I think you alternate between these 2 personas, and I sense that you've done it for so long that it feels normal and comfortable to you, but I want to urge you to pack up Radical Lefty Obama and stow him away with the rest of your Harvard Law School memorabilia. I know you — the Moderate Obama — have impressed some very useful people over the years by parading about as Radical Lefty Obama.
Like yesterday, you gave that Republicans-are-extremists speech, and the New York Times loved it:
Mr. Obama provided a powerful signal on Tuesday that he intends to make this election about the Republican Party’s failure to confront, what he called, “the defining issue of our time”: restoring a sense of economic security while giving everyone a fair shot, rather than enabling only a shrinking number of people to do exceedingly well. His remarks promise a tough-minded campaign that will call extremism and dishonesty by name.Notice how, in expressing its love, the NYT portrayed Radical Lefty Obama as Moderate Obama. It's Moderate Obama that American voters find so appealing. You don't need all that left-wing economics and race-and-gender demagoguery. I think what people like about you — you, who are famously, sublimely likeable — is the normal person who seems to be in harmony with everyone. We — many of us — voted for you because you seemed to offer to bring us together, to end the rancor.
Be that Obama.
Note to Mitt Romney: If Obama doesn't want to be that Obama, you can be that guy.
Posts
469 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 469 of 469Roger J. said...
"Re closed versus upen systems--IIRC from my thermodynamics classes, a closed system is one that permits no external inputs. Clearly the earth's atmosphere fails to qualify as a closed system under the thermodynamics definition."
You are comparing energy with particles of pollution.
Scott M said...
"Crimso is and posts here regularly. As I know him personally, I can tell you his opinion is the same as damikesc's. Does that count?"
Can you link me to some of his published work on the issue?
36--you clearly do not understand the definition a closed thermodynamic system--it is a system that allows neither energy nor matter from entering it. Simply google the thermodynamic definition of an open versus closed system. The earth's atmosphere is clearly not a closed system. If you contend the earth's atmosphere is a closed thermodynamic system, your grasp of the underlying concept is a bit weak.
Pastafarian said...
“Are YOU a scientist, 36? Not that it matters, really; I look more at someone's argument than I do their credentials.”
No. Hence why I’m not so eager to discount the position held by many scientists regarding global warming.
Can you link me to some of his published work on the issue?
And thus, you've jumped the shark with me. You ask a question, you get an answer to that question, and you move the goalposts. This is your method of argument and it's both tiresome and boring.
You didn't ask, "are you a scientist with published works on the subject?" You simply asked, "are you a scientist?"
Peace.
"those like you, who are centrists and are somewhat right of center"
She only voted for one Republican in her life and he wasn't even a conservative.
I should say "so far". I hold out hope for her.
I don't know her full biography, but I'm guessing Althouse has not had to build her world and support system. She plugged into existing schools, jobs and eventually a University professorship. Nothing at all wrong with that, she is a very capable woman, and that was not not easy either, but it does make you much more accepting of the entrenched institutions and government when they are a big part of what supports you personally, gives you purpose, and rewards you.
A lot of us who built businesses, or have been self employed, or worked mostly in the private sector where you live by your merits every day and will be allowed to fail if you don't, have a different perspective. We see these institutions mostly taking from us, holding us back, sucking our vitality and telling us what to do without handing us a check for our compliance, but rather demanding more.
We just can't see things the same way in that system. It's hard for her to vote conservative and hard for others like me to vote Democrat. We give our support systems the benefit of the doubt.
I was a liberal once along time ago, but for most of my adult life my support system was not tax payer dependent. That changes a person a great deal.
Roger J,
I was referring to the atmosphere as being a closed system in regards to pollution, not energy. And I admit that a better term would be biosphere since the atmosphere does react with the lands and seas as far as the transfer of CO2. In fact, one of the concerns raised is that the oceans are becoming more acidic from absorbing increased amounts of CO2 which is affecting the ability of corals to draw calcium from the water and construct reefs.
Scott M said...
“And thus, you've jumped the shark with me. You ask a question, you get an answer to that question, and you move the goalposts. This is your method of argument and it's both tiresome and boring.
You didn't ask, "are you a scientist with published works on the subject?" You simply asked, "are you a scientist?"
First I wanted to determine if he had credentials to discount scientific research. If he did, I would have has additional questions. That’s not jumping the shark or moving the goalposts. That’s just normal discourse.
Cheers.
36--I accept your proviso. to be a completely closed system, the earth's atmosphere would have to be impervious to both energy and matter. But in your construct you would have to ignore matter; eg, volcanic ejecta, space matter (stardust :)) and the like. Energy penetrating the atmosphere is easy: cosmic radiation, solar flare activity, and the like. Now if you wish to characterize the earths biosphere as a closed system, you have to contend with the "matter", not the energy question.
Bagoh, neither was mine. I worked for a unionized hospital just once in my career of 30 years, all others were private facilities. Liberals and Centrists are employed in all manner of jobs, pay taxes too.
I think Althouse is weighing her options, should she go with an Obama light? I think she is loath to hitch her wagon onto someone who's true ideology is really not known. Romney has shown himself to be a flip flopper. Who is he really? We know who Obama is.
Maybe she is going to vote for the devil she knows.
I'm a scientist!
I found damikesc's original quote a little too broadly brushed. Causes a big drop in credibility of the following sentences.
36--interesting discussion--clearly we need to define our terms more accurately--may I submit that will probably have to disagree on the specifics. anyway-appreciate your comments.
"We know who Obama is".
A failed president?
Roger J.,
From my days studying aero engineering, I’m familiar with the concepts of thermodynamics.
My point about the atmosphere and the affects of global warming is that it seems intuitive that if we dump billions upon billions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere each year there will be adverse affects. How bad, I don’t know, that’s not my field of expertise.
I’m not eager to completely discount what a majority of scientists are saying about the situation. Call it an appreciation for science.
Personally, I'm hoping Obama's campaign involves arresting Thomas, Alito and Scalia.
36fsfiend said...
cubanbob,
“National defense is a core requirement and a benefit to all. Your EBT card and welfare benefit you but does not benefit all. Lets cut you benefits in half and lets leave the military the funds needed to accomplish it's mission.”
Well, I personally believe waste needs to be reduces in both social benefits and defense.
For example, there is estimated to be $60 to $90 billion in fraud committed by Medicare providers each year. In my own experience while on active duty, you have to continually fight against potential fraud.
4/4/12 1:26 PM
God in heaven, you made a sensible point! Unfortunately the tolerance for fraud is bipartisan as recommendations to take steps to reduce it are never seriously implemented.
As for Reagan, yes he did raise taxes as part of a deal with democrats to cut spending. He delivered they never did. Lesson for republicans. Still after all raises my rate was still lower than under W and that was less than under Clinton. As for amnesty in 86, again he delivered his part for a one time deal and the democrats never have. And why waivers for illegals with relatives who are citizens? Great way to encourage more anchor babies.
So at the end of the day what is the main goal of the ACA? To insure 15 million illegals, 10 million who qualify for Medicaid and 5 million who are young and healthy and don't want to buy health insurance? This is a goal worth trashing the constitution for?
36--nor I am. we will have to see what our scientists come up with. I am inclined to wait, but I do tend to be conservative in matters of scientific evidence. Theirs is I submit quite a significant standard of proof. Anyway--enjoyed the conversation.
Obama says thanks for complementing him on successfully presiding over two Americas ;)
The Obama campaign should also declare a State of Emergency and suspend habeas corpus.
Then, uh, start wearing a military style coat and calling yourself His Most Ominous Emperor or Commandant Excelsior. Shoot a pistol inn air for no reason and ululate.
Seriously dude, run LEFT.
You know you're dying to.
Do it. Doooo iiiitttt.
Ann, you voted for stealthy radical leftard Urkel. Your love letter to him has only you to blame, because you act like a jilted lover. He's already fucked you, because you loved the moderate, cool Urkel, only to realize that you fucked the radical leftard Urkel instead and he didn't even have the decency to call you a cab when you he told you to get the fuck out.
cubanbob,
I always make sensible points, at least they’re sensible to me!
As far as Reagan and cutting taxes, the debt curve has been pretty much on a positive slope ever since. There was a level off and negative slope during Clinton’s two terms due to the tax increase from Bush and others from Clinton. As I recall, the economy was doing pretty well so this whole argument about not raising taxes back to the level under Clinton doesn’t make sense to me.
The well to do have captured most of the benefits. The top 1 percent got 45 percent of Clinton-era economic growth, and 65 percent of the economic growth during the Bush era. They have pocketed 93 percent of the gains in 2010. 37 percent of the gains went to the top one-tenth of one percent. No one below the richest 10 percent saw any gain at all. In fact, most of the bottom 90 percent have lost ground. Their average adjusted gross income was $29,840 in 2010. That’s down $127 from 2009, and down $4,843 from 2000 (all adjusted for inflation).
As far as the goal of the ACA, it’s intended to provide increased availability of healthcare to a greater number of Americans without sifting the burden to those who are able to purchase insurance - a concept once held by the Right. Additionally, my understanding from a report by the Government Accountability Office, is that the national debt would rise precipitously if the ACA doesn’t fully go into effect. The GAO states that several parts of the health plan were designed to control the growth of health care costs and that full implementation of these cost-control provisions would slow the growth in federal health care spending over the long term.
Roger J. said...
"Anyway--enjoyed the conversation."
Roger,
Same.
Kind regards.
Robert Cook said...
"RC, Freder and Garage believe that an attempt to nationalize the health care industry is a moderate establishment position."
And yet, Obama did no such thing...unless you call implementing Mitt Romney's health care plan nationally, (a model that was supported by the conservative Heritage Foundation), one that keeps the for-profit health insurers in business, and delivers to them a captive audience of citizens who must buy their over-priced, under-serviced products "an attempt to nationalize the health care industry."
You have no idea what you even mean when you say "nationalizing the health care industry."
4/4/12 12:07 PM
Bob the devil is in the details. That conservatives in the past had a brain fart doesn't mean its good policy now. As for the details the ACA sets up a board that has the authority to set health insurance policy rates. It also has the power to set must offer mandates. So far nowhere has it been shown that board must consider the carriers costs. That is the operative point. If the board doesn't have to consider the companies costs then the companies are regulated on the selling price but with no consideration on the costing side. So unlike a regulated utility like an electric company the ACA created board isn't required to let the carriers earn a reasonable rate of return.
So as costs rise from the mandated coverages and the public clamors over the prices and the board being ultimately controlled by elected officials refuses to raise rates further the companies are stuck with a few hard choices:
1-fight this portion of the bill in the courts which would probably take several years with certainty of victory.
2-get out of the health insurance business or go bankrupt.
3-cut compensation to the providers radically in order to survive which result in the following:
Medicare and Medicaid lose a substantial part of the cost shifting since the providers won't be able to overcharge the privately insured and thus cover the loses from the publicly insured. The providers start refusing or capping insured patients just as they are now doing with Medicare and Medicaid patients. The doctors can then opt out of medicine altogether ( especially the ones who are set and near retirement) agravating the doctor shortage. The curent ones will start hustling for fee for service as much as they can as they aren't in business to lose money. So at the end of the game the doctors that still want to practice medicine will wind up either working for manage care companies based on government compensation rates or find a new career. A relative few will be fee for service providing the new powers given to the government doesn't mandate that they take Medicaid or Medicare or the shells of private insurance companies if any are left. There is where one winds up with nationalized health care.
How far a leap is it from being mandated to buy something is it from being forced to buy it from a particular party and to only have the provider sell through a designated middleman?
If you can't see that Obama is a radical leftist, you ARE a radical leftist.
He removed the right to bargain over wages. Other issues, such as workplace safety, are still allowed
You must be confusing WI with some other state, 'cause you have that backwards.
Here is the actual text from an official summary of the law:
Prohibited Subjects of Collective Bargaining. Prohibit any municipal employer under
MERA or the state under SELRA from bargaining collectively with a collective bargaining unit
containing a general municipal employee with respect to any factor or condition of employment
except wages.
(It then goes on the explain that there is a limit on those wages, based on the CPI.)
As I've explained before, the work my union is engaged in can be dangerous, sometimes even deadly. OSHA (being a federal agency) doesn't always keep current with what we do, and thus there are no laws/regulations that cover some of our safety concerns like fatigue (working 8-10 hours without any breaks can be an inconvenience if you’re sitting at a desk, but can be dangerous if you’re walking around all day while working with heavy equipment/machinery), climbing/rigging, and various other issues. So we get those covered in our contracts...something that is no longer an option for those of us that are employed by the State/County/City.
Rather than Karl Marx, Obama should copy Groucho Marx in this campaign.
Indeed, Obama has become Rufus T. Firefly, leader of the bankrupt country of Freedonia.
And he can sing the same song: "The last man nearly ruined this place,
he didn't know what to do with it
If you think this country's bad off now,
just wait 'til I get through with it."
And he can beg the rich Mrs. Teasdale to fund the country's last gasps.
Perfect!
Althouse, Sybil said you just flunked the purity test.
The professor's advice to Obama, of a kind that sounds like 'I hope he succeed' variety.. seems to have struck a chord in Althousia.
Is the professor laying a foundation.. preparing us to announce that she is once again voting for Obama?
Yesterday's 'I've allways voted for democrats with Bush as the only exeption' TO THIS DAY rang an alarming bell with me.
We are collectively premonishing an Obama the boyfriend reunion.
I can't imagine that I am the first to say this, but, when you say "I know you — the Moderate Obama — have impressed some very useful people over the years by parading about as Radical Lefty Obama," you should consider the possibility of it being that the Radical Lefty Obama has impressed some very useful people over the years by parading about as the Moderate Obama.
It fits his behavior in office significantly better.
36fsfiend wote: Additionally, my understanding from a report by the Government Accountability Office, is that the national debt would rise precipitously if the ACA doesn’t fully go into effect.
You do like those hockey stick nut graphs!
Obama isn't two people.
He's consistent. The real him is what Prof. Althouse calls "Radical Lefty Obama." That's all he's ever been, although not, of course, all he's ever claimed to be.
He lies and deceives as reflexively as he breathes.
But because his actions are so consistently those of Radical Lefty Obama, the only way he can fool anyone is if they WANT to be fooled and are willing to participate in the process by engaging in self-deception.
You're telling the tale of Obama in a way that makes it, at bottom, all about you, Prof. Althouse. I don't know if you'll deceive yourself again in 2012 into believing that the Moderate Obama has -- what, "returned"? "reappeared"?
But Obama isn't changing.
chickenlittle said...
“You do like those hockey stick nut graphs!”
I’ve had to deal with inspections from them in the past. We would always be concerned during their visits, treating them as IG inspections, so I guess I have some appreciation for them and their work.
To answer Althouse's question: Should Obama present himself as a moderate? This depends. He would pick up some swing voters by sounding pragmatic, but he might loose just as many progressive votes--not from them voting for the Romnster, but from staying home on election day.
This depends. He would pick up some swing voters by sounding pragmatic, but he might loose just as many progressive votes...
Unless of course those so-called progressives actually woke up and listened to reason instead of treason.
Sworn to uphold the Constitution...except when it doesn't fit the agenda.
am i the only one creeped out by the "you, who are famously, sublimely likeable" line ? it would seem that, beneath the pragmatic campaign advice, our hostess harbours a roiling case of jungle fever.
“Did they MENTION any plans to improve enforcement?”
That doesn’t answer the question.
It actually does. Shame that you don't notice that.
“Haven't they, in fact, spent years suing states for doing THEIR job in relation to immigration?”
They have sued states in cases where the states were acting outside their jurisdiction.
"Their jurisdiction" being "abiding by established Federal law". You'd think Obama, OF ALL PEOPLE, would oppose overturning laws passed by bipartisan majorities in Congress.
“DoJ with State as a backup. Funny, Bush figured out how to do it.”
So there was a breakdown in the ATF which is the agency of the DoJ.
No, it's a breakdown at the DoJ. Shockingly, when Enron's CFO committed criminal acts, it was the fault of his higher-ups not watching him in the first place.
Hence my point about proper manning for the agency. And who is preventing that? Not Obama.
It absolutely IS Obama. And it's immaterial. Mexico is pissed off that we did that. Obama has also pissed off the Canadians and Israelis. But, hey, the Russians think he's swell.
“I have. Volcanic activity DWARFS it.”
I disagree:
“According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.”
Ironically, volcanoes emit far more than JUST CO2.
“Might want to re-read the article. Only thing forbidden was housing them in the US.”
Congress will not authorize funding for a stateside facility.
As was said in my reply. You do read, right?
Additionally, from the article:
“Congress has made it nearly impossible to transfer captives anywhere. Legislation passed since Obama took office has created a series of roadblocks that mean that only a federal court order or a national security waiver issued by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta could trump Congress and permit the release of a detainee to another country.
Laws supported bu Obama, mind you, and if they ask for it, they will always get it.
“Heck, why not cite how none of them voted for his budgets?”
I gave you examples where they all did not support Obama. Enough said.
No. I asked for times when they shafted him, as in voted down something he wanted.
That you mistake "non-unanimous support" with "shafting" is a problem you might need medication for.
el polacko said...
am i the only one creeped out by the "you, who are famously, sublimely likeable" line ?
It sounds like something ineffable to me.
Well I just read all the postings on this thread. That's 10 minutes I won't get back.
Professor: I guess you just really stumbled trying to make your point. The one thought I had was "Why did this point have to be made?"
We ALL know now who Obama is and what he stands for, and who supports him come hell or high water, who regrets supporting him the first time, and who never and will never support him.
3 1/2 years under the magnifying lens of public life 24 hours a day all year long is gonna show the people who pay attention who you are. I wouldn't want to live like that, every utterance dissected for some hidden meaning like poker players searching for a tell. Why do you suppose Zero's hair has gone gray?
Zero may want to be President(or Dictator), but he will sigh the biggest sigh of relief when he looses this fall.(until he realizes that's he's stuck to Moochie) He grabbed the tiger by the tail, how can he let go?
You people bustin' on the Professor need to lighten up. She ain't that stupid. She is not in Garage's Little League of Wisconsin Liberals. And if she is, than it's tough shit for the country because they get to vote too.
Professor, I don't have to like what you say, but by God, you let me have my say, and I got your back for yours.
If Zero wins, I'll take my family to where I and my wife have started cacheing. Family is welcome but times are gonna be hard, and you WILL pull your weight. Any one else, better have something worth having, a skill, ammo, food. No gas, no grass, no welcome.
I've said on here before that I'm not a particularly nice man. I've done things that haunt me in my dreams. I think the time for niceness is about dead in America.
Why are people arguing about AGW here?
It's a closed argument.
Ann- What are you implying? Do you really think the lefty Obummer will go away forever? My guess is the moderate would disappear as soon as the election was called in his favor. We have to eradicate the Jug-eared Jesus, i.e. pull him out by the roots.
First I wanted to determine if he had credentials to discount scientific research.
There has been no scientific research. If there was, it could be duplicated. But, since they "lost" the original data or use models that produce identical results regardless of the inputs --- there is no science.
In fact, one of the concerns raised is that the oceans are becoming more acidic from absorbing increased amounts of CO2 which is affecting the ability of corals to draw calcium from the water and construct reefs.
The fear-mongers claim that all of our activities would increase pH levels by 0.3 pH units. Yet, per studies at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography the ocean varies by that much naturally as is.
As I recall, the economy was doing pretty well so this whole argument about not raising taxes back to the level under Clinton doesn’t make sense to me.
I'd prefer to not allow historic levels of corporate accounting fraud as Clinton did.
Enron, Tyco, Global Crossing, Adelphia...all occurred under Clinton and Bush punished them.
Additionally, my understanding from a report by the Government Accountability Office, is that the national debt would rise precipitously if the ACA doesn’t fully go into effect
False. They've already doubled how much Obamacare will cost --- and that is STILL with several years of taxes being collected and few benefits being paid.
I’ve had to deal with inspections from them in the past. We would always be concerned during their visits, treating them as IG inspections, so I guess I have some appreciation for them and their work.
Ironic given Obama's attack on the federal IG corps.
damikesc,
Regarding this whole immigration issue, you do realize the number of deportations of illegals has gone up under Obama, right? Here’s some background information:
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/18/news/la-pn-deportation-ice-20111018
“No, it's a breakdown at the DoJ. Shockingly, when Enron's CFO committed criminal acts, it was the fault of his higher-ups not watching him in the first place.”
Again, concerning Fast & Furious, there was no evidence of involvement by high-ranking appointees at the Justice Department in gunwalking. Blame seems to be with flawed operations run by ATF agents in Phoenix.
“Ironically, volcanoes emit far more than JUST CO2.”
And? What’s your point?
“Laws supported by Obama, mind you, and if they ask for it, they will always get it.”
Obama wants to close Gitmo. He had some reservations signing the defense authorization act. Again, Congress controls the purse strings.
“No. I asked for times when they shafted him, as in voted down something he wanted.”
You initially stated that Reagan learned that there is no such thing as negotiating in good faith with Democrats based on the passage of the Immigration Act and tax laws. If those compromises were so bad to begin with, why not veto? For the first six years of the Reagan presidency, 1981-1987, the Republicans controlled the Senate and the Immigration Reform and Control Act was signed in 1986.
Ann is correct that Obama is unusually likeable. I think it has something to do with his voice. I think it is soothing. I wish someone would do a study. And, the likeability also seems strange because he does not do humor very well and seems arrogant at times.
But there is not really a "moderate" Obama, just a likeable Obama. Unless Romeny runs a terrible campaign, Obama should be fairly easily beaten. There is a ton of material to use against him.
damikesc said...
“There has been no scientific research. If there was, it could be duplicated. But, since they "lost" the original data or use models that produce identical results regardless of the inputs --- there is no science.”
You’re not even making sense now.
“The fear-mongers claim that all of our activities would increase pH levels by 0.3 pH units. Yet, per studies at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography the ocean varies by that much naturally as is.”
Their article at the link below says otherwise:
http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/Releases/?releaseID=1246
From the article:
“Around the world coral reefs are facing threats brought by climate change and dramatic shifts in sea temperatures. While ocean warming has been the primary focus for scientists and ocean policy managers, cold events can also cause large-scale coral bleaching events. A new study by scientists at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego compared damage to corals exposed to heat as well as cold stress. The results reveal that cool temperatures can inflict more damage in the short term, but heat is more destructive in the long run.”
Warming is more destructive in the long run.
“I'd prefer to not allow historic levels of corporate accounting fraud as Clinton did. Enron, Tyco, Global Crossing, Adelphia...all occurred under Clinton and Bush punished them.”
And the economic collapse occurred during Bush’s watch. Which was worse for the country?
“False. They've already doubled how much Obamacare will cost --- and that is STILL with several years of taxes being collected and few benefits being paid.”
Please cite the source of that claim from the GAO. According to the Congressional Budget Office the gross costs of the coverage provisions, i.e., the money used to provide people Medicaid or private insurance, has risen by about $50 billion over the 2012-2021 period since its previous estimate, from $1.445 trillion to $1.496 trillion. That’s the only relevant change to spending projections. When the ACA was passed in 2010, the CBO said its 10-year outlays would be about $940 billion. But because the law isn’t set to be fully implemented until 2014, when the coverage expansion takes effect, that initial estimate included several years in which the law cost very little. Now that it’s 2012, the CBO’s 10-year outlook captures more years during which the law will be in full effect. The law’s price tag appears higher, but its costs in no way doubled.
damikesc,
Here's a bit more concerning the impact of ocean acidification on coral due to CO2 absorption as reported in a study conducted by the University of Miami:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-11/uomr-noa110510.php
The University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science suggests that over the next century recruitment of new corals could drop by 73 percent, as rising CO2 levels turn the oceans more acidic. The research findings reveal a new danger to the already threatened Caribbean and Florida reef Elkhorn corals.
Unless of course those so-called progressives actually woke up and listened to reason instead of treason.
I know too many progressives; they are impervious to reason.
Is it just me or is it really hard to get to the 2nd page of comments?
... you, who are famously, sublimely likeable — is the normal person who seems to be in harmony with everyone.
Who is the writer talking about?
2nd page nothing.
We're on the third page.
Hasn't happened since Palin.
What a blogpost! Here we are at 450 comments plus or minus, and our hostess and a lot of commenters are in high dungeon. Bravo, everyone! I think it's unusual that it's hard to tell when Ann goes meta, this post might be one of them.
I was working today in environment where I could steal a minute here and there to check out the news and a couple bloggers, Althouse being a favorite. My compulsion to comment with something that can be summed up with something like "WTFBBQ?" was put in check, maybe it was good that way. I'm sure that many commenters here had a similar situation where the workday provided too short a time to parse the folds of irony. Itchy trigger fingers led the way.
And along the way, I'm still parsing a part of your clarification, Ann.
McCain wouldn't be a good president? Given that he would present a warrior face in a tinderbox of Nation States (Iran, et al), maybe. But in the wake of an economic downturn where no one understood the true dimensions of our economic predicament (or precious few people in the position to do something about it), the odds are great that a McCain administration would have likely moved in the path that is indicated by countries such as Canada or Australia (growing down government and tending the economic garden, diminishing the Nanny State), we might have led the way out of this mess. The likes of people such as Paul Ryan would yet have been an asset for him intellectually in order to plan our way out of this mess. I don't understand your certitude that McCain was not the person for the job.
Now certainly, McCain would have been boring. So would be Romney, but after all the excitement with Obama, a lot of people are ready for a boring administration. There's something boring about working harder, working more jobs, cutting down on expenses and saving money. I think that there is something of value for the right , center-right and those in the center-left who are sympathetic to the conservative stress of a free market, the remnants of the left who won't go towards the Marxian extreme. (BTW, I think of myself as someone who is worse to a Democrat than a Republican is, a Democrat who wants to rethink what it is to be a Democrat. If you want to know more, I'd be happy to tell you, but this comment is already way out of hand). What is good about Obama is how he illustrates vividly the shortcoming of the existing elite left. Hopefully, his legacy will promote the overhaul that I consider way, way overdue.
"We ALL know now who Obama is and what he stands for, and who supports him come hell or high water, who regrets supporting him the first time, and who never and will never support him."
Manifestly not, as a majority of those posting here are laboring under the delusion that Obama is a radical leftist. Absurd! Either these benighted folks mistake the term "radical leftist" as simply a synonym for "I don't like him," or, as I think much more likely, they're so far right that George Lincoln Rockwell is as far to their left as they can tolerate.
This is not to say Obama is harmless. Earlier in this thread I called Obama a "feckless establishmentarian." On reflection, I retract the term "feckless." In his doubling down on the authoritarian policies of the American state over the last 20 or more years, Obama is proving to be quite destructive of American civil liberties and he is accelerating the stripping away of the freedoms of each citizen of this country. In this he is hardly feckless, but neither is he a leftist. He is the logical progression of George Bush, Bill Clinton, George Bush, Ronald Reagan and beyond. Their purported politics are mere window dressing; the actual role they all have served has been to serve the wealthy elites, to shore up our military dominance in the world, and impose the authority of the state on the American people.
In this, Obama has been quite a cooperative and capable functionary.
"I know too many progressives; they are impervious to reason."
Perhaps they are perfectly pervious to reason but they're simply not hearing any from you. After all, you are the common denominator in these multiple failures to communicate.
Professor;
In '08 you heard:
I'll respect you in the morning
Ever since then its been:
We'll get together some time. I'll call you
Oh, Ann, there is no "moderate" Obama. The moderation he affects is driven entirely by political considerations. He's a radical through and through. Once he's out of the reach of voters, and since he could care less about his fellow Democrats, his political considerations will be minimal and the real Obama can strut his stuff.
Ideology aside, as president, he's a Stuttering Cluster Fluck of a Miserable Failure. The sales pitch in '08 was utter bs. There's no first-rate intellect and no first-rate temperament. He's got a mediocre mind and thin skin and is mean and, on occasion, downright nasty. He cares nothing about bringing us together or ending the rancor. He cares about advancing his agenda. He isn't post-partisan; he isn't post-racial. In fact, quite to the contrary on both.
Those were the things that were supposed to make up for his lack of resume and salient experience. Guess what? They didn't. Well, now he's had salient experience and we can judge him on that. And guess what again? He stinks.
I will give him this: he apparently knows how to play some people like a drum. You know, the ones who saw themselves reflected back from his blank screen, the ones who saw independence, moderation and pragmatism written on that screen.
I swear to God, if we can't get the moderates to back off this guy this time, we are truly doomed.
" and the other Obama — Radical Lefty Obama — is a person I will not vote for."
Ann, sorry to bore you some more, but I think most of the commentators DID read your post correctly.
As quoted above, you DID indicate that you might (or probably would) vote for the 'moderate' Obama.
So, Professor, you want Obama to fool you during another campaign despite having governed like the Left wing hate-filled power hunger demagogue that he is from day one? That is his ACTUAL RECORD, NO? Why ignore it..again?
What do they say about fooling people twice?
I think that this is going to be #458, with 36 almost by himself and his insistence that CO2 is a pollutant, has carried the discussion since it broke into the fourth page.
Don't know who should be the first one to tell him the easiest way for him to reduce this pollution.
Bruce,
I'm not a lawyer but as I read Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, the court ruled that CO2, as a greenhouse gas, fits within the Clean Air Act’s definition of an air pollutant.
Ann, you sound like a women in love who is going to change or hope to change her man.
In his second term what is there to hold the lefty Obama in check, perhaps you belive it is your love.
I don't give a fig who Ann votes for. I don't like people telling me how to vote; I figure she feels likewise.
I will say that the process of deciding who to vote for is different for academic elites. They are ensconced in no-risk, high-reward jobs that will not change one iota depending on who's president. Their pay, insurance, and benefits will be the same.
As a result, voting becomes more abstract, hence the academic rigor applied to the process, and the tortured reasoning required to somehow all arrive at the same conclusion.
Politics is basically fantasy football for professors.
You're saying the same things, and you know what my response is: My choice was between Obama and McCain.
McCain would not have done very well as a President, but you will never have to confront that reality, because it never came into existence.
Ergo, you cannot claim that as "reality". As you correctly state, the only reality is Obama has not done very well as President
It wasn't a choice between Obama and some ideal conservative. It's demagoguery to pretend it was.
And again, the point of this post is: the best way for Obama to win.
It's not: I want him to win. Or: if he does this, he will be his true self. Or: if he campaigns like this, he will go on to govern like that.
All the comments getting this wrong bore the hell out of me.
I understand perfectly, and I think in this case you're full of shit.
The premise is you're giving dispassionate analysis. "The best way to win is to present yourself as moderate". In the specific context of Obama, your advice is "try to trick all those nitwits again".
The big problem is it's utterly cynical and cuts against one of the strengths of your blogging, which is to call out this sort of insipid bullshit when you see it.
And, yes, given your prior vote and the vast numbers of folks out there who seem desperate to be tricked- call them Larry Tribalists- the act itself gives rise to the notion that perhaps you consider yourself one of the nitwits who needs to be tricked again.
It is boring, but not in the way you think.
462 comments? Good God, it's like Palin redux.
I think it was my old Strunk and White that mentioned the rule for good writing was to be succinct. So consider this whole thread an example of what happens when the point isn't clear.
If I were giving campaign advice to Obama, this is what I would say. . . Now, that's clear writing. You're not suggesting you'd vote for the SCOAMF, but you're pointing out a (perhaps) winning strategy, mendacious though it is.
Cook, if you get this far - I absolutely agree with you on the Reagan / Bush / Clinton / Obama expansion of the "security state." It is a very troubling development and one extremely difficult to fight. Far earlier in this thread, the subject about taking away womens' right to vote was tossed out. While I wouldn't go that far, I'd place a hell of a lot of restrictions and qualifications to the right to vote were I able to.
Point being, though I utterly disagree with your politics, I'd rather give the vote to a hundred Robert Cooks over one Garage or Jeremy or Alpha or Shiloh.
No one's going to see this comment, but here goes anyway —
Stop trying to find greatness — or even good qualities — in politicians. If they had any, they wouldn't go into politics in the first place. And if they were dumb or venal enough to do so anyway, any good in them gets scrubbed away shortly after entering office.
All voting is an exercise in damage-limitation.
Therefore vote for the one who has shown the least-worst character. And that ain't Barry, as the past 10 days alone have shown, even if you weren't already convinced.
I repeat: All voting is an exercise in damage-limitation.
Christopher in MA, thanks for the nod.
“No, it's a breakdown at the DoJ. Shockingly, when Enron's CFO committed criminal acts, it was the fault of his higher-ups not watching him in the first place.”
Again, concerning Fast & Furious, there was no evidence of involvement by high-ranking appointees at the Justice Department in gunwalking.
Except for the emails showing that Holder was clearly briefed on the operation repeatedly.
Blame seems to be with flawed operations run by ATF agents in Phoenix.
Actually, that could not conceivably incorrect. Because, you see, if the DoJ has an agency so rogue that they can openly and repeatedly violate federal law with literally no punishment --- that is a failure of the management.
Now...who would that be?
“Ironically, volcanoes emit far more than JUST CO2.”
And? What’s your point?
You focus on a single pollutant. They throw out far more than that. Far, far more.
“Laws supported by Obama, mind you, and if they ask for it, they will always get it.”
Obama wants to close Gitmo.
Clearly he doesn't.
He had some reservations signing the defense authorization act.
Going so far as to use signing statements. Heyyy, didn't he campaign AGAINST that?
And, note, he did literally nothing to make it happen.
Again, Congress controls the purse strings.
He's the C-in-C. He can shut it down anytime he wants.
“No. I asked for times when they shafted him, as in voted down something he wanted.”
You initially stated that Reagan learned that there is no such thing as negotiating in good faith with Democrats based on the passage of the Immigration Act and tax laws.
Which is true, given that he gave them what they wanted and they voted against what they promised.
If those compromises were so bad to begin with, why not veto?
Because they agreed -- -stupidly --- to tax hikes first.
Which, again, is why Republicans and conservatives refused to even entertain that asinine idea last year, even with Dems promising "10:1 cuts to hikes". Dems can promise 1 billion:1 and I'd say no because they are a party of liars.
For the first six years of the Reagan presidency, 1981-1987, the Republicans controlled the Senate and the Immigration Reform and Control Act was signed in 1986.
And who ran the House? Because a bill has to be passed by both. Reagan agreed to a deal "agreed" to by Democrats and was bitten by it.
Again, there is a reason why Republicans won't negotiate on the promise of ANYTHING done in the future.
You’re not even making sense now.
Read up on the whistle blower emails involving CRU. The original evidence is almost universally gone and people who made models said they spat out the same results no matter what inputs were entered.
Warming is more destructive in the long run.
Horrifying --- except the evidence of warming does not exist.
And the economic collapse occurred during Bush’s watch. Which was worse for the country?
Bush didn't have Democrats running the House to kill the economy in 2001 as he did in 2008.
The University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science suggests that over the next century recruitment of new corals could drop by 73 percent, as rising CO2 levels turn the oceans more acidic. The research findings reveal a new danger to the already threatened Caribbean and Florida reef Elkhorn corals.
...while ignoring that the ocean has wide fluctuations in pH level no matter what mankind does and has forever.
I'm not a lawyer but as I read Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, the court ruled that CO2, as a greenhouse gas, fits within the Clean Air Act’s definition of an air pollutant.
...which makes breathing an act of pollution.
Damikesc,
Rather than continue this daisy chain about Fast & Furious, Gitmo and global warming, I’ll just respond that my opinion still stands. Obama is not a radical lefty. Just a moderate who has implemented policies based on concepts once held or still held by the Right.
Cheers.
Fair enough, 36.
"Point being, though I utterly disagree with your politics, I'd rather give the vote to a hundred Robert Cooks ..."
That's mighty self-righteous of you C in MA considering Robert Cook is anti-Obama.
But at least RC is consistent, unlike many Althouse conservatives.
Whereas Althouse conservatives are consistent whiners ...
>
btw, your wanting to take voting rights away from liberals notwithstanding, as mentioned previously, most eligible American voters don't bother to vote in mid-terms ie Reps received (22%) er 48.8 million of 218 million eligible voters nationally in the 2010 mid-term.
And of course in the general voter turnout is usually in the low 60 percent.
So, C in MA should have been very happy (29) million 2008 Obama voters stayed home in 2010.
hmm, what will happen in 2012 when mittens tries to lead conservatives to the promised land. Good luck w/that!
Post a Comment