Quoted by Maureen Dowd, who, naturally, wisecracks that he must now wish he had.
It's not really very funny. On the other hand, why does anyone step up to be President? It's some evidence of Obama's normality, which was one thing I always found appealing. You'd think it would only be really weird folk who'd decide they should be President and can actually handle the impossible job of dealing with all of the problems in the world and putting up with being the biggest punching bag in the world. And here was someone seemingly normal willing to do it... and perhaps as able to do the impossible as anyone else (and more able than John McCain).
More Dowd (boldface by me):
Obama’s re-election chances depend on painting the Republicans as disrespectful. So why would the White House act disrespectful by scheduling a speech to a joint session of Congress at the exact time when the Republicans already had a debate planned?...Re-re-re-spect-spect-spect-spect. (I'm supplying the pop culture reference that I expected to pop out of Dowd, given her usual style and how clearly set up that one seems. Is it a reach to suggest that she wanted to reference the famous Aretha Franklin recording, and she or her editor fretted that it would seem racial?)
Obama is still suffering from the Speech Illusion, the idea that he can come down from the mountain, read from a Teleprompter, cast a magic spell with his words and climb back up the mountain, while we scurry around and do what he proclaimed.
The days of spinning illusions in a Greek temple in a football stadium are done. The One is dancing on the edge of one term.
The White House team is flailing — reacting, regrouping, retrenching. It’s repugnant.
পোস্টগুলি
২২৯টি মন্তব্য:
229 এর 1 – থেকে 200 আরও নতুন» সবচেয়ে নতুন»Dowd wrote:
"Obama is still suffering from the Speech Illusion, the idea that he can come down from the mountain, read from a Teleprompter, cast a magic spell with his words and climb back up the mountain, while we scurry around and do what he proclaimed."
Is Dowd admitting she herself has been cured of the Speech Illusion?
Quoting someone else (don't remember who): "To get respect, you got to gave respect". Since the Chosen One even criticize his predecessor on the inaugural speech, is it any wonder that none of his political opponents respect him?
His performance with both chambers of Congress for the first two years of presidency doesn't inspire confidence, and neither does his mantra of "It's Bush's fault".
Off the cuff, Truman one said he'd sock a reporter in the jaw; for giving his daughter, Margaret a bad review, when she appeared on Ed Sullivan's show. To sing.
What's the big deal over sentences? The sentence wasn't on his teleprompter? Then, right there, that would have been a good thing.
Stand up comedy is hard.
He's still the schlemiel.
But, yesterday, Sarah Palin came out and NAILED IT! Both sides have become beholden to corporations. Until we fix that, the problem remains.
That the problem remains is obvious.
Why is obama hard to defeat? Oddly enough, he's not scary. While other candidates scare the pants off people.
Why is Sarah scary? Does it have anything to do with religion?
Obama’s re-election chances depend on painting the Republicans as disrespectful.
Yet, another elaboration on Obama's 2012 campaign motto:
You're a Racist if You Don't Vote for Obama!
Had a Facebook discussion the other day, and I was accosted with this very accusation.
Here's how it went.
Opponent: There is no such thing as racial and sexual quotas.
ST: But, 90% of blacks are going to vote for Obama precisely because he supports racial quotas.
Opponent: You're a racist for noticing that there are racial quotas.
ST: So, continuing racial quotas is the non-negotiable bottom line of the Obama administration, but if I argue that those quotas exist, I'm a racist?
Opponent: That's right.
If he has lost MoDo, who does he have left?
To understand Dowd one must read in the frame of mind in which she writes. First..drink a quart of scotch. Then you can fill in the rest. But, the scotch is key.
Obama has been asking people to contact congress to tell them they are unhappy with with the way things are going. If I am not mistaken there has been a group of people who have been doing this for several years. Oh right, they don't like what he has been pushing. Forget I said anything because these people don't count.
I think MoDo is just wanting to get the POTUS back to out-smarting the GOP (just like the Debate schedule). The GOP has failed to understand the mastery of the POTUS, so much so that they are writing untrue things or making up things (see for yourself at, http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/obama-speech-fiasco-shows-audacity-weakness).
The bottom line is that GOP will lose badly everything: WH, Senate, and now the House in Nov. 2012. I cannot imagine the GOP ever getting back to the power for at least two decades.
It will be brutal, almost like a horror movie, the way GOP will be defeated, every county, every region, every state. They will be talking about this defeat for over 100-years. Mt. Rushmore, be prepared for the POTUS Obama.
You know Obama and his team are in trouble when Maureen El-Dowd quotes from the Onion.
@BigFire .... yeah I read yesterday (Legal Insurrection) how Bush was booed at the Boy Wonder's inauguration and then our new president proceeded to rip Bush during his inauguration speech. Low class worm.
uh oh, I'm agreeing with Dowd. Something bad is gonna happen.
Obama is owed precisely as much respect and deference as his party showed to his predecessor -- no more, no less.
Take care, your worship, those things over there are not giants but windmills.
- Miguel de Cervantes
Yeah, but he's thrown the game since day one. Say what you will about Bush he suffered over his responsibilities. This joker suffers over how many days to the next vacation. The actual work of this administration is in the hands of Harvard's best young marxist minds.
Carol,
You don't need to preface your comments with "off the cuff"; that's a given.
@Phil - lol. The end is nigh.
R-E-S=P-E-C-T is a commodity that is earned.
Nothing normal about writing your autobiography at 35 and running for Prez after a few years as a back bench state and fed Senator.
As an aside, from my days participating in NHL blogs, one sure way to measure the opposition is to read the commentary to the MSM articles.
Lately, it seems many left-leaners, are dropping off the "hope" bandwagon. For instance, over at The Hill, http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/179461-obama-faces-new-conundrum-in-selling-his-healthcare-law, you an read alot of hand-wringing and nashing of teeth.
From Dowd's column:
MSNBC’s Matt Miller offered “a public service” to journalists talking about Obama — a list of synonyms for cave: “Buckle, fold, concede, bend, defer, submit, give in, knuckle under, kowtow, surrender, yield, comply, capitulate.”
Ha, Miller forgot "bow" which Obama has done literally on more than one occasion.
The notion that Obama is caving in to Republicans without cause... well, that's nonsense.
He lost the 2010 elections. The Tea Party forced him to concede to effective opposition.
He isn't caving. He's losing.
Who's to say he hasn't?
So. which one of the "Eight Men Out" is he? A sad sack like Shoeless Joe Jackson? Or is he more of a Swede Risberg? I'd go with the latter...
"It's some evidence of Obama's normality, which was one thing I always found appealing"
You're out of your mind. The man is a textbook case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
If he isn't a blithering incompetent, GodZero's been throwing the game all along. He took an oath to do right by the American people and he's done the exact opposite every day of this Administration.
Ann Althouse said...
It's some evidence of Obama's normality, which was one thing I always found appealing. You'd think it would only be really weird folk who'd decide they should be President and can actually handle the impossible job of dealing with all of the problems in the world and putting up with being the biggest punching bag in the world. And here was someone seemingly normal willing to do it... and perhaps as able to do the impossible as anyone else (and more able than John McCain).
Normal????
Our Lightworker???? The one who as going to heal the planet?
Come on, Ann, this is the vainest guy on the planet. With less than one term in the Senate and a lifetime of doing nothing before that, this guy figured he could be President of the United States.
No. That's not normal. Not even seemingly normal.
And I'd dispute he was more able than McCain; in fact, his abilities (all he's got is a lack of them, really) have nothing to compare to McCain.
You were wrong about him, Ann. I don't care if you admit it here, but you need to admit it to yourself.
Barry was and is the most uniquely unqualified person to be POTUS and we know it. Even, I think, you.
Ann says:
You'd think it would only be really weird folk who'd decide they should be President and can actually handle the impossible job of dealing with all of the problems in the world .......
It is NOT the job of the President of the United States to deal with ALL of the problems in the world. It is the job of the President of the United States to defend the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. It is the job of the President of the United States to administrate the Federal Government in such a way that said government does it's job it the least burdensome way possible, causing minimal disruption in the lives and freedom of it's citizens.
Those are the 2 legal "problems" that the President of the United States can concentrate on.
Everything else is the President and his political masters forcing their beliefs on the rest of us.
Geezus.
We all need to stop over-thinking Obama.
And those dumb enough to vote for him need to stop defending their vote. It is indefensible.
He was the least qualified man to ever be nominated by either of the major parties for president, by far.
No one can name anyone less qualified than Barack.
His values were demonstrably to the left of those of the nation's history, and to those of the nation's electorate.
Had he been fully white, he'd have run, at best, a distant third to John Edwards as just another vanity candidate, just another Howard Dean without the experience.
That he ran at all under these conditions suggests he is not normal at all; as Clint Eastwood said so pithily as Harry Callahan, "a man has got to know his limits."
That Barack determined he was the best candidate for the job despite the all to obvious evidence he was the least qualified points to overwhelming narcissism.
The fact he and his campaigned encouraged and promoted the whole cultish, messiah (or has anyone forgotten these idiots) aspect of his candidacy speaks volumes to his narcissism (or his "I have a gift" statement to Harry Reid?).
Maybe narcissism is normal among the faculty set these days, but for the rest of us laboring in an America made poorer by Barack's all to predictable inability to handle the impossible job, (surely less able than John McCain) all this mental masturbation explaining away America's awful decision to make this man president is a profound waste of time.
The house is on fire, and we need to put it out.
We'll have time enough to account for the 53% of the electorate that foolishly fell sway to the empty promises of an affirmative action candidate and his ever-risible notions that massive expansions of federal power and debt is the yellow brick road to the Emerald City and untold wealth and opportunity.
ST:
Obama is not losing to Repubs. Obama's ideas and policies are losing to the American people.
"It's some evidence of Obama's normality, which was one thing I always found appealing. You'd think it would only be really weird folk who'd decide they should be President and can actually handle the impossible job of dealing with all of the problems in the world and putting up with being the biggest punching bag in the world. And here was someone seemingly normal willing to do it..."
So when Obama does something you consider weird in others, it's a sign of his normality?
I'm not sure I agree with you a hundred percent your police work there Lou.
"It's some evidence of Obama's normality, which was one thing I always found appealing."
Normality? Ann what normality?
He was a stuck up narcissist, coke snorting, affirmative action professor who got his grades by being 'present'.
He ain't normal Ann and never was. The MSM just built him up and ignored his faults.
The funny thing is, most of the blue states that voted for him are the ones suffering the most from his mismanagement.
And I shed not one tear. Enjoy your hope and change.
Paul said:
"You're out of your mind [re Obama's normality]. The man is a textbook case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder."
All due respect Professor, I agree with Paul. So please get professional help!
Ann says:
You'd think it would only be really weird folk who'd decide they should be President and can actually handle the impossible job of dealing with all of the problems in the world .......
It is NOT the job of the President of the United States to deal with ALL of the problems in the world. It is the job of the President of the United States to defend the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. It is the job of the President of the United States to administrate the Federal Government in such a way that said government does it's job it the least burdensome way possible, causing minimal disruption in the lives and freedom of it's citizens.
Those are the 2 legal "problems" that the President of the United States can concentrate on.
Everything else is the President and his political masters forcing their beliefs on the rest of us.
Here's Obama saying he's not one of "those people" who feel Obama should run for POTUS in 2008.
It would be weird for him to consider it, without, essentially, serving a day in the Senate.
http://tinyurl.com/3fhwjp2
Normality? Ann what normality?
Folks, you're forgetting (1) where Ann has lived, and (2) the profession in which she has worked for the past 24 years.
(1) Madison, WI
(2) Academia
I live in Woodstock, NY, and I've passed in and out of academia for the past three decades.
Obama is "normal" by the standards of those communities.
A red diaper baby who's momma was obsessed with Jungle Fever is normal in these communities. So is the affirmative action hire who owes everything to the quota system.
Ann you found Obama's "normality" appealing?
Join with me in helping make January 2013 The End Of An Error.
It's the least you can do to atone for your mistake.
Yeah, he is the Affirmative Action President, init.
Why does any glib comment that would sound charming coming from John F. Kennedy's mouth sound so FREAKIN' SCARY when it comes out of Obama's?
Agree with others who have noted Obama's acute narcississm without accomplishment puts him well outside "normal." At least in the corporate world, it may be more typical in academia.
What I most disagree with, however, is the idea that Obama was dealt such a rough hand. If unemployment had recovered from the recession with merely the second worst performance in the past 60 years, Obama would be sitting pretty for re-election. Instead, you have to go back to the great depression to find comparable employment statistics. It's a liberal fantasy that Obama's starting position was unusually awful.
What I most disagree with, however, is the idea that Obama was dealt such a rough hand.
I view this differently.
The notion that we should feel very sorry for Obama because he was dealt a rough hand is just another aspect of how much we are supposed to have invested in him because he is black.
If he was white, would anybody give a fuck whether he faced tough problems?
No, because that's the job of president. If he were a white guy, we'd think that he was just lucky as hell to have the job and to be able to commandeer a Boeing 747 for his vacation.
"It's some evidence of Obama's normality, which was one thing I always found appealing"
Yet one more time, you don't read people worth a shit.
"(and more able than John McCain)"
Bwahahahahahah!!
{Simon}
Still deluded... After all these years.
{/Simon}
Ann says:
You'd think it would only be really weird folk who'd decide they should be President and can actually handle the impossible job of dealing with all of the problems in the world .......
It is NOT the job of the President of the United States to deal with ALL of the problems in the world. It is the job of the President of the United States to defend the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. It is the job of the President of the United States to administrate the Federal Government in such a way that said government does it's job it the least burdensome way possible, causing minimal disruption in the lives and freedom of it's citizens.
Those are the 2 legal "problems" that the President of the United States can concentrate on.
The old "our guy can't do it...so no one can" line. The "job has changed and it's just too complicated."
Certainly, it's just Obama, and his 'lack of experience' and his tendency to be "a compromiser."
It couldn't be some of the actual ideas themselves, now could it?
Never.
Why is John McCain not normal, but Barack Obama normal?
I assume these guys are "normal" as in being human. Yes there is a certain pathology that wants to be president that is not baseline normal, but isn't that true for all high achievers?
I do not hate Obama. He is probably a nice guy to hang out with. But he has caused tremendous damage to this country through his policies. More so than John McCain would have done. That is why I want to see Obama replaced.
`
AUGUST 29, 2012: Republican National Convention
ACCEPTANCE SPEECH OF REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE:
. . . . . .. . . . and before we go any further, let me say at the outset that we believe that President Obama is a patriot. He and his wife Michelle are Americans who love their country. We believe that they serve because they truly want to serve America.
But here's the problem: not everyone who wants to serve in a job is right for the job. The talents and abilities of a person, no matter how great, don't always match the requirements of the job. You don't hire the most talented electrician to fix your plumbing. You don't go to your hair stylist to check out your back pain. And you don't go to the DMV to get help with your math homework.
Barack Obama is a talented (pause), spirited (pause longer) young American. But America is suffering because he is not in the right job. And it's doubly sad because America could so benefit from having the talented, spirited, and young Barack Obama in a job that matches his talents!
Let's not waste anymore of America's talented citizens! Let's solve the problems of America by putting the right people in the right jobs! And America, I stand before you, humbled by your confidence, but proven by experience, that I will serve in the right job as President of the United States! . . . . . . . .
"It is the job of the President of the United States to administrate the Federal Government in such a way that said government does it's job it the least burdensome way possible, causing minimal disruption in the lives and freedom of it's citizens."
Maybe Obama should ponder the 10 Principles of Modern Design by Deiter Rams. Inoffensive, unobtrusive government.
wv: synap -- singular for synapses
"Carol,
You don't need to preface your comments with "off the cuff"; that's a given."
That's the miracle of Carol Herman. I'm amazed by it. I suspect she has a team of writers who have been working on these comments for years in advance. You go girl!
D. B. Light said...
"Obama is owed precisely as much respect and deference as his party showed to his predecessor -- no more, no less."
If that's the standard, President Perry is in for a rough ride.
Chase @10:49: That would be an effective set of comments in a GOP nomination acceptance speech. The problem is, the lines about and before we go any further, let me say at the outset that we believe that President Obama is a patriot. He and his wife Michelle are Americans who love their country. We believe that they serve because they truly want to serve America would probably engender embarrassing boos from the floor of the convention and negative comments from a lot of the conservative blogosphere. But that would be the right tone for Gov. Romney or Gov. Perry to go with.
If he's dealing with all the problems of the world, then his caddy should be an elected position, or at least cabinet level.
Thanks somefeller,
I believe that the Republican strategy of avoiding direct disrespect of Obama should be communicated to all Republicans, in every political race being run and begin as soon as possible. Tear down his policies - you bet! But neutralize the perconal . . .
And WIN!
A glance at Robert Reich's article on the page before Dowd reveals who really owns the game, and only those who play along, no matter how weird, will get to play in the game. Truth is that Obama, and congress no matter what color they maybe have not been able to stop the recession created by the financial industry. As Reich points out this decline has been long in the making, and far no one has offered a plan on how to revive our middle class hit by job loss, sagging incomes, and declining home values.
'
SLOGAN for 2012 REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE:
"Had enough?"
`
somefeller said...
Chase @10:49: That would be an effective set of comments in a GOP nomination acceptance speech. The problem is, the lines about and before we go any further, let me say at the outset that we believe that President Obama is a patriot. He and his wife Michelle are Americans who love their country. We believe that they serve because they truly want to serve America would probably engender embarrassing boos from the floor of the convention and negative comments from a lot of the conservative blogosphere. But that would be the right tone for Gov. Romney or Gov. Perry to go with.
Typical sneer from some phony folksy. Nowadays, people like Keith Ubermoronn are more likely to offer up boos for GodZero.
The Conservative blogosphere is angry about what Zero's done to the country. As are more and more people.
Including 59% of women and 56% of Hispanics.
But that would be the right tone for Gov. Romney or Gov. Perry to go with.
Please. It's not the Republicans' job to convince the American people that Barry and Michelle are true blue patriots. Let the Democrats address their own weaknesses. Obama would never put some kind of disclaimer in his convention speech about how is Republican opponent is a kind, decent man who cares deeply about all the American people.
McCain included that pabulum because he cared more about retaining the media's affection than did about winning the election. The Rs should not repeat his mistakes this time.
Tim said...
"He was the least qualified man to ever be nominated by either of the major parties for president, by far. No one can name anyone less qualified than Barack."
William Jennings Bryan had only four years in the U.S. House under his belt when nominated. Horace Greeley, 1872, was even worse: He'd only been a member of the House for a year. Still, I think it suffices to say that Obama was the least qualified man to be nominated in over a century.
"That Barack determined he was the best candidate for the job despite the all to obvious evidence he was the least qualified points to overwhelming narcissism."
This bore repeating since Obama's "normalcy" has been mentioned.
Simon said.....
If that's the standard, President Perry is in for a rough ride.
Seriously. If Perry defeats Obama the first black President you think he is going to be getting even a thimble of respect from the press, academia or the liberals?
He is going to look like Saint Sebastian.
"And here was someone seemingly normal willing to do it... and perhaps as able to do the impossible as anyone else (and more able than John McCain)".
I'm sorry, but that's just stupid.
I'm no fan of either man, but Obama was largely elected because he was not normal, and his life is one of doing little - forget the impossible.
And McCain is most famous for being able to do the impossible: 1) Resisting torture in Vietnam
2) Being a conservative hated by most conservatives.
The delusion is deep.
"But that would be the right tone for Gov. Romney or Gov. Perry to go with."
I would go with:
"and before we go any further, let me say at the outset that we believe that President Obama believes that most of you who live in these 57 states are typical white people who bitterly cling to your guns and your religion. He and his wife Michelle are Americans who are not proud of their country. We believe that they serve because they truly that they know best how to redistribute
the money you earn to make it fairer for the people they favor. If you don't vote for them you are a racist."
ObamaCo has definite problems but compared to the criminals and deviants of BushCo, he and Joe Biden are doing alright. .
"no one has offered a plan on how to revive our middle class hit by job loss, sagging incomes, and declining home values."
Outside the liberal echo chamber, it's all we talk about. The solutions are not even new or controversial. The only reason the solutions are not already in place is politics. The knowledge and logic is out here.
Maguro said:
Please. It's not the Republicans' job to convince the American people that Barry and Michelle are true blue patriots.
No convincing needed. It's about respect - and the ability to seem respectful while doing the damage to the nominee necessary.
I don't know if you know anything about winning elections, but independents are the key. You don't have a chance - less than zero actually, if you don't get more independents on your side than the other side. And independents need to be convinced that the racist card being played and that will increasingly be played by vote Democrats will be neutralized.
Are you still with me, Maguro? That means avoiding the personal. you don't make it a love fest. You are respectful of the personal, and fight like hell against the "business".
It's called rational politics. The conservatives that hate Obama will vote against him regardless, so there is no need to waste time firing them up any further. We need to hit Obama's policies hard, his choices hard, but we only need to do that. We cannot afford to lose any votes by playing to the other side's strength of racism and hatred.
Your illustration about McCain being deferential in his idiotic campaign has no more application here than the flavorless oatmeal you surely chose for breakfast this morning.
I'll be here all week if you need me. bring your emotional solutions and I'll bring the winning ones.
"compared to the criminals and deviants of BushCo,"
Three years now and that's still all you got: blame Bush?
Why didn't Obama just tell us at the beginning that he wasn't gonna help anything, but that he would make it real clear who's fault that was.
That's honest, but I guess it's not a wining message.
bagoh20 said...
"The only reason the solutions are not already in place is politics."
The other side plays this game, and it's infuriating no matter who uses it. "Oh, the Republicans are resisting me because of politics"; "oh, the President is resisting us because of politics." In a certain sense, it's true, but in the sense that's being implied—that the resistance is about "politics" in the sense of "seeking partisan advantage"—it isn't. During the debt ceiling debate, it was repeatedly insinuated that the GOP was playing politics because they wouldn't accept this or that, while in fact we were standing on principle. Similarly, President Obama resists the GOP's proposals because he disagrees with them, believes that they will make the country worse. He's wrong, but it's absurd to pretend that he is resisting solutions that he knows are good simply because he thinks it buys him partisan advantage.
Taking Bob Hope out of context, if you were to see a compilation of all his TV appearances ... I think the jokes would all sound the same.
Until there's a comedian from the right, you don't have a competitor in this race who can win.
Maybe, "winning isn't everything," huh?
It's even probable that obama won't change the comedian, Biden, for another one.
And, hillary is actually finished. Too old. Too ugly. Won't get to star.
It's like the circus. Same old tent. Same old acts. Just a climb up in the pricing structure.
At least we have the Internet.
And, Sarah Palin, yesterday, identified the REAL problem! Both sides are just dealing to their corporate insiders. Some of whom are chinese.
What does the GOP need? A new game.
The democraps? They're worried about 2016. Because they won't be able to run obama for a 3rd term. Unless the rules change. Or he smokes one cigarette too many ... and gets whammied by the consequences. (Like the Marlboro Man.)
Speaking of the '08 campaign, and that's truly casting bread upon troubled waters, one memorable event was when Candidate Obama said at one such venue: "Word, just words!"
Well, that's all he ever had and even then he needed TOTUS to carry him through the day.
Troop, Saint Sebastian, if we are lucky. That guy had it easy compared to the onslaught that anyone who defeats the jug earred half-black Jesus will face.
I have walked out the Appian Way to Porta Sebastiano and tried to imagine the things that went on there in Roman times. It's easier to imagine someone thinking Obama is a rational choice for president, or imagine Saint Carol of the Underscore being succinct, but sometimes revery must be indulged.
Barry And Michelle patriots who love this country and only wish to serve her? Really? You want a Republican candidate to stand up and lie like that? That's what we DON'T need. More phony political pandering.
It's not necessary to point out the obvious, that BO and MO despise this country, it's people, it's founding principals, and wish to fundamentally transform it. Or that they wish to command, not serve. Just say nothing about it and attack his policies. But for crying out loud don't stand up there and insult the intelligence of every semi-sentient being who can plainly see these craven people for what they are and lie though the teeth extolling the virtues of their patriotism and sacrifice. Jeez.
J said...
ObamaCo has definite problems but compared to the criminals and deviants of BushCo, he and Joe Biden are doing alright.
Hmmm..., real unemployment's about 25% (U-6 plus "discouraged workers"), inflation's around 10%, they keep offering up stuff that's been proven not to work, and we're still waiting for Libya to end.
Yeah, Zero and Halo Joe are doing just fine.
BTW, except for Scooter Libby, who was sent up on a bum rap, who else has been convicted of a crime from the last Administration?
As for deviants, J is just projecting again.
WV "renizedu" What drunks say to old friends; as, "Heyyy, dude, thought I renizedu".
The sun got in my eyes. The public are too stupid to understand. This isn't my usual bat. The dog ate my homework. He cocked me when I wasn't looking. It's all Rush's fault - talk radio perverts everyone's mind. My offensive line sucks. Those stupid analysts on Wall Street don't understand what we do. The ref made a bad call. I hate playing in that crappy building. My wife got too fat and too old. You made me hit you because you weren't listening to me. Those mean Republicans won't let anyone else play on the jungle gym.
One think Obama has done is inspire me to try out for the QB position on the Washington Redskins.
We are the skilled position players we've been waiting for!
Chase - I'm not saying that the Rs should run a campaign based on attacking Obama's character. This time, O is the incumbent, he has a record and it's a poor one, so that is what the Republican nominee should focus on.
At the same time, there's no need for the Republicans to do the Democrats' work for them by standing at their convention up and offering gushing testimonials to his patriotism, either.
Conservative. noun. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from a liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.
Ambrose Bierce knew the score on demopublicans. Now read that a dozen times or so until it sinks in, Alt-tards
Conservative. noun. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from a liberal, who wishes to replace them with other worse evils.
It's some evidence of Obama's normality, which was one thing I always found appealing.
No, that is not a feature. That is a fault. That's why you and I are not professional athletes, fighter pilots, or special forces. We have doubts.
Expressing that doubt is be an immediate disqualifier.
Paul said...
"Barry And Michelle patriots who love this country and only wish to serve her? Really? You want a Republican candidate to stand up and lie like that?"
Which nation?
For eight years, Democrats howled that they were going to "take our country back." Since Obama's election, Republicans have been howling about the need to "take our country back."
How can we make sense of this?
Is it worth considering the possibility that we are today two nations in one country, each nation having antithetical understandings of the country's history? Regardless, that is, of how flawed and fabricated we might recognize the one version? That would explain why left and right seem to sincerely have such sincere yet irreconcilable views of not only where America should go, but what she is.
A risky thought exercise, but one that might be worth trying.
J said...
"Ambrose Bierce knew the score on demopublicans. Now read that a dozen times or so until it sinks in, Alt-tards"
The humor here is supplied by your apparently having mistaken Bierce's comment for a criticism of conservatives rather than a criticism of liberals.
Setting aside McCain's bad - and Obama's worse - political views, it's patently clear that Obama is fundamentally weak. while McCain is not.
In the absence of competence, we should have gone with the strong guy.
The days of spinning illusions in a Greek temple in a football stadium are done.
I'm so glad we have a newspaper of record that stands ready to call out political bullshit whenever, wherever, and from whomever it emanates.
Now if that newspaper would start calling this stuff out to us without a 3-year delay, that would be awesome.
J Maynard Edukeyneser, with the pop-economic brainfart of the moment-- Obama has barely touched the BushCo economy program anyway (and extended the Bush tax slashes)--. Re inflation--the usual biz major jaggoff can't make his mind--when the economy's booming, there's inflation. When it's not there's usually deflation/recession. The biz major jaggoff will criticize or approve of either, as needed.
AS far as demographics, go comparing Dems and GOP admins-- Clinton beats Reagan in nearly all standard indexes--GDP--employment, median income,etc Same for LBJ vs Nixon, etc
HATE feeding the trolls, but...
J said...
"ObamaCo has definite problems but compared to the criminals and deviants of BushCo, he and Joe Biden are doing alright."
Shorter J: "We don't give a shit has to how bad things get, as long as we're still in control."
Sadly, the Mugabeization of the U.S. will continue until voters pull their heads out.
No Simon-tard it's a bit deeper and more cynical than that (and Bierce was no pal of robber baron capitalists--he sent Leland Stanford to an early grave). Ie, the implication being that both parties are dysfunctional
Timmy, you and the AA crypto-klansmen are just too stupid for politics or econo., dreck. For one, the endless TP lies about tax rates--which remain at historic lows. (Not even back to Clinton-era rates)
shorter R-V:
This is hard work!
The Democratic account of America's constitution and history sometimes appears something like this: "America was founded by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1930s, and the whole thing got better when Earl Warren added a bill of rights that is the cornerstone of our protections; then the Democratic Party freed the slaves in the civil war when they started medicare and title VII." Before 1930? "There be dragons." Democrats are people who are more ashamed of America's historical vices than they are proud of her overcoming them.
Interestingly, when such people are raised catholic, they apply a similarly revisionist history: The Church was founded by John XXIII when he said "the council is a rock, and whatever you like best, the council's spirit shall make the council's command." The instinct seems to be congenital.
Great, more incisive commentary from the alternate universe Bengt Ekerot-after-a-traumatic-brain-injury.
Unction: 4. Affected or exaggerated earnestness, especially in choice and use of language.
We don't need unction, we need ululation.
Hammer on nail's head. Yes, race. She is saying that race is the WH's election strategy. This aligns with "The White House Insider". Surely she and editors were hoping not to be obvious about that, but even dull and dim I picked up the two respects and the multiple re-s and read "respect = race, repeat, race, repeat, race" ... before I reached Althouse's exegesis.
But she also is saying, what "The White House Insider" also is saying, that Democrats are keen on finding a way to run someone else for POTUS in 2012. This aligns with the idea of retaking the Democratic Party from foreign/financial/academic elites (to include Dowd) who heisted it in August 1968.
Telling on this point is the "liberal" think-tank pointing CEOs tied to the White House whose income exceeds their corporation's submissions to the IRS. They're not happy with the one referenced by Dowd's last sentence. Nor is she, though she'll be happy to see him whup Tea Party movement people, who threaten her privileges, she thinks. Still, crony capitalism is bad, in the eyes of non-cronies.
In any case, the race-based campaign strategy is a certainty. And that piece by Dowd is a literary classic I had no doubt Althouse would not pass over.
William Jennings Bryan had only four years in the U.S. House under his belt when nominated. Horace Greeley, 1872, was even worse: He'd only been a member of the House for a year. Still, I think it suffices to say that Obama was the least qualified man to be nominated in over a century.
all three of course have the distinction of being the left wing candidate in their election run
I'm no fan of either man, but Obama was largely elected because he was not normal, and his life is one of doing little - forget the impossible.
And McCain is most famous for being able to do the impossible: 1) Resisting torture in Vietnam
2) Being a conservative hated by most conservatives.
I'd add a third to McCain's list. Guys that can put damaged planes, at night, low on fuel, in stormy weather, onto a half acre of bouncing deck have nerves of steel. You want a President that works well under pressure.
O'bama? We've seen how he under performs...
Ann was hoping for change and got a whining sniving poser
J said...
J Maynard Edukeyneser, with the pop-economic brainfart of the moment-- Obama has barely touched the BushCo economy program anyway (and extended the Bush tax slashes)--. Re inflation--the usual biz major jaggoff can't make his mind--when the economy's booming, there's inflation. When it's not there's usually deflation/recession. The biz major jaggoff will criticize or approve of either, as needed.
GodZero dug his own hole, J finally get it (there's hope, after all).
AS far as demographics, go comparing Dems and GOP admins-- Clinton beats Reagan in nearly all standard indexes--GDP--employment, median income,etc Same for LBJ vs Nixon, etc
Yes, and the economy was crashing in the process. Willie swept it all under the rug; so whose economy was it?
Sounds like Willie was coasting on Reagan. Once George Mitchell's luxury tax expired, the economy bounced right back, aided by Newt's balanced budget and welfare reform.
J said...
"Ie, the implication being that both parties are dysfunctional"
Bierce wasn't talking about parties at all—he was talking about individuals (a hard concept for you to grasp, I realize). And it should be obvious that the conservative's caution is far more admirable than the liberal's thrill at imposing new mischief. Only a fool sets out to replace what works. If liberals had confined their efforts to reforming or replacing those things which are broken, they would have done far less harm in the last century; indeed, they would have done very little at all.
Unfortunately, this meddling adds an important caveat to Bierce: The conservative sometimes wishes to go back to evils that worked after liberals have imposed evils that don't work.
You know, I sometimes fear that we're just too far gone—that the rot has set in too far in terms of political "reform" and cultural decay. I sometimes think that we've come to far to turn back. But then I remind myself that the Politburo believed the same thing in July 1991. Sometimes your luck changes just that fast.
Oh, of course, I'm not saying that the edifice you've built will dissolve by this December! But I am saying that all the things you think are settled—the liberal's 20th century project of turning women into boors and men into cads, and subjecting both to the omnicompetant welfare state with no education to speak of—are not settled. In a century, I am confident that people will look back on America since the 1960s as a kind of strange aberration.
"To understand Dowd one must read in the frame of mind in which she writes. First..drink a quart of scotch. Then you can fill in the rest. But, the scotch is key."
Norman Mailer wrote in the same frame of mind. I considered mentioning all the men's beds Marueen has slept in as her frame of reference but I forgot the Scotch and decided to ... this has gone far enough.
My word verification for this comment is "dodisms," Hillarious.
David R. Graham said...
Hammer on nail's head. Yes, race. She is saying that race is the WH's election strategy.
that worked once, but twice? I don't think so. Relections of incumbents are primarly a 2 part test:
1. Does the Incumbent deserve reelection? if not,
2. does the challenger scare me too much, else
3. go to 1
I should have added one more plus on the McCain side that folks ignored when voting for O'bama.
O'bama claimed to be this post-partisan light worker who "could change the way Washington works", even though his record (remember voting against the Bush debt ceiling and filibuster of SCOTUS picks) was the most liberal of partisan liberals.
McCain on the other hand had a true track record going back years of bi-partisan legislation (of course that is why some on the right hated himn), and legislative leadership, yet the public gave O'bama the nod on this argument.
style beat substance
On the other hand, why does anyone step up to be President? It's some evidence of Obama's normality, which was one thing I always found appealing.
I agree with the other posters who responded: huh? Normality?
I sometimes play this little game with politicians, I ask whether I think I would enjoy sitting down with them for a beer. Or, in the case of GHWB (41), probably a G&T. And, yes, this is a guy thing - won't work with Palin, Hillary!, etc.
Playing that game, probably the top two on my list would be Clinton (42) and GWB (43). To this day, I still trust GWB, and I think that I would really enjoy Clinton's mind and his charisma. Now, I wouldn't trust Clinton with my girlfriend or paying his share of the bill, but still...
Of the rest of the Presidents of my lifetime, I think most would be enjoyable company to just hang around with informally, having a beer or whatever. The obvious exceptions are Carter and Nixon, and I really don't know about Ike and Truman.
Then, we come to Obama. All I can think of, is that if someone just like him, except for the Presidency, were to walk up to me and engage me in conversation, in, say, a bar, I would try to figure out how to ditch him in short order. I think that it is the self-centered narcissism and entitlement, without anything to offset it, combined with an extreme naivety as to how the world works (excluding politically). In short, the kid in the room who is convinced that he is the smartest and best looking, and who everyone else in the room is laughing at, because he really isn't even close in either respect.
Is that normality? My guess is that the only places that someone like that would be considered normal would be academia and maybe Washington, D.C., though I might also throw in some big law firms.
""It's some evidence of Obama's normality, which was one thing I always found appealing"
You're out of your mind. The man is a textbook case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder."
Yes, he is. No she isn't. She was was up-ended by delusion, a common phenomenon for each of us, but then she righted, unhappily not so common a phenomenon.
It is a challenge, you know. For conservatives, who perforce support the organic growth of the polity's tradition, what do you do when something entirely alien is engrafted into public policy, and is held there by force for decades—so long, in fact, that many no longer even recognize it as alien? Suppose that Rick Perry is actually everything that we hope him to be, and he is handed a House majority and seventy votes in the Senate. What do we do? Do we rip out everything that was done? Just the alien parts, accepting that some natural growth will go with it? That is a troublingly radical proposition for a conservative. Do we just accept it and move on? That's no more palatable, because that alien stuff is radioactive; left in situ, it will continue to infect and mutate the healthy tissue of natural American tradition, as we have already seen. So do we try to remove some of it? Which parts?
What would House do?
Amputation is always radical but it's sometimes necessary.
A coda: I believe that a lot of it starts with education, which liberals have plunged into crisis for decades. Imagined constitutional restrictions have made it impossible for schools to function as they must, and absurd liberal curricula have ensured that even when a school accidentally functions, the "education" is barely worth of the name. One solution to this is simple: Abandon the notion that public provision of education means government-operated schools and move to a 100% voucher program. Just a thought.
"Obama is "normal" by the standards of those communities.
A red diaper baby who's momma was obsessed with Jungle Fever is normal in these communities. So is the affirmative action hire who owes everything to the quota system."
Good point! And I concur with your meta-message, this berating of Althouse over a vote is unseemly.
More tersely, are conservatives now to make do with being Thermidorians?
"Is it a reach to suggest that she wanted to reference the famous Aretha Franklin recording...>
I think that there are a lot of Democrats out there who would love to ditch Obama for the next election. Mostly, I think, because they are worried, and getting progressively much more worried, that not only will he lose in a landslide, that the Republicans will retake the Senate, but end up with a nearly veto proof majority. Something like a complete reversal from the 2008 election. There are a lot of Red and swing state Senators up for reelection who voted for his snake oil economics, time and time again.
If the Republicans end up with a nearly veto proof majority in the Senate, and if the Republican President has any balls (or equivalent) - which may exclude Romney, the Democrats may be screwed royally. Think massive repeal of much of the social legislation of the last 80 years, including, in particular, ObamaCare. And, some tweaking of SS and Medicare. It is possible, though realistically, not likely to be as extensive as many of us would like.
And, that is why I think that such stalwarts as Dowd are sounding out pushing Obama to the side and replacing him with someone with fewer negatives.
Just like I don't think that Carter would have listened, I don't think that Obama will either. We shall see. The problem is that if he does bow out, at this late date, how the heck to the Democrats come up with a viable candidate on such short order to replace him? When this happened to LBJ, he had a relatively legitimate and unsullied VP to step into the nomination. But Joe Biden? Likely the one Democrat who would do significantly worse in the general election than Obama. The only plausible candidate I could think of to replace Obama is Hillary!, and she has her own problems. And, indeed, the later Obama waits to bow out, the more Hillary! will look like the only viable quick pick solution for the Democrats.
I just don't think though that President Obama will bow out of the race, no matter how low his approval ratings go. That would be an admission of failure, something that he seems totally incapable of doing (not that any politician is good at it). We shall see.
Suppose that Rick Perry is actually everything that we hope him to be, and he is handed a House majority and seventy votes in the Senate. What do we do? Do we rip out everything that was done?
Yes, I think that amputation is called for. Not SS and Medicare - for them, a bit of restructuring. Move the retirement age progressively up for the younger generations to account for our longer lives, etc.
But for much of the rest of the non-defense part of the government, by all means, go in there with a saw and esp. go for the new-growth since, maybe, 1964. And, don't ignore agricultural subsidies (but, of course, start with ethanol).
Why would anyone respect a Usurper?
Just had pre-Labor Day strategy brunch with super K-street consultants. The word is that we are peaking just right. The GOP is clueless. The speech will be a grand slam for the POTUS. From here on, it is just uphill road for GOP, while the POTUS will be on auto-drive.
What fun! It is exciting to be winning.
Ah the A-tards are quoting their favorite glibertarians on the supposed inflation brought about quantitative easing--with no proof. Obama's inflation rates are not problematic yet (less than most of BushCo rates). Krugman at least has provided evidence QE works and does not entail inflation. But when yr a Teabug, why bother with like data, or reasoned argument?? / Bloviating, lies, misrepresentation--Sarah-Speak! will suffice.
now, bring on the Laugher Curve hypothesis. heh heh
And here was someone seemingly normal willing to do it... and perhaps as able to do the impossible as anyone else (and more able than John McCain).
The word you were looking for was "unable". And by "normal" one presumes you mean "a former law school professor".
What exactly was "normal" about Obama?
His penis size.
Don't believe the hype.
"He is going to look like Saint Sebastian."
Well, he carries an LCP.
"Until there's a comedian from the right, you don't have a competitor in this race who can win."
She's right, you know. Mrs. Perry is a bit of a comedienne, a hard edged Texas one but still genuinely funny and fun.
"What does the GOP need? A new game."
Concur and comedy is the best one there is. People need to laugh at the cat in the White House. They certainly want to have a good laugh and they certainly want it to be over what he is and wants to do. Palin keeps making funnies. Romney has made a few. With a troll dribbling through the White House in flip flops and sweats watching TV all day while Ivy League youth minions impose pre-packaged ideology on a nation, to loot the same for the benefit of designated "friends," there's no dearth of material.
"One think Obama has done is inspire me to try out for the QB position on the Washington Redskins.
We are the skilled position players we've been waiting for!"
LOL I love it. Thank you!
"That would explain why left and right seem to sincerely have such sincere yet irreconcilable views of not only where America should go, but what she is."
The assumptions there are faulty. Left is not sincere, not of a piece, not independent, not of reality. Left is not self-sustaining, must have right to fight against or it ceases to exist. Right is frequently insincere as well, but independent and reality-based, even when reality-denying or reality-blind. And the nation exists independently of left and right. She simply is as formed and takes care of herself in whatever context she happens to be at a moment. Finally, nothing is irreconcilable because two is not essential, it has no ontological standing. Only one is and does.
Energy and structure make an eternal dance, the fundamental dialectic, but the former depends on the latter. Energy is a costume structure puts on to enact the drama of life. Effort to separate the two is impossible. Therefore, one is the real.
Rodney Dangerfield's whole schtick was based on not getting any respect.
I fail to see the flaw, yet, in obama's schlemiel act.
It's like watching the Tramp sniff a rose. Did smelling it make him Casanova?
Yes, and the economy was crashing in the process. Willie swept it all under the rug; so whose economy was it?
No Maynard-- Clinton's GDP for one was strong, and unempl. was lower than Reagan--it was the dot-com boom. And production's the main factor--when GDP's up, that offsets inflation-- a point the inflation paranoids don't get. Same for QE---the evidence suggests that when QE's timed right..there is a stimulus effect and production increases, which offsets inflation--besides inflation is a sign of market activity..often a plus, at least for business--QE's a moderate policy--Keynesian-- hardly radical. Or are the anti-monetarists and Paultards perhaps secretly socialists? confused either way--
Nope. A fully suited up quarterback would not win. The first joke would be the name on the back of his uniform. It just a great big name tape his mom sewed on. So, if he had eyes in the back of his head ... he'd know the shirt was his. And, not his mom's.
While the democraps have tried to compete by running super-intelligent people. Got them NO PLACE BUT SECOND PLACE.
So, you can take your Adlai Stevenson's. Mix in a few professors ... like Eugene McCarthy (who genuinely had a sense of humor, to boot.) And, then Dukakis. Who became a professor after he failed making it to the White House ... when all he was running against was "a bush."
Obama's got it about right. People who voted for him (AND I DIDN'T) ... aren't gonna go and pick Perry. Or even Palin. (Where Palin delivers right on message!) But no one is gonna fix the problem. Which is that BOTH SIDES are playing TO their corporate insiders. While the People continue to get screwed.
Heck, maybe, this message should be put on condoms! With the lights on in bedrooms ... women actually hand them out, these days. And, they also offer to "help."
Banners, however, don't work.
Hand made signs don't work.
Gathering together to have parades don't work. (And, this is made worse when some idiots brings drums.)
Oh, by the way, I have no solutions. Nor was I ever a writer for Bob Hope. Though I kept thinking I always heard his jokes "before."
Of course, I don't see this stuff on TV. I don't happen to have one. Though I hear they've gotten large enough to take up a whole wall.
Can a fat guy come along and compete?
Yup. Economies ALL OVER are crashing! All Obama has to do is let Merkel go first.
You know what? Obama needs to punch the GOP in the nose. I know this because that's what Air America host keeps telling me. Oh and that the GOP "are a bunch of goddamn fascists". Take my word for it.
Whew. With the baseball season over ... Obama doesn't have to worry about "throwing out the first pitch." Where, in fact, he looked lame enough when he did ... he should send Michelle, the next time.
But that's not a "big" mistake.
Plus, everyone knows how unpleasant he can get ... when he gets pissed at republicans.
I think this, too, is part of his comedy routine.
It's good when people don't take you seriously.
Serious people lose elections.
Carol_Herman said...
Whew. With the baseball season over ... Obama doesn't have to worry about "throwing out the first pitch." Where, in fact, he looked lame enough when he did ... he should send Michelle, the next time.
The baseball season is not over. Plese take baseball out of your mouth and talk about something....anything else.
Stupid trooper york thinks presidents pitch in games after the season opener. Give it a rest.
Listen you dumb twat, Presidents have throw out the first pitch at World Series games. George Bush did it twice.
Even Jimmy Carter did it. Since Obama is the closest thing we have ever seen to Jimmy Carter there is a good chance he will do it too.
Maybe you should up your meds you moron.
Even Jimmy Carter did it. Since Obama is the closest thing we have ever seen to Jimmy Carter there is a good chance he will do it too.
well we can agree he throws like a girl (no offense girls). He obviously must be a better surfer than a Baseball player. Maybe the absent father stuff. I doubt that mom was a big American passtime type.
My advice?
have a scheduling problem. Send Biden.
Next week's speech is going to change everything.
The media knows a secret!
It's in obama's favor to make the race look tight!
Here's an example from retail. Back in the days when Macy's got people to shop at 34th Street, Klein's, down on 14th street, attracted people to "sales." They put merchandise out in front on tables. NOT NEATLY! But tossed! And, they found this attracted more customers! Who came in avalanches to buy bargains.
If the tables were set out neatly? Customers avoided them.
It's the same in politics. If it looked like obama was gonna have a blow out ... the press would report it as "neck in neck, and nose to nose."
Then? You get the "other" benefit. The right goes crazy with hate and spittle. Makes them happy to think they're advising obama, to boot. Nothing is further from the truth!
How did obama win the last time? Easy. McCain came in 2nd. And, wasn't even close!
You think you speak for all those voters? REALLY?
I don't think you speak to a single one!
What's ahead? Who knows? What if Sarah Palin heads a 3rd party run?
You bet, I remember 1992. The first bush lost. Bill Clinton won. And, it was called a "plurality."
Ross Perot, who was indeed crazy, got 19%.
There is, however, only one winnah!
Next time? I doubt if the supreme court touches a close election ... Let alone what would happen ... if the voting goes 3 ways?
To win? You need to have a variety of approaches. And, yes. You still need a good comedian.
Did you know that Will Rogers actually liked Hoover? FDR, not so much. But after an election the guy that loses ... has to leave the playing field.
And, Will Rogers had a terrible plane crash. I don't see Jon Stewart, though, even a close competitor.
Back in the old days? When Will Rogers tossed out his lines ... the entire country would light up with smiles.
Do we have a nudie of Ms Carol??
Probably a dyslexic street hottie, like Ruth Buzzi-like broad. Va va vooom
Sayeth the Wiki:
[Will] Rogers was a staunch Democrat, but he also supported Republican Calvin Coolidge. Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt was his favorite.
RESTECP:
http://youtu.be/YWLMnX8F45M
Will Rogers never met Carol Herman.
Anybody can write for Wiki!
Back in 1931 ... Will Rogers was invited to address FDR's nomination (or some such). He gave it short shrift. He said "FDR wasn't president. So he didn't deserve more of [Will's] time. And, he really did like Hoover!
Hoover's biggest mistake was sitting on the solutions! He got it into his head that FDR was a "feather duster." And, Hoover would offer him his brains ... IF FDR kept him on.
FDR just sat out the offer. (Till the March inauguration.) Then? As soon as FDR won, he went over to Treasury and picked up all the ideas that were there. And, waiting. And, did them!
You might say that Hoover was his own worst enemy. But Nixon still comes in first, in "that" department.
Don't trust Wiki. Go back and look at the comedy from 1927. When Will Rogers was in top form!
Will Rogers (who loved to fly), also visited Russia. Came back to announce his great disappointment. Americans listened. (And, yes. Back then it was radio.)
The Drill SGT said...
"I'd add a third to McCain's list. Guys that can put damaged planes, at night, low on fuel, in stormy weather, onto a half acre of bouncing deck have nerves of steel. You want a President that works well under pressure."
Unfortunately these skills did not help him during the 2008 financial crises when he put his campaign on hold and flew off to Washington. Apparently he added very little to the debate in the meeting between congressional leaders and the President on how to address the problem.
Don't trust Wiki. Go back and look at the comedy from 1927.
Not entirely sure where to find the humor of 1927, but I did find this Will Rogers quote:
"I belong to no organized party, I'm a Democrat."
So he was one of those FDR-hatin' Democrats?
Tim wrote:
The fact he and his campaigned encouraged and promoted the whole cultish, messiah (or has anyone forgotten these idiots) aspect of his candidacy speaks volumes to his narcissism (or his "I have a gift" statement to Harry Reid?).
Thanks for reminding me. I was appalled by this blatant neo-Stalinist propaganda. When I first saw this crap I thought this won't last, Obama's people will see the lunacy implied and put a stop to it. Little did I realize then how blind the Zeroids were then, and to some extent remain now.
He's my slogan for the Althouses of America*: On November 4, 2008 you proved you weren't a racist. On November 6, 2012 it's time to prove you're not an idiot.
*The Althouses are those people whose intellect and probity I admire and yet did something unaccountably stupid for reasons that seemed good at the time. I don't require or expect contrition. The one disadvantage of having respectable intellect and probity is hubris (and we may thank the gods for it, else our literature would never rise above the level of the latest Dan Brown opus). But I do require better performance later.
Yup. At "that" debate, McCain sat for 40 minutes ... Probably stewing. And, then he got up and ran out the door ... without asking the President's permission.
It was so wrong on so many levels!
But there's no reset. Or re-do buttons.
As to "heroics" with aircraft ... Perry is now posing up at Drudge. On a wing. All ready to get in and fly.
This appeals to some.
But it doesn't appeal to a single voter who once voted for Obama.
This is made even worse ... when the right realizes that the youth are the hardest voters to get. And, yet Obama gets them. In spite of all the arguments parents give ... trying to influence their own kids.
Again. That, too, should go on the list of what NOT to do ... when you want to get your kids to cooperate. Go ahead. Tell them what to do!
Meanwhile, if the election were held t'marra, obama wins it. Sure. Not with your vote. Who cares?
Obama needs to fight back, hard.
Think massive repeal of much of the social legislation of the last 80 years, including, in particular, ObamaCare. And, some tweaking of SS and Medicare. It is possible, though realistically, not likely to be as extensive as many of us would like.
Considering the bulk of entitlement spending comes from Social Security and Medicare, tweaking that while keeping it in place won't constitute a repeal of the most important aspects of 80 years of social legislation. Also, I seriously doubt that we're going to see the SEC, FDIC or the Federal Reserve disappear in a GOP administration, Tea Party rhetoric notwithstanding. But if abolishing the Department of Education and some agricultural subsidies will allow conservatives to declare victory and go home, more power to you. You probably won't find a huge fight from a lot of Democrats on that.
Also, if you think that Rick Perry is someone who would be averse to government spending and intervention in the marketplace to achieve his political goals, you might want to read up a bit regarding his programs in Texas over the past decade or so.
Actually, the President has powerful cards to play.
And, it wouldn't surprise me in the least, ahead, if the democraps go and cut 5% of the budget. And, make it look like the real pork eaters and bacon lovers are republican fat cats.
It's always the biggest mistake to think your opponent can't do something different on another day.
Chip, Will Rogers liked Hoover!
And, Ronald Reagan was also once a democrap.
As a matter of fact, I think it was Reagan's working with the A-List stars of Hollywood ... where he learned to NOT inflame their egos.
That's how Reagan got to lead the stars at the their own union table.
It's a good lesson to learn. What does ruffling feathers give ya?
"Obama is owed precisely as much respect and deference as his party showed to his predecessor -- no more, no less."
If that's the standard, President Perry is in for a rough ride.
I expect that the treatment of Perry will be even worse than that of Sarah Palin, especially if he is still leading four months from now.
You know what FDR erased? Wilson's FAILURES!
Nixon had failures that were NOT erased by Gerald Ford! But those failures got erased when Reagan won! And, Reagan won HEARTS!
It's probably the most important thing a politician can do! Reagan's HEART helped Maggie Thatcher, too!
When you want to measure "star power" ... a pretty good place to go and look is how a person ATTRACTS. Or repels.
Then, the place to look is how a politician WITH SKILLS knows how to deal with the press! (Not a skill the Bush's owned.)
Does obama own skill? (I'm talking with the press! Do they like him? They're not going to reflect this out towards the public! It's the backstage stuff.)
And, yes. It's possible that a lot of elites are disappointed. But they've got bigger worries. They've got no other fish to fry.
The democraps also have the lessons of Camelot. Because LBJ managed to get people to hate the whole party! Don't be fooled.
Chicago was an eruption ... because the yoots hated what they saw! And, they revolted.
Underhanded games in politics? Nothing new!
But when you look for talent? That's what's hard to find. "Understudies are a dime a dozen." But real stars? You can name them using the digits of one hand.
And, what we've added? We've added the camera! (Like it or not, Obama makes the grade in this department.)
Who else? Sarah Palin. But the insiders are out to get her! Separate from what you see ... Is what she's up against.
No. I can't explain it.
But then I always thought JFK had a hand in murdering Marilyn Monroe.
Till KARMA came and knocked.
I used to say "truth took a long time to get out of bed, etc." But I think I should have called it KARMA. To me Karma's the truth. And, its always counter-intuitive. When it comes it brings the unexpected.
Hi guys! I'm checking into our MotherBlog to say howdy (I'm moments away from going on holiday, so it's a flying visit).
THE MOMENT I FINISHED READING MoDo's PIECE IN THE TIMES, I HAD TO COME.
I must vent my frustration at this utterly repulsive hack of a journalist with people who can share my frustration. How is it that this person is employed by our national "paper of record"? Can this be the marquee female journo around, really? Good God, anyone of us could've written a better piece than this.
You know we've sunk to such low levels that would make HL Mencken weep, when we the stream-of-consciousness that passes for articulate opinions by Maureen Dowd.
Am I done here? Yes, I am.
Hope to you see you guys soon! I'll be back for 9/11.
Cheers,
Victoria
Victoria - the real story is MoDo is a bitter old harpie. An "old maid". All she has is her NY Times column. Take that away and I'd put MoDo on suicide watch.
Hoover's biggest mistake was sitting on the solutions! He got it into his head that FDR was a "feather duster." And, Hoover would offer him his brains ... IF FDR kept him on.
FDR just sat out the offer. (Till the March inauguration.) Then? As soon as FDR won, he went over to Treasury and picked up all the ideas that were there. And, waiting. And, did them!
This is a myth about Hoover. He was a Progressive and acted as one in running a deficit, trying to keep wages high when they should have been allowed to drop and signing the Smoot Hawley tariff. FDR ran against Hoover promising to balance the budget !
After he was inaugurated, FDR followed Hoover's plan but more so. The solution to the crisis lay in following the lead of Harding and Coolidge in 1921. They repealed Wilson's regulatory state, shrank the government and cut taxes. The recovery took less than a year.
Amity Schlaes has a book coming out next year and I hope she explains it for all the people who swallowed the myth.
H.L. Mencken got bested by FDR!
Where Mencken knocked himself out.
Obama's a cream puff.
But the democraps have no one else they can run.
Meanwhile, Sarah Palin is in a category all her own. I love watching her! I also think she has a lot of self control. And, lots of media savvy.
Haven't seen anything like it since Reagan.
The other woman who has been misunderestimated is Nancy Reagan. She's fighting to keep her husband's memory alive ... as he really was!
So it was interesting to see her invite Rubio to Simi Valley. To speak at the Reagan Library. She's very careful in whom she picks and chooses.
Okay, Mike K @3:52 PM. I went to Amazon. Did not see the new book that you say is coming out next year. But I did see (and order) Amity Schaes "The Forgotten Man."
By the way, the word "PROGRESSIVE" is first used by Theodore Roosevelt. Who became president "by accident." Since he thought he was much too young to be McKinnley's veep choice ... on his re-election run. (And, then, McKinnley is shot. And, dies a few weeks later.)
The GOP hated Teddy Roosevelt! But, yes. Roosevelt won HEARTS. And, decided after the completion of his first term; plus all the years of McKinnley's second term. that he should retire. And, he handed the reins to TAFT.
The fight that followed produced the BULL MOOSE PARTY. Teddy actually came in 2nd. Taft 3rd. And, Woodrow Wilson won.
That Hoover would be in the mold of a progressive doesn't surprise me. And, FDR was only following in his uncle's footsteps. Eleanor, FDR's wife, was also his cousin. And, it was Teddy who gave her away in marriage.
I'm not so sure Americans are ready to divest themselves, either, of the progressive philosophy. I think that's the GOP right's mistake. Along with the religious connotations that go along with the republican's agenda.
The religious stuff is not a marketplace winnah, in my book. But, yes. It's the one challenge that Sarah Palin needs to overcome.
And, as I said, Nancy Reagan wants her husband remembered as MAINSTREAM. Notice how she keeps maneuvering to keep her image of him alive.
Was it Rogers or Mencken who said of Coolidge, "... he didn't have a lot of big ideas, and he was not a nuisance"?
Considering the bulk of entitlement spending comes from Social Security and Medicare, tweaking that while keeping it in place won't constitute a repeal of the most important aspects of 80 years of social legislation. Also, I seriously doubt that we're going to see the SEC, FDIC or the Federal Reserve disappear in a GOP administration, Tea Party rhetoric notwithstanding.
I think that that is really your problem there - viewing Social Security as similar to other welfare programs. The fixes there are fairly straight forward - slowly move the date of receiving first benefits back for Gen X, Y, etc. SS is different because you have X coming in, and currently .98 X or so going out, and soon, 1.05X, 1,1x, etc. Also, cut down on the disability benefits, as well as benefits for widows and orphans. These are being abused, and need a little trimming. But, keep in mind that the SS money going out is the SS money coming in, at least for now. If it were separated from the rest of the budget, Obama still would have run up $4+ trillion in debt in a bit over 2 years.
Medicare is a bit different. There are two problems - demographics and exploding health care costs. ObamaCare essentially tries to solve this problem through rationing, and possibly having the youngest workers pay for health care insurance they neither need nor want to pay for. The solution is not socialized medicine. There are a lot of things that could be done, and they don't paying for Viagra, and they can be done without rationing.
The problem with both of these programs is not that they are good or bad, but that those retiring now have depended upon their existence for their entire working lives, and planned accordingly. And, so, regardless of merit, we really cannot abolish either one.
I agree that we can't abolish the Federal Reserve, but could possibly reform it a bit. They have been printing money like there is no tomorrow, and if the economy ever does take off, I think it inevitable that it be accompanied by fairly stiff inflation (the money supply growth counteracts the loss of velocity, but when the velocity picks up in the recovery, I don't see them being able to remove that much money w/o damaging the recovery).
The basic problem with the Fed right now is that they have used (bad) monetary policy to try to prop up the economy, when their primary goal should be a stable money supply.
FDIC - easy enough - just liquidate banks and refuse to pay for anything above the insurance limits. Not really a big thing as far as government spending goes.
Besides, the Fed, FDIC, SEC, etc. predate 1964 or so, and haven't had the mission creep to nearly the extent that some others have had. My suggestion was to cut the agencies back to those that had been justified before that time (with the exception of Medicare - see above).
Althouse, I love the way you think regarding politics, but would suggest one change.
On the other hand, why does anyone step up to be President? It's some evidence of Obama's normality, which was one thing I always found appealing.
If you were to assume that all politicians are acting, and have merely perceived what you want to watch, mistakes (and it was one) like your vote for Obama would happen less frequently.
I believe that Carol Herman is a hybrid that escaped from one of the BSG basestars.
I believe that Carol Herman is a hybrid that escaped from one of the BSG basestars.
Nah, Carol Herman is just a force of nature. No weird explanations needed.
Medical costs went up because of all the insurance and paperwork. (I remember back in the days I worked for a gynecologist, every woman with insurance got seen for a "yeast infection," instead of a yearly checkup. And, PAP.
Today? The world of insurance means not only does a physician need extra staff AND COMPUTERS, he needs people who specialize in reimbursements.
This is what you can't remove. And, these expenses are part of what a doctor pays to be in practice.
Then, add the costs of medical insurance.
How did all of that happen?
I must vent my frustration at this utterly repulsive hack of a journalist with people who can share my frustration. How is it that this person is employed by our national "paper of record"? Can this be the marquee female journo around, really?
Boy, I hear that.
Dowd's writing strikes me as hopelessly immature, like a mean girl in high school. Every column sounds the same: snippy, bitter, full of little descriptors surely only she (and apparently the NYT) finds clever.
I'll bet she sits there like "Ralphie" in A Christmas Story, muttering to herself about what a great essay she's written.
Gah. She's awful.
Given that it's going to be "show time" for Merel on September 29th ... She needs to replace her recalcitrant politicians with ones that come from the Greens. Or the Socialists. Germany will ROCK. Or Germany gets forced new elections.
I think that's one reason Obama just "holds." He wants the economic mess to land in Europe, first.
Constantly picking on his performance, however, can backfire. Because as the schlemiel, he can always collect the sympathy vote.
Actually, I don't think "normal people" go into politics. Most people would give up when they had to do cold calling. Or door knocking. To say nothing of handshaking. And, asking strangers for money.
There's a great line out there, too, that Mark Shields REPEATED against Mitt Romney:
"Mitt Romney has held more positions than the Kama Sutra."
(I didn't remember that Mitt Romney once ran against Ted Kennedy, for his senate seat. So he ran left to Kennedy at the time.)
Nope. Politicians are a different breed.
It's not really very funny. On the other hand, why does anyone step up to be President? It's some evidence of Obama's normality, which was one thing I always found appealing.
"Normal" to you. But, as I keep telling you, you're NOT normal - you're drawn to deviancy. That's why you could vote for a candidate with terrorist buddies, and racist preachers by his side, by conveniently compartmentalizing them enough to brush all that aside - plus his lack of abilities which was also obvious - so you can go on calling him "normal." But repeat after me:
There. Was. Nothing. Normal. About. 2008.
It was The Year Deviancy Got The Upper Hand.
And we can all see the effects of it now.
I hope you're happy.
> On the other hand, why does anyone
> step up to be President? It's some
> evidence of Obama's normality,
> which was one thing I always found
> appealing.
I agree with the other posters who responded: huh? Normality?
Althouse is just laying the groundwork for her explanation of why she'll let her vajayjay decide her vote in 2012.
Besides, she thinks Obama is awesome.
All that cheating in the caucuses during primary 2008 against Hillary for naught. What a waste, right?
There were more competent people who were available to do the job and would have done better. But he cheated to get where he is today. Maybe that is the problem. He was not ready.
Actually, Crack, voting for McCain was harder!
Remember the tantrum he had when he got up from the presidential meeting? (I think Obama was at that table.) And, McCain was frustrated, perhaps, because Obama was Black?
I can see it way more normal to vote FOR someone else, than McCain. Which is what I did. None of the others ... and I think the list comprised of ten choices ... got anywhere near 3%. Some much less. But even Cynthia McKinney was on that list! Why? Because Blacks also vote. And, she was trying to attract the usual "extremes."
All groups of people have them.
McCain was as bad a choice as John Kerry, as a matter of fact! Men who like their women to have money!
Far from normal.
Besides, since McCain lost ... the lessons go to those who can learn from why he lost ... without insulting other people.
Besides. "Normal ain't smart." I'd rather be an outlier, myself.
Up ahead, also, I'd like to vote for Sarah Palin. It's not an IQ test, though. But it's one of those things where I'd invalidate my ballot if I filled in all the bubbles.
On all other questionnaires I answer I give ALL the bubbles a chance to float.
Bruce Hayden said...
"[Simon said, suppose that Rick Perry is actually everything that we hope him to be, and he is handed a House majority and seventy votes in the Senate. What do we do? Do we rip out everything that was done?] Yes, I think that amputation is called for. Not SS and Medicare - for them, a bit of restructuring."
I would have named them as the most alien and most radioactive of all—and thus the best candidates for the amputation approach. Of everything done in the 20th century, massive federal entitlements seem the most at odds with the American tradition, and the most harmful insofar as they breed a corrupting "ask what your country can give to you" mindset. They more than most are not only bad policy but fundamentally radioactive alien policy that will warp everything around them.
So I agree with Somefeller on that. I also agree with him that "I seriously doubt that we're going to see the SEC, FDIC or the Federal Reserve disappear in a GOP administration, Tea Party rhetoric notwithstanding": No serious person genuinely thinks that the Fed is a problem, and while a few candidates pander to the folks who don't understand what the fed does, none of them are actually going to abolish it. I disagere, however, that we "probably won't find a huge fight from a lot of Democrats on" such issues as abolishing DoE. Their power depends on people remaining historically ignorant and morally unformed (cf. this), and they won't readily let go of the primary tool through which they have corrupted generations of youth.
Then there's this:
"Also, if you think that Rick Perry is someone who would be averse to government spending and intervention in the marketplace to achieve his political goals, you might want to read up a bit regarding his programs in Texas over the past decade or so."
You have to look at it through the lenses of subsidiarity and federalism: Government isn't purchased in bulk. You need not deny the power of a local government to do that which you actively resist the feds doing, and you need not accept that anything you'd let a state government do, the feds must also be allowed to do. Rick Perry has said that he wants to make Washington as irrelevant as possible to most of our lives, and I think that's a laudable goal. What his successors in Texas do with the freedom he would create on carrying out that goal in Washington is, quite frankly, not my problem.
Mike K said...
"I expect that the treatment of Perry will be even worse than that of Sarah Palin, especially if he is still leading four months from now."
I don't think so. Palin gets a rough ride because (1) she was a threat to The One and the media's narrative of his coronation, which holds for Perry too, but also (2) because she's a traitor. Palin is an attractive woman and a feminist, and They believe that such folks are Theirs by divine right. How dare she not be a liberal?! How dare she not butcher her retarded baby like she's supposed to? How dare she be popular! Black and female conservatives have to be personally destroyed because they have betrayed their calling and wandered off the reservation, and the smarter and more attractive they are, the more urgent the need to make an example of them. That's why no one garners liberal ire quite like Clarence Thomas, Lila Rose, Abby Johnson, etc. The heretics have to be publicly destroyed, not only as a punishment but as a warning. By contrast, Rick Perry is a Christian and a Texan; obnoxious as he might be, he isn't a traitor, because They never expected loyalty from him in the first place. They'll try to destroy him (see reason one, above), but They will never have the gusto, the rabid personal investment, the sheer hatred that drives Their attacks on Palin et al.
You have to look at it through the lenses of subsidiarity and federalism: Government isn't purchased in bulk.
If you really think Rick Perry is all about federalism and subsidiarity, you're going to be sorely disappointed.
You need not deny the power of a local government to do that which you actively resist the feds doing, and you need not accept that anything you'd let a state government do, the feds must also be allowed to do.
Maybe so, but if, for example, a Democratic governor who created a single-payer health care system in his state ran for President, it would be fair for you to consider whether he'd do something similar nationally if he had the opportunity. As a rule, it's a good idea to see what someone has done locally to get some ideas on how they'd handle domestic policy nationally. And that goes double for Rick Perry.
Carol_Herman,
Actually, Crack, voting for McCain was harder!
Really:
Obama, along with Ayers and Dohrn, went to great lengths to mislead voters during the fall of 2008. They “just lived in the same neighborhood” and had little contact, they pretended. On the contrary, The American Spectator‘s investigation has concluded that Obama and his campaign staff, with the help of the mainstream media, lied outright about his relationship with Ayers. It has also concluded that Ayers lied about it as well. The Ayers-Obama association is far deeper, longer, and more significant than was ever acknowledged during the campaign.
Now, if you were paying attention, you knew all this. How was voting for McCain "harder" when faced with terrorists during a War On Terror?
Remember the tantrum he had when he got up from the presidential meeting? (I think Obama was at that table.) And, McCain was frustrated, perhaps, because Obama was Black?
Still with the damned McCain-is-a-racist bullshit? Are you kidding me? Here is McCain's concession speech - after a campaign where he specifically told his people not to retaliate on racial issues - you tell me when you see a racist in the text or the video.
I tell you, after the Bush years, I thought I'd seen as much madness as this country could dish out, but it still went on to surprise me with just how low we can go - you people will really say *anything* but "I fucked up" won't you? I'm just a lowly atheist, but I think what Christians call "Hell" is the mind finally facing such a reality while dying:
You did wrong, and you're now spending the rest of your lives doing wrong - like suggesting innocent people are racists - to cover for it.
I think, just like during the last presidential election, many of you are not paying close enough attention to reality to be of any help when you (or we) need it most.
May we all die in our sleep.
Oh - sorry - but I left out the link to that Obama/Ayers story.
And, if you do a search of Ayers and Dohrn on my site, you'll see that none of this was a secret. Those that wanted to willingly ignore the obvious did so, and that's all there was to it.
Ms. Althouse, how the hell can you keep justifying your 2008 vote for that very radical community organizer? No matter how slickly you weave in your rationalizations with other topics, you exemplified the intellectual arrogance of academia and based a very emotional vote in bs intellectual trappings.
somefeller said...
"If you really think Rick Perry is all about federalism and subsidiarity, you're going to be sorely disappointed."
Libertarians and liberals alike have rushed to cry hypocrisy, but in fact there's obviously none. Perry acknowledges the Constitutional limits on the feds and the Constitutional prerogatives of the states. That is a descriptive claim. Then he goes on to say that he'd like to tinker with that balance through the amendment process. That is a normative claim. I happen to disagree with him on the latter, but I see no contradiction in his position, and in truth, if Reason were honest about it, they would admit that they don't either. Reason's pique is that they're libertarians and Perry disagrees with them; they have no serious claim that he's disrespecting the Tenth Amendment. Very few people would support the claim that a woman who insists on following the Constitution is not allowed to advocate Constitutional change, wise or otherwise.
"Maybe so, but if, for example, a Democratic governor who created a single-payer health care system in his state ran for President, it would be fair for you to consider whether he'd do something similar nationally if he had the opportunity. "
Oh, sure. I mean, we don't have to use a hypothetical: We can use Mike Huckabee. I've read his books, and I think he's probably right on most of his points. Where he goes wrong is the seeming assumption that all government is simply "government" and that "government" can, can't, should, shouldn't do this that or the other.
I forgot:
That search would have to be at my old site, rather than the new one.
36fsfiend said...
Unfortunately these skills did not help him during the 2008 financial crises when he put his campaign on hold and flew off to Washington. Apparently he added very little to the debate in the meeting between congressional leaders and the President on how to address the problem.
I agree that the move destroyed any chance for victory. What he did was give Nancy and Harry control of the outcome.
However, I respect his attempt to lead, doomed as it was...
unlike, "lead from Behind" O'bama.
People who think that the Republicans will have a slam dunk in 2012 are forgetting Barack Obama's modus operandi for winning elections: Knock out the opposition by any means, including throwing the game by breaking the rules.
In previous elections Obama's team managed to get his most worrisome opponents ruled ineligible, or in the case of Jack Ryan broke the rules to uncover dirt that knocked him out of the running. (If John Edwards had been Obama's major competition for the 2008 nomination, does anyone really believe that the media wouldn't have flogged the Rielle Hunter story? Hell, there would have been copies of his sex tape on YouTube.)
With Perry, Bachmann, and Palin, the media are already reading from their "dangerous theocratic fascist ignoramus" scripts. Romney is a polygamy-friendly cultist who wears magic underwear. If it's Marco Rubio, the media will suddenly take their cues from Mick and proclaim him constitutionally ineligible.
But what if all that doesn't work? Knock over the chessboard. Ever hear of the Reichstag fire?
I'm not saying this will happen, but I won't be at all surprised if this scenario comes to pass: Someone takes a potshot at our Beloved Leader next summer, but misses. The perpetrator won't be caught, thus allowing the media to paint all of Obama's opponents as evil terroristic unpatriotic racist extremists. The media's reaction to the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords will seem like a love-fest compared to the MSM's over-the-top condemnation of the Tea Party and every RethugliKKKan candidate for office.
(And even if the perpetrator is caught and found to be a left-winger, the left will still blame conservatives. Many on the left refuse to this day to believe that an insane communist dipwad could have murdered Saint John Kennedy, and some even refuse to believe that an Oppressed Palestinian could have killed Bobby.)
"Maybe I should throw the game," indeed.
Carol_Herman said...
"Actually, Crack, voting for McCain was harder!
Geezus. This is true only for a committed, hard-core liberal or leftist, or one bereft of any analytical skills. There was no reason to presume an affirmative action beneficiary, "community organizing" (i.e., shakedown artist), back-bencher, committed leftist would ever be qualified for the presidency.
No reason at all.
Plenty of explanations, sure - but they're as illusional as Barack's qualifications.
Althouse said...
On the other hand, why does anyone step up to be President?
For Obama, definitely the perks. The parties. The airplane(s). The limos. The staff(s). The living quarters. The VACATIONS. The retirement package.
Obama is the perk pres. Even the floods in Patterson were but another opportunity to fly the golden skies. And inside laughing and laughing and laughing.
And look at Michelle, $10,000,000 and not counting. She especially is a throwback to the term, N-Word rich. It's a wonder she hasn't demanded the space shuttle take her and Malia to the moon and back.
Then there's the bonus: Reparations and payback in the form of ObamaCare, writ large.
Herman-House! trailer park teabaggers who really want to join the mafia, but like "Carol", are just too f*cking stupid and tasteless.
murgatroyd666 said...
"If it's Marco Rubio, the media will suddenly take their cues from Mick and proclaim him constitutionally ineligible."
Why would it be Rubio, who isn't in and has no business being in? You know, it's infuriating. All that stuff that I said in 2007-08 about Obama being too inexperienced, about how cheap identify politics wouldn't make up the deficiency—that wasn't spin, I meant it. And I thought we meant it. But to hear people talk about Herman Cain and Marco Rubio, it seems like a lot of folks didn't mean it. It was just any stick to beat a dog.
Libertarians and liberals alike have rushed to cry hypocrisy, but in fact there's obviously none.
The hypocrisy claim comes from Perry's stating at one point that matters like abortion and gay marriage should be left to the states, and then him later saying (after some scorching from part of the GOP base) that they should be handled (namely, banned) via federal constitutional amendment. Flip-flopping, in other words. And the fact that a particular policy may be constitutional doesn't mean that it isn't also an exercise in the sort of intrusive big government that conservatives say they oppose, so it's fair to point out that maybe the small-government rhetoric of those proposing that policy is an exercise in hypocrisy.
Why would it be Rubio, who isn't in and has no business being in? You know, it's infuriating. All that stuff that I said in 2007-08 about Obama being too inexperienced, about how cheap identify politics wouldn't make up the deficiency—that wasn't spin, I meant it. And I thought we meant it.
Maybe you meant it, but if you think the people who actually work in politics meant it, then you're really quite naive about how politics really works. For such people (in both parties), federalism is a means to an end, not an end in itself. And Rubio will probably be on the GOP ticket as VP for whoever the nominee is because he's Latino, great on television and can probably deliver Florida. That's how things really work. And for that matter, if you think Rick Perry will hold back from using the federal government to achieve his policy goals or those of his primary donors, you're kidding yourself.
Rochester! Jack Benny had this show, see? Back in the 1950's. He played himself. His wife was Mary. And, he had a Black valet. Whose name was Rochester.
Back in those days Blacks and Whites all tuned into the same television shows. So I grew up thinking that people pretty much laughed at the same stuff.
Obama is sort'of a Rochester. But as president, it's like he won the White House. (He likes to golf. And, so, too, did Jack Benny.)
Oh. And, I'll add Bob Hope.
I have no idea why golf is considered funny ... but, maybe, it's not. Maybe, it's a place a man can go to be himself. And, he can swear, rather than tell jokes?
Anyway, Obama in 2008 won fair and square. And, the republicans (except for Sarah Palin), haven't even figured out how to "cancel" his show, with something else that people will find entertaining.
"Rochester" works better than "schlemiel."
J. You are such a lightweight.
I like the way people "count."
It's as if everything is either black or white. Instead of realizing how we have 50 States. And, politics in each one of them is different.
While I think Boehner stays in the House. (Where Pelosi is HATED by her own team! Including Obama, who hates her, too. Probably even more than he dislikes Hillary.)
Also, DC runs on PORK fumes. So nothing is gonna get seriously cut.
On the other hand, IF the democraps need to win over voters ... they're going to FOCUS GROUP to see where they can cut and cause pain and heartburn to the right. Maybe, jiggling 5% around as a number ... because all you have to do is hold up one hand ... to represent the number 5?) "This is how much 5 looks like."
Right now? Obama is in a "waiting for other stuff to happen." As he watches most Americans "adjust."
As a matter of fact it was Mike K who gave me one clue. FDR remained popular even though he was in charge of a tanking economy. (Did people, then, prefer DOWN, for UP?) The Twenties were full of UPs. It wasn't the choice! Even if you throw in republican progressives.
I also see a problem with the religious right. One that's been there since Ronald Reagan saw that Bork was a poor choice ... and he rectified it ... by using mirrors.
What if inside politics ... (like backstage ... where they keep the costumes and the set designs) ... This has been figured out?
Obama can get a long run as long as he appeals to the voters who don't want the candidates the GOP offers. And, who don't want Dubya. Or what you'd call RINO's, either?
Boehner, on the other hand ... can keep things flowing through da' House ... as long as he doesn't hit a religious agenda. Seems easy enough to avoid.
I hate the word RINO! It craps upon the most important thing in politics ... which is to appeal to lots of folks. What's wrong with appealing to moderates? And, people's whose beliefs are different than your own?
What to grab onto a better politician? Reagan called them Blue Collar democrats. He said he knew them like the back of his hand. And, he also knew not to trump other people with his own ego.
Some dumb bitch said:
Remember the tantrum he had when he got up from the presidential meeting? (I think Obama was at that table.) And, McCain was frustrated, perhaps, because Obama was Black?
I remember the first. The second exists only in the fevered mind of an insane projector, like yourself, Carol.
But on the 'tantrum', McCain was still an easy choice over Obama. Lots of intelligent people talked themselves into thinking otherwise. Only hard-core idiots think it still would fly.
In 1988 McCain tried for the republican nomination. And, back then I really did support him!
So, it's interesting to me that I changed my mind. When he was running in 2008 he couldn't sell me on the idea that I should give him my vote. No way!
I participate in every election. I've been voting since 1960. And, I never believed I had to vote for a winnah! I vote the way I like.
Except for 2000 ... like most people ... when the election is over ... I'm ready to move on.
Do I regret that Al Gore ran? You bet I do! Ditto for John Kerry!
Did I vote for Obama? No.
Did I vote for McCain? No, again. As a matter of fact, I remember seeing ten choices for the presidential slot. And, I can only remember, now, about half of them. But I can't remember who got my vote.
I laugh when I see Ralph Nader running. He tends to get less than enough to get "matching funds." But if he runs next time? I think he'll out-do Harold Stasson. And, he'll get to set a record in Guinness. Doesn't matter.
The neat thing is that we're given choices.
I also don't remember ever giving a candidate money. I just take the process as something I'm allowed to participate in FOR FREE.
I can't even remember watching a convention, which began being televised when Eisenhower was running for his first nomination. (Which would put it in 1952.) I was still a kid.
1968? I read about it after the whole thing exploded on the streets.
And, I remember my mom telling me back then that she voted for Nixon. Didn't bother me. I grew up to believe we're allowed to vote for whomever we like.
How did McGovern ever get on the ticket? How did Goldwater?
I used to think that if there was a category "none of the above," that's the one I'd choose. But it's not how the game is played.
Carol_Herman said...
"The other woman who has been misunderestimated is Nancy Reagan. She's fighting to keep her husband's memory alive ... as he really was!
So it was interesting to see her invite Rubio to Simi Valley. To speak at the Reagan Library. She's very careful in whom she picks and chooses."
Yeah, well ole Nancy must be getting a little confused if she thinks Rubio can be VP or POTUS. He is not an eligible natural born Citizen, since he was born to NON US Citizen redident aliens in Miami. He does meet the Minor v. Happersett precedent definition, i.e one born in the US of US Citizem parents.
So SUMI, sue d'nhym.
I actually remember Dubya calling a meeting prior to the bailout. I remember McCain, who was out campaigning, calling this off so he could return to DC.
And, for some reason I recall that Obama was at this meeting, too! Why? I dunno.
But I remember that McCain had an opportunity to blast the decision to go with the (first) bailout. He didn't go in that direction!
But, yes. I remember he got up out of his seat ... after 40 minutes ... and in a huff ... left the room!
Back then I remember reading that this was a slap at the President. Who was chairing the meeting. That leaving that way ... without even asking permission to exit ... showed that McCain was not in charge of his emotions. That he got ANGRY!
So, going along with the bailout. And, believing that Americans wouldn't elect a Black man ... were definitely reasons McCain lost. He lost by 4 or 5 percentage points.
But the GOP never learns.
They just like to call other people stupid. Be my guest.
Nancy's more subtle than that, Mick.
I think Obama has been okay on foreign policy, actually. Far better than Carter.
What makes Obama a bad President--a horrible President--is his conceit. He thinks he can run an economy from a room. He thinks if he gets some Ivy League smart guys in a room, they should run everything. It's his arrogance that makes him horrible.
And he surrounds himself with people who are as arrogant as he is.
Whoever came up with the Fast and the Furious thing (Holder?) is an absolute moron. Obama had to squash his EPA people on the carbon thing they wanted to do. That's what is so crazy about his administration. It's staffed by the whackos of the left. The people under him are actually worse than he is. Ugh.
By the way, Sarah Palin is running!
Mikey-- you're not even a lightweight--you're a flyweight. And hate to break the news to you-- the AA glibertarians are against the financier rackets as well. Yr hanging with people who detest you and your banker cronies
Not to say as crass, untalented, and corrupt as the whore-Priestess of AA, Carol Herman
Carol_Herman said...
"Nancy's more subtle than that, Mick".
Subtle? You meam she thinks he should NOT be VP or POTUS, that's why she had him speak there?
That's what is so crazy about his administration. It's staffed by the whackos of the left.
Good God man. Geithner, Biden, Summers, Holder, Bernanke, Gates, LaHood, Hillary, Arne Duncan. etc etc etc. The dude is basically Joe Lieberman, who you may remember was the first person Obama latched onto when he entered the Senate to learn the ropes.
The question isn't whether you saw Obama as "normal" in 2008.
The real question is can you look at what he's done since, and still vote for him?
Mick, Nancy gave a young Cuban guy the stage! And, she knew what she was doing! Others had asked her ... and she turns them down flat. Plus, with silence.
It's like the queen putting a sword on your shoulder. Where she is not trying to cut off your head.
As to what I think about Obama ... or any one individual thinks ... it doesn't amount to a rat's patootie.
And, as blogs go, Ann is smart. She lets the dialog stay open. As I am sure she does, too, in the classroom. You don't get demerits for expressing ideas.
It helps the mix.
Even on days like this when most people are absent. Because it's a holiday weekend.
Now, Flicka47, IF you're asking how I am betting the race? I think Obama is gonna win.
Doesn't mean I read tea leaves. Or that I believe anyone can predict the future. But Obama's no Jimmy Carter! At some point in 1979 ... Carter looked like a loser! And, then, in 1980 he became one. A one-termer.
Just like the elder Bush.
Just like Hoover.
And, just like LBJ and Truman. Men who couldn't win their re-election races ... so they went home.
Does Obama have magic? No way. He's just winning because he's not getting competition that's knocking him out of contention.
While LBJ got competition from Eugene McCarthy! A college professor! And, one with a sense of humor, too.
Of course, it was New Hampshire. Full of surprises. Maybe, even more so than an Iowa surprise?
Would I vote for Obama? I didn't the last time! But I know kids that did. And, I know those same kids still support him.
(Just like FDR kept getting supported.)
Have "better people" run and lost? I'm sure of it.
My mom used to tell me that there were plenty of gorgeous roses on the bush ... that never got admired, even. Because they bloomed against the wall.
Nicely written, Carol_Herman.
Boy, that was a long winded response. A whole bunch of typing, wasted because you come across like an idiot, either because you are one, or because you aren't savvy enough to pull off playing the other side well enough to make it believable but not transparent.
Or both.
September 25, 2008, Bush held a Bail Out meeting ... with BOTH Presidential Candidates present.
Go ahead. Google it.
I just remembered that McCain, in a huff ... after Obama SPOKE ... got so angry ... he got up and left! Without addressing the President. Or even saying WHY. Man had a temper tantrum!
OBAMA WAS THERE BECAUSE HE WAS ALSO A PRESIDENTIAL CANDATE. Putz.
@ Ralph 10:02 AM
The Professor writes And here was someone seemingly normal willing to do it...
My husband deleted my earlier draft, so here goes again:
This.
I respect you Professor, but that has to be one of the craziest thigs you have writeen on this blog.
Except that Obama shoots hoops, plays golf, got married and had two kids NOTHING was normal about Barack Obama.
He had a truly abnormal childhood, a strange mother who was in and out of his life at her pleasure, fellow travelers for grandparents, a grandfather who took him to a porn bar, a Communist mentor, schnopsy private school education on a tropical island state in the middle of the Pacific (how old was he when he cognitively set foot on the mainland?), an Ivy league education including Harvard Law (paid for how and by whom?), travel on an unknown passport, a Connecticut social security number, good friends with a couple Weather Underground terrorists as well as Palestinian terrorist sympathizers, a 20 year attendance / membership in a racist radical black church.
As Ralph pointed out, he "wrote" his autobiography at the age of 35 based on identity search and his hunger for an alchoholic radicalized African muslim father who knocked up his mother when she was 17, married her bigamously and then abandoned her and his baby.
I could go on.
Love the blog. Respect the Blogess.
But this is just ridiculous. You were blinded and no amount of restating and rewriting it for many of us here will change that.
(Are you using "seemingly" as your weasel word?)
J. Lightweight. Shallow.
Marlon Brando's mother was a drunk.
Very few people have the charisma. And, those few who have it ... can become very successful.
And, since I had to go and look up Bush's "Bailout" meeting in September of 2008 ... (where I only remembered that McCain had a temper tantrum "episode") ... I had forgotten that Obama actually carried that meeting!
He was on HOME TURF! And, whatever it was that Obama said ... it got Bush to move into giving away $700-billion in the first bailout.
Now? Obama's no longer on his home turf. (Unless he can screw another trillion out of Congress!) ... Which would be a talent far beyond any I can even imagine happening, ahead ...
But to say Obama "just shoots hoops" ... overlooks the distance he traveled. And, that he represents ONE SIDE of our political drama.
To survive? He has to do something else, now. Not sure if he's a "natural." Or not.
A natural, in the sense I mean it, is that he can bat either from his left side ... or his right. Which would be something that could fool any pitcher.
Going back to that meeting in 2008? Late September 2008. The day McCain lost his bid to become president. The day all those votes peeled away.
And, the day Dubya's popularity tanked and went down the toilet.
As long as the republican side remains weak? (And, some, if not all, of the DC players are in love with PORK, where are you going to get someone who challenges this?)
Now, Sarah Palin has stated the problem! Both sides are only playing with the big corporate guys! They're dealing INSIDE.
I give Palin the credit for saying this out loud, for crying out loud!
Mick said...
"Rubio … is not an eligible natural born Citizen, since he was born to NON US Citizen redident aliens in Miami. He does meet the Minor v. Happersett precedent definition, i.e one born in the US of US Citizem parents."
Neither Article II nor Minor impose any such bar (you are wringing that claim from 88 U.S. at 167-68, presumably, and it fails). The objections to Rubio, who is a natural-born citizen by the understanding prevailing at common law in 1788, are prudential: He is too inexperienced, and for Catholic voters, serious questions hang over his untenable position of claiming to be a Catholic while attending a "nondenominational" church.
somefeller said...
"Maybe you meant it, but if you think the people who actually work in politics meant it, then you're really quite naive about how politics really works."
I expect people—not professional politicos in their official capacity, but real people—to articulate and adhere to neutral principles, to approach politics based on views that transcend immediate political neutrality. And I expect to be disappointed in that regard. Often. But I find it disappointing anyway. It would be shameful for someone who criticized Obama's lack of experience to support Rubio, because their objection is then unmasked as a lie:
We need to get back to a world where people feel shame when they're caught in a lie. And while government can't fix the ongoing cultural rot, it can certainly accelerate it. That's one reason why it's important to keep it out of the hands of Democrats: Not because Republicans will do good but because they won't do as much bad. I used to be a lot more bipartisan than this, but I have been persuaded over the years that the vast majority of Democrats have absolutely no idea what made this country great and are with all sincerity and good intentions making it worse every day in every way. How has this great country degenerated to lowest common denominator pablum like "Survivor" and "One Tree Hill"? I can't help but feel, unrealistic though it may be, that we need to figure out where this vile, crass, profane culture first intruded and rethink everything that happened since then.
At any rate, now I'm ranting. So let's come back to the subject at hand by briefly touching on Perry. Call me naive if you will, but I believe that he's sincere when he says that he wants to make DC irrelevant to most people's lives most of the time. Will he succeed? No. But it's good to have a President who's shooting in the right direction.
JAL,
You left out that his parents met at what was called "the little red school"...where they both were learning Russian.
All very "normal" for an American, yes indeedee.
Like I said, Ann is drawn to deviancy like a moth to the flame.
Simon,
We need to get back to a world where people feel shame when they're caught in a lie.
ROTFLMAO!!!!! Whoo-boy, did you enter this movie late! Like The Eagles said in "Hotel California":
"We haven't had that spirit here since 1969,..."
Now they lie, and, when caught, either walk away or spin a new one to distract from the first one (see: Liberalism - The Bush/Obama Years (2000-2012)) and no one says a word about any of it, unless your name is Bernie Madoff and you caused a bunch of libs to lose a whole lot of money they could've used to support the cause,...of telling more lies.
Thanks for the laugh. I needed it.
Heh. Can't believe I read all this.
And this is all I can think of!
"and for Catholic voters, serious questions hang over his untenable position of claiming to be a Catholic while attending a 'nondenominational' church"
I think you must have accidentally omitted some deprecatory adjective in front of "Catholic voters" (perhaps 'wack', or 'demented')? I'm sure the vast majority of Catholic voters aren't going to worry about something as silly as this--at least not until at least 4 of the candidates (R, D, Socialist Worker Party, and somebody else) are all Catholic.
Simon said...
“Of everything done in the 20th century, massive federal entitlements seem the most at odds with the American tradition, and the most harmful insofar as they breed a corrupting "ask what your country can give to you" mindset. They more than most are not only bad policy but fundamentally radioactive alien policy that will warp everything around them.”
So we wipe out Social Security and Medicare (which are actually earned benefits, not the GOP code word entitlements) and replace them with what? What would I have had to tell my grandparents who lived through the Great Depression and WW II and who each worked all their lives (in this country, not England) paying into Social Security and Medicare? What’s the plan? Do we let the Masters of the Universe on Wall Street run the operation?
“Palin gets a rough ride because (1) she was a threat to The One and the media's narrative of his coronation, which holds for Perry too, but also (2) because she's a traitor.”
Most on the Left believe Palin is just ignorant. They would love to see her run against “The One”. The comedy would be great.
Regarding "entitlements":
"These amendments reaffirm the commitment of our government to the performance and stability of social security. It was nearly 50 years ago when, under the leadership of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the American people reached a great turning point, setting up the social security system. F.D.R. spoke then of an era of startling industrial changes that tended more and more to make life insecure. It was his belief that the system can furnish only a base upon which each one of our citizens may build his individual security through his own individual efforts. Today we reaffirm Franklin Roosevelt's commitment that social security must always provide a secure and stable base so that older Americans may live in dignity."
Ronald Reagan
Remarks on Signing the Social Security Amendments of 1983
April 20, 1983
Simon said...
Mick said...
"Rubio … is not an eligible natural born Citizen, since he was born to NON US Citizen redident aliens in Miami. He does meet the Minor v. Happersett precedent definition, i.e one born in the US of US Citizem parents."
Neither Article II nor Minor impose any such bar (you are wringing that claim from 88 U.S. at 167-68, presumably, and it fails). The objections to Rubio, who is a natural-born citizen by the understanding prevailing at common law in 1788, are prudential: He is too inexperienced, and for Catholic voters, serious questions hang over his untenable position of claiming to be a Catholic while attending a "nondenominational" church.
Right, just a blanket "it fails". Why does it fail? It is what SCOTUS said in the holding as to whether Virginia Minor was a US Citizen (since she was suing in a 14A claim that as a US Citizen, that she had a right to vote, it first must be held that she was a US Citizen-- Judge Waites said so)--- that she didn't need the 14A to determine her US Citizenship, since she was a natural born Citizen, i.e born of US Citizen parents on US soil.
The M v.H definition was repeated in dicta in Wong Kim Ark, and upheld in Perkins v. Elg. It is the law of the land. British Common Law is certainly not the law of the land. The "Common Law" refered to in M v. H is natural law--law of nations-- embedded in the Constitution as Congresses guide to International relations at A1S8C10.
No the objection to Rubio is that he is not a natural born Citizen--- he was born of resident aliens, who did not naturalize for 19 years, probably since they hoped to return to Cuba. Understandable, but it makes Rubio ineligible nontheless.
Rubio represents a great danger to Obama, since questioning his eligibility speaks directly to Obama's. If Rubio was a REAL patriot, he would demure from any consideration and say why-- without even mentioning Obama's name, he would be exposing Obama's Kryptonite. But alas, there are no real patriots in the political arena-- even Rubio, the supposed "golden boy".
You're confusing "normal" with dull.
So we wipe out Social Security and Medicare (which are actually earned benefits, not the GOP code word entitlements) and replace them with what?
If they are "earned benefits" why is money taken from my salary to pay for them?
Oh, you're lying, that's why.
Never mind.
What would I have had to tell my grandparents who lived through the Great Depression and WW II and who each worked all their lives (in this country, not England) paying into Social Security and Medicare?
Um, we're sorry, but the party you vote for stole the "earned benefits" and ran up too big a tab and the programs are insolvent.
How's that for starters?
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন