Obama: 2004. What Happened to That Guy?

President Barack Obama addresses the House Dem...

Image via Wikipedia

I remember watching a fresh, young, Illinois Senator deliver  a moving oratory at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. I thought to myself, ‘whoa; wrong guy running for President. John Kerry is weak tea’. I’ve been campaigning for Obama ever since. He hit on every point that I had against the Bush administration and he went even further to drive home the policies I wanted to see addressed. This guy was so on point! I mean, I liked Clinton (though I voted for him because of Gore), I liked Carter. I even liked Ford. But I had not seen such a transformational person in my lifetime as Obama. I actively started pushing for his presidential bid soon after the DNC speech.

Fast forward to 2008. Obama wins. Historical, emotional, Oprah cries, yada, yada.  Then it gets ugly. Republicans fall all over themselves trying to defeat the President before his presidency even gets underway. Screw you Americans, we know what’s best for you and it ain’t this black guy.

Oh yeah. Did I forget to mention that Wall Street drove us off the cliff into a new depression before Obama took office? Sorry about that. Before you get that Hope and change message underway how about we plunder the coffers first?

Now they want to blame Obama for all of this? Puh-leeeez.

I watched the other day as a woman, Velma Hart, had some pointed criticism for the President at a town hall meeting on CNBC

An African-American woman — a military veteran and mother of two— told the president she was “exhausted of defending” his administration:

“I’m one of your middle-class Americans, and quite frankly I’m exhausted. I’m exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change that I voted for, and deeply disappointed with where we are right now. I had been told that I voted for a man who said he was going to change things in a meaningful way for the middle class. I’m one of those people and I’m waiting, sir. I’m waiting. I don’t feel it yet, and I thought that — while it wouldn’t be in great measure — I would feel it in some small measure.”

Jon Stewart followed up the next night.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/tue-september-21-2010-sigourney-weaver


 

(Apologies for the link. You have to watch the whole thing but hey, dancing Bristol Palin is on it).

I am totally in agreement with Velma. What happened to that guy? Where is Barack Obama? Where is the candidate I campaigned so hard for in 2008? Where is the hope and change? Where is the enthusiasm? Where is the backbone?

And it doesn’t stop there, either. This expiration of the Bush tax cuts is a golden egg yet the Dems won’t get behind it. Personally, I’d be making golden omelets. I’d be shouting about it from the  top of every mountain. ‘Rich people now have to pay their fair share!!!’ Is anyone talking about it? No. All Democrats seem to be worried about is running out the clock. Cower in the corner until November 2nd and hope we still have some political capital left. Don’t take any chances. No wonder people are fed up with politics. You know what? We elected you to take chances and make our world a better place.

If we lose the house in November, we deserve it. The emotion I’m feeling now is disgust. Where is the Democratic party?

Look, I know it’s hard. I know it’s dirty. But don’t give me excuses. Get in there and fight! Damnit!


About Mr. Universe

Mr. Universe is a musician/songwriter and an ex-patriot of the south. He currently lives and teaches at a University in the Pacific Northwest. He is a long distance hiker who has hiked the Appalachian Trail and the Pacific Crest Trail. He is also an author and woodworker. An outspoken political voice, he takes a decidedly liberal stance in politics.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

101 Responses to Obama: 2004. What Happened to That Guy?

  1. shiloh says:

    hmm, I give up, where did he go. Mentioned in the previous thread re: politicians not being able to function w/out an opinion poll and this, unfortunately, applies to Obama’s admin also.Very discouraging.Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way! ~ Thomas Paine>and speaking of that last post, didn’t close a bold tag again.Mr. U, in your Display Settings for this site/blog, is there something resembling a “Enforce proper nesting of HTML” option as this would probably prevent future HTML screw-ups.Checking post for incorrect HTML 🙂

  2. Jeff says:

    @Mr. Universe: You say: “I am totally in agreement with Velma. What happened to that guy? Where is Barack Obama? Where is the candidate I campaigned so hard for in 2008? Where is the hope and change? Where is the enthusiasm? Where is the backbone?”=====It’s very different when you have to make the decisions instead of talking about them. The man could SPEAK brilliantly. He’s just in way over his head, had no foggy idea what to do, and turned everything over to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Notice that Guantanamo is still open? It was easy for him to critique, but the man had absolutely no plan….. And he really thought his silken voice would persuade all, that “post-partisan” meant that people who dislike his ideas would listen and say “Yes Sir.” The man had never run anything larger than his Senate office, and thought he could run the country. He’s even more inept than Jimmy Carter, who found his level of Presidential competence handling the scheduling on the White House tennis courts.How’s that hopey, changey thing working out for you?

  3. Mr Universe says:

    @Jeff

    See, here’s the problem with running a blogspot. It’s like Anthony Quinn said; ‘sometimes, you have to unzip your pants and let it all hang out’,

    Well, that hopey, changey thing is working out just fine. As long as I can get my politicians to unzip their pants and let it all hang out. We got the junk; we just need to show it off.

    We need to be locked, cocked, and loaded. One in the chamber, so to speak. That seems to be what we’re having issues with.

  4. shiloh says:

    @JefferyHow’s that hopey, changey thing working out for you?~~~~~~~~~~hmm, all things considered after (8) years of cheney/bush incompetence/corruption, knowing McCain and the prom queen from Wasilla were the alternative, as again, elections come down to choices.You bet’cha!How hilarious was it when McCain suspended his campaign, tried to skip the 1st presidential debate as he rushed back to Washington to single-handedly solve the financial crisis ?!? Too funny!Indeed, after (2) new Supreme Court Justices, Sotomayor and Kagan, which continue to give wingers massive indigestion, knowing the only other presidential option was a genuine war hero who also never ran a company, etc. and knew zilch about economics and was born w/a silver spoon in his mouth graduating at the bottom of his Naval Academy class … and a loon from AK who found governing a state of 700k peeps much too troublesome/stressful so she quit halfway thru to make a lot of money.It continues to be an easy choice w/no regrets and thanx for asking.btw, terrorists haven’t flown a frickin’ commercial airliner into the Pentagon under Obama’s watch like they did under Bush43. How embarrassing, catching cheney/bush and the U.S. military w/their pants down on 9/11.You all remember 9/11 when the president of the U.S. was reading My Pet Goat to children and was told America was under attack !!! and he just sat there for (7) minutes, looking like a deer caught in the headlights! hoping he had his daddy on speed dial!I yield back the balance of my time …take care

  5. filistro says:

    We elected you to take chances and make our world a better place. If we lose the house in November, we deserve it. The emotion I’m feeling now is disgust.Oh, come on now, Mr U.Let’s say you’re brought in from out of state to turn around an employee-owned company that’s floundering and on the verge of going under. The employees are terrified… all their life savings and their families’ futures are tied up in this company, and it’s really in a mess. They are also didved into two camps. Half the employees hate your guts, and the other half think you’re the savior they’ve been dreaming of.How do you set out to manage this troubled company? Can you just ride roughshod over the group who oppose you, ignore their views and smash though their opposition? They may be a nasty, hateful bunch… but they’re owners, too. You have to answer to them every bit as much as your own supporters. And you’re not God, you’re not omniscient, you’re only a guy hired to manage what they own, make it productive and profitable again.It’s hard enough when half the people in the company loathe you. It must be even harder when the other half also start hating you for not smashing and trampling on the first group.I think it takes every administration two years to get the lay of the land and figure out who can be counted on and who can’t, what works and what doesn’t, where the votes can be wangled and where the indicators are pointing. Every admin suffers at he polls for being on display and highly visible during this learning process.Part of the problem is our view of politics. It’s not a war, and it’s not a sporting event. It’s a JOB. When the economy is faltering or the country is at war, it’s a really TOUGH job. There are many different views of the best way to do the job. All these views have some validity, all should be considered when decisions are made. I think the guy deserves a little more patience and loyalty from those of us who support him.

  6. filistro says:

    I also don’t know why everybody’s so cranky and gloomy. They mustn’t be looking at the same sunny landscape I am.I see the polls tightening, the high profile Teapers candidiates slipping badly (and dragging the whole field down with them) Obama’s approval numbers climbing and firming at Rasmussen, the stock market soaring among improved economic confidence, Freepers getting increasingly panicky and dispirited, and the Tea Party Express planning to load up the crazy-ugly and tour it across the country for two weeks at exctly the wrong moment.I feel good. I still think Senate gains for the R’s will be 5… and I now expect House gains to be under 30.

  7. shrinkers says:

    Jeff is half right. Campaigning is a different set of skills than governing. Particularly when faced with an opposition party whose only desire at present is to obstruct.Jean put interesting information in the previous thread about a new AP poll showing that the vast majority of “opposition” to the new Heath Care law is that it doesn’t go far enough. By 2 to 1, Americans want it to go farther. So why didn’t it?24/7 opposition and obstruction, and a news media in the pocket of big corporations. There’s Jeff, complaining that Gitmo isn’t closed yet, when it was his guys demanding it remain open. There’s Bart on the previous thread complaining the Obama didn’t keep his campaign promises, when it is his guys obstructing any progress. There’s Boehner and McConnell complaining that we’re not gaining new jobs fast enough, when they’re the ones who have prevented anything from getting done in Congress.When Republicans had a majority, they rammed things through without any thought consequences, and without any consideration of compromise. Dems aren’t like that. Dems actually want to govern, not merely to rule. But since Republicans are all about simply having power, their response to a Democratic majority is to stand in the doorway and scream NO!The Republicans have used the filibuster more times in the last 20 months than it was used in the entire two decades of the 50s and 60s combined. The only thing the R’s want to do is to score political points by preventing the government from doing anything, then complain that the government hasn’t done anything.And people like Jeff and Bart fall for it. Well, Republicans do know their voters.

  8. mclever says:

    Well said, shrinkers.Add to that more has been accomplished (in terms of major legislative initiatives) under Obama in 18 months than under any President since FDR, and part of what we’ve got is a serious perspective problem. Just check out Politifact’s list of promises kept or in progress for a reminder of all the stuff Obama has done already, and his term isn’t even half over.And that whole perspective problem goes back to: 1) Universe’s point that Dems keep disarming themselves in the face of a gunfight. 2) Media have a vested interest in stoking “controversy” over substance, generally to the detriment of those who actually want to get something accomplished rather than merely scoring political points.

  9. Number Seven says:

    I too remember ‘that’ Obama. And during his campaign, I was so excited that finally, finally, the Public Cons were going to get called out on their crimes against humanity. And then the transformation began. He became a wuss who thought that if he treated the Public Cons with dignity and respect that it would be returned. I think part of the problem is how Obama deals with bullies. The Public Con party is mostly bullies and you don’t deal with bullies with reason and facts. You punch back as hard as you can.I find it hard to believe that Obama does not seem to understand this. You don’t play nice with bullies. You kick the shit out of them with all the means at your disposal.If he can get Reid to change the Senate rules and end the abuse of the filibuster, this would go a long way in putting the Public Cons on their heels. Sadly, Reid is even more of a wimp then Obama seems to be.This go along, get along crap has to end. The Demowonts have so much ammo to use but seem to think that by playing nice, they can get a few Public Cons to see the light.Jeff’s response is typical for a Trite Winger. He claims it is just a matter of not liking his ideas. It is far more then that. The Public Cons want to destroy Obama using every means possible. They want to destroy the very idea of liberalism.These are the same people who have been calling us on the left traitors, anti-American, terrorist lovers, etc. They are not, what we used to call, the loyal opposition. Because of this 30 year long meme, they can’t now compromise with the left or they will lose their base. I agree with Mr. U. If we lose the house this November, we deserve what we get. We will see two years of subpoenas and another impeachment. Perhaps this is for the best. The utter ugliness of the Public Cons will be shown for all to see in full HD. Hopefully, the American voters will get their memories back and remember why we voted them out in 2008.

  10. Bart DePalma says:

    If we can get past the cliches, what precisely did Obama promise you that he has not delivered? Or perhaps Obama simply made broad proclamation into which you interpreted what you wanted?

  11. Number Seven says:

    Now Bart claims to have never ranted about the lack of transparency, lack of public debate, etc.Check out PolitiFact.com. It has a list of 22 (so far) broken promises. Some big, some small.Of course, 4 times that are in the stalled category. Hmmm, I wonder why. It couldn’t possibly be because of Public Con obstructionism.

  12. Jeff says:

    Number seven said: “Jeff’s response is typical for a Trite Winger. He claims it is just a matter of not liking his ideas. It is far more then that. The Public Cons want to destroy Obama using every means possible. They want to destroy the very idea of liberalism.========You’re mostly right. I don’t particularly care about “destroying Obama,” but I get a shiver down my leg at the thought of destroying liberalism.” And right now, I’m actually grateful for the help Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are providing in achieving that goal.

  13. Jeff says:

    shrinkers said: “There’s Jeff, complaining that Gitmo isn’t closed yet, when it was his guys demanding it remain open.”==========Nah, not complaining. It’s the only realistic solution. I’m pointing out that Gitmo isn’t a complicated situation, there aren’t a lot of options, and it had been the subject of debate for years before he took office.The plain facts of the matter is that Obama KNEW (or should have known) there was no viable alternative to Gitmo, yet campaigned on the premise that it would be closed. And all the good little sheeple on the left got a cheap thrill and one more reason to support him. Of course, his brilliant idea of having a civilian trial of KSM in Manhattan blew up in his face (and DON’T tell me it was Holder’s idea — AG’s don’t make political decisions like that without clearing it with the White House).

  14. Justsayin says:

    For those of us who live in the south, what has been thrust upon by our gop brethern is not suprising at all. They hated Clinton and they hate Obama. Nothing new, and if Hillary had won they would just have painted her as “the little woman who was incompetent” and would have hated her too. Obama was just a twofer, a liberal and black. They couldn’t hate him more. As for liberals being disappointed with his performance, here and there, but I will say it has been an exhausting job, and I wonder how he gets up in the morning, every morning to do this very thankless job. As I have stated before he still has my support and everyone I know down here. When you deal with repubs down here you really know what he is up against, If you live in a liberal area, you really don’t know what its like, you only know what you see in the media. So give the man a break, he IS doing the best he can.

  15. Jeff says:

    Number Seven said: “If he can get Reid to change the Senate rules and end the abuse of the filibuster, this would go a long way in putting the Public Cons on their heels.”=============Be careful of what you wish for. After November, the Senate is going to be very closely split. In the next two cycles, there’s something like 23 Republican seats and 42 Democratic seats up for election. Structurally, the Senate is biased towards small states, most of which tilt Republican. Wyoming and Alaska get the same two seats each as California and New York. There’s a very simple reason why the R’s filibustered so much. Obama let the Congressional leadership design the bills that would implement his program. Pelosi is a hard left, no compromise, ideologue. Reid is very little better. The two of them figured they could muscle through whatever they wanted with Democratic votes alone — and with HC they did.Lyndon Johnson was once asked why he appointed a rival to a key position, and responded that “he’s a son of a bitch, but better he’s inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in.”Take HC. There was NO effort made to secure Republican support. There were some things in the bill that Republicans could accept — and a lot that they couldn’t. Please don’t tell me that they couldn’t have peeled off Snow or Collins or Voinovich if they had been a bit more moderate in their demands. But they were left outside the tent.If the HC bill had included strict controls over malpractice (pissing off the trial lawyers) and taxed the gold-plated union plans, and given individuals the ability to deduct premiums, and didn’t have the absurdity of making business send 1099’s to every vendor (classic example of incredibly STUPID lawmaking that comes when you’ve never had a “real” job), and a few other deal-killers that weren’t central to the concept, the bill would have been far more palatable and could have gotten some Republican support.But Nancy P and Harry R knew better, and Obama gave them the steering wheel.Suppose the Republicans had been in the same position of strength, and their agenda had been:1. End Social Security and Medicaid (vs. HC).2. A national right-to-work law and abolition of government employee unions (vs. card check)3. Abolition of the EPA (greenhouse gas regulation). 4. Appointing John Yoo to the Supreme Court (vs. either one)My guess is that you would have seen the Dems embrace the filibuster the way Mark Sanford embraced his Argentine mistress.

  16. filistro says:

    @Jeff… Take HC. There was NO effort made to secure Republican support.That’s an admirable demonstration of the old principle… “If you’re going to tell a whopper, tell a BIG one.” It’s harder to refudiate such a Big Huge Stinky Fib… because one hardly knows where to begin.

  17. filistro says:

    Further to Jeff’s comment… (here, let me repeat, it’s just too good not to)…Take HC. There was NO effort made to secure Republican support.… it occurs to me my grandkids really have the hang of this “political discourse” business. If somebody says something that’s infuriatingly, outrageously false, you don’t respond with a reasoned, logical, point-by-point analysis of the fallacies.What you do is, you smack him on the head really hard with a lightly- clad Barbie doll (those pointy little boobs HURT)… and you wreck his Lego house… then run and lock yourself in the bathroom until things blow over.More satisfying, more effective… and MUCH more just.

  18. GROG says:

    Ohhh boy. When Obama was elected, I took a bit of solace in the fact that we wouldn’t have to listen to the left whine and cry and blame the Republicans on everything under the sun incessantly. You guys are worse now than ever. Please, take some responsibility.

  19. filistro says:

    WHACK!!!! I just hit GROGGY with my Malibu Barbie, and it felt good!Who’s next? C’mon, wingers, come over here by the “My Little Pony Magic Castle” and say something really dumb. See what happens.

  20. shrinkers says:

    Suppose the Republicans had been in the same position of strength, and their agenda had been:1. End Social Security and Medicaid (vs. HC).2. A national right-to-work law and abolition of government employee unions (vs. card check)3. Abolition of the EPA (greenhouse gas regulation).4. Appointing John Yoo to the Supreme Court (vs. either one)My guess is that you would have seen the Dems embrace the filibuster … Perhaps, on specific issues.The Republicans have been filibustering everything. They filibuster procedural motions on noncontroversial issues. They are holding over a hundred appointments. They filibuster bills they later overwhelmingly vote forThey are not using the filibuster to oppose specific legislation that they dislike. They are using it simply to lock up the Senate and to prevent any work from getting done.The Republicans are not engaging in the business of the nation. They are not even being a responsible opposition party, attempting to stop or amend legislation that they disapprove of.They have been trying to shut down the government.It’s that simple. Mindless obstructionism, engaged in solely and only for the purpose of making the President look bad. There are no policy principles in their minds, no goal, no intent to govern. It is simply to say NO!, nothing more and nothing less.

  21. mclever says:

    Justsayin: When you deal with repubs down here you really know what he is up against, If you live in a liberal area, you really don’t know what its like, you only know what you see in the media. So give the man a break, he IS doing the best he can.Amen. Having lived in both “liberal” and “conservative” areas of this country, I must agree.

  22. mclever says:

    Be careful of what you wish for. After November, the Senate is going to be very closely split.While I disagree with your characterization of Pelosi and especially of a moderate like Reid as ideologues, I agree that Democrats should be careful about wishing for changes in filibuster rules.Whoever is in power needs to remember that they won’t always be in power and should make sure the rules take that into account.

  23. Jeff says:

    @filistro: “Further to Jeff’s comment… (here, let me repeat, it’s just too good not to)… Take HC. There was NO effort made to secure Republican support.=========Ummm, let’s see:Major Republican issues with HC:1. Tort Reform. Never under consideration — the massive savings don’t make up for the impact on the trial lawyers.2. HSA’s and high deductible plans. Being eliminated.3. Taxing high cost “gold-plated plans.” Largely eliminated to reward unions.4. Purchasing plans across State lines. Nope.5. Government mandates on plan benefits. Yup.6. Eventual elimination of most private plans offered by corporations. Yup.Need I go on?The so-called “effort to secure Republican support” was a lot of attempts to say “Now, please give up your principles and we’ll talk about a bone to throw you.” In the beginning stages there were some attempts in the Senate to find something that some Republicans could support. That ended when Al Franken got seated and the Dems reached their magic number. After that, the only “negotiations” were the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase.In the House, there were ZERO, repeat ZERO attempts at compromise. Waxman and Pelosi and Stark don’t believe in compromise, outside their caucus. We won’t even get into the “deem and pass” and the “you’ll find out what’s in the bill after it becomes law” and all the rest of it.When you start smacking people with your Barbie doll, save a few whacks for your own side.When you try to run rough-shod over a minority, what do you expect?

  24. shrinkers says:

    On another thread,9/25/2010 2:15 PM Bart DePalma wrote:Obama and the new Dem government broke nearly every major promise they made.9/27/2010 7:51 AM Bart DePalma wrote:If we can get past the cliches, what precisely did Obama promise you that he has not delivered? I guess Bart can’t make up his mind which he wants to criticize Obama for — breaking his promises, or keeping them?This sort of behavior makes me realize Bart is not actually aware of what he writes. He just barts.

  25. WA7th says:

    Sticks and stones may break my bones, but it would be goddamn un-American to let someone question my mandate (manhood?) without some random bloodletting in return, even if it’s misdirected. Am I getting this right? It’s Obama’s fault that he’s not the fascist dictator, able to force his will upon Congress and all classes of America, that the freepers cracked him up to be? I’m not saying Mr. U is going so far, but many vocal liberals in general are definitely spouting the Statler and Waldorf meme: “I haven’t gotten my liberal way, and I can’t count to sixty, so it must be Obama’s fault, because he has this ‘filibuster-proof’ majority, blahblahblah, so I’m taking my toys and I’m going home.”Pelosi and Reid are the ones who should be defending Obama,but aren’t. I have yet to hear a plausible argument for how Obama is supposed to control either of them. As I understand it, he needs to morph into John Wayne in an LBJ suit and blackmail Pelosi and Reid into whipping their pawns to line up like good little Republicans. Failing that, he needs to go to Congress and do their jobs personally, twisting the arm of each blue dog individually, until they all walk his line for fear of crossing him. Sure, I’d like to see that, but I never honestly expected it, because I never really thought Obama was John Wayne and LBJ rolled into one. Sure, I’d like to see him whupass on Reid and Pelosi, but I don’t see what advantage that would give him towards accomplishing any item on his agenda.Should he have demanded before he even took office that Reid do away with the Byrd rule? Should he do that now? When I think of the Byrd rule and how it is abused, I remind myself that it saved us from the privatization of social security during Bush II. If he should have shaken-up his own cabinet and before now, who should the replacements have been, and how would that not have become THE story of his first two years, to the point of jeopardizing the favorable accomplishments that actually were realized?In my view, nothing that the liberals have wished of Obama (or Clinton, or Carter for that matter) could ever have been actually accomplished while that self-serving sumbitch Ted Kennedy was still alive. Now that he’s finally out of the picture, now is the time for liberals to pull their heads out and get their enthusiasm aligned with the possibilities.So, now if our savior would just throw Pelosi, Reid, and Ted Kennedy’s memory under the bus, he could get around to accomplishing single-handed every item on the left’s agenda that he never said he agreed with in the first place. What a do-nothing putz.

  26. Jean says:

    Meanwhile, the Dems continue chipping away at reversing the offshoring of American jobs and bringing jobs back. Today the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to Calendar #578, S.3816, a bill to create American jobs and to prevent the offshoring of such jobs. Senators should expect a live quorum at approximately 7pm on Monday. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.3816:I think this is the third in a series of loopholes. Two closed recently and this is the third.

  27. shrinkers says:

    @mcleverWhile I disagree with your characterization of Pelosi and especially of a moderate like Reid as ideologues, I agree that Democrats should be careful about wishing for changes in filibuster rules.Whoever is in power needs to remember that they won’t always be in power and should make sure the rules take that into account.While you are correct about that — I’m also aware that the filibuster, traditionally, was not used all that much until the last four years. The House gets along just fine without it.Besides, the Senate has a great many other procedures which allow the minority party (whichever it is) to gum up the works, including things like anonymous holds, committee votes, votes to send things back to committee, and so on.The filibuster was intended as a way to extend debate on a topic. It was never intended as a way to simply obstruct the people’s business my stopping all activity in the government.Whichever party gains a majority in Congress is clearly the party that the People want to have majority — until they change their minds, which they always, eventually, do. So maybe, as much as we would sometimes not like it, maybe the majority should get to hold votes.When they had a majority, even with the filibuster, the Republicans managed to get everything they wanted through Congress. Even when, for a short time, there were 50 Democratic seats and 50 Republican ones, with Darth Cheney as the tiebreaker. They pretty much ignored the rules whenever they felt like it, and just enacted what they wanted. So I’m not at all convinced that eliminating the filibuster — or modifying it — will be any more dangerous than simply letting the R’s back into the majority would be anyway.

  28. WA7th says:

    One promise every Presidential candidate will always make and then break once in office,is the promise to reduce the power of the executive branch, stop the rampant abuses of executive privilege, and leave America with a more transparent Presidency than the office they inherited.

  29. shiloh says:

    @Jeffreyre: compromise~~~~~~~~~~Ummm, let’s see:HCR is similar to what many Republicans proposed to Bill Clinton when he was doing his debate on health care.1993: The Dole-Chafee BillIn 1993, some Republicans believed they needed to come up with an alternative to Bill Clinton’s health care plan (in contrast to the, “Just Say No” approach advocated by Will Kristol at the time, and again today) – with 20 Republican Senators eventually introducing to great fanfare the Dole-Chafee bill. * An individual mandate enforced by a penalty imposed on those who did not comply. * A government voucher to purchase health insurance for individuals to up to 240% of the poverty line. (Which is more generous than the Senate Finance bill which only offered subsidies for families up to 200% of the poverty line.) * A cap on how much health insurance could be deducted as a tax credit (similar to what the Senate Finance Committee proposed recently, which Republicans denounced as raising taxes.) * The removal of the tax credit for all private health insurance plans that did not provide a “federally guaranteed package of health care benefits.” (Which is more radical than anything Obama is proposing – and a greater reach of the government into the private sector.) * The elimination of discrimination on the basis of preexisting conditions. * Financing through cuts in Medicare Part B and the limits in tax credits discussed above.“Obamacare”Compare the above to the plans now circulating in Congress and backed by Obama.They have many of the same goals: * reducing the growth of health care spending; * eliminating the holes in our insurance system and insuring the uninsured; * eliminating abuses by the health insurance industry.They have some similar mechanisms to achieve these goals: * regulation of health insurance industry; * individual mandate; * subsidies for those who cannot afford insurance; * technocratic panels.~~~~~At the crest of the liberal era, Richard Nixon attempted to reform health care. He called his plan CHIP, or Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan, and its goal was to solidify the hybrid system that existed. He proposed expanding eligibility for Medicaid, expanding Medicare to cover prescription drugs, subsidizing the poor to get insurance, incentivizing employers to provide health insurance, and eliminating discrimination on the basis of preexisting conditions.One of the great regrets of Ted Kennedy’s life was that he did not take the deal Nixon offered him on health care. It’s also noteworthy that Nixon at this point was insistent on strengthening the employer-provided health insurance system and the government-provided health insurance system. He also pushed the idea of HMOs which Bill Clinton’s plan was later demonized for encouraging as well.~~~~I yield back the balance of my time …carry on

  30. mclever says:

    shrinkers, I don’t disagree with a thing you say. :-)I just caution that before making any changes to the rules, Democrats better think long and hard about what they want the rules to be the next time they find themselves in the minority and desperately trying to stop a Republican policy train wreck.The way I see it, there are three main reasons why the Republicans got so much of what they wanted with only 50+1 in the Senate. 1) Scare tactics work. 2) There are a dozen DINOs/Blue-dogs who only marginally vote with the Dems. 3) Dems don’t vote in lockstep the way Republicans do, because Democrats embrace a broader diversity of opinion. In general, that is commendable, but it’s a PITA when whipping votes.

  31. Bart DePalma says:

    shrinkers wrote:On another thread, 9/25/2010 2:15 PM Bart DePalma wrote: Obama and the new Dem government broke nearly every major promise they made.9/27/2010 7:51 AM Bart DePalma wrote:If we can get past the cliches, what precisely did Obama promise you that he has not delivered? I guess Bart can’t make up his mind which he wants to criticize Obama for — breaking his promises, or keeping them?***Mr. U has this image of Obama as a candidate who promised sweeping progressive change in 2004 and 2008. In fact, Obama ran on a center-right Reagan-lite campaign promising tax cuts for nearly everyone and a net spending cut which would reduce the deficit and pay for the trillion dollars in new programs that wet blanket McCain kept bringing up in the debates.As I observed in the prior thread, Obama broke all of his center-right campaign promises and the point I was making on this thread is that Obama never made any promises of sweeping progressive changes to Mr. U which he could break.Frankly, you folks on the left are complete ingrates. Obama has imposed the furthest left agenda since the New Deal – far, far, far further than anything he promised in the campaign – and all you people can do is dump all over him.If I had a GOP president who limited government to the same extent that Obama has expanded it, I would be building shrines to that man or woman.Name me the last President of either party who has expanded the reach of government more in your lifetime. It is not even close.

  32. filistro says:

    Name me the last President of either party who has expanded the reach of government more in your lifetime.LOL…Talk about a low-hanging, gently curving, just inside the strike-zone softball!Who’s going to be the first to take a good crack at THIS one? 🙂

  33. Alki says:

    You know what……..I am getting real tired of the whining coming from this Velma and the rest of the Dems. Prior to Bush, I was apolitical……registered independent, leaned left. Because of Obama, I joined the Dem. party in 2008. And ever since I have listened to this steady stream of whining. Who did you think you elected into the presidency? JC II? Obama is a man, not the messiah…..and he is busting his hump. If you all can’t see it, then you are blind. He has to contend with an extremist GOP and churlish Dems. What a miserable combo. He said this would not be easy and he needed you to stand behind him. How soon you all forgot!My advice to Dems…….grow some, get behind Obama….he’s a great president……and start working to GOTV. And keep your whining to your private moments just before you go to bed. Thank you very much!

  34. Jeff says:

    @shiloh”re: compromise ~~~~~~~~~~Ummm, let’s see:”HCR is similar to what many Republicans proposed to Bill Clinton when he was doing his debate on health care.””One of the great regrets of Ted Kennedy’s life was that he did not take the deal Nixon offered him on health care.”============So, the Republicans tried to do HC reform in the 70’s and again in the 90’s with a compromise that you say included many elements of what we have today (and a number of elements that were NOT included then).So why wouldn’t the Democrats accept a compromise and respond to attempts to reach across the aisle then? Perhaps they didn’t want to see an issue that’s served them well, taken off the table? What’s different with this plan that has finally united the Republicans and outraged much of the country?Obama had an incredible opportunity to LEAD. Typically, new Presidents start with initiatives they (ie, their staff) design, and work to push through Congress. The really smart ones start with a backroom deal with the opposition.In February 2009, Republicans were totally dispirited and disunited. Bob Dole had lost all respect in the party and there was no leadership. Obama had campaigned on a platform of changing business as usual. Most Republicans were dubious, but hoped that he would. I know I was. Obama made a HUGE strategic error when he outsourced HC to Congress. He didn’t lead. He didn’t propose. He gave his mandate to Nancy Pelosi, who is one of the most partisan people around, and who comes from one of the most liberal districts in the country. That’s when the battle lines started getting drawn.Imagine the situation reversed. A Republican president says “Here’s a HUGE issue that affects 1/7th of the economy. OK, Speaker Bachman and Majority Leader DeMint, go figure out a solution.”And a year later, the Speaker and the Majority Leader report “Well, we tried to reach out to the Democrats, but they wouldn’t cooperate. We’ll just have to force it through anyway.”What would the Democrats be saying today?Obama made a huge mistake, and possibly a catastrophic mistake — not just for the Democrats, but for the country.Instead of being the Great Healer, he’s turned into the Great Divider.

  35. shiloh says:

    @BartlesName me the last President of either party who has expanded the reach of government more in your lifetime. It is not even close.~~~~~~~~~~If your absurd, hyperbolic nonsense was even half-way true ~ Bush, Cheney, Rummy, turdblossom etc. would all be in jail now for Constitutional violations.Fortunately for Scooter 😉 Bush zapped his sentence, eh.Just sayin’take care, blessings

  36. Bart DePalma says:

    BD: “Name me the last President of either party who has expanded the reach of government more in your lifetime.”filistro wrote: “LOL…Talk about a low-hanging, gently curving, just inside the strike-zone softball! Who’s going to be the first to take a good crack at THIS one?”Looks like you are up to bat, my dear. Everyone else seems to be drawing blanks.

  37. filistro says:

    Alki… bless your heart! I wish you would post more often because every time you do, you make me feel so much better. 🙂

  38. shiloh says:

    Jeffrey you do more song and dance deflections than Bartles lolCongrats!take care

  39. mclever says:

    Props to WA7th at 9/27/2010 10:56 AM who wrote: Pelosi and Reid are the ones who should be defending Obama,but aren’t.The President isn’t a dictator, and the political reality is that he should generally be seen as “above the fray”. It’s up to Congress to write and pass the initiatives that fulfill the agenda of the man in the White House. GWB had strong allies in Congress who wrote and passed and pushed (unanimously) for votes on things to give GWB lots of easy “wins” that could be bragged about. Pelosi and Reid haven’t been equal allies for Obama. They’ve pushed through some difficult and monumental legislation, but there’ve been a lot of misses with the Liebermans and Nelsons gumming up the works. Part of this is structural — liberals are by definition more open-minded and more difficult to unify in comparison to Republicans who tend to value party rah-rah cohesion. And part of this is (in my opinion) a failure of leadership, especially in the Senate.Now, I actually like Reid. He’s a good guy and a reliable Dem from relatively red turf. But he’s not a visionary policy leader. He starts the discussion in the middle, rather than setting forth a truly liberal agenda that could be compromised into a center-left final product.With the deck so heavily stacked against him, I’m actually pretty pleased with what Obama has accomplished thus far. I voted for a political pragmatist and a realist, and that’s what he’s been. He’s made solid progress on fulfilling his promises, and I’m unsurprised by the ones he’s not fulfilled (like limiting Exec power, yeah right). The nation’s movement has been inching leftward after a decade of driving to the right. It takes time to get a big train turned around, and at least Obama seems to be on the right track.But that’s just my perspective. I’d be more than happy to hear what others think!

  40. Bart DePalma says:

    Shiloh:In what way did Bush expand the reach of government more than Obama?(BTW, we are talking about in America over the citizenry. Please do not speak on behalf of foreign enemy combatants.)

  41. Alki says:

    @Bart……If I had a GOP president who limited government to the same extent that Obama has expanded it, I would be building shrines to that man or woman.And you think Dems are messed up. Bart, the US is no longer 13 colonies with a couple of million people. Its a superpower with over 300 million people and nearly 4 million sq miles of land. Your dream of a small or limited gov’t is a pipedream. Its time to get over it and move on. After all, you profess to be an adult.

  42. filistro says:

    Okay Bart… (spitting on hands, scratching gently, gripping bat, squinting..)What administration entered the Oval Office with the thinly-disguised intent of extending the reach of Executive power beyond anything yet seen in America… and succeeded in doing so? WHACK!!!Let’s see you field THAT one, cupcake.

  43. shiloh says:

    @BartlesEveryone else seems to be drawing blanks.~~~~~~~~~~lol you have seen so much cross-fire at 538 that if this was a military game you would have died er surrendered your first week, eh.drawing blanks ?!? too funny.btw Bartles, feel free at any time to provide source reference links verifying/certifying your hyperbolic nonsense!As always one can use The Google! ;)take care

  44. ted says:

    @filistro wrote:Alki… bless your heart! I wish you would post more often because every time you do, you make me feel so much betterBack at you, filistro!

  45. shiloh says:

    The (((onus))) is on you Bartles as you threw out the first hyperbole, eh.We’re waiting …

  46. Bart DePalma says:

    Fili:C’mon darlin, spit it out. I know its killing you.

  47. filistro says:

    @Ted… thank you, that’s heartening. :-)I’m presently withstanding a flood of abuse from various sourpusses over at 538 who find me excessively optimistic. Poor kids… they have NO IDEA what’s set to start hitting them in the next couple of weeks.Ahhh… “GOP-Whacking”… my favorite spectator sport. (WHACK!!! Squashed another one!)

  48. Bart DePalma says:

    shiloh wrote: “The (((onus))) is on you Bartles as you threw out the first hyperbole, eh.”I have already stated that Obama is the undisputed champion of expanding government power in my lifetime.Spending (absolutely or as a percentage of GDP) – check.Nationalizing companies – check.Massive new entitlements – check.Most new bureacracies in the fastest time – check.This is not even remotely close – LBJ and Nixon had nothing on The One.It is hilarious that I have to defend Obama’s leftist bonifides against the left.

  49. Bart DePalma says:

    Why is everything italicized? It’s hard enough to read this blog without playing with the fonts.

  50. shiloh says:

    Sigh ;)It appears once again we are doing battle w/unarmed, trollish wingers!as per usual …

  51. filistro says:

    @Bart… “Why is everything italicized?” It happens every time somebody forgets to close an html tag. Usually the guilty party is ME… this time it was Alki.Shrinkers will fix it when he gets here…

  52. shiloh says:

    @BartlesIt’s hard enough to read this blog without playing with the fonts.~~~~~Again, no one is forcing you to be here, eh.btw Bartles, were you this much of a (((whiner))) when you were on the front lines of The Gulf War in 1991 😉 single-handedly keeping America safe! lolJust wonderin’

  53. Bart DePalma says:

    Fili:You may want to avoid that last batch of polls at Pollster.com. Battleground’s congressional generic is up and a majority of voters nor believe that a GOP congress can repeal all of the Obama agenda. I wish they asked whether they wanted it repealed.NH’s senate race in now almost a double digit GOP lead.Most interestingly, a Castle write-in campaign is drawing about 5% of the vote – from Coons. Run Mike run!

  54. Bart DePalma says:

    shiloh wrote: “btw Bartles, were you this much of a (((whiner))) when you were on the front lines of The Gulf War in 1991 single-handedly keeping America safe!”My troops and even the Iraqis were far more reasonable than the folks here.I have to go back to court again. Anyone want to tee up a President to challenge The One for the title?

  55. shiloh says:

    @Bartlesa Castle write-in campaign~~~~~~~~~~So now you’re talkin’ about inane hypothetical write-in campaigns … after a 41 year old conservative loon virgin screwed the Rep pooch in DE, no pun intended lol.btw, you’re losing your touch as one usually brings up polls in your first post of the day …take care

  56. Alki says:

    Filistro, for you:He’s President, not a superhero: The left has been too quick to jump shiphttp://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/09/27/2010-09-27_hes_president_not_a_superhero.html

  57. shiloh says:

    @BartlesMy troops and even the Iraqis were far more reasonable than the folks here.~~~~~~~~~~Probably because you were nowhere near the front lines, eh.as Bart continues to deflect …take care

  58. filistro says:

    Alki… what a GREAT article. Every sentence is as richly satisfying as eating chocolate truffles. I really liked this graf:No matter how bigoted complaints about the President have been, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh will lift their pitchforks and torches in agreement. They are confident that their so-called facts will not be seriously questioned – but if they are, Fox News will give them plenty of screen time to make a defense.Everybody, go and click Alki’s “Daily News” link just above. The final paragraph of the essay will make you stand up and cheer (if you’re “of sound mind,” of course 🙂

  59. shortchain says:

    See if that fixes the italics.

  60. filistro says:

    Yay shortchain! We have a new hero!

  61. shortchain says:

    (Blush!) Nah, just doin’ my part.For my part, I backed off on my support for Obama when he let the insane expansion of domestic surveillance pass (note: under Bush, we had the largest expansion of domestic surveillance since Nixon got caught window-peeping into everybody’s private lives, but Bart will never admit that, of course).He’s been a disappointment in many ways, but he seems to be trying, and he’s still in the learning phase. The GOP has thrown absolutely everything they have in their arsenal at him, and his approvals are still hovering way above those of the GOP, either singly or en mass.I agree that it’s probable we’ve seen the worst, and things will climb back up. The only question is how far.

  62. Realist says:

    And, in the latest on domestic surveillance…The Obama administration is asking (demanding?) that Internet-based communications services support wiretapping.

  63. shrinkers says:

    @BartIn fact, Obama ran on a center-right Reagan-lite campaign Yet that didn’t stop the Republicans form accusing him of being too liberal for America, a muslin from Kanye who comports with terriers. You guys can’t even get your lies straight. You can’t imagine that American actually knowingly elected a left-of-center intellectual as President, so now you’re re-writing the entire 2008 campaign. No one buys your re-write. I’m borrowing Filistro’s Barbie doll to smack you with.

  64. shrinkers says:

    Bart barted:Name me the last President of either party who has expanded the reach of government more in your lifetime.G. W. Bush. The greatest threat to American liberty the Nation has even seen. No one else compares. Period. Well, maybe I’m being inaccurate. I’m sure W. didn’t really have a clue as to what was going on. It was Darth Cheney with has hand in Bush’s coat, working the mouth of the ventriloquist dummy.Apologies to dummies.

  65. shrinkers says:

    Sorry I didn’t get here earlier to fix italics. I’ve been busy cranking out my next novel 🙂 I’m really glad shortchain got it. It’s really pretty easy, but I hesitate to tell everyone, for fear people will start playing with other chit ….

  66. shrinkers says:

    By the way, I sent an article to Mr. U this morning to start a new thread with. I assume the man has to work….

  67. Jeff says:

    I just read a terrific article on Real Clear Markets (twin to Real Clear Politics):”Soaring oratory aside, democracy rests on the idea that most citizens vote their self interest. A solid tenet of political campaigning has always been that elections could be won by convincing enough constituencies that you and your party could give them something for nothing. It didn’t matter which group was being targeted – wannabe homeowners, union retirees, Midwest farmers, reckless bankers, or bellicose defense contractors. It didn’t matter what was being promised – low cost mortgages, fat pensions, crop subsidies, easy money, or bloated contracts. The strategy worked as long as enough voters believed that their goodies would be delivered at someone else’s expense.Our two political parties pander to different groups but both Democrats and Republicans had a common interest in making sure that the system kept doling out largesse. More often than not political compromise consisted of larding up spending bills to the point that both parties could honestly tell their core constituencies that they delivered the goods.Given the general state of economic illiteracy it was easy to get people to believe that a majority of the people would come out ahead and though a minority might squawk that was just the price they paid for a civilized society. Most people were also led to believe that no matter how distorted the economy got, businesses would somehow figure out how to get by.While the rhetoric of the two parties varied, each time one or the other gained power government spending went only one way. Up. A vast social-issues issues sideshow was maintained to sharpen party differentiation and entertain the masses but at the end of the day these issues bore little relevance to the fiscal health of the country. The giveaway game isn’t working any more, and the reason is simple. The cupboard is bare. It’s not only bare; it’s been hocked – along with the kitchen, the house, the car, the foundation, and the neighborhood. Our government is being kept alive right now on printing press money, and we all know how that story ends. This means that the majority can no longer deceive itself into believing that either party can deliver on new promises. It is even beginning to dawn on a growing minority that old promises, specifically the ones underlying middle class welfare schemes like Social Security and Medicare, are unlikely to be kept either.”For the full article, go to:http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/09/27/can_we_save_the_goose_that_lays_the_golden_eggs_98687.html==============It pretty much sums up my view. It’s not the social issues, it’s the fact that we’ve over-borrowed and over-consumed in government and as individual citizens. We’re approaching the limits of our debt capacity.I think there would be a whole lot more agreement between sides if we just stopped believing that we can have everything we want.

  68. filistro says:

    @Jeff : I think there would be a whole lot more agreement between sides if we just stopped believing that we can have everything we want.Well, I think there woudl be a whole lot more in that “bare cupboard” if the GOP would ever, even for a SECOND, actully “put country first” (wow, what a concept, eh?) and work with the duly elected government to solve some of these problems.Solving the country’s problems becomes really difficult when half of its “leaders” are relentlessly committed to national failure because they hope it will enhance their own political careers.

  69. Number Seven says:

    @fili, I noticed in another thread you were asking about dream flying. I haven’t finished the thread and didn’t know if you would be back to it so let me add my data point here if I may. I am a dream flyer and like to soar but I seem to do it standing up if that makes a difference.

  70. Mr. Universe says:

    Alki said:Obama is a man, not the messiah…..and he is busting his hump. If you all can’t see it, then you are blind.Touche. Point taken. I’m still impatient with the rate of ‘change’ not taking place. But yes, I agree that reforming Washington will not happen overnight.

  71. filistro says:

    Thanks #7… from what I read, a surprising number of people “skim” either standing up or (surprisingly) in a seated position, as if they were driving a car.I think you are the frist stnding-erect “soarer” I’ve encountered, though. Thanks for the response, very interesting.(Is the soaring a pleasant sensation while you’re dreaming, or do you find it scary? Most soarers do find the height a bit alarming, it seems.)

  72. shortchain says:

    filistro,I’m a dream flyer, but my flying dreams always start as falling dreams in which I figure out how to fly (AKA “miss the ground”, ala Douglas Adams), after which I soar.

  73. Number Seven says:

    The first time it happened, I was so startled, it woke me up. I had realized I was dreaming and thought ‘let’s fly’, and I did. I shot straight up into the air like a rocket. I learned about lucid dreaming shortly after so that I could control this. I used to have vivid falling dreams. After learning dream control, when I would have a falling dream, I would just start flying. I got so good at it that I would jump off buildings like in The Matrix, lol.I have had the sitting type flying dream too. I’ll take off from a city street like I am flying an invisible plane and having to dodge all the telephone wires while I gain altitude.Heights can be scary to me in real life but not in dreams, at least not anymore.Maybe I will tell you about my angry flying monkey dream but I need a couple of gin and tonics before I do. 😉

  74. shortchain says:

    filistro,Addendum: I fly like Superman, except more effortlessly. Of course. It might be a limitation of my unconscious imagination or a statement of some kind, but that’s the only way my dreaming self knows.

  75. Jeff says:

    @filistro”Well, I think there woudl be a whole lot more in that “bare cupboard” if the GOP would ever, even for a SECOND, actully “put country first” (wow, what a concept, eh?) and work with the duly elected government to solve some of these problems.”==============And that’s the problem. You’re basically saying that the war would be over if one side would just surrender. Not going to happen. Nancy Pelosi doesn’t get to design the rest of my life, any more than Dubya got to design yours when he was President and had congressional majorities.If we get out of this mess, it’s going to be because we make some very difficult choices that won’t make anybody happy. We’re going to have to cut hundreds of billions per year out of spending that the Dems think is sacred, and we’re going to have to raise hundreds of billions in taxes. Government employees are going to have to sacrifice big-time.Mitch Daniels in Indiana basically called the shot when he said that we had bigger problems to deal with than the social issues, and that it was time to give them a rest.In another post shrinkers pointed out that Nixon proposed a health care fix that Teddy Kennedy declined, but later said it was the biggest mistake of his life. And shrinkers also said Clinton could have had a deal, but turned it down. Bush tried to fix immigration, but got shot down because the Dem’s didn’t want him to get a victory and look good to Hispanics.Please don’t tell me that the Dems are simon-pure and never block good policy because of politics. If there is one thing the Tea Party says that you should agree with, is that the time for “politics as usual” is over, and that both parties are guilty.After 1994, Clinton went to triangulation, and we achieved welfare reform. No matter what happens in November, I expect that Obama will refuse to compromise, because I really think that to him “compromise” really means “OK, we’ll talk about for a while, I’ll show you how brilliant you are, and then you’ll do it my way.”

  76. filistro says:

    Thanks shortchain and #7. The results of my little survey have exceeded my expectations…. most gratifying. I suspect we have more flyers among our numbers than in the general public… though I have no idae why that might be. Mayve it’s just that we’re all highly verbal, and those are the people who tend to recall their dreams in more detail.It could simply be that everybody has flying dreams, but not all can remember them.The research continues :-)Again, thanks.

  77. filistro says:

    @Jeff You’re basically saying that the war would be over if one side would just surrender. No, I’m not. I don’t consider “compromise” and “surrender” to be synonymous. I’m saying the war would be over if it would go back to the kind of horse-trading that happened in the old days, when Pol 1 said, “Okay, we’ll give in on A if you’ll give us B”… and Pol 2 said.. “HALF of B”… and Pol 1 said. “Okay, in exchange for half of A?”.. and Pol 2 said “DONE!” and they went out together for a beer.Now the GOP doesn’t want to give on anything for fear it might be seen as a victory for Obama. I’m not saying the Dems “never block good policy because of politics.” But this current GOP is the first time I have ever seen a faction block ALL policy because of politics… even policy they have formerly supported and even sponsored.It’s a truly bizarre, surreal thing to watch.

  78. shiloh says:

    and they went out together for a beer.ok, fili has hit the nail on the head er stumbled into brilliance 😉 as souse boehner is drunk 24/7 soooo no need for him to compromise …

  79. Bart DePalma says:

    filistro wrote: “But this current GOP is the first time I have ever seen a faction block ALL policy because of politics… even policy they have formerly supported and even sponsored. It’s a truly bizarre, surreal thing to watch.”I know this is alien to the current Dem government, but how is it in any way bizarre or surreal to listen to one’s constituents? The fact that some RINOs supported these policies in the past is a reason the GOP lost power.

  80. filistro says:

    so Bart…all GOP constituents everywhere are universally, unilaterally opposed to… (oh, just picking one out of the air (there are so MANY examples…) … they’re ALL opposed to, say… PAYGO?

  81. Bart DePalma says:

    BD: “In fact, Obama ran on a center-right Reagan-lite campaign shrinkers: “Yet that didn’t stop the Republicans form accusing him of being too liberal for America…”I wish we could claim to be prescient, but it did not take much digging to understand the man was lying.You can’t imagine that American actually knowingly elected a left-of-center intellectual as President, so now you’re re-writing the entire 2008 campaign.No, I cannot imagine that and neither could the Obama campaign. This was the candidate to transcended ideology, remember?BD: “Name me the last President of either party who has expanded the reach of government more in your lifetime.”Shirnkers: “G. W. Bush. The greatest threat to American liberty the Nation has even seen. No one else compares. Period.”That was predictable. Filistro wanted to go with Dubya too, but had the good sense to avoid the smack down.Feel free to name a single liberty of yours which Dubya of Cheney abridged. Actual evidence please. Do not offer nonsense like NSA surveillance which has been investigated three ways from Sunday and found not to be directed at innocent Americans.

  82. Bart DePalma says:

    filistro wrote: “so Bart…all GOP constituents everywhere are universally, unilaterally opposed to… (oh, just picking one out of the air (there are so MANY examples…) … they’re ALL opposed to, say… PAYGO?”Heavy majorities of constituents in GOP districts were opposed to every policy against which the GOP voted. You may recall that the GOP was reduced to its base states and districts after the 2006 and 2008 rejections.What is more interesting is that pluralities and then majorities in the districts and states the Dems took in 2006 and 2008 also opposed Dem policies and their Dem reps went along anyways.

  83. shiloh says:

    @Bartles“Free-Speech Zone” ~ The administration quarantines dissent.On Dec. 6, 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft informed the Senate Judiciary Committee, “To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty … your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and … give ammunition to America’s enemies.” Some commentators feared that Ashcroft’s statement, which was vetted beforehand by top lawyers at the Justice Department, signaled that this White House would take a far more hostile view towards opponents than did recent presidents. And indeed, some Bush administration policies indicate that Ashcroft’s comment was not a mere throwaway line.When Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up “free speech zones” or “protest zones” where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event.~~~~~etc. etc. Bartles as you can read the article re: personal liberties.>You’re either w/us or against us … which is a variation of My country right or wrong, eh.>as Springsteen said quite eloquently: Blind faith in your govt. will get you killed!take care, blessings

  84. filistro says:

    @Bart… Heavy majorities of constituents in GOP districts were opposed to every policy against which the GOP voted. Oh c’mon Bart. The bulk of outright obstructionism has been in the Senate. And GOP Senators don’t just represent “GOP constituencies”… or at least they shouldn’t.

  85. Bart DePalma says:

    filistro wrote: “Oh c’mon Bart. The bulk of outright obstructionism has been in the Senate. And GOP Senators don’t just represent “GOP constituencies”… or at least they shouldn’t.”And they should listen to whom – the Dems?Until the Tea Party elected Brown, the Dems possessed a supermajority in Congress and could pass anything they damn well pleased without a single GOP vote. Your problem was Dems who ran center-right campaigns to get elected in center-right states and districts getting cold feet at the thought of pissing all over their constituents.

  86. shrinkers says:

    Bart is such a parody.Really, do you think anyone believes in your historical re-writes?Filistro, I need to borrow that Barbie to whack him. It’s just not worth trying to discuss things. We hae always been at war with East Asia….

  87. shiloh says:

    Let the record show Bartles had no rebuttal to my post showing how cheney/bush restricted free speech ie personal liberties.As per usual, but at least he didn’t attempt one of his inane 😉 song and dance deflections …

  88. Monotreme says:

    Bart sez:Feel free to name a single liberty of yours which Dubya of Cheney abridged. Actual evidence please. Do not offer nonsense like NSA surveillance which has been investigated three ways from Sunday and found not to be directed at innocent Americans.You must not have read my earlier post (“She Blinded Me with Science”).There were a list of three or four examples of Bush Administration suppression of scientific evidence that didn’t fit their worldview.I would like to have the option of curing Parkinson Disease with stem cells from 8-cell embryos which far outnumber the number of viable offspring that a couple will have (i.e. surplus embryos). I can’t do that.I would like an honest assessment of the effects of rising anthropogenic CO2 on mean global temperature. I can’t do that.I would like US Attorneys to be appointed to their posts without purely political intervention. I would like them to serve without being threatened by Senators with removal because they can’t find evidence of voter fraud that doesn’t exist. That didn’t happen.I would like CIA employees under deep cover to remain under deep cover, along with their contacts. That didn’t happen.I would like my tax dollars to be spent on a war that is actually justified by the evidence, and that serves to protect America, not Blackwater or Xi or whatever we’re calling that hideous monster today. That didn’t happen.Shall I continue?

  89. Bart DePalma says:

    shrinkers:Rewrites? You may note any Dem who won a GOP seat in 2006 or 2008 who campaigned on expanding government spending by a quarter including a $800 billion stimulus, the Obamacare bill as the Dems introduced or enacted it, Cap & Tax, etc, etc.Every single one campaigned on tax cuts, fiscal restraint and a reduction of DC corruption.

  90. Monotreme says:

    Barted here:Dem who won a GOP seat in 2006 or 2008 who campaigned on expanding government spending by a quarter including a $800 billion stimulusWow, Bart. Not a single candidate for Federal office campaigned on a platform of “the entire US Economy is going down the effing tubes, and when it does, I’m going to vote for a Keynesian stimulus”.Quelle surprise.

  91. shrinkers says:

    Bart, no one campaigned in ’06 or ’08 on dealing with crap that hadn’t happened yet. Don’t be more of an idiot than is necessary.

  92. Bart DePalma says:

    BD: “Feel free to name a single liberty of yours which Dubya of Cheney abridged.”Mono: “There were a list of three or four examples of Bush Administration suppression of scientific evidence that didn’t fit their worldview.”How is this an abridgment of your liberty?Mono: “I would like to have the option of curing Parkinson Disease with stem cells from 8-cell embryos which far outnumber the number of viable offspring that a couple will have (i.e. surplus embryos). I can’t do that.”Nothing Bush did prevents you or anyone else from killing human embryos in experiments. Declining to give you tax money is not an abridgment of your liberty.Mono: “I would like an honest assessment of the effects of rising anthropogenic CO2 on mean global temperature. I can’t do that.”What is preventing you apart from your adherence to the AGW faith and the habit of AGW climatologists to hide their data is preventing you from examining the evidence? The fact that Bush did not entirely share your AGW faith is not an abridgment of your liberty.Mono: “I would like US Attorneys to be appointed to their posts without purely political intervention.”Amend the Constitution. US Attorneys are a political appointment. This fact of life neither began or ended with Bush and in no way abridges your liberty.Mono: “I would like CIA employees under deep cover to remain under deep cover, along with their contacts.”Tell reporters like Novak from connecting the dots and blowing their cover. Once again, this does not abridge your liberty.Mono: “I would like my tax dollars to be spent on a war that is actually justified by the evidence…”Your policy disagreements with a bipartisan majority of Congress or a GOP president does not constitute an abridgment of our liberty.An abridgment of liberty is the government telling me I must or cannot do something. Ex. Obama outlawing your current health insurance is an abridgment of your liberty.Mono: “Shall I continue?”I hadn’t noticed that you began. Try again if you like.

  93. Monotreme says:

    So, Bart, President Obama asking you to pay a tax is an abridgment of liberty, but suppressing scientific evidence and the publication of scientific data is not?Hmm.

  94. Monotreme says:

    Barted:Nothing Bush did prevents you or anyone else from killing human embryos in experiments.Tell that to all the mothers (50% by most estimates) that you are going to prosecute for murder because they flush those 8-cell embryos down the toilet as part of their regular menstrual cycle.I agree with Shrinkers. Don’t be an ass.

  95. Bart DePalma says:

    Mono/shrinkers:Had not happened yet? We had been in recession for the better part of a year before the 2008 elections and had a market run in the fall election season itself.The Dem holy grail of the government takeover of health insurance had been around for decades. The Dems tried to enact it every time they took power. Yet, they did not campaign on it in 2006 and Obama lied that we could keep our insurance with lowered premiums in 2008.

  96. Bart DePalma says:

    Monotreme wrote: “So, Bart, President Obama asking you to pay a tax is an abridgment of liberty, but suppressing scientific evidence and the publication of scientific data is not?”No, taxes are takings rather than abridgments of liberty.The government declining to publish opinions of its bureaucrats is neither.

  97. Monotreme says:

    Bart:You really don’t understand the first thing about scientific evidence, do you?The government declining to publish opinions of its bureaucrats is neither [takings nor an abridgment of liberty].Au contraire, mon frêre. The scientists in question have a free speech right to disseminate their findings in the peer-reviewed literature without being threatened with termination of their employment by their employer, in this case, the US Government.

  98. shrinkers says:

    Monotreme,Only huge corporations have First Amendment free speech rights. Scientists should say what Republicans tell them to goddamit.

  99. Bart DePalma says:

    Mono:You do not have a free speech right to speak on behalf of your employer and can be fired for your own speech of which your employer does not approve.

  100. Mr. Universe says:

    100!

  101. Realist says:

    @Bart,You do not have a free speech right to speak on behalf of your employer and can be fired for your own speech of which your employer does not approve.Given that you said that in response to Monotreme’s comment referring to “their employer, in this case, the US Government,” your statement is false. It would be true for private businesses, however.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s