Democrats & Liberals Archives

When no one can stand upon their own base

What happens when a base becomes radicalized? What happens when a base stands so far outside the mainstream that its beliefs cannot be openly advanced by its politicians? We see this phenomenon with today’s conservative GOP. On issue after issue, especially domestic ones, Republicans running for their party’s presidential nomination must publicly deny the beliefs of the party’s base. This situation arises with many issues, but let’s take a look at Global Warming.

Mitt Romney: " "I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that.." Earlier this month he also said: "It's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors." The de facto head of the GOP, Rush Limbaugh, declared "Bye-bye, nomination."

According to a recent Gallup poll, 35% of Americans think Anthropogenic Global Warming (Climate Change caused by humanity, AGW) will never happen, or not in their lifetimes. While this might represent the strongly held belief of a motivated base, the intelligent and well-educated Romeny knows better. He is a politician, and he also recognizes that the majority of votes in an election belong to the bloc that recognizes the danger of AGW, and the vast body of evidence supports that bloc.

Romney's course of action? He publicly acknowledges AGW, earning the less than flattering RINO sobriquet, yet he makes his appeal to the moderate GOP by rejecting any course of action that would actually address AGW. Yet the moderate GOP no longer exists. The base, led by Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, and others, including the Tea Party, rejected appeals to moderates and independents, and so they reject Romney. Meanwhile, Romney needs them, yet he cannot bring himself to lie about AGW, only weasel his way out of addressing AGW consequences and possible actions. As the only Republican running with any hope of conducting a well funded, nationwide campaign, he must hope that he can win without the strange extremists that comprise so much of today's GOP.

Pawlenty: The problem for Pawlenty is similar, only worse. Here is Pawlenty in 2008:
Here is Pawlenty in 2011, in his recent Meet the Press interview with David Gregory:

"The climate is obviously changing, David. The more interesting question is how much of it is man-made and how much is as a result of natural causes and patterns. Of course, we have seen data manipulation and controversy, or at least debate within the scientific community. . . . And the way you address it is we should all be in favor of reducing pollution. We need to do it in ways that don’t burden the economy. Cap and trade, I think, would be a disaster in that regard."

Pawlenty went from being perhaps the most hawkish Republican on the isssue to, well, not exactly a profile in courage; more like a profile in weaseldom. He attempts to appeal to the GOP base by apparently rejecting the acceptance of AGW, yet if you look at his phrasing carefully, he is not actually rejecting it. He engages in... um... nuance, by repeatedly saying "The more interesting question is how much of it is man-made..." He neglects to answer that question. Again, like Romney, he is intelligent and well-educated, and he knows full and well that scientists are giving humanity some very bad news about the climate; yet Pawlenty's radical GOP base simply refuses to accept the science. In an interview with Limbaugh last month, Pawlenty received polite treatment.

Bachmann: She still is being eclipsed by the shadow of Palin, but unlike Palin, Bachmann is likely to actually run for the nomination. Both women share similar views about AGW. Bachmann believes it is a hoax. Palin calls the science "snake oil." Here is a video of Bachmann.
Bachmann seems to be in tune with the radical GOP base, and she has been on record again and again making statements like those in the linked video. I know. I know. It hurts the brain to hear her statements. Is cringeworthy a word? While such speeches might appeal to the base, it is not likely to fly with most people.

Since Cain generates some interest among those of you frequenting WB, I thought going into his position. He is an interesting candidate. However, Cain suffered Stage IV cancer in his colon liver in 2006, and although he has been free of cancer since then, that unfortunate health history makes it virtually impossible for him to win the nomination.

The radicalization of the GOP base & the inability of its potential nominees to acknowledge the beliefs of the base apply to many topics. In comments about AGW, please check the dates of supporting evidence. The science has changed a great deal over the past decade, and many ideas advanced years ago no longer apply.

Posted by phx8 at June 12, 2011 12:52 PM
Comment #324392

One would have to believe that donkeys can fly to think that MMGW will even be on the electorates radar.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 12, 2011 7:43 PM
Comment #324394


I agree with RF that it will not be much of issue.

The problem is not, however, primarily with the science. The question is what should be done. IMO, the only way to address this is an across the board carbon tax, made revenue neutral by cutting income taxes by whatever amount the carbon tax raises. Would the radicals on either end of the spectrum agree to both ends of this?

Beyond that, by 2020, China ALONE will emit more CO2 than the whole world did in 1990. Meanwhile, U.S. emissions are dropping. The problem is now mostly out of our hands, unfortunately. It is a Chinese and Indian problem now.

Posted by: C&J at June 12, 2011 7:54 PM
Comment #324395

RF & C&J,
Right now, AGW is a ‘second tier’ issue. I would hope there will be a question about it in tomorrow night’s debate. However, I agree, it will not capture people’s attention until a catastrophe forces the issue into focus. Like I said AGW is only one issue on which GOP candidates must deny their own thinking in order to satisfy a portion of the electorate, at the expense of the majority they need to actually win a national election. If a candidate like Bachmann makes the base happy and wins the nomination, she will look foolish when her videos come back to haunt her.

By the way, I left Obama out of the discussion because his beliefs are already well known, and I left out several marginal GOP presidential candidates because they appear too unlikely to succeed to be worth discussing.

Posted by: phx8 at June 12, 2011 8:14 PM
Comment #324396


Obama has done nothing to address global warming. In fact, all the hot air probably contributed to it.

I would also add that something like Kyoto is actually negative, since it specifically exempted today’s biggest polluter, China. It encouraged the developing world to emit more.

There are many times when the big collective actions actually cause harm to the causes they ostensibly address.

Posted by: C&J at June 12, 2011 8:37 PM
Comment #324400

The Bush administration opted out of Kyoto. As the world’s dominant power, we could have demanded the treaty be whatever we wanted. It hardly makes sense to condemn the result when we walked away from the process.

When it comes to Global Warming, Obama has been opposed by a unanimous GOP along with a few Democrats. After the 2010 elections, a primary goal of the GOP was to castrate the EPA. Obama was stopped, but his desires were clear, and consistent with his base.

The topic could cover the Theory of Evolution and be virtually the same. About 70% of Republicans do not think the Theory of Evolution is true. Think about that for a moment. Here is Romney’s comment from a few years ago:

“I believe that God designed the universe and created the universe,” Mr. Romney said in an interview this week. “And I believe evolution is most likely the process he used to create the human body.”

Once again, Romney is out of step with the party, a RINO doomed by his intelligence and education to be unable to represent the GOP base.

When confronted by Juan Williams, from FOX News, about evolution, Pawlenty basically punted on the question. He seems to believe in ID, but leaves the teaching of evolution and/or creationism up to local school boards. The more I look into Pawlenty, the more clear it becomes to me that he is a weak man. Too bad. Initially, he made a good first impression with me.

And what about Michele Bachmann?

“When you put the clowns in charge, don’t be surprised when a circus breaks out.”

Here is a list of Bachmann videos, including one about her views on evolution.

As the article notes, conservative columnist George Will calls her “an authentic representative of the Republican base.” It will be interesting to see if she can beat Romney for the nomination. George Will is right. Her views are in tune with the GOP base.

Posted by: phx8 at June 13, 2011 12:03 AM
Comment #324405
What happens when a base stands so far outside the mainstream that its beliefs cannot be openly advanced by its politicians?

Exactly what has happened, PHX, exactly what has happened. Those in the shadows pulling the strings continue to manipulate the cult followers as they blindly follow the extremist into the kool aid tent. What a sad sorry day for America when the choice of a major political party to oppose the current administration in the next election is Bachmann/Palin.

It is bad enough the teapub candidates need to lie to the base to have a chance, but to not have to lie to them to meet their nonsensical demands is worse. We need 3 to 5 major parties in this country not 1,IMHO.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 13, 2011 11:12 AM
Comment #324409

And I thought the libs preached diversity and inclusiveness. You then deny it. Your mirrors are broken.

Posted by: tom humes at June 13, 2011 1:41 PM
Comment #324410

phx8 writes; “About 70% of Republicans do not think the Theory of Evolution is true.”

Really, from where did you get that notion? Evolution is absolute fact and we can observe it at work even today. The “Theory”, not fact, that some object to is that all life began from chemical reactions in some primordial slime. Why would anyone expect 100% agreement with a “theory”. If it is provable “fact” then it is not a “theory”.

If some believe the universe came from nothing, certainly others can believe that God created it, it some way unknown to humans, along with the life forms that inhabit His creation.

The human mind today believes that matter doesn’t suddenly appear from nothingness. And we have names for the theories that support our beliefs about matter and energy. Some willingly accept the belief that some higher power created matter and energy. It is not a stretch for them to believe the same about life. Some call this power God.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 13, 2011 1:44 PM
Comment #324417

For the evolutionists.

Explain human blood. I mean how did it begin? How does it work? How many properties are there in human blood? That should be only a starter.

Explain that the first human with a name is accorded to Adam. In the evolutionists view what was the name of a single person before Adam. And document that with facts.

How did order come from a big bang? It is not recorded how that happened. Chaos and or destruction always follows a large bang.

Of course those are only three items. There are hundreds more.

Your percentage figure must be a number left on the board at a NFL rookie camp.

Posted by: tom humes at June 13, 2011 2:51 PM
Comment #324418

“What happens when a base stands so far outside the mainstream that its beliefs cannot be openly advanced by its politicians?”

The 2010 election results.

Posted by: kctim at June 13, 2011 3:03 PM
Comment #324419

kctim…loved your answer.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 13, 2011 3:19 PM
Comment #324424


Clinton negotiators, pushed by the great Al Gore, are the ones that gave us Kyoto. They thought it was a good thing. They unwisely mixed the desire of international equality with environmentalism and did not have any idea that the future might not resemble the past.

Bush was right to opt out. But the Senate had already voted, preemptively, not to ratify anyway. All the Democrats who voted, voted AGAINST Kyoto, BTW. It was and is one of the sillier waste of money and intellectual resources that the multilateral process has brought us.

Re Romney

You are saying that he is too smart to be nominated by Republicans. How about this for a deal? If Romney is nominated, you promise to vote for him and against Obama. In return I will give you a quartet. If Palin, Bachmann, Gingrich or Santorum are nominated, I will vote for Obama and against them. You guys like to bring up these guys. You know they are not serious contenders. If I am wrong, let’s you or any other liberals take my wager.

Republicans have their share of out of touch and/or dummies. Democrats do too. Think of the near greats. You have Pelosi, Gore and our current favorite - Weiner. Of course, you actually nominated John Kerry.

Posted by: C&J at June 13, 2011 7:28 PM
Comment #324425

tom humes,

“Explain that the first human with a name is accorded to Adam.”

What exactly is your point?

I could say that in Hebrew, אֲדָמָה or adamah means country, dirt, dust, earth, farming, fields, ground, land, lands, soil, and it is a word that predates the Bible where the word Adam is also used as a generic for mankind, but this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 13, 2011 7:38 PM
Comment #324431

What does evolution have to do with global warming? Anyway, theistic evolution is my club. Doesn’t have to be either/or.

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at June 13, 2011 9:05 PM
Comment #324433
You are saying that he is too smart to be nominated by Republicans.

C&J I thought it was you claiming Romney to be “stunningly intelligent”. Lets face it, in the teapub party of today intelligence is not considered a highly sought after quality for the candidates by the base of the party. I think it went out the window with truth when the extremist wrestled control of the party from the intelligent.

How about this for a deal? If Romney is nominated, you promise to vote for him and against Obama. In return I will give you a quartet. If Palin, Bachmann, Gingrich or Santorum are nominated, I will vote for Obama and against them. You guys like to bring up these guys. You know they are not serious contenders. If I am wrong, let’s you or any other liberals take my wager.

When you name these 5 people it is just dreadful C&J. For the sake of the country we can only hope Romney gets the nomination. How can you say these guys are not serious contenders when Palin, yes one of the four you name, was on the ticker as VP just 3 years ago. Two others Santorium and Bachmann are Palin wanna-be’s. To take this wager is a no win for anyone that has the best interests of the country at heart though C&J. To bet your vote on such wagers insults those that have fought and dies to attain the right to vote. To vote for less than the best person available does a disservice to all of us.

That being said,I would believe that having a higher intelligence level than most in your party you would not vote for any of the gang of four should your party go in that direction, regardless of any bet. On the other hand I would like the opportunity to vote for a 3rd party candidate should one appear on the horizon or Obama if one does not appear. Remember Romney will have to sell his soul and his intelligence to get the nomination, he will be tainted due to the teapub party leading him around by a nose chain.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 13, 2011 9:57 PM
Comment #324434


I’ll bite:

Blood is mostly water. Suspended in the water are blood cells and other materials used by body; the blood’s primary function is to transport materials throughout body. If you are trying to argue that blood is irreducibly complex, I suggest you first search on Google. We could go all day with you suggesting that a certain biological component irreducibly complex and I will research the internet to provide you with the proposed mechanism by which it came about.

Numerous religious traditions record the names of people that were claimed to have lived more than 60000 years ago (ie before Adam). The Sumerian King List claims to list the names of plenty of people who lived hundreds of thousands of years ago. Hindu tradition claims people have lived for trillions of years (far longer than what scientific evidence implies the universe has existed). I don’t understand why this is important though. Obviously we don’t have the names of anyone who lived before the invention of writing; we find the remains of homo sapiens who lived more than 6000 years ago all the time. The fact we don’t have their original names (or know if they even had names) does not impede our ability to date them appropriately. We don’t have the names of anyone who lived in Australia before the arrival of Europeans, does this mean there were no people who lived in Australia before then?

Regarding the big bang, I assume you refer to entropy, which measures disorder in the universe. The second law of thermodynamics mandates that the universe’s entropy must always increase. Entropy is a function of the number of possible states the universe may have; it’s simply a statement of probability. Consider the air in my room. The air molecules are moving randomly. It’s possible to imagine all the air molecules moving to the far side of the room causing me to suffocate, but that does not happen. There are far more states of the universe with the air molecules near my face than states without any air molecules near my face. Absent an infinite amount of time, I do not need to fear instant suffocation because I can only suffocate if the universe decreases its entropy. Likewise, the early universe immediately after the big bang is a case with extremely small entropy because the universe is so small that there are a very limited number of states it can occupy.

Posted by: Warped Reality at June 13, 2011 10:14 PM
Comment #324438

I have not mentioned Santorum as a way of discrediting the GOP because I do not think he is worth mentioning. As an incumbent, he lost a re-election bid by 17%. Nuf said. Palin seems unlikely to run, so I will not spend time on her either, although she seems to see a lack of preparation as a virtue, so her penchant for winging it makes her unpredictable. Anyway, I will pass on the offer. I have said before and I will say again, I think Romney is the only GOP candidate with any kind of chance of putting together a competent campaign. However, the GOP base can’t stand him. Bachmann looks like the most likely second place finisher.

Posted by: phx8 at June 14, 2011 2:24 AM
Comment #324443

So per the Bible, there were 2 people originally - Adam and Eve. Per the Bible they had 2 sons - Cain and Abel. Cain then killed Abel and went off “to the land of Nod” and found a wife. Mmmm, where did the wife come from? And how did the land of Nod get populated, since at that time there were only 3 documented people on Earth, and none of them lived in Nod?

Posted by: SteveK at June 14, 2011 9:26 AM
Comment #324446

It doesn’t matter how reactionary these candidates may be. All of them have the potential to win the nomination and the election, because the election is not likely going to be about religious beliefs or global warming no matter how much the Democrats would like it to be.

The election will be about jobs and if Obama and the Democrats can’t produce meaningful results in that area before the election, he and they will most likely loose.

If the Democrats can’t produce a much improved economy and job market, I can see only one glimmer of hope for them. That is if Republicans continue to promote the drastic cuts and or privatization of programs that the people aren’t willing to concede.

The one thing that the American people can count on is that no matter which party wins the election, it will be a victory for the corpocracy.

Posted by: jlw at June 14, 2011 1:13 PM
Comment #324453

I do not think the religion will be about the teaching of evolution or Global Warming; short of a catastrophic event, that is highly unlikely. (Of course, the thing about unpredictable, catastrophic events is that they do happen- witness the Japanese experience with nuclear power, which continues to be a very bad situation). I use the issues of evolution & AGW to illustrate the difficulty of the GOP presidential candidates in appealing to the far right base without utterly alienating at least 70% of the electorate.

The election should be about jobs. It really should. That would also play to the conventional wisdom about a possible re-election of a president, which usually depends on the economy. However, the GOP controls the House, and so far, they seem to have no intention of doing anything whatsoever about creating jobs. Why should they? It might hurt Americans, but it helps them attain power.

Obama should have spent his first two years concentrating on job creation. He did make some effort. Coulda woulda shoulda.

The Democracts will hopefully focus on the issue of Medicare and Social Security.

And yeah, the one sure bet seems to be that corporate big business will be a sure winner.

Posted by: phx8 at June 14, 2011 4:00 PM
Comment #324455

Correction, that last comment, substitute ‘election’ for ‘religion’ in the first sentence.

Posted by: phx8 at June 14, 2011 4:36 PM
Comment #324460


I think that Romney is the smartest guy in the race and if he runs against Obama he will be the smartest guy in that race too. What Obama has that Romney does not is that Obama seems cool. Romney doesn’t have much presence. Although he kicked ass in the debate. Re ObamaCare and Obama claiming to be inspired by Romney’s work in Massachusetts, he said, “My guess is the president is going to eat those words and wish he hasn’t—hadn’t put them out there. And I can’t wait to debate him and say, Mr. President, if, in fact, you did look at what we did in Massachusetts, why didn’t you give me a call and ask what worked and what didn’t? And I would have told you, Mr. President, that what you’re doing will not work.

“It’s a huge power grab by the federal government. It’s going to be massively expensive, raising taxes, cutting Medicare. It’s wrong for America. And that’s why there’s an outpouring across the nation to say no to ObamaCare. And I’m delighted to be able to debate him on that.”

Posted by: C&J at June 14, 2011 5:43 PM
Comment #324464

You might want to avoid comparing Romney and other presidential candidates when it comes to intelligence. He ranks as one of the lowest, with an estimated IQ of 122. In his case, it is based upon his SAT score. Obama is estimated at between 121 - 137. The candidate with the highest estimated IQ is Ron Paul. Interestingly enough, Hillary Clinton is higher than any of the above mentioned.

There is one direct comparison of intelligence available between Romney and Obama: Romney graduated from Harvard Law School cum laud (top third), while Obama graduated magna cum laud (top 10%).

In terms of actual achievements, another direct comparison is available. Romney ran for the presidency and failed to achieve his party’s nomination- in fact, failed badly. Obama ran, defeated Hillary Clinton, won the nomination, and won the presidency.

Posted by: phx8 at June 14, 2011 7:15 PM
Comment #324466


I rate in the 97+th percentile on those standardized tests, which puts me at 130. That gets me pretty much nothing, since I have always been a little lazy and cussed.

Once you get to a certain level of MEASURED intelligence, you are smart enough and other things depend on what you do. Richard Nixon & Jimmy Carter supposedly had the highest IQs, but they were the two worst presidents of our times.

Romney is smart in the sense that he can do a variety of difficult things well. Obama is a great talker and a competent academic. Other than that, he didn’t do much before becoming president and he has not done a good job as president, although maybe a little better than Jimmy Carter.

Posted by: C&J at June 14, 2011 8:25 PM
Comment #324473

As far as other recent presidents, I am sure Bill Clinton would rank very highly. He was a Rhodes Scholar, a significant intellectual achievement.

There are other interesting comparisons and contrasts between Romney & Obama. Mostly contrasts. Mitt Romney was born with a proverbial silver spoon in his mouth. His father was chairman of AMC, a governor, and a powerful figure within the Mormon church. Mitt went to private school, and his way was nicely prepared right down the line. Obama, on the other hand, did not have powerful parents or grandparents, nor access to wealth. Romney ran a corporation, and later the Olympic Committee. Obama turned down the opportunity to earn six figures out of law school, and served as a community organizer. Romney served as a one-term gov. Obama served as a state senator and a US senator.

I think Romney has a lot to offer, and were he not politically hobbled by the extreme right, he would be a formidable opponent for Obama. Unfortunately, the need for the backing of the base forces Romney into denying his one major accomplishment as a gov, namely health care reform in MA, and it has forced him to flip his views on abortion. Romney is the unashamed darling of big corporations, and in addition enjoys the backing of the LDS. That means a lot of money, but not much love from anyone other than his Church.

Posted by: phx8 at June 14, 2011 10:15 PM
Comment #324475


We have an honest difference in what we consider good things.

I really believe that professional community organizers - in general - are smucks and trouble makers. People should be involved in their communities w/o some outside elite guy coming in and telling them how.

On the other hand, corporations are hard to run and generally are producers of wealth. I admire people who can run organizations well and make profits in ethical ways.

I would be happy if my kids became business people. Community organizers, not so much.

Re health care in Massachusetts, the states are the laboratories of democracy. You can try things and learn what works and what doesn’t. Obama should have learned that a plan like that was not scalable. Not so smart, is he?

Re background - Romney had a great start in life, but I don’t buy the Obama rags to riches. He grew up with his grandparents, who sent him to private school. He got scholarships to schools and never seems to have had any serious setbacks.

Re LDS - I don’t think the prejudice against Mormons will affect Romney’s candidacy as much as some fear/hope.

Posted by: C&J at June 14, 2011 11:16 PM
Comment #324476

“Re LDS - I don’t think the prejudice against Mormons will affect Romney’s candidacy as much as some fear/hope.”

If the LDS become an issue, it will be in the GOP primaries. Bachmann should win IA, Romney NH, and Bachmann SC. Romney’s superior organization and funding will make itself felt in the slew of primaries following the early ones. Before those primaries, the business wing of the GOP and the religious fundamentalists will have to make a decision. If either decides Romney is vulnerable, too moderate, or simply incapable of beating Obama, the long knives will come out, and the easiest cut would be a whisper campaign among the religious fundamentalists about some Mormon beliefs. Romney served as the equivalent of a Catholic Bishop for his Church. It would be a simple thing to turn the fundamentalists against him. But someone like Rove or Palin would have to conclude they have a lot to gain by destroying Romney before playing the religion card.

Posted by: phx8 at June 15, 2011 12:34 AM
Comment #324478

“Re health care in Massachusetts, the states are the laboratories of democracy. You can try things and learn what works and what doesn’t. Obama should have learned that a plan like that was not scalable. Not so smart, is he?”


The weird disclaimer of the right emerges once again. Massachusetts was just a subject in some grand national experiment in alternative universal health care models. Funny, Romney never told the people of Massachusetts about that. He presented it as the best alternative available. When did Romney decide that it wasn’t a good model for the nation? When Obama and the Democrats adopted it. Such integrity is laudable.

I am not a huge fan of the Romney/Obama model. But the a priori argument that it is not scalable seems quite hollow. How do you know it is not scalable? It hasn’t been tried yet. There are many good arguments against the Romney model, but that is the least impressive.

Posted by: Rich at June 15, 2011 7:45 AM
Comment #324480

Thanks for pointing that out in your comment. The idea that Romney’s MA healthcare was somehow not scalable confused me.

Posted by: phx8 at June 15, 2011 12:10 PM
Comment #324482

o’bamacare is all about more government control and making medical choices for every American. This Rasmussen Report telephone survery…

“finds that 45% of Likely U.S. Voters agree with the following statement: The gap between Americans who want to govern themselves and politicians who want to rule over them is now as big as the gap between the American colonies and England during the 18th Century.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 15, 2011 12:49 PM
Comment #324484

“One would have to believe that donkeys can fly to think that MMGW will even be on the electorates radar.”
Posted by: Royal Flush at June 12, 2011 07:43 PM

I agree; in fact GW will have nothing to do with the 2012 elections, neither will Romney nor LDS, Palin nor IQ’s, and maybe obamacare will play only a small part even though a majority of Americans are against it. But, what will play in the 2012 elections is:

1. The obama’s administration’s involvement in guns being sold to the Mexican drug cartel; while at the same time trying to blame it on gun shows and American citizens.

2. A stock market that is in the tank.

3. The American people who are increasingly blaming the obama administration for the state of our economy and another recession.

4. 9.2% unemployment that is really 18%

5. A president that cares more about golfing, vacations, and partying than he does America’s welfare.

6. A southern border that is wide open with no interest (by this administration) in stopping illegal aliens from crossing into the US.

7. Americans being murdered 20 miles inside the US border by Mexicans.

8. The obama administration suing US States for trying to protect their own citizens.

9. Obama’s involvement in 5 wars; with complete ignorance and violation of the War Powers Act.

10. A solid combined poll of 60+% of Americans believing the US is headed the wrong direction.

11. And a president who can’t to get his approval above 50% for all the above reasons.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 15, 2011 3:13 PM
Comment #324485

I have to agree with CT, but concerning the wars; where are the liberals who cried so loudly about the Bush wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Obama has involved us in Pakistan, Libya, and Yemen and yet no cries from the left. This is hypocrisy. Obama promised to bring the troops home and he lied. Why the silence from the left?

Posted by: Mike at June 15, 2011 3:29 PM
Comment #324486

Mike, there are some democrats who are upset at obama for his involvement in these wars. In fact Kucinich (Dem) of OH is leading the charge against Obama’s violation of the War Powers Act. At some point, leading up to the 2012 elections, the democrats will begin to turn on obama and voice their opinions against him. Of course SD and the libs on WB will conmtinue to defend obama, but that is because they are not running for office as incumbents.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 15, 2011 3:37 PM
Comment #324487

In my opinion, the congressional and presidential election of 2012 will hinge entirely on the economy and jobs. If the economy is not growing by at least 3% annually and unemployment is not below 8% this president is history and the reps will keep the house and regain the senate along with many statehouse legislators and governors.

I don’t expect the government’s definition of inflation to rise much since it gets to determine the things measured. However, if the average American is feeling the pinch of high costs in food, clothing and energy, it won’t make any difference what the administration says about inflation.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 15, 2011 3:45 PM
Comment #324491

Here is a Reagan story that fits today as much as when He told it.

Dedicated to SD.

Posted by: tom humes at June 15, 2011 5:08 PM
Comment #324492

The people are stuck in a Catch 22 situation. Obama deserves to loose and none of the Republicans deserve to win.

Posted by: jlw at June 15, 2011 5:13 PM
Comment #324493

OK, I’ll bite. Why would Mexican drug cartels go to the Obama administration when they can simply buy whatever guns they want in the private market, or better yet, steal them. They’re not exactly known for etiquette.

Is the stock market in the tank? When Obama was inaugurated, the DJIA stood at 7,920.66. Today, it stands at 11,897.27. That means the DJIA increased about 3,977 points in less than two years- almost 50%!

When Obama was inaugurated, I had @ 20,000 shares of stock in a company that went from @ $16 in an IPO near the end of Bush’s term; it quickly climbed to 32 in late October 2007. It then declined along with the rest of the market, and by the time Obama was inaugurated, the stock went down to just $6 per share. Since there were restrictions on the stock ownership & the selling of it, I could do nothing but watch.

Today I have @ 10,000 shares at $57 share.

I really, really think you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Why do you make this stuff up? It’s wrong. It’s factually, demonstrably wrong.

Posted by: phx8 at June 15, 2011 5:17 PM
Comment #324509

Phx8 said:

OK, I’ll bite. Why would Mexican drug cartels go to the Obama administration when they can simply buy whatever guns they want in the private market, or better yet, steal them. They’re not exactly known for etiquette.”

As much as I hate answering a question with a question; perhaps you could explain why the obama administration was sold almost 2500 guns to the cartel? I am simply stating what has been said. Under the ATF “Operation Fast and Furious”, guns were supplied to the Cartel, which were used to kill and American border patrol agent. At the same time these guns were getting into the hands of the Mexican cartel, the liberals were calling for gun control. Why did the administration stand by and allow accusation to be made at American citizens when they knew the ATF was the culprit?

“Is the stock market in the tank? When Obama was inaugurated, the DJIA stood at 7,920.66. Today, it stands at 11,897.27. That means the DJIA increased about 3,977 points in less than two years- almost 50%!”

Well, you tell me; 12,810 on 4/25/2011 to 11,897 at the close today. That is a drop of almost 1000 points in 6 weeks. Maybe you better unload your IPO stock while you can.

You’re the one telling us why these republican candidates can’t win. I am simply telling you why obama is a loser and will never be able to win a second term.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 15, 2011 8:12 PM
Comment #324514


It is not that Romney went out to experiment. The quote about the laboratory of democracy means simply that things can be tried at the state level. Those things that work can be perfected and applied more widely. Those that are mistakes can be kept localized.

There were lessons from Massachusetts. Obama didn’t learn any of them or even show any signs of trying to learn.

Re trying things on a big scale, maybe you recall the old joke.

A hopeful author sends his manuscript to publishers. Always he is denied. He believes they are not giving him a fair chance, so he glues pages 100&101 together. When he gets his manuscript back - rejected again - he checks and finds that nobody read to those pages, so he dispatches and angry letter.

Comes the rely - “One does not need to eat the whole egg to know it is rotten.”

Did you hear Obama’s stupid comment about ATMs? I couldn’t believe that he said something so sophomoric and thought it was a misquote. The man is not really the big intellect we have been led to believe he is.

Posted by: C&J at June 15, 2011 9:07 PM
Comment #324515

“Well, you tell me; 12,810 on 4/25/2011 to 11,897 at the close today. That is a drop of almost 1000 points in 6 weeks. Maybe you better unload your IPO stock while you can.”

You really, really should not attempt to give advice about the stock market. You simply do not know what you are talking about. That wouldn’t matter much one way or the other, but you presume to offer advice that could be very harmful to others. Bad idea. You do not know what you are talking about, and it is obvious.

First of all, stock market drops of up to 10% are absolutely normal. They are called ‘corrections.’ Second of all, my stock is behaving very, very well. It is dropping very little when the market pulls back, and it is booming when the market rises. Third, there are tax consequences to selling a stock, especially insider stock that has had a big run. I paid $130,000 in federal taxes alone for the 2010 year, thanks in large part to some obscure rules and the AMT.

OK, I have to go, but seriously, consider the advice you offer carefully before promoting a partisan point of view, especially financial advice, especially especially financial advice to someone you do not know, and in a situation which you are unfamiliar.

Posted by: phx8 at June 15, 2011 9:54 PM
Comment #324517

“Did you hear Obama’s stupid comment about ATMs?”


What pray tell was so stupid about Obama’s statement on ATMs’ and jobs? He was speaking on a morning television show responding to a question as to why businesses have expended more money in automation and equipment than new personnel over the past few years. He was simply pointing out the fact that productivity increases, automation and other efficiencies have essentially replaced jobs. Pure, simple and correct. It is a major problem worldwide. Less workers are needed for the same production. A simple fact, particularly over the last decade.

He wasn’t criticizing productivity gains through automation or innovation. He was simply saying that we need to prepare our work force for the future. Nothing weird, stupid or outrageous at all. This is his actual follow up comment: “So all these things have created changes in the economy, and what we have to do now — and that’s what this job council is all about — is identifying where the jobs for the future are going to be; how do we make sure that there’s a match between what people are getting trained for and the jobs that exist; how do we make sure that capital is flowing into those places with the greatest opportunity.”

The President says that automation and other productivity measures are displacing workers. Nothing odd about that simple statement of fact. He goes on to say that the US must prepare its work force for this changing environment and put the proper capital into training programs that meet the job opportunities of the future.

I fail to understand the criticisms of Obama on his statements. They seem so obvious and apparent. Our country must prepare its workforce for the economy of the future. Seem pretty vanilla to me.

Posted by: Rich at June 15, 2011 10:41 PM
Comment #324518

“There were lessons from Massachusetts. Obama didn’t learn any of them or even show any signs of trying to learn.”


Then explain to me why the Republicans (Ryan budget) have resurrected the basic concept for its Medicare reform?

The only real problem in Massachusetts is health care inflation which is common to all models of health care financing. Polls in Mass. consistently show wide support for the concept but concerns about rising costs. The citizens of Mass., though, are not about to repeal the act.

As I have said before, I am not a great fan of the Romney/Obama universal health financing approach. A single payer national system with regional or state administration and regional supplementary funding, like Canada’s, would make the most sense. However, if you are going to preserve a private insurance system and achieve something approaching universal coverage, then the Romney/Obama approach makes some sense.

Posted by: Rich at June 15, 2011 10:59 PM
Comment #324526

Phx8; perhaps your purpose for posting is to brag about how much stock you own and how much you pay in taxes?

I don’t have to be an expert to see uncertainty and fear in the stock market. The drop in the DOW is not a correction; it is fear. Fear of the ignorance of the obama administration and fear of the economy in Europe. What you are saying goes against what obama is now predicting; another double dip recession. So it remains to be seen, who is ignorant.

I noticed you dropped the selling of guns to the Mexican cartel by the obama administration and focused only on the stock market; do I take this as a concession on your part?

Posted by: Conservativethinker at June 16, 2011 10:06 AM
Comment #324529


If phx8 paid $130,000 in taxes in 2010 then that would put him into that “wealthy American” category that the libs just love to talk about getting taxed even more. I bet he is just thrilled to be in that neighborhood. I don’t care how rich he is or how much taxes he paid when. Bully for him!! He needs more than a 10% correction.

Posted by: tom humes at June 16, 2011 10:58 AM
Comment #324531

Rich quotes o’bama as saying; …”how do we make sure that capital is flowing into those places with the greatest opportunity.”

I have no problem with what o’bama said until he demolished all believability by uttering this last sentence.

Of course the “we” he refers to is government. Government is not capable of making such decisions. It the old dem/lib mental disorder rearing its ugly head. “We” will choose the winners and losers based upon politics rather than allowing the private market and business to determine where to invest their resources.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 16, 2011 12:00 PM
Comment #324536


“I noticed you dropped the selling of guns to the Mexican cartel by the obama administration and focused only on the stock market; do I take this as a concession on your part?”

If it was me I would think it less a concession than an attempt to ignore the lack of reality contained in the rest of your post.


“Of course the “we” he refers to is government.”

Does it? And you know this how?

You guys on the right make these vast leaps of faith based on only your half-vast opinions, and expect the rest of us to just accept your opinion as fact. Seems to me that you all have been chastising Stephen for what you claim is the same thing.
All of your lame attempts to stick your thumb in the eye of anyone that disagrees with your absolutist view of reality is just hysterical.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 16, 2011 2:03 PM
Comment #324539

Rocky writes; “RF,

“Of course the “we” he refers to is government.”

Does it? And you know this how?

Simple silly. o’bama said it speaking on behalf of the government. o’bama said; “…”how do we make sure that capital is flowing into those places with the greatest opportunity.”

If it wasn’t government he was referring to, the sentence would make no sense. Could you imagine his statement to read…companies need to make sure that they are making the right choices otherwise they will be making the wrong choices.

It is the company’s (or investors in the company) money that is on the line and at risk…not governments. How could the government possibly enact rules or legislation that would give the company better choices or incentive?

o’bama’s declaration clearly meant that companies should, by government rule, regulation, or legislation, be required to make choices of when, how, and where to invest, in accordance with government goals, whatever that may be. Government goals often are different than the goals of companies.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 16, 2011 2:31 PM
Comment #324543


“how do we make sure that capital is flowing into those places with the greatest opportunity.””

Even the American Spectator thought; “..that it was a dangerous idea for the president to think otherwise.”

You continue to parse what the President said to fit your own agenda, and in doing so only give us half truths.

The right wing pundits have been doing this for years. It’s as if you, and they think us all incapable of our own rational thoughts.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 16, 2011 3:59 PM
Comment #324544

Rocky, please provide the link to what you quote if you wish me to answer. Are the derogatory comments necessary to enhance your view?

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 16, 2011 4:12 PM
Comment #324545


BTW, I made no remarks I would consider derogatory that I aimed at you in particular.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 16, 2011 4:37 PM
Comment #324548

Thanks for the link Rocky. I can’t believe you provided it because, in taking the comment out of context and then using it to refute what I said, it makes you look very foolish indeed.

The full comment in the American Spectator reads;

“So joblessness is caused by a mismatch between workers’ skills and the jobs of ther future? That sounds downright Hayekian. Now, the government is not capable of “identifying where the jobs of the future are going to be” and making sure that “capital is flowing into those places,” and it’s dangerous for the president to think otherwise.”

Do I need to explain how silly it was to use this quote, or do you get it now?

BTW…when you write…”It’s as if you…think us all incapable of our own rational thoughts”, why would I not believe it is aimed at me?

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 16, 2011 4:59 PM
Comment #324555

I am not familiar with the story about the Obama adminstration selling arms to Mexican drug cartels. Like I said earlier, it does not make sense. The drug cartels in northern Mexico have already substantially infiltrated the police, judiciary, and the rest of the Mexican government. They can buy arms at will in the US, never mind Mexico, and they can steal rather than buy. Why would they need the Obama administration?

The stock markets are driven by greed and fear. Corrections are normal, especially when there has been a run-up of 50% in two years. That’s huge. If you really want to assess the economic future, follow the bond markets. That’s where the big money plays.

I do agree that the situation in Europe is causing a lot of uncertainty and fear. There is always something to fear, and the trick is to assess it, to determine whether a correction represents the beginning of a longer term trend or a buying opportunity.

By the way, I do agree with you about Obama ignoring the War Powers Act. Every president does this. It marks a boundary of contention between the Executive and Legislative branches, and the term ‘hostilities’ has been bent by both sides, and the Supreme Court has refused to take one side or the other.

Posted by: phx8 at June 16, 2011 7:05 PM
Comment #324558

Many dems and reps are angry with dear leader for failing to comply with what they believe the conditions of the “War Powers Act” mean.

o’bama is really stupid in offending congress in such an unnecessary and overt fashion…they control the purse.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 16, 2011 7:15 PM
Comment #324871

Radical Democrat. Left - Right - Center. Republicians?Democrats?
What is Radical? Tough question. Instead of questions, how about explaining the reality?
Vacant housing - homeless children - morality: Please explain. Hellfire missles - dead children - morality: Please explain.
Oh! I get it! Morality has nothing to do with. Let’s just all of us be newly hatched spiders eating each other alive. Any proposals for the legislature?

Posted by: Stephen Hines at June 23, 2011 6:14 PM
Post a comment