally as a liberal progressive who worked for Obama’s primary campaign- am very dissapointed in Obama and don’t expect much at this point. As for the stats you cited, I don’t know what the margin of error was so i can’t really comment.
I’m also a bit influenced by a book I’ve been reading, “The Eliminationists” about how the radical right (bombers, separationists, etc.) rely on Limbaugh, O’Reily, Coulter, Hannity etc. for support and to get their views into the mainstream.
I really don’t think that conservatives would rally around Obama after a 9/11 style atttack the way that progressives temporarily rallied around bush after 9/11. When O’Reilly call for a bombing of the KOIT tower, when Coulter says that the only problem she had with McVeigh was that he didn’t hit the new york times, when these people are cheered at Republican conventions, and when the teabaggers show up to call Obama a ņìggër, a facist, etc at rallies, I just don’t see Red Staters getting behind him (and yes, I know that I’m guilty of a bit of a generalization here and going by the worst of the bunch, but the worst of the bunch seem to be endorsed by the rest of the bunch.)
Hadn’t heard the “created by the Jews” bit. About the only time I recall hearing Obama and Jews mentioned was when the reverend Wright,the president’s former pastor, complained that the Jews wouldn’t let Obama talk to him.
.
And yeah, I think you are overgeneralizing to a great extent but in all honesty I can’t get too upset about that since the effect of calling everyone who showed up at those rallies racist teabaggers is only to drive them further into my camp. Amazingly, a republican is very very possibly going to be elected in Massachusetts tonight, to fill the seat left by Ted Kennedy’s death, despite pleas from the president, despite talk that it will kill the president’s health care reform and possibly damage his entire agenda. That only happens when there is a lot of anger at the staus quo and responding by telling those who are angry that they are motivated by hate and ignorance…well, good luck with that.
Jerry Chandler,
“You’re serious? Dude, most people I know outgrew the idea of ”Fear = Respect & Strength” back in elementary school. Sure, you can be respected because you’re feared, but more often than not despised rather than respected. What you’re espousing is the bully mentality.”
OK. I get your “professional fighter vs. thuggish bully” analogy. So with all sincerity and minimal bûllšhìŧ, let me tell you exactly where I’m coming from.
I once knew someone fully capable of taking care of themselves who was on parole and worked at a brutal job with me before my writing career started to blossom. No matter what this guy said or did, the other male workers were determined not to like him. He was verbally abused every day, his goggles were snapped back on his face, he was poked in the eyes. Why? Because everyone knew he was unable to fight back, so they pretty much attacked him with impunity, knowing he would not fight back out of fear of going back to jail. They knew there would be no consequences for their actions.
In a similar vein, I simply feel the mere perception that our hands are tied does embolden thiose who see compassion or vacillation as weakness. And I have seen and heard America referred to as the “big bully” as long as I can remember. This reeached a fever pitch during the Dubya years – and I did find it disturbing that so many who voted to appear strong by supporting Iraq for example, seemed to want to appear strong for their campaigns than for the perception of the nation as a whole. Once it was no longer politically politically advantageous for them to support force, those same people made Abu Ghraib sound like a Holocaust camp.
But while I understand we cannot throw our weight around and just do whatever we want, neither should we apologize for defending ourselves. And it just seems to me, Obama is erring on the side of caution and political correctness and I feel he is placing a disproportionate part of his energy toward PCness and making sure people like us, versus shooting straight about an incident like Ft. Hood.
I feel like our soldiers, intelligence agencies, etc. feel like THEY are on parole, that in the name of upholding a utopian standard, we have rules of engagement that put us at an extreme disadvantage, we have had the Speaker of the House calling the CIA liars and they have the threat of prosecution for doing things they were told were legal to do and the emphasisn seems to be on when we can get our troops home rather than if they are winning.
Obama has gotten a bit better, in my opinion, of appearing strong and talking about America being a nation with more to be proud of than to apologize for or change. I would hope he continues to do more of what he has done so far in 2010.
And Jerry, you seem like a reasonable guy. I wouold hope our conversations continue to result in more light than heat.
Because everyone knew he was unable to fight back
.
Jerome, you’re trying to compare the United States, still one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful, country on the planet, to somebody who was simply unable to defend themselves. And they had been a criminal, no less.
.
That’s quite the unflattering analogy you’re trying to make.
.
Just because Obama’s first response isn’t to carpet bomb our enemies into submission (a strategy that didn’t work for Bush, I remind you) doesn’t mean we are now suddenly unwilling or unable to defend ourselves.
If the US seems right now like a country that is less capable of taking military action, it is because people see how stretched it is in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the state of the economy, and much less. if at all, because Obama’s more moderate rhetoric.
Micha,
“If the US seems right now like a country that is less capable of taking military action, it is because people see how stretched it is in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the state of the economy, and much less. if at all, because Obama’s more moderate rhetoric.”
Okay, Micha. Here’s a hypothetical. You’re a member of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Despite the Democratic candidate to fill Ted Kennedy’s seats assertions, they are still there, you know. Anyway, what to you would seem more encouraging to them – that we’re DEFINITELY leaving by 2011, as Obama made clear while increasing troop levels temporarily and as many on the Left are demanding we do if not sooner. The same person hears that our stock market dropped a few points, that our deficit is rising or that the value of the American dollar is dropping. What do you think he cares more about? What do you think he feels more direcrtly affects him and what we’re trying to do.
Words matter. Again, people can’t logically say that one of Obama’s greatest strengths is his abiity to inspire with his rhetoric and then say thesame words don’t matter when it’s pointed out they may have a negative affect on certain people.
And I don’t feel our enemies take into account how “stretched” we are. We just sent a few thousand troops to Haiti. Even if we are, I think what they take more stock in is how committed we are to the fight in the places we already are.
And, given a true threat, I feel we would get people to enlist.
We had a real threat in 2001-2003, yet there still weren’t enough enlistees. It got so bad, they lowered the standards to all time lows, and still couldn’t get enough volunteers. Then they lowered the standards again to include criminals. Still not enough, hence the repeated tours without proper rest in between, and forced re-enlistments.
Jerome: “Here’s a hypothetical. You’re a member of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan… Anyway, what to you would seem more encouraging to them”
It is interesting how people from the left and from the right try to imagine what is encouraging for al-Quaida. They try to put themselves into their minds. The left think that what Bush did encouraged them, and the right think that what Obama did encourages them. The answer is that both sides are right to a degree. It is important to remember that Al-Quaida are neither Republicans nor Democrats. terrorists have a way of interpreting what the USA does and fitting it into their world view/propaganda.
It is also important to remember that there are other considerations. For example, there is no doubt that they find the fact that you argue about the war, and some think one way and others another to be very encouraging. They also think that you are weak because you love life while they love death.
Al-Quaida and the Taliban (not the same thing) are certainly encouraged by the fact that Obama set a time for leaving Afghanistan. However, they wouldn’t have been significantly discouraged if he hadn’t set a time. Obama also has to worry that people on his own side will become discouraged if they feel that he will just keep fighting with no clear timetable. And there are also the Afghan people who are not on his side but who he wants to convince. So it’s a complicated trade off.
Jerome: “The same person hears that our stock market dropped a few points, that our deficit is rising or that the value of the American dollar is dropping. What do you think he cares more about? What do you think he feels more direcrtly affects him and what we’re trying to do.”
For Al-Quaida your economic problems are very encouraging. It’s all a sign of your imminent collapse as a society as well as in Afghanistan. It’s proof of your weakness. For the Taliban soldier on the ground, whose point of view is more local, what matters most is the military situation on the ground rather than the US economy or Obama’s declarations. That’s where the extra soldiers and improved strategy come into play.
Jerome: “Words matter. Again, people can’t logically say that one of Obama’s greatest strengths is his abiity to inspire with his rhetoric and then say thesame words don’t matter when it’s pointed out they may have a negative affect on certain people.”
Words matter, but both Obama’s opponents and supporters shouldn’t exaggerate their importance. You have to remember that the that reach the Muslims in general or the terrorists pass through many filters. And that what sounds good to you doesn’t sound the same to them.
In Obama’s case his words to the Muslims and his image were a propaganda problem to the Muslim extremists, because Muslims were affected by them. The extremists had to do some counter propaganda and claim that Obama might not be as good as he seems, that he was still controlled by the Jews and so forth. However things might have backfired if Muslims had unrealistic expectations of him.
“And I don’t feel our enemies take into account how “stretched” we are.”
Of course they do. After 9/11 and when you easily defeated Iraq, the US seemed very intimidating. But now the terrorists know that an American president cannot as easily commit more troops either in Iraq and Afghanistan or in other regions, both because of the actual cost and popular support. Moreover, the terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq were able to withstand the US and fight back, which is also very encouraging. One of the nice things about being a terrorist is that you don’t have to win, all you have to do is continue fighting.
Jerome: “We just sent a few thousand troops to Haiti.”
Good for you. You seem to have committed more money than the rest of the world combined. We sent a hospital and 220 personnel.
Jerome: “Even if we are, I think what they take more stock in is how committed we are to the fight in the places we already are.”
Both. It depends where they are. If they are in Iraq they care about Iraq. If they are in Yemen or Iran or Somalia or Nigeria or Lebanon then the limitations on your ability to send troops there does matter to them.
Jerome: “And, given a true threat, I feel we would get people to enlist.”
I’m sure you can. But that’s part of the beauty of terrorism — keeping the conflict below a certain level so that you don’t enlist all your power, testing your limits but not crossing them.
Micha and Jerome, if I could ask a favor of both of you? Could you please try and remember to use periods as extra line breaks as some of the rest of us are now doing?
.
The stripping out of link breaks (ie, hitting Enter a couple of times) is another one of those little things that the current incarnation of this site is doing that frustrates the hëll out of some of us. It leaves your posts as single blocks of text and makes it difficult to read the posts, much less find where the quotations are. 🙂
.
“Okay, Micha. Here’s a hypothetical. You’re a member of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Despite the Democratic candidate to fill Ted Kennedy’s seats assertions,”
.
And, again, we get a Fox News distortion rather than a fact to start a post. I know that Fox loves to crop the quote and and try to confuse Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the minds of their viewers to claim that Coakley said that there are no terrorists in Afghanistan, but they’re playing their usual games, spinning it into their usual lies and the faithful are running with it.
.
This is what she actually said.
.
“Coakley: I’m not sure there is a way to succeed. If the goal was — and the mission in Afghanistan was to go in because we believed that the Taliban was giving harbor to terrorists. We supported that. I supported that goal. They’re gone. They’re not there anymore. They’re in, apparently Yemen, they’re in Pakistan. Let’s focus our efforts on where Al Qaeda is and not always decide that we need to –“
.
And, of course, that noted lib General Petraeus agrees with her.
.
General Petraeus, May 2009: “No, I would agree with that assessment. Certainly, Al Qaida and its affiliates. Again, remember that this is, as I mentioned earlier, a syndicate of extremist organizations, some of which are truly transnational extremists. In other words, don’t just conduct attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan and India, but even throughout the rest of the world, as we saw in the U.K. a couple of years ago. They do come in and out of Afghanistan, but the Al Qaida — precise Al Qaida, if you will — is not based, per se, in Afghanistan, although its elements and certainly its affiliates — Baitullah Mehsud’s group, commander Nazir Khaqani (ph) network and others, certainly do have enclaves and sanctuaries in certain parts of eastern Afghanistan. And then the Afghan Taliban, of course, has a number of districts in which it has its fighters and its shadow government, if you will, even.
.
But I think, no, I think that’s an accurate assessment, and that the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan — that very, very mountainous, rugged terrain just east of the Afghan border and in the western part of Pakistan — is the locus of the leadership of these organizations, although they do, again, go into Afghanistan, certainly, and conduct operations against our troops, and have tried, certainly, to threaten all the way to Kabul at various times.”
.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0905/10/sotu.01.html
.
Other military and terrorism expert concur. While the Taliban still has a presence and there are terrorists there, the Al Qaeda presence has greatly diminished. So what Coakley said is correct. What It’s been spun into is not.
Left a section out up there.
.
Gen. McChrystal: “The top commander of U.S. and international forces in Afghanistan said Friday he sees no signs of a major al-Qaida presence in the country, but says the terror group still maintains close links to insurgents,”
.
Associated Press, 9/11/09]
.
Other military and terrorism expert concur. They may have small groups in the country here and there, but their presence as an organized force is no longer what it once was. Al Qaeda as an organization has left to more friendly neighboring countries.
.
While the Taliban still has a presence and there are terrorists there, the Al Qaeda presence is greatly diminished. So what Coakley said is correct. What It’s been spun into is not.
Jerry, I agree the quote has been overblown, no big surprise in politics, but there is no way to reconcile “They’re gone. They’re not there anymore.” with “While the Taliban still has a presence and there are terrorists there, the Al Qaeda presence has greatly diminished.” as though they are one and the same. What she said was NOT correct (and if it was why the Hëll is the President sending thousands of new troops in?) and was just one more gaffe in a campaign that makes Joe Biden look like a figure of thoughtful reserve.
.
But then, this election seems to bring out the stupid in a lot of people, like the democratic politician wh argued that Brown should not replace Kennedy because ““Why would you hand the keys to the car back to the same guys whose policies drove the economy into the ditch and then walked away from the scene of the accident?”
.
We’re still sending troops because there’s a chance the country can be made stable (and we all know what’s in stables) and because there are still terrorist groups there.
.
Her quote is still accurate because she’s talking about al-Qaida now VS when we first went into Afghanistan. She’s talking about al-Qaida as a organized and controlling force. The question was about “victory” in Afghanistan and she stated that we’ve basically done what we can and should begin to establish an exit strategy since al-Qaida is no longer in control and giving harbor to terrorists. In that context she is correct. al-Qaida has been removed from the power structure they had. They are no longer there and have gone on to greener pastures.
.
Contextually and conversationally it’s the same as everyone last year breathing a sigh of relief and saying that they were so happy that the Bush Administration was gone at last. They no longer control the Whitehouse, they are no longer in positions of power and they are no longer making the decisions. They are gone.
.
The fact that they are still in the country doesn’t enter into it. They’re “gone” at last. With al-Qaida, not only are they not the controlling force they once were, but many of them have physically left the country. In the terms of out original mission and concept of victory, to dethrone and dismantle al-Qaida in Afghanistan and attempt to restore and support a new government.
.
That’s what we’ve done.
.
Now, I disagree with her stance on further deployments. I think the country is still too unstable to discuss an exit at this phase. The neglect of the Bush Administration while they shifted their focus to Iraq and made Afghanistan “the forgotten war” in the minds of many did a lot of damage. We need to do more to stabilize them and to help ensure that they can maintain a government free of al-Qaida influence.
.
But in the context of the conversation she was correct.
Given that an increasing number of our soldiers are being killed, civilian deaths are up and record numbers of IEDs are being exploded, I’m just not seeing how her statement makes sense in any context.”They’re gone. They’re not there anymore.” is not the same as “they’re power is diminished” especially when evidence suggests they may be in resurgence.
.
.
Bill, not everything has been happening in the last couple of years is being done by al Qaeda. The question and answer spoke directly to al Qaeda and not the Taliban or any other terrorist groups or organizations. She did not say that there were no terrorists in Afghanistan or that there were no acts of terrorism being done there. She stated point blank that al Qaeda, the group that Osama Bin Laden was a top member of and that hit us on 9/11, has left the region. Official statistics from our government show that there are fewer than 100 members of the group left in the country.
.
The Taliban and al Qaeda certainly share ties with one another and have many philosophical similarities, but they are not the same organization. Our government, our military and our best counter terrorism officials say that the al Qaeda presence in Afghanistan has been greatly diminished, that they’ve left for safer pastures and that they are effectively gone.
.
During the time that they have been vacating the power structure we have seen the Taliban and other smaller groups moving in to fill the void. It’s the reason that I disagree with her position on Afghanistan as a whole. There are still dangerous terrorist organizations there and, on the off chance that a stable government could be set up and supported, we should probably stay a while longer to help out.
.
But the exchange between her and Gergen was specifically about al Qaeda and in that exchange she was correct.
I think we’re at the point of diminishing returns on this but let me point out that you stated above that “she stated that we’ve basically done what we can and should begin to establish an exit strategy since al-Qaida is no longer in control and giving harbor to terrorists. In that context she is correct.”
.
But that is not what she said and for good reason. She said ” the Taliban was giving harbor to terrorists.” and they were. The Taliban was the government. Al Queda was never, so far as I know, in charge of Afghanistan. The Taliban was, and Al Queda was the terrorists that they were giving harbor to.
.
Not trying to nitpick on you, especially since we agree on the larger issue. but if you’re zinging Fox for supposedly getting the Taliban and Al Queda mixed up…
.
“but if you’re zinging Fox for supposedly getting the Taliban and Al Queda mixed up…”
.
No, what I was zinging Fox over was the fact that their “news” channel has been reporting her statements as her saying that the terrorists have left Afghanistan and that there are no terrorists still in the country.
.
As to what she said…
.
David Gergen: Miss Coakley, how do you think we then succeed in Afghanistan?
.
Coakley: In Afghanistan?
.
David Gergen: Yes, and Pakistan.
.
Coakley: I think we have done what we are going to be able to do in Afghanistan.
.
David Gergen: You think we should come home?
.
Coakley: I think we should plan an exit strategy. Yes.
.
David Gergen: And — then how would we succeed?
.
Coakley: I’m not sure there is a way to succeed. If the goal was — and the mission in Afghanistan was to go in because we believed that the Taliban was giving harbor to terrorists. We supported that. I supported that goal. They’re gone. They’re not there anymore. They’re in, apparently Yemen, they’re in Pakistan. Let’s focus our efforts on where Al Qaeda is and not always decide that we need to —
.
David Gergen: Would you then send troops into Yemen where Al Qaeda is?
.
Coakley: No, I — that’s exactly the point. This is not about sending troops everywhere we think Al Qaeda may be, or where they’re training. We have all kinds of resources at our disposal, including CIA, our allies who work with us. And the focus should be getting the appropriate information on individuals who are trained, who represent a threat to us, and use the force necessary to go after those individuals.
.
In the full context, she was discussing al Qaeda and that fact that they’re gone. It’s not a nitpick for me since a part of the stuff I have to do for my job is study this stuff and understand the differences between the various groups and what they’re up to these days. Her statement is in line with what our intelligence people are saying.
.
When the Taliban was a part of the legitimate government of Afghanistan they gave safe haven to al Qaeda and allowed al Qaeda access to the power structure. We went after both after 9/11, but al Qaeda, the people that actually hit us and were the primary target we went after. And they are for all intents and purposes gone.
.
The Taliban and others are still there in force and are a threat to be sure. That’s why I said that I disagree with some of her stands and her overall position on the matter. But her full context statement is accurate.
.
For someone who has to keep up with some of these things in detail, this would be like someone trying to say that there’s little difference between H2O and H2O2 to you. Yeah, the basic structure looks a lot alike, but I doubt that you would happily down a glass of the stuff with the extra O or agree with someone that they were the same thing.
And after all my nitpicking I come home to discover that the guy I’m pestering sent me KUNG FU ZOMBIE! Now I feel bad. hëll, I’d even vote for Coakley if I could. Somebody has too. And I think she might accidentally vote for Brown. (Still predicting a Coakley win because if I reverse predictions now and she pulls it off I’ll look really bad. But ÐÃMN what a bad campaign!)
.
And thank you for the birthday presents!
.
Hope it’s one you didn’t have.
“Just because Obama’s first response isn’t to carpet bomb our enemies into submission (a strategy that didn’t work for Bush, I remind you) doesn’t mean we are now suddenly unwilling or unable to defend ourselves”
When, exactly, was carpet bombing our enemies into submission Bush’s first response. I remember a liberal friend of mine who actually praised Bush for “not firing off some missiles to just be a cowboy” right after 9/11. Both major military conflicts he engaged in were supported by a majority of Congress, including Clinton, Kerry, etc. And Bush resisted Cheney’s strong advice to take military action against Iran – which I disagree with, especially if they do wind up nuking Israel.
I’ll reespond to your seeming obsession with race later.
I remember a liberal friend of mine who actually praised Bush for “not firing off some missiles to just be a cowboy” right after 9/11.
.
You’re right, he didn’t with Afghanistan. Although, as you say with Iran, it was probably Cheney’s desire to be a complete warmonger in all these situations.
.
Regardless, war was the ultimate response in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and threatened with Iran. And in both of those countries, we assumed our superior army – via bombing the hëll out of places such as Tora Bora – would simply cause the opponent to give up, and they have yet to do so.
.
Does Obama need to threaten some country with war – perhaps Iran or North Korea – to elicit the appropriate praise from you?
.
Both major military conflicts he engaged in were supported by a majority of Congress, including Clinton, Kerry, etc.
.
And when it came to Iraq, every single one of them were wrong to do so. The action taken in Afghanistan had already been screwed up by that point, and Iraq simply compounded problems thousandfold.
.
I’ll reespond to your seeming obsession with race later.
.
Take your time. You didn’t bother to respond over the weekend, so what’s another day?