Democrats & Liberals Archives

Newt Gingrich Has Officially Joined The Flavor of the Month Club

Gingrich wanted us to believe he was not just a fad and it did look good for him for a few weeks. Less than three weeks out from the Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus the race is a three way tie again between Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and Mitt Romney.

Gingrich has failed to close the gap in New Hampshire but still leads big in South Carolina. He had a narrow window where he tried to project his inevitability on the race for nominee but like the other flavors of the month the more people see him speak the less they like him. His latest round of nonsense about arresting judges is just par for the course.

The latest poll shows Ron Paul with a slim lead in Iowa. This should excite Paul's supporters for about 5 seconds until they realize Paul doesn't stand a chance so far in any of the other states. He's a distant 3rd in New Hampshire and isn't making much of a showing at all in South Carolina. Ron Paul may win Iowa by sheer power of the clown car primary but he'll most likely be another Mike Huckabee who can't make it much further than that.

So is Mitt Romney still in the best position to win? Maybe, maybe not. After all this time the thing that stands out most is how consistent support for Romney has been. He hasn't had the lead in every state but he hasn't gone through the ups and downs like the non-Romney candidates have. It's clear that voters want to fall back on Romney but test drive the rest of the candidates as much as they can before voting begins.

I think what is in the back of everyone's minds is that Romney is the only candidate showing favorably against President Obama. So while the idea of a Romney presidency is a bitter pill to swallow they'd rather see that than four more years with Obama. It could be a tough decision for Republicans.

A few weeks ago I was writing with a sense of strength for Gingrich but recently I started to notice the spread out nature of the GOP primary schedule. It's a pretty safe bet that whoever wins Iowa and New Hampshire this year will have little momentum left by South Carolina and almost none for Florida and Nevada if they can't win South Carolina.

I think Romney can lose a few and still be strong. Gingrich on the other hand will need to surprise some folks to stop the erosion of his support and would be harmed the most from early losses. It could be a long primary and that could energize the GOP base the same way Democrats were energized. All the talk of a divisive 2008 primary and an explosive convention was largely wishful thinking for the GOP. It blew up in their faces when they saw how strong the Democratic base was even after Biden was picked for VP.

If I had my way the GOP would pick a candidate early and it would give the Democrats plenty of time to go to war against the winner. But if it runs long and interesting that's fun too.

Posted by Adam Ducker at December 19, 2011 10:22 AM
Comments
Comment #333239

Adam,
Watching the Republican clown car race around the circus rings, red pennants flying, belching noxious exhaust, puttering, sputtering, backfiring, and then stopping to throw open a car door and- TA DA- out steps another clown- well, it’s all been very amusing. No one deserves these guys and girls more than the conservative audience.

However, the candidacies of Gingrich and Cain are similar. Neither was ever really a serious contender. Cain ran what was either the best or the worst book tour in the history. Gingrich just wanted to keep his hand in the punditry game. Along the way, both figured they could fleece the rubes, shake them down for pocket change. ‘Never give a sucker an even break,’ right Newt? Who would have imagined conservatives would ever take these guys seriously?

Even a gross egomaniac like Gingrich must be surprised. But neither he nor Cain ever had national organizations or enough money to make a difference.

Only Romney has that, and only Perry has enough to survive beyond South Carolina. Romney will win it easily and win it early.

Posted by: phx8 at December 19, 2011 12:44 PM
Comment #333242

I agree about the seriousness of the campaign. His staff knew it a long time ago when they quit. But I take Gingrich far more serious than Cain simply because Gingrich has rallied outside forces to his side such as talk radio. Cain never did that. The idea that a black man would ever hope to win this conservative party’s nomination is a laugher anyway but that’s a completely different conversation.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at December 19, 2011 1:23 PM
Comment #333248


Paul could possibly win in Iowa. Romney winning in New Hampshire will re-galvanize the right wing. IMO, the odds still favor Gingrich and will unless he doesn’t win big in S.C.

I don’t think the right wing is convinced that Romney is the only candidate that has a chance against Obama. I think they still have a lot of fight in them and aren’t ready to surrender to the RINO’s, moderates yet. It should be obvious that nominating Gingrich isn’t going to deliver the party into their hands, but I’m not convinced they know that.

Posted by: jlw at December 19, 2011 3:25 PM
Comment #333250

jlw,
The scenario you paint is totally plausible: Paul wins IA, Romney NH, Gingrich SC. The Nevada caucus doesn’t matter, but Romney will probably win. Florida does matter, a lot, and it’s a media market, so money talks. If Perry could do well in SC he might do well in FL too, but by this time, money and organization will begin to dominate all other considerations. A lot of primaries follow in rapid succession in big markets, and while free media exposure helps, no one has yet succeeded in winning without the money and ground organization. It always was, and it still is, Willard Romney’s nomination to win or lose.

The killer problem for Romney will cost him the election. The problem? It’s not flip flopping, although he could just as easily be a Democrat as a Republican. It’s not his stand on any particular issue. The problem is simple. He is Mormon. And no matter how many GOP social conservatives insist his religion or cult won’t matter, and no matter how much they hate Obama, when push comes to shove, when those social conservatives enter the privacy of a voting booth- if they even bother to enter in the first place- a significant number of those fundamentalists will not be able to bring themselves to cast a vote for a Mormon.

Agreed, the far right still has some fight in them. They keep trying to shut down the government, because that will tank the economy, and they calculate that will hurt Obama enough to cost him the election… as long as they avoid the blame. It’s grotesque, but that is what conservatives do. They caused US debt to be downgraded during the debt ceiling debacle, and they will intentionally harm the country by shutting down the government if it helps them win next November.

Posted by: phx8 at December 19, 2011 5:34 PM
Comment #333251

Meanwhile with everybody talking primaries the Democrats have opened up 2% gap in the generic ballot that they’ve held now for 2 months. The Republicans stand a good chance of losing all power in Washington again in 2012. Their attempts to weaken Obama so far have left the President only down slightly in polls and have a nation of people already sick of the GOP leadership in the House.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at December 19, 2011 5:41 PM
Comment #333253

Just heard some Democrats are petitioning Hillary to run. If it wasn’t for Reid tableing all the bills the house sends up congress might be looked upon more favorable and vice versa.

Posted by: KAP at December 19, 2011 6:31 PM
Comment #333254

KAP,
No. You are wrong about Reid tabling bills. The latest compromise in the Senate passed 89 - 10. A lot of Republican Senators signed onto that compromise, one that House Majority Leader Boehner previously agreed to accept. Boehner reneged on the deal because he cannot control his caucus; specifically, he cannot control the Teabaggers, because The House Tea Party members are radical ideologues. They are less interested in governing through compromise than in bringing down Obama. If destroying the economy hurts the country, but prevents an Obama re-election, as far as they are concerned, that would be fine.

Hillary is not running. That is some kind of fevered right wing dream. Total BS. Whoever is telling you that stuff is lying through their teeth. What is your source?

Posted by: phx8 at December 19, 2011 7:24 PM
Comment #333256

phx8, A bill that is good for 2 months IMO is a waste. Continuously doing things over and over is rediculous and a waste of tax payers money and Reid has tabled 25 bills that have been sent to the senate by the house. The house teaparty idealogues are much like the liberal idealogues that we had to deal with prior to the Reps taking control of the house. To bad the liberal idealogues still have a majority in the senate. As far as the republican flavor of the month club who cares we’ll see who wins the nomination and then we can judge.

Posted by: KAP at December 19, 2011 8:04 PM
Comment #333258


Kap, the liberal ideologues in the House are called the progressives and before the Republicans gained the House, the progressive wing was basically shut down by Pelosi and Obama, so Pelosi’s liberals could make a deal with the House conservative Democrats on health care and later with Republicans on some weak reforms of the banking industry regulations.

Phx8, I would think that some of those who would not vote for a Mormon might reconsider considering the alternative is a black Reverend Wright socialist.

Posted by: jlw at December 19, 2011 8:29 PM
Comment #333270

jlw,
Yes, but Romney is not just any Mormon. He served as (the equivalent of) a Bishop in the Mormon church.

According to the lowest estimate I have seen, Obama lost 5% of the vote because he was black. If Romney loses even a few percent because of his religion, his goose is cooked. Those Christian fundamentalist voters may not turn to Obama; instead, they’d be more likely to stay at home, a statistic that will be revealed in ‘enthusiasm’ polls; in a close election, a couple percent becomes a crucial difference.

It’s part of the reason so many Republicans keep chasing the flavors of the month. Not only do they not like Romney; they think he will lose, and they are probably right. He’s a smart guy and a competent guy, and he’ll have a boatload of money behind him, including his own wealth, enormous amounts of money funneled by the Mormon Church through corporations, tons of corporate money, and the support of Rove’s super-PAC. That’s a very, very formidable bloc, but it’s not enough, and everyone knows it.

KAP,
Kicking the can two months down the road is still better than shutting down the government. A shutdown would cause 800,000 people to lose their paychecks, and that’s just for starters. I warned about a government shutdown on WB a few months ago. The Tea Party intends harm to the country. They think hurting the country will advance their own agenda, as long as they can duck the blame. They will do damage to the economy and try to blame it on Obama.

Re jlw’s comment, Pelosi was a very capable House Majority Leader. She passed an enormous amount of legislation because she was able to broker compromises between progressives and conservatives within her party. No one got everything they wanted, but Pelosi got it done. That’s what competence in government looks like.

Posted by: phx8 at December 19, 2011 9:20 PM
Comment #333271

phx8 Kicking the can is NOT good government. If they can settle on 2 months they can settle on a year.

Posted by: KAP at December 19, 2011 9:43 PM
Comment #333274

KAP,
Sure, they should settle on a year, but that deal is not ready to go through right now, because it involves some additional tax cuts and offsets. The temporary fix is ready now. One year? That’s great. Two months? That’s adequate. No fix? That’s disastrous. Yet no fix is what the Tea Party wing of the GOP wants. They’re holding the country hostage. It’s either all or none, and if it’s none, those conservatives are fine with that, because hurting the country hurts Obama… they hope. It is a risk the Tea Party is more than willing to take.

Posted by: phx8 at December 19, 2011 10:35 PM
Comment #333275

phx8,

Agree with your analysis, and it’s interesting because it reveals how deep a divide exists within the GOP. I think what happened with McCain in the last election looks like it’s going to be repeated with Romney. The Tea faction of the GOP really doesn’t like Romney (and doesn’t approve of his religion), but the none of the candidates they do like have any possibility of winning a national election. McCain won the last primary because he was considered the most electable Republican, and that seems really likely to happen again with this election. Yet as you suggest, if there is not much enthusiasm, many teapartiers will be far more likely to stay home.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 19, 2011 10:38 PM
Comment #333280

“As for the dirty tar sands oil, I can’t see how building a pipeline to Texas will have a significant impact on the Middle East oil. Building a pipeline to the east coast and the west coast for the purpose of exporting to Asia and Europe could have some impact, keeping in mind that oil will be more expensive and have less demand. The U.S. military has already said it has no use for that oil.”

Posted by: jlw at December 19, 2011 2:42 PM

The usual complaint about the pipeline is the threat to the environment, but considering we have 625,000 miles of pipeline in the US, which is enough to circle the globe 25 times, I don’t guess we need to worry about the environment.

I personally don’t have a problem with 800,000 government employees losing their paychecks for a few weeks. If we are looking for savings, that’s a good place to start.

“Meanwhile with everybody talking primaries the Democrats have opened up 2% gap in the generic ballot that they’ve held now for 2 months. The Republicans stand a good chance of losing all power in Washington again in 2012. Their attempts to weaken Obama so far have left the President only down slightly in polls and have a nation of people already sick of the GOP leadership in the House.”

Posted by: Adam Ducker at December 19, 2011 5:41 PM

RCP also shows an average of 71.2% who believe the country is headed the wrong direction, and since the buck stops with Obama, who do you think will pay the price? Obama’s high point was 45% to 45% and that was 1 ½ years before the Republicans took the House in 2010; since June of 2009 it has been all downhill. When did obamacare pass???

RCP also shows an average of +13.4 % of Americans against obamacare. There has been a consistent 50+% of people who don’t like obamacare ever since it passed; and what do you think will be part of the driving force behind the 2012 elections?

RCP also shows an average of 45% approval and 50% disapproval of Obama’s presidency.

I might also add that in all the polls, no matter who Obama is running against, he cannot get higher that 45% of the vote. Even if you use fuzzy math, it takes more than 50% to win an election.

There are many variables in the 2012 election. The American people are not that sophisticated as to analyze every minute detail. For example: the president fails to allow the Keystone Pipeline; the voters will not think about what kind of oil is being piped, they will simply know that Obama blocked oil and jobs. The voters know Obama blocked drilling in the Gulf with the loss of oil and jobs. At the same time, stimulus money was given by Obama to his green jobs and the money was lost.

As more is known about obamacare, and Obama deletes or changes more of the program, the voters will want to know why the law is allowed to stand. If the SP throws the law out; the Republicans will pound Obama for a useless HC bill.

Voters will think about the extravagance of Obama’s vacations. The latest Hawaiian 17 day vacation which cost the taxpayers $4 million, while they had to cancel theirs for lack of funds. Obama seems to have lost touch with the common American.

I can’t see a scenario where Obama can win next year, no matter how much the left tries to spin it.

As for Romney being a Mormon: conservatives would much rather see a real conservative, but if Romney makes the right promises to the voters, which he seems to be doing, he will have no problem getting their vote. It is wishful thinking on the left to believe people will not vote for him because he is a Mormon. Why would they; they voted for a black, with Muslim background, and 20 years sitting in the pews of the white hating Rev. Wright? Obama will run against Romney and say he passed Romneycare, and he did, but it doesn’t make any difference; the voters are against romneycare and obamacare, but if Romney tells the voters he will repeal obamacare, he will get their vote.

The point is; the left wants to make things simple (black and white), but there are a plethora of things against Obama and after 4 years, he has been vetted, even though he wasn’t prior to the 2008 election.

The left wants to talk about the divisions in the Republican Party; sure there are divisions and there will be until we have one candidate instead of 6 or 7. The left has never had to deal with this because the most radical democrat always gets the nomination, and they always run as a middle of the road moderate. Obama has run on the ticket of Reagan, Kennedy, FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln; and what is he…nothing more than a radical socialist.

Posted by: Phil at December 19, 2011 11:12 PM
Comment #333284

The basic problem with the Republicans at this point is that they have not recognized that any successful Republican candidate, short of a draining, brutal, alienating election fight will have to compromise in order to win an election. Worse yet, they don’t realize that for every Republican victory they don’t follow up with real world improvements in the nation’s condition, they will face an even steeper climb.

Or, phrased another way, if you think Obama’s bad, who will they elect when they start to believe that electing Obama wasn’t going far enough?

Grumbles aside from the purists, Obama is an agreeable mainstream candidate who pushes more of his constituents ideas than Democratic politicians have for a couple generations. That the Republicans feel he must be absolutely opposed, that there is no margin for good faith negotiation, tells us just how scared the Republicans are of losing control.

But what the continuous shuffling back and forth between Romney and everybody else as a first choice tells us is that thirty years of teaching people to accept nothing less than complete conservatism has finally backfired. The Republican Party has no room to manuever and remain strong.

Democrats and Obama have actual choices. They can propose both tax cuts and tax increases. They can draw down the military from different wars, as well as send them into new missions. They can come to the aid of the economy, and deal with the deficit. It might not sound principle to some, but a principle is something inside your head. The real world demands that people come up with plans that work within it. You cannot hope to simply guess what the right answer to every policy question is, and coast through the rest of your term in Congress or the White House on what you think is right.

The Republicans are more interested in adapting its candidates to deal with and fulfill it’s politics, rather than deal with a world that often leaves our ideals of what could be done wounded and bleeding on the ground. Me, I’m willing to deal with that imperfect world. The Conservatives and right win in modern America are not done insisting that the world bend to their views. Unfortunately, time will not be kind to them. The strain is already showing.

Once, Gingrich was their ideas man. But the ideas were not so beloved as people thought they would be, and Clinton was able to over come him even at the height of the Republican’s glory. It’s no accident that the Republicans became what they became by 2006. That was what they were to begin with.

Republicans need to gain some shades of grey between them and the Democrats, just as the Democrats have done over time. Since they have mostly decided not to listen to Democrats who have some experience having to soften the ideology of the party, they will learn the hard way that a strong base means nothing if it cannot be combined with sufficient outside supporters to manage a majority.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 20, 2011 12:33 AM
Comment #333285

The latest ABC poll shows Obama with a 49% approval rating.

Posted by: phx8 at December 20, 2011 12:34 AM
Comment #333295

Phil: “I can’t see a scenario where Obama can win next year, no matter how much the left tries to spin it.”

Then I’d argue you aren’t paying attention to the GOP primary. That’s not exactly the cream of the crop.

“I might also add that in all the polls, no matter who Obama is running against, he cannot get higher that 45% of the vote.”

That is incorrect. It is true only in the case of Obama vs. Romney. Against the rest of the candidates Obama has more than once polled 50% and above including Gingrich.

“Voters will think about the extravagance of Obama’s vacations.”

Sorry to say but this, like the pipeline, like the gulf drilling, like the money lost on one green company, are all stories getting zero traction in the press or the public at large. Americans don’t care about those things no matter how many times Fox News tells us we should.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at December 20, 2011 1:30 AM
Comment #333303

Adam, Just wait until we have Obama and whoever, then the crap will start.

Posted by: KAP at December 20, 2011 10:23 AM
Comment #333305

KAP, you are correct.

Adam and Stephen want to invoke the News Media and I will say 2 things: first the MSM is trying to determine who republicans run for office, through their attacks; and secondly, the MSM has never treated Obama the same as conservatives. Now you guys can spin it all you want, but it’s true.

The continual attacks on Fox News is because Fox does not treat Obama the same way the liberal MSM does. And it is for this reason that Fox is popular and the MSM is dying. The left is really scared and the more they are scared, the more they attack conservatives. Why would the left want to tell conservatives who they should run in order to win against obama? Answer: they don’t, they want to attack the ones who would be the most threat to Obama, and we must consider the fact, cnservatives scare them the most.

Posted by: Phil at December 20, 2011 10:39 AM
Comment #333308

Phil,
The MSM is not “attacking” GOP candidates. The MSM is reporting the news. This year’s race attracts attention because of all the debates and because the MSM loves a horse race. If they really wanted to approach the race realistically, they would completely ignore it, knowing full and well that Romney is the only candidate with the money, organization, and basic competence to win the nomination.

The “attacks” are coming from the various GOP campaigns. Romney’s campaign is run by a guy who does opposition research by profession. Do you know what opposition research means? You don’t seem to get what is going on at all, so allow me to explain. ‘Oppostion Research’ means he digs dirt up on his opponents as a way of making a living. A Perry campaign staff member was physically present at one of Cain’s sexual harrassment incidents in a restaurant, and publicly said so; Cain quite naturally blamed Perry’s campaign for the allegations.

No one is “telling” Republicans what to do. No one on the left is “scared.”

We’re just saying ‘pass the popcorn’ and laughing at you because your candidates are a bunch of clowns, and you know it.

Posted by: phx8 at December 20, 2011 12:01 PM
Comment #333313

Right now phx8 you are correct in the attack statements they are comming MOSTLY from others in the running but we still have hacks like Maddow, Schultz, Sharpton, Matthews and other liberal news sources that are adding fuel to the fire. As far as clown shows go you fail to mention the clown in the WH. that has had his show now going on for 3 years we have Obama and Biden much like Martin and Lewis, Laurel and Hardy, and if we throw Holder in the mix we have the three stooges. The only one in the whole administration who has any sence is Hillary.

Posted by: KAP at December 20, 2011 12:53 PM
Comment #333314

phx8, then perhaps you could provide the non-stop news reporting from the MSM concerning Obama’s shady links to radicals? I would like to see where he was vetted by the MSM during his first campaign. In fact I would like to see where the MSM has questioned anything he has done since he was in office. Let me give you an example: 3 years before the end of Bush’s second term, the media was going nuts about the rise of the unemployment numbers (when they were in the 6% range after 911); on the other hand, the MSM has tried their best to cover up unemployment numbers as attached to Obama, and tried to make 9% the norm or decreasing.

You ae being silly when you say the MSM does not attack conservatives. Let me remind you of Palin, Bachman, Cain, Gingrich, Bush, Cheney, Reagan, and the list goes on and on.

Why don’t you answer the question: why are you trying to tell the Republicans who they should run in order to beat Obama? Why are you so scared of Conservatives, if, as you say, we are just entertainment?

Posted by: Phil at December 20, 2011 1:03 PM
Comment #333320

KAP,
Maddow, Schultz, and others can hardly be considered members of the MSM. Did you know FOX is included on most basic cable subscriptions? Did you know MSNBC is NOT included on them?

Phil,
Ah, yes. The vetting of Obama. Remember how, at the inauguration, FOX announcer Meghyn Kelly wondered if Obama and his wife engaged in a ‘terrorist fist bump’? There has been no MSM reporting on Obama’s links to radicals or his “paling around with terrorists” because there’s nothing to report.

The simple fact is that Obama is a relatively clean politician, and the Obama administration has generally been free of scandal. Remember, Issa is in control of the GOP attacks on the administration, and he has not come up with anything substantial, much as he would like to.

The media was going “nuts” about unemployment numbers? Really? Can you back that up with facts? No? I thought not. And I’ve never, ever seen anyone in the media or elsewhere suggest unemployment is acceptable or normal.

Again, you mistake critical reporting with “attacks.”

I’m not telling conservatives who to run? I like to analyze and predict. I wish Gingrich or Bachmann or one of the others would win, but I’ve seen enough to know that, with the exception of Romney, the other candidates lack the money and the ability to form and run an organization.

I’m not scared of these conservatives, at least as long as they have no serious chance of winning. Romney could just as easily be a Democrat as a Republican. He cares about big money and big corporations, and continue corporate personhood; for everything else, he’s flexible. He’s a corporatist. He just happens to call himself a Republican.

If I thought conservatives could regain power, it would be scary. Case in point: the Bush adminstration. The economy, the deficits, the debt, two unfunded wars, wiretapping, torture, Guantanamo, all kicked off by the Bush tax cuts. Conservatives seem to favor the same agenda that caused so much trouble. No one wants to see conservatives back in power, at least, no one with a lick of sense.

The power the Tea Party currently exercises is scary. Case in point: the Tea Party and the downgrade of American debt. Case in point: the threat by the Tea Party to shut down government. Case in point: candidates like Christine O’Donnel, Sharon Engell, Michelle Bachmann, and so on…

Posted by: phx8 at December 20, 2011 2:32 PM
Comment #333321

phx8,
Indeed.

Case in point:
Teaparty Congress ending 2011 with record-breaking worst approval rating ever

Quote:

Most voters want to see top-tier tax rates increase as budgets for things like food stamps and unemployment insurance are cut, but most Republican lawmakers are opposed to that step.

And so are all of the GOP Clown Car Primary Candidates.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 20, 2011 2:52 PM
Comment #333323


The term MSM has become nothing more than a propaganda tool for the right. How do we define the MSM in an era of Internet news, the decline in newspapers, Fox News bragging about being the number one rated cable news network, and conservatives crowing about their control of talk radio?

MSNBC has been giving a blow by blow account of the Republican candidates attacks on each other while making comments of their own and basically laughing like hell.

Fox News, while obviously right wing centric, is also airing the dirty laundry show, daily.

Fox tends to play down the Republican candidates attacks on each other, while MSNBC shouts them to the world.

Perry attacks Romney, accusing him of being a evil job destroying free market capitalist and Romney responds by calling Perry a communist. Anyone who doesn’t see this conservative comedy as hilarious doesn’t have a sense of humor.

The MSM is biased because they report this stuff?

IMO, Gingrich epitomizes the fiscal/social conservative coalition and should be it’s nominee.

Posted by: jlw at December 20, 2011 3:04 PM
Comment #333324

KAP-
Yeah, just wait. On one hand, you’ll have Romney, who can either fake being a hardass conservative, and get called on it by everybody with video of his previous positions, or lose his conservative base trying to be a centrist.

On the other, you have any other possible choice, who will have the same problem only weighted much further towards the right.

As for the media? Obsessing with the media’s done your side a world of evil. More or less, it’s meant you’ve been more concerned with determining whether a properly vetted conservative source said something, than you are with the relative truth of all the different claims and positions on either side.

That’s why conservative’s choices for President are so patently absurd. Romney’s a perpetual second choice who’s been called for being on both sides of the issues by everybody. Ron Paul actually expects to be taken seriously when his political commercials play like parodies even without creative editing from the comics. Rick Perry has chronic brain flatulence, even to the point of miffing his recall of three items in the row, even with help from his debate opponents! Herman Cain? Herman Cain made Bill Clinton look like a piker.

It doesn’t take much to make these guys look bad! You just have to describe what they did, or quote them verbatim. Hell, just listen to Gingrich suggest that undoing the decades long prohibition on child labor, and then defend himself by saying “of course they’ll stay in school”.

Your problem is that your side has become the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. You’re so furiously opposed to admitting that Democrats might defeat you or do better than you that you’re willing to try people’s patience by resisting giving up on any awful candidate. You just dismiss the concerns and the claims of extremism as Left-Wing, Liberal Media propaganda. That doesn’t change whether it’s true or not, and it barely budges whether people consider your candidates good or not. They have only to see for themselves.

Meanwhile, Obama’s still a serious candidate. Even three years of disappointments hasn’t done away with the sense that the man is more competent than his competitors. He retains his eloquence, his ability to succinctly and vividly articulate new opinions, and has the main strength of the Democratic Party nowadays: the ability to sign on to the nation’s with for political and financial reform without having to engage in a bunch of double-talk to do it. He remains well liked, which is more than we can say about most of your candidates.

Your impression of him is the product of being fed back your own political movmement’s propaganda on a regular basis. If you weren’t so reliant on FOXNews and other such outlets for your information and opinions, you might discover that those outlets carried with them a considerable amount of negative bias.

Phil-
The Republicans are doing that stuff to themselves. You can spin it all you want, but the MSM’s been kinder to those Republicans than they’ve been to Obama. It’s documented.

I attack FOXNews because it’s less interested in discovering and delivering the facts, and more interested in feeding me what my opinion is supposed to be. People end up knowing worse than nothing about what they report. If they just watched nothing, they’d get fewer things wrong.

There is absolutely no evidence that FOXNews is massacring the competition the way you claim. Fox gets maybe two million viewer for its primetime fare, while each of the major networks gets several million just for their five-thirty broadcasts. Neither CNN nor MSNBC are that far behind FOXNews, and in fact outperform them in certain respects.

As for Unemployment, I’ve regularly heard unemployment numbers and job losses and increases from the MSM. You just paid more attention when it was looking bad for Bush. as far as those numbers go, those numbers ARE decreasing, and have been since this time about three years ago. Unemployment peaked at 10.1% in this rather deep recession, lower in fact than Reagan’s early eighties’ recession, which peaked at 10.8% Since then Unemployment has decreased, last I hear to 8.6%

If you have a problem with those facts, it’s your problem, not the media’s.

Your party’s playing the victim, trying to con people into being sympathetic by claiming folks aren’t giving you a fair shake. Really, though, if you keep on sending idiots out to be your leaders, no amount of accusations of bias are going to keep you from having some kind of reckoning on that account.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 20, 2011 3:34 PM
Comment #333326

Stephen, My side???? My side is getting rid of a person who has no business being President and putting someone in the office who is competent be it Democrat, Republican or Independent. IMO Obama is by far as bad or worse than Carter was and no mater what you say will not convince me otherwise. Hillary should have been your choise at least she had someone who had experience at the job close to her.

Posted by: KAP at December 20, 2011 4:11 PM
Comment #333327

By the way, I don’t know if Phil was referring to this, but unemployment statistics were news throughout the Bush presidency because of the nature of job creation. That administration created a disproportionate amount of jobs in government, primarily the TSA and DoD. Meanwhile, private sector jobs were outsourced at a phenomenal rate. 50,000 manufacturing plants were outsourced during the Bush year. That’s PLANTS. 50,000 PLANTS. Not jobs. Plants. Some of this was a result of so-called ‘free trade’ agreements.

What conservatives like Phil and others fail to understand is that Obama has continued some of the policies that resulted in this outsourcing. Coming into office, Obama lacked background on economics. He made a crucial decision to rely on Tim Geithner and Larry Summers, corporatists to the bone, and proponents of ‘free trade.’ However, conservatives are so caught up in the whole ridiculous line of attack about how Obama is a socialist/Marxist/communist etc that they fail to perceive Obama’s centralist, moderate economic policies. While Obama has not been sympathetic in words to the corporatists- for example, the nomination of Sotomayor to the SCOTUS- the actions of the administration have often favored the corporatists at the expense of everyone else. Why? It was the safe move. The cautious move. Faced with an economic collapse, Obama played it safe, and relied on the likes of Geithner and Summers.

It didn’t result in ‘change we can believe in.’ It did save the economy from depression.

Despite the criticisms I’ve just listed, given the choice, I’d probably do the same as Obama. The stakes were just too high to take risks.

Romney made his bones stripping corporations of their assets, loading them with debt, and shipping jobs overseas. The discussion about Bain hasn’t even begun.

Posted by: phx8 at December 20, 2011 4:13 PM
Comment #333328

Adrienne, case in point; what part of your link refers to Tea Party Republicans. You are very shrill, aren’t you Adrienne? You either can’t read or you’re ignorant. Pick…

Phx8 said, “The simple fact is that Obama is a relatively clean politician,”

There are no politicians from Chicago who are clean.

“I wish Gingrich or Bachmann or one of the others would win,”

No you don’t, that’s why you attack them…

“I’m not scared of these conservatives, at least as long as they have no serious chance of winning. Romney could just as easily be a Democrat as a Republican. He cares about big money and big corporations, and continue corporate personhood;”

So you are admitting Democrats only care about big money and big corporations…if Romney is just like them.

“The power the Tea Party currently exercises is scary.”

You do realize there is no such thing as a Tea Party; it is simply a grassroots unorganized group of people who want real change and accountability in government.

“Case in point: the Tea Party and the downgrade of American debt. Case in point: the threat by the Tea Party to shut down government. Case in point: candidates like Christine O’Donnel, Sharon Engell, Michelle Bachmann, and so on…”

And you’re not scared of them are you???

Talk about eating popcorn and laughing; let me show everyone the liberal mind; when accusations were made that the liberal MSM attacks Republican conservatives, and KAP listed them, phx8 came back with this comment:

“KAP,

Maddow, Schultz, and others can hardly be considered members of the MSM.

Then we have Adrienne linking to the Raw Story as evidence to prove her liberal hack facts; but we find the Raw Story is nothing more than a liberal hack research, which reports their dtories on the very programs that phx8 said are not news outlets:

“The Raw Story is a progressive news, politics and weblog publication[1] founded in 2004. Updated continuously, it is known primarily for its investigative reporting. The Raw Story covers current national and international political and economic news and publishes its own editorials and investigative pieces. According to their masthead, Raw Story has been reported and featured in The New York Times, The Guardian, LA Weekly, the New York Post, the Toronto Star, The Hill, Rolling Stone, The Advocate, Roll Call, Hustler,[2] and Mother Jones.[3]

Boasting an average 1.6 million readers per month, the site is described by Newsweek as, “Muck, raked: If you’re looking for alleged GOP malfeasance, the folks at rawstory.com are frequently scooping the mainstream media.”[4]

On August 4, 2008 the Online News Association announced that RawStory.com was a finalist in the 2008 Online Journalism awards in the “Investigative, Small Site” category[5] for the story “The permanent Republican majority”, about improper partisan influence in the prosecution of former Governor Don Siegelman of Alabama.

Raw Story’s original reporting has also been referenced by MSNBC’s Ed Schultz and Lawrence O’Donnell,[6] The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Real Time with Bill Maher and Countdown with Keith Olbermann.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Raw_Story

These links of Adrienne’s are nothing more than liberal propaganda. C&J have had the same conversation with Adrienne about this same topic in other columns. Pure BS…

Stephen says:

“I attack FOXNews because it’s less interested in discovering and delivering the facts, and more interested in feeding me what my opinion is supposed to be”

And you have no problem with Maddow, Schultz, Sharpton, Matthews, and the Raw Story? Your comments are even less believable than Adrienne’s. So I put you both in the same boat.

Stephen, you might want to look at the MSM news shows from the days of Bush and see how they predicted the collapse of the economy when the unemployment numbers were in 4-6%. This chart of historical unemployment says it all:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate

When numbers were low for Bush, the media was predicting the collapse of the economy; but when the numbers were high for Obama, the media is constantly predicting a recovering economy. I rest my case.

Posted by: Phil at December 20, 2011 4:51 PM
Comment #333330

Phil,
Some Democrats are corporatists. Progressives are not corporatists. Almost all Republicans are corporatists. Almost all conservatives are corporatists.

““The power the Tea Party currently exercises is scary.”
You do realize there is no such thing as a Tea Party; it is simply a grassroots unorganized group of people who want real change and accountability in government.”

If you say so. Except that there is a Tea Party. It is not grassroots. And it is organized.

You write: “Talk about eating popcorn and laughing; let me show everyone the liberal mind; when accusations were made that the liberal MSM attacks Republican conservatives, and KAP listed them, phx8 came back with this comment:
“KAP,
Maddow, Schultz, and others can hardly be considered members of the MSM.”

I have no idea what point you intend to make here. Apparently, something seems obvious to you. I don’t know what it is.

Roughly 21 million viewers watch ABC, CBS, and NBC news.

Fox has about 1 million, MSNBC 900,000, and CNN a little over 700,000.

Posted by: phx8 at December 20, 2011 5:16 PM
Comment #333331

Phil,

A simple question. Was job creation under the Bush administration the worst since Herbert Hoover?

Posted by: Rich at December 20, 2011 5:17 PM
Comment #333332

Phil:

Adrienne, case in point; what part of your link refers to Tea Party Republicans.

The Teaparty crowed about it’s many victories picking up seats during the last election — and now that same Congress has a record-breaking worst approval rating.

You are very shrill, aren’t you Adrienne?

No, I’m just very honest. Many rightwingers really despise that.

Re: Raw Story — yes I’ve been reading Raw everyday for many years because they tend to get their facts straight. And yes, it is a website that breaks the kind of news that people on the left are interested in.

You either can’t read or you’re ignorant. Pick…

I read constantly, I’m not ignorant, and I don’t like feeding trolls.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 20, 2011 5:21 PM
Comment #333333

phx8, it was Clinton who signed NAFTA, and now you admit Obama had no experience in economics and surrounded himself with economic advisors who also supported NAFTA. Not only that, but he placed Imelt in charge of creating jobs, and he was guilty of shipping how many thousands of GE’s jobs overseas. You are trying to defend Obama as being ignorant of economics; which conservatives have been saying for 3 1/2 years. It is no just economics that Obama is ignorant of; his only experience is that of a community agitator.

As KAP says, I could understand theleft calling for Hillary Clinton, but for the life of me; I do not understand why the democrats want to run Obama. He is another Carter; and predict a huge loss for him, no matter who he runs against.

Posted by: Phil at December 20, 2011 5:23 PM
Comment #333334

I have noticed, whenever Adrienne hears something she can’t or won’t answer, she accuses people of being trolls. A troll is someone who just throws shit against the wall to see if it sticks. And I believe Adrienne is the troll on WB; she makes outragous statements based upon liberal web sites and calls them facts. Like I said, either can’t read or ignorant.

Posted by: Phil at December 20, 2011 5:29 PM
Comment #333335


Phil, the Bush economy did collapse, Obama was elected president and the economy is slowly recovering. What did the media get wrong?

Quite a few people predicted the collapse of the economy because of the housing bubble, they were ignored or attacked by the government and Wall Street.

Posted by: jlw at December 20, 2011 5:41 PM
Comment #333338

Yes jlw, it was Barney Frank and Chris Dodd who ignoring the collapse of the housing market; in fact they said “trust us” everything is ok.

Posted by: Phil at December 20, 2011 5:56 PM
Comment #333339

Phil,
No one knows everything about everything. Obama came into office with a background common to most US presidents, a background in law. After earning the top honor in the nation as a student, Editor of the Harvard Law Review, he served as a Community Organizer, lectured on Constitutional Law as a professor, served in the IL State Senate, and then the US Senate. That’s a solid resume. He demonstrated exceptional organizational skills by creating a campaign that defeated a well-organized and capable opponent, Hillary Clinton. He showed exceptional ability to recognize and use top notch talent, both in his campaign and as president. His speaking skills are extraordinary.

Despite growing up in circumstances that do not ordinarily lead to success, Obama has succeeded and won at everything he has done. He has always- always- been at the top of his game.

I think his first term will be seen primarily as a clean-up job, one dealing with the failures of the Bush administration. This first term included significant accomplishments: the death of OBL and most of the Al =Qaida leadership, ending the Iraq War, the fall of Khaddafi, preventing an economic depression, and a variety of legislation.

But like I said, no one knows everything about everything. Obama came into office with limited knowledge about foreign affairs and economics. He did what a good leader should do: identify the best, most knowledgable talent, then delegate.

Right now, no one is more qualified to be president.

Do a quick mental inventory of the GOP presidential candidates. No one else compares. That doesn’t mean Obama knows everything about everything. That doesn’t mean he is above criticism. Far from it. But an honest assessment and comparison makes the conclusion inescapable.

Posted by: phx8 at December 20, 2011 6:12 PM
Comment #333340

Wikipedia definition: Troll (Internet)

a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion

You are very shrill, aren’t you Adrienne?
You either can’t read or you’re ignorant. Pick…
Adrienne linking to the Raw Story as evidence to prove her liberal hack facts
These links of Adrienne’s are nothing more than liberal propaganda. C&J have had the same conversation with Adrienne about this same topic in other columns. Pure BS…
she makes outragous statements based upon liberal web sites and calls them facts. Like I said, either can’t read or ignorant.

Trolling. Inflamatory personal attacks that are meant to provoke an emotional response. I don’t engage in this, and I won’t feed this.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 20, 2011 6:21 PM
Comment #333341

KAP-
What is it that you base your opinion about him being a bad President on? Who are you listening to? You can complain about it not being your side or anything like that, but when you practically repeat the talking points of the right verbatim, how am I to respond?

I’ll take the man who improved the economy, over the man who wrecked the economy step by step. I’ll take the man who ended the misbegotten Iraq war and managed not to get us entangled in an endless land war in Libya to unseat another tyrant over the one who got us into that war and coddled Qaddafi, despite his rhetoric.

I’ll take the man who finally got Bin Laden, over the man who made a big deal about getting him, and then promptly forgot about him to go after Saddam Hussein.

You want to believe he’s terrible and incompetent, and whatever, be my guest. I just don’t think you have the evidence to prove that to neutral parties, and you might want to take that as a cue to reconsider your opinion of him.

Phil-
I dumped FOXNews early in 2003 from my list of reputable sources for the simple reason that they repeatedly trumpeted that we found WMDs, only to disappear said article from the front page, leaving me to try and find these extraordinary claims, and finding nobody else to back them up.

Maddow and others on MSNBC tend to be well informed. That’s part of their charm. But to tell you the truth, I’m much more interested in finding straight news, hard news. I like knowing the facts that allow me the ability to distinguish right from wrong politically for myself.

You have to recognize that sometimes people complain for a good reason, and that the fact that a source doesn’t share your politics doesn’t mean that it’s wrong.

The economy is still improving, but I would tell you right here that few left-wing sources have rose-colored glasses about the pace or permanence of this improvement, especially in light of what’s going on domestically, or abroad. You, meanwhile, are making McCain’s claim, that somehow it’s just media pessimism that made the economy look bad in the Bush Administration.

Never mind that fewer people were maintaining full-time jobs, that job growth was anemic, that a lot of the supposedly good economy was based on a housing bubble which took the good news with it when it burst. There were real things wrong with the economy and its management, but you would chose to ignore that in the name of correcting an apparent bias.

Which only makes you biased, all the more. It’s probably the reason why you miss all the MSM reporting on the quality of the economy that doesn’t paint a rosy picture of current conditions. I trust that when the you-know-what hits the fan, they won’t waste time in telling us.

It’s funny what you don’t pick up on from the MSM when your approach to it is disbelief and a search for anti-GOP bias. You’re too busy disputing the grounds of the debate to note that you’re not winning it, that you’re missing facts that make your broad declarations and sentiments look like the regurgitated propaganda that they are.

That Chris Dodd and Barney Franks BS is a good example.

There is a ton of documentary evidence out there demonstrating that there were risk factors in the derivatives market, in the housing market, and in the financial industries in general that predate the supposed causative actions by those two.

But I don’t really need to quote all that material to offer up a bit of common sense here. It’s really a matter of dates. The supposed actions by these two take place before the Democrats really had a chance to do anything that might create such a broad bubble. In fact, one of the supposed causes came after the bubble actually burst.

The trouble didn’t just up and appear overnight. It built over the decade preceding it. More to the point, the GSEs you blame became less and less dominant in the market as the bubble grew, which would indicate to a neutral person that they weren’t the ones inflating it, taking all the risks necessary to get so many bad mortgages.

You’re really just accepting another one of the raggedy-ass cover stories the right has concocted to keep its people from sharing the conclusion with many others that the problem with the markets in 2008 wasn’t the result of big government. You’re just cooperating in being snowed about all the regulatory changes, championed by conservatives like you, which were instrumental to the problem.

Or, at the very least, it’s meant to distract from the fact that the mantra of Republicans coming out of the Bush administration was “The fundamentals of the economy are sound.”

Far from being the prophets of this doom, your side was trying to keep people oblivious until the collapse itself became to bloody obvious and awful to ignore.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 20, 2011 6:39 PM
Comment #333345

Stephen, I will not reconsider my opinion of Obama. His handiling of the economy sucks, his decision making has a lot to be desired, he wouldn’t have gotten OBL on his own it was through the last administrations and the one before that, intelligence gathering that finally got him getting Alwylaky was pure dumb luck his foreign relations sucks. If he didn’t have Hillary as Sec. State he would really be screwed. Like I said you picked the wrong one Hillary would have been your better choice at least she had a former President to advise her.

Posted by: KAP at December 20, 2011 7:19 PM
Comment #333348


Phil, you are barking up the wrong tree with me. Unlike Stephen, I think Frank and Dodd were contributors to the government actions that helped precipitate the economic collapse.

You won’t find me lenient towards them, nor as lenient as you apparently are towards the Republicans and the Republican policies that were the major contributing factors.

While I admit that I favor Democrat policies over Republican policies, I am basically a pox on both your houses person. It was Republican philosophy, Republican policies and Democratic cooperation that got us to where we are.

What do you think of Newt’s promise to change the law so he can arrest the conservative Supreme Court justices over the unpopular Citizens United ruling?

Posted by: jlw at December 20, 2011 8:01 PM
Comment #333349

“…it was Barney Frank and Chris Dodd who ignoring the collapse of the housing market; in fact they said “trust us” everything is ok.”

Phil,

This is where it gets ridiculous. Members of the minority party in Congress were responsible for the economic collapse. The executive branch and the majority party in both houses had no responsibility. Amazing!

Who promoted the ownership society and even threatened the GSEs with legislative action if they didn’t increase their support of minority mortgages? What administration proposed the no downpayment minority mortgage act called the “American Dream Downpayment Assistance Act?” Which majority party in Congress overwhelming supported the Act? Which administration signed into law the Act? Which administration issued the “America’s Homeownership Challenge” to increase minority home ownership by 5.5 million by 2007?

Who said this is 2002: “One of the major obstacles to minority home-ownership is financing. Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac have committed to provide more money for lenders, they committed to meet the shortage of capital available for minority home-buyers. Freddie Mac just began 25 initiatives around the country to dismantle barriers and create better opportunities for home-ownership. One of the programs is designed to help families with bad credit histories to qualify for home ownership loans. You don’t have to have a lousy home for first time home-buyers. You put your mind to it the first time low income home buyer can have just as nice a house as anyone else.“

The truth of the matter is that the Bush administration and a Republican Congress fully supported expansion of minority mortgage funding support both by the GSEs and private investment banking. That is not a matter of dispute. Why in 2004, President Bush even touted as a major achievement the commitment by private sector lenders to dramatically increasing private investment in minority mortgages.

The truth of the matter is that the Federal Reserve maintained a cheap money policy during the housing bubble run up resulting in not only inducements for new high risk mortgage lending but also and, more importantly, dramatically increasing home equity loans.

Putting the blame on minority members of Congress for the housing bubble and ultimate collapse is nonsense.

Posted by: Rich at December 20, 2011 8:11 PM
Comment #333351

KAP-
Why do you think those things? There’s a reason I often provide sources for my assessments: it helps keep me honest as to how I came to those opinions.

So, how did you come to your opinions? Whose word did you take at face value?

When Republicans try and throw Fannie and Freddie at me, I respond with a source and numbers that say that their market share was down drastically from what they were a decade before, while non-banks lenders took up that slack (or more accurately, tore it out of the GSE’s grasp).

I can point to job increases and economic turnarounds following the stimulus when folks say it meant nothing. I can show a sharp contrast between first and second quarter economic numbers in 2009, and those that came after.

For me, this is about putting my opponents on the spot to justify their claims, and giving the audience better than just boast and bluster to take my point of view on as theirs.

You think Obama sucks? Sure thing, I believe you believe that. However, besides a certain degree of social pull on the vulnerable, who does that convince? Sure you have yourself convinced, but when I said Bush was a bad leader, I could point to all kinds of decisions with results that were verifiably bad in order to back my opinion.

You seem to want me to accept what you say just because. Sorry. Doesn’t work that way. Obama’s decisions have gotten results. The guy who ran the Bin Laden operation thought the man was the smartest guy in the room. You get this praise time and again from those who encounter him.

Which is perhaps why Republicans repeat their charges so vociferously, make teleprompter jokes and all that BS. They are faced with the political legacy of an objectively bad administraton, and have to keep from being overwhelmed by a President who is far, far sharper and more competent than their man ever was.

Obama saves the entire domestic car industry and puts it back in profitable territory, and you folks bitch about it being a government takeover. But one Solar Panel company goes bankrupt, and suddenly it’s crony capitalism. You even try to paint him as buddy buddy with Wall Street, despite the fact that Wall Street spent millions of dollars lobbying Washington to defeat and water down his bills.

The facts don’t seem to set the threshold of what is believeable and what is not on the right. Instead, things are taken at face value if they come out of a certain news outlet, and not another.

Unfortunately for the right, this has created a chronic lag between reality, and the Right’s perception of it, and it’s made Republican policymaking sloppy, disorganized, and incompetent. When saying dumb things doesn’t equate to embarrassment, folks will push a lot of foolish things, because nobody has the heart or the political courage to tell them they’re full of it.

jlw-
You would be surprised to know that I acknowledge that they helped contribute to the problem. I just think that their role was extraordinarily minor, and the supposed causes of the economic crisis that Republicans blame them for are a bogus diagnosis.

The laws that allowed this to happen, gave Wall Street the rope to hang itself with were passed by majorities that were mostly Republican, and partly Democrat. However that nuance doesn’t register well with some, so I cut to the chase and say that the Republicans led the effort to slash regulations and undo government oversight of the financial sector, which is perfectly accurate.

Yes, the Democrats in Washington were partly responsible. But at least their party preserved part of a tradition of ideas whereby we could change policy thinking back the other way. Republicans have burned those bridges, and are once again doubling down on that dysfunctional status quo, hoping that people just forget that this was how things were as things were going from bad to worse.

The way I look at it, crediting their charges is only encouraging them to continue with this effort to scapegoat the other party for their policy’s bad results, and unchecked will only ultimately lead to the preservation of our nation’s financial problems.

I know there remains too much corporate influence in my party, but I figure any party that gains the power to change things will only gain the lobbyists and the corruption as well, and I don’t figure we have time to wait for another major party to arise in American politics.

I figure we take what we got, and make it better, even if the better is an incremental change over time. Sometimes you have to keep adding snow to the mountain before you can get your avalanche. You can’t always predict what the tipping point is for political change, and I feel that broadly encouraging the political party that is more amenable to change is a good place to start, even if that doesn’t represent the end of all the efforts that are needed to change things for the better.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 20, 2011 8:43 PM
Comment #333353

Stephen, I watch and listen to all the news sources and weigh my opinions on what I hear and see. But I also look at my surroundings to see if what the news sources are saying is true. Things may be peachy in Texas where you are from but where I’m from here in Ohio things are bleak. Jobs are far and few and for that I blame the people who are in power and for the most part they are Democrats. At your age Stephen I to was a Democrat but as I got older and the Democratic party that I once knew changed drastically so I became an independent conservative. I cannot blame the current govenor for our problems because he hasn’t been in office long enough to really make a difference much like our current House of Representatives in DC. Obama got into office by being a smooth talker, I base that on the quick assension in his political life and the people he surrounded himself with.

Posted by: KAP at December 20, 2011 9:18 PM
Comment #333354

Stephen, I watch and listen to all the news sources and weigh my opinions on what I hear and see. But I also look at my surroundings to see if what the news sources are saying is true. Things may be peachy in Texas where you are from but where I’m from here in Ohio things are bleak. Jobs are far and few and for that I blame the people who are in power and for the most part they are Democrats. At your age Stephen I to was a Democrat but as I got older and the Democratic party that I once knew changed drastically so I became an independent conservative. I cannot blame the current govenor for our problems because he hasn’t been in office long enough to really make a difference much like our current House of Representatives in DC. Obama got into office by being a smooth talker, I base that on the quick assension in his political life and the people he surrounded himself with.

Posted by: KAP at December 20, 2011 9:22 PM
Comment #333358

“Thanks to our policies, homeownership in America is at an all-time high.”
George Bush, RNC Acceptance speech, 2004

During the 2004 presidential campaign, Bush routinely touted his “ownership society.” There was little to say about the economy that was positive at that time, so most of that GOP presidential campaign focused on the record level of 70% home ownership. From WWII through Clinton, the percentage of homeowners climbed just 11% over a 50 year period, standing at 66% in 2000. In the first four years of the Bush administration, the percentage surged 4%, thanks to a Bush program, the American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI).

Posted by: phx8 at December 20, 2011 10:03 PM
Comment #333361

Phx8 said:

“I think his first term will be seen primarily as a clean-up job, one dealing with the failures of the Bush administration.”

Yes and a second will probably seal the doom of America. We will be nothing more than a 3rd world nation. Maybe by then Obama can stop apologizing for America.

Stephen said:

“Phil-

I dumped FOXNews early in 2003 from my list of reputable sources for the simple reason that they repeatedly trumpeted that we found WMDs, only to disappear said article from the front page, leaving me to try and find these extraordinary claims, and finding nobody else to back them up.”

That is your loss Stephen; I guess you just want to remain uninformed. Maddow and the rest on MSNBC are complete idiots; I would be ashamed to say I listen to them. They are mean spirited and evil flows from their lips.

Never fail to see you jump in and defend Frank and Dodd. You can’t get over I can you?

Jlw said:

“Phil, you are barking up the wrong tree with me. Unlike Stephen, I think Frank and Dodd were contributors to the government actions that helped precipitate the economic collapse.”

Well praise God jlw; will miracles never cease. Yes they were involved up to their lying eyeballs.

“What do you think of Newt’s promise to change the law so he can arrest the conservative Supreme Court justices over the unpopular Citizens United ruling?”
Posted by: jlw at December 20, 2011 8:01 PM

What do I think…I think it’s just talk? Promises that every politician on both sides says in order to get elected. Presidents can do very little unless they have the backing of the Congress, or unless they are willing to overuse executive orders. So most promises go in one ear and out the other. I’m sure you understand; Obama made all kinds of promises.

I find Stephen’s continual defense of Frank and Dodd boring. Just like I find his continual defense of Obama disturbing. I believe Stephen is much like Matthews who gets a warm tingle up his leg when the name Obama is mentioned. I think this kind of messiah mentality is kind of sick, JMHO.

Posted by: Phil at December 20, 2011 11:01 PM
Comment #333368

And how many clients did Attorney Obama have other than Acorn? Esteemed Attorney Obama had none other than Acorn.

Adrienne

It you don’t feed trolls, how do you eat?

Posted by: tom humes at December 21, 2011 5:58 AM
Comment #333369

“During the 2004 presidential campaign, Bush routinely touted his “ownership society.”

Let me add, phx8, that the Bush home “ownership” message and programs were almost exclusively directed at minorities. That was where the growth opportunities were for housing and credit expansion.

The dependence of the economy, at that time, on the housing industry and low interest cash out equity loans should have been a clear warning sign. The housing “credit card” masked fundamental weaknesses in the US economy which have become apparent upon the collapse of the housing bubble. Blaming Democrats for this collapse simply ignores reality.

Quite frankly, both sides would do well to focus more on economic development rather than endless budget and fiscal debates. What’s the Republican plan for economic development, job creation, etc.? There doesn’t seem to be any. Democratic plans for infrastructure repair, development, etc. have been shotgun without real focus. What’s the priority? Energy? Transportation? Education? Inner cities? Neither side seems capable of addressing the loss of our manufacturing base and the increasing loss of high tech service jobs to oversea competition.

Posted by: Rich at December 21, 2011 9:54 AM
Comment #333370

tom humes-

And how many clients did Attorney Obama have other than Acorn? Esteemed Attorney Obama had none other than Acorn.

Did you have to make your claim this ridiculously easy to disprove, or do you just enjoy being wrong on the principle facts of your claim?

KAP-

Stephen, I watch and listen to all the news sources and weigh my opinions on what I hear and see.

But you seem to repeat the same talking points that I see coming from a select few outlets, principly the conservative ones.

But I also look at my surroundings to see if what the news sources are saying is true. Things may be peachy in Texas where you are from but where I’m from here in Ohio things are bleak.

I don’t doubt they’re bleaker than here, but Texas has significant problems of its own, and ranks low in terms of many measures. Thanks to the policies of the Republicans here, we not only had a monstrous shortfall fiscally, but the means of lifting that shortfall included draconian cuts to basic services, including education.

I cannot blame the current govenor for our problems because he hasn’t been in office long enough to really make a difference much like our current House of Representatives in DC.

You mean the Republican majority that was elected at the same time as John Kasich? Kasich and That Congress both share an unfortunate distinction: They’re both deeply underwater in their approval ratings. You might not blame them, but a lot of your fellow Buckeye State residents do, to the tune of 36% approvals and 51% disapprovals. The vote on repealing his collective bargaining law ended up going over sixty percent against him.

As for Obama? He is smooth. But he’s also very, very good at his job, and he’s helped this country fight back from some truly awful problems.

Phil-
Uninformed? That’s a claim you’re going to have to do better in proving. I specifically rejected FOXNews because a significant portion of their reporting on the war was getting discredited. If I stuck with them, I would be worse than uninformed, I would know worse than nothing about the relevant issues.

I didn’t defend Frank and Dodd unconditionally. I believe they voted for many of the laws that got us into this mess. That said, so did nearly all Republicans, on each of their vote. If Frank and Dodd are responsible in this fashion, so are just about all the folks you’re trying to protect with your BS.

And that is what your charges are. Dodd’s piece of legislation came in 2008, long after the formative events and trends of the financial crisis had already been laid down. The event that had Barney Franks implicated strangely enough occured during the time in which Republicans had complete control of Congress, and leadership on the committees, which is about 2003.

Meanwhile, the fortunes of Fannie and Freddie, in terms of securing new loans to sell to the secondary market, went in the opposite direction of the bubble, their market share deflating, and their private counterparts taking up more of that market share instead.

If you were right, the rise in the bubble would have been a rise in the market share of Fannie and Freddie, but they’re not.

More to the point, what loans the CRA covered banks and the GSEs did take did not actually contribute to the subprime crisis. The loans they dealt with actually had lower delinquency rates, and ended up being far less risky.

If what you were saying were true, the GSEs would have higher than average rates of deliquency, and the loans themselves would have turned out to be riskier. Neither happened.

So, I can come to the following simple conclusions:

Dodd’s legislation came too late to prevent or cause the economic meltdown.

Frank’s legislation could not have passed without the full cooperation of a Congress that was ostensibly opposed to his politics

Fannie and Freddie’s market behavior was not as Republicans have charged. Their loans were delinquent less often, and safer investments to boot, even in low-income neighborhoods that were targeted for improved financing.

Fannie and Freddie’s market share doesn’t reflect either the size or scale of excessive lending that was required to set the SubPrime crisis in motion. The bubble and the GSE’s market share went in opposite directions.

This isn’t about defending Chris Dodd or Barney Franks agaisnt their real mistakes, supporting the legislation that made much of the financial crisis possible. This is about correcting a badly misleading story as to the causes, one that exists in contradiction of the facts.

If the facts are as they are, your side takes more of the blame and requires more reform than ours, neither of which they seem eager to do. The Republicans want to pretend that the financial crisis and the Subprime crisis that preceded it were not the result of their laissez faire market policies, that everything was the result of… well, socialism, providing the poor with help the rest of us couldn’t really afford to give them.

The truth was, though, using derivatives as a means to hedge and transfer liabilities, private lenders and financial sector companies targeted the poor for loans they knew these people could never repay. All the better, in fact, so the fees, late charges and interest could mount, and the hot-potato bad risk could be charged off to become somebody else’s financial problem.

However, this reality, if acknowledged, would require Republicans to at least rethink how they express their laissez faire philosophies in policy.

And they don’t want to do that right now!

So, instead, they’re going to scapegoat Democrats, and act like socialism, not the greedy schemes of underregulated capitalists, were what brought the system down.

In my opinion, there’s no point to letting you guys get away with that. Y’all need to face that your policies did not turn out as expected.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 21, 2011 11:35 AM
Comment #333371

Stephen, What part of CONSERVATIVE INDEPENDENT do you not understand. Of course I am going to have conservative thoughts just like you have liberal ones. Like I said the Govenor and the state legislature have only had less than a year. Your party had total control of the countries House, Senate and their numbers were in the tank now the presidents numbers are lower than 50% so what’s your point?

Posted by: KAP at December 21, 2011 12:22 PM
Comment #333373

tom humes:

Adrienne

It you don’t feed trolls, how do you eat?

Fillet of conservative, with some fava beans and a nice chianti.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 21, 2011 2:07 PM
Comment #333374

KAP-
What does it tell you that the President’s numbers have been rising since he started dumping the bipartisan presentation, and started taking the fight to the Republicans?

The real problem for Republicans is that their policies and politics are largely responsible for the status quo so many people hate, and all they can offer are symbolic (and often useless) ideological solutions.

As for your first question? How you can call yourself independent when you take such a doctrinaire approach on your assessment of anybody who’s not a Republican. That’s what I can’t understand. And it’s not just you! I don’t know how many times I’ve responded to somebody basically talking like a Republican, only to have them angrily insist that they are independents.

Worse yet, the word seems to describe more the fact that they can’t stand the parties, than it describes any kind of originality or initiative in their thinking. I would think that one of the benefits of not feeling it necessary to declare a certain party loyalty is that you could play the cards as they lay, but your posts seem to be filled with nothing but the most generalized and degenerated of propaganda from Republican-connected sources. You buy all of the major bull**** theories about Obama.

As for what the job ratings tell us? Well, since Obama’s stayed well above where Bush was, and seems to be staging a recovery, while many Republicans do the opposite, my thinking is that the low ratings all around come from the fact that all the obstructionism and resistance to reform aren’t playing well with the general public. They’re not enamored of small government the way they once were. They might respond in favor of it as a indoctrinated reflex, but once you hash out the details, they seem to be in favor of a lot of policies that conservatives have forsaken as socialist.

I won’t go so far as to say Republicans are doomed this election cycle, but I can say that I’m not too worried about my party’s prospects in comparison to the GOP’s, and your carbon copy complaints, won’t go so far in changing my mind.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 21, 2011 2:10 PM
Comment #333375

Stephen, Most liberals don’t have conservative thoughts or talk like a conservative so what’s your point. Both parties obstruct 25 bills sent to the senate by this house have been tabled or not even brought up for consideration by Harry Reid. QWe can argue sources all day long. Like I statesd awhile ago in this blog if you want a liberal point of view you go to Huff post, KOS, MSNBC ABC CBS OR NBC if you want a conseervative point you go to FOX nd if you want the truth you find out for yourself. By the way my conservative thoughts may coinside with REPUBLICAN THOUGHT but does that mean all liberal thought is Democrat?

Posted by: KAP at December 21, 2011 2:27 PM
Comment #333376

phx8 and Rich,

Important points.

Rich:

Neither side seems capable of addressing the loss of our manufacturing base and the increasing loss of high tech service jobs to oversea competition.

It’s true, and since corporate media never hammers on that topic at all, both sides now think they can ignore it entirely. Once in a while on the campaign trail or at a town hall someone will ask why the government refuses to deal with this issue, and we get blown off with non-answers that always sound like this.

Posted by: Adrienne at December 21, 2011 2:29 PM
Comment #333377

:^D
How the Gingrich Stole Christmas!

Posted by: Adrienne at December 21, 2011 3:26 PM
Comment #333383

SD

Those were not his clients. They belonged to the firm he worked for. And in some of those he was not the lead attorney even.

His only client was Acorn.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at December 21, 2011 4:25 PM
Comment #333385

tom humes-
If he did work on their case as part of that firm, they were his clients.

You just don’t want to admit you lead with the rhetoric instead of the facts. It’s understandable the first few dozen times, but at this point it just signifies that you don’t know who you’re talking about.

KAP-
The Republicans nearly doubled the previous record on filibusters, and then basically repeated that total in the next Congress. They pulled every procedural trick in the book, and have wholesale blocked many of Obama’s appointments through non-democratic means- which is to say, these appointees weren’t blocked through up-or-down votes.

They are blocking many candidates without reason, despite approval from both sides of the aisle. They’re blocking people they praised.

The Republicans are trying to get what they want despite lacking majorities, despite lacking Obama’s veto pen. Since they’re devoted to getting everything done in the purest purist spirit of conservatism, that pretty much means that things don’t get done in a very timely manner unless their opposition commits political suicide by agreeing to compromises that basically push hard-right policies.

Folks, predictably enough, have gotten sick of this. That’s half the reason why Obama not only is driving harder bargains, but throwing rhetorical grenades the GOP’s way. He’s come to understand that the public thirst for bipartisanship wasn’t an end in and of itself, that people wanted that so that the problems of the country could be dealt with. Obama’s popularity was sinking because he was giving the store away to folks who couldn’t get their act together and take yes for an answer, for fear of seeming like they were agreeing with Obama, rather than dictating terms.

The funny thing about that is that the presence of such reckless hardliners has become a weakening, rather than strengthening force for the GOP. Even the Wall Street Journal is cussing out the House GOP for failing to vote in the Senate compromise on the payroll tax cut. Not to mention the fact they actually used to like it, until it became a success for Obama.

I know I have liberal thoughts, and Democratic thoughts, and so do independents of a more liberal variety. However, I don’t have much more respect for doctrinaires on my side than I have for those on yours. Frankly, my inclination is to look at the real world and shape policy and the compromises you’re willing to make from there.

Which means that I’m willing to indulge conservative experiments, if they might work. If they didn’t, then I’d say we should deep six them. It also means that I have very little respect for those who just repeat propaganda, yet have no idea of what premises they base their sensibility on. I respect better the person who can tell me what bugs them about a policy, than those who just catapult a word salad of slogans my way, and try to intimidate me by calling me a socialist.

That’s why I signed on as a writer here in the first place. I used to argue politics on much less moderated sites than this. I tell you, nothing matches the charm of having your basic right to live questioned with most of the seven words you can’t say on television brought to bear.

I hope you understand that what I’m really looking for are folks who want an actual debate, not just advocates who fling out unexamined talking points. Just look at Tom Humes there. a couple minutes with google, and he’s left trying to weasel out of a factual failure with a technicality.

Is this really what’s going to promote conservatism? Will this really help the GOP to hold back the demand for bigger government and more regulation? Republicans have gotten flabby when it comes to justifying their beliefs, because their system has gotten to where they only have to justify those beliefs to others just like them. They don’t have to actively prove themselves to a skeptical audience, and in fact look at doing that as a sign of weakness. They see good manners, intellectual rigor, and the respect of their opponents as a sign of weakness.

You have to ask yourself a question: will the GOP go anywhere fast if it’s not spreading it’s ideas sustainably? My aim as a partisan for my side is to make policies I believe in attractive and sensible to an audience. I want more people to buy my point of view after I’m done than there were before. Can folks on the right afford to keep their lights under the basket? Will they be able to do anything but, if their politics amounts to mindless contradiction and obstruction, coupled with a who-gives-a-crap attitude towards party outsiders?

You can’t stop people from questioning what you believe. You can deprive them of good premises from which to make those questions. I remember the good conservative debaters from my time back in college, and really wish that I saw more of their like here. Unfortunately, the conservative movements had terrible examples to imitate these last few years.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 21, 2011 6:42 PM
Comment #333386

Stephen, When your side blocks candidates it’s OK, when your side filibusters it’s OK. Spare me the partisian BS. If a liberal came up with something good I might indulge myself with it. The last good thing I have seen a liberal do was Clinton when he limited welfare but there were to many holes in the legislation and to tell you the truth I liked Clinton and voted for him. I probably would have voted for Hillary if you guys didn’t screw that up. I was all for HCR till your side screwed that up. Your side should have let the providers compete across state lines. I also probably would have voted Democrat when Bush was running but your side picked two losers.

Posted by: KAP at December 21, 2011 7:11 PM
Comment #333389


Kap says Obama and the Democrats had the power to do anything they wanted to do.

Stephen says that is not true, Republicans obstructed.

Neither point is relevant, The Democrats did what they were paid to do. In a back room of the White House.

Posted by: jlw at December 21, 2011 7:58 PM
Comment #333390

Good point jlw!!!!!!!!

Posted by: KAP at December 21, 2011 8:12 PM
Comment #333396

KAP-
My side blocked five candidates, passed the rest, and still your side threatened the Nuclear Option, saying that filibustering was unconstitutional. We compromised.

Your side then proceeded to block nearly everybody we’ve offered for the bench, and many of Obama’s advisors, even the ones who have bipartisan support. You’ve blocked almost double the laws we blocked, and rarely with any intention of actually letting anything pass.

I’ve never argued that my side are angels on this count, but you seem to be arguing equivalence despite the documentable, comparative excess of your side’s obstruction.

As for losers? I voted for two men, who while not as exciting and charismatic as Obama, were actually competent when it came to government. You voted for Bush. You want to talk about losers, I got your loser right there.

Modern Conservatism, it seems, is mostly about saying black when Democrats say white, and accuse Democrats of being socialists for their choice. That’s not a political philosophy, that’s free floating hostility to your rivals. Republicans will never be able to reclaim a greater vision of America, if all they do is badmouth everybody else’s idea. Of course, if you want to keep on trying people’s patience and chasing around the Democrat’s positions, be my guest. We’ll just take advantage of people’s aggravation with you, and develop a more consistent, compelling idea of where America should go.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 22, 2011 11:12 AM
Comment #333397

Stephen, I didn’t vote for Bush. Assumption is the mother of all screw ups and you seem to be the King of assumptions.
Your above post does nothing but spout politics as usual and what politicians do when they can’t agree. You are a partisian Democrat and it shows. Stephen I have told you time and again that I have NO politics but being Conservative and independent of any major political party. Democrats of late have tended to be more and more socialist as they get more and more liberal. As I have stated I don’t like Obama and would have preferred Hillary but you guys screwed up and nominated Obama. I do not vote in primaries except for local issues. I stand by the fact that your side picked 2 losers to run against Bush, Kerry might be a good Senator but that is up to Mass. to decide.

Posted by: KAP at December 22, 2011 11:45 AM
Comment #333400

KAP-
I’m the king of the mother of all screw-ups?

Sorry. Just a joke. Seriously, though, I’ve made no secret of what I support, that I’m not completely objective here. If you think you can disqualify me merely on the count that I’m not some objective fellow floating above the fray in the lotus position, well then I’m sorry. I have a point of view that I prefer.

I like to back my points up, though. You say Obama is a loser. I say Obama won by ten million votes and 192 electoral votes, and did so by winning a primary against an establishment party leader with an upstart organization model of his home. That, with a funny name, skin color that wasn’t white, and the Reverend Wright controversy dogging him. That with every Republican looking to shoot him down so the eight years of Bush could continue.

Obama has yet to completely crater, like you folks predicted. He’s managed to come back almost all the way up to majority job approval, which is more than can be said for the House of Representatives he opposes.

If you want to underestimate him, be my guest. You’ll help him get re-elected. But anybody who says we screwed up by nominating him has the burden to present a case where a massive uphill victory like his represents anything but a triumph.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 22, 2011 4:01 PM
Comment #333401

Stephen, Explain to me where I said Obama is a loser? I stated I DO NOT LIKE OBAMA I WOULD HAVE PREFERRED HILLARY BUT YOU GUYS SCREWED UP AND NOMINATED OBAMA, where is it saying that he is a loser. You read to much into other peoples posts that are not fact. Stephen we will see what his job approval is in the next 10 months prior to the elections. He had great job approval when he started but slowly came down to what it is today. Congress’ job aproval has been in the crapper for a long time even when Democrats had control now so what’s your point? I’m not going to disqualify you because of what you believe in, you can believe what ever you want. What I see that is messed up is the fact that you constantly want republicans to be more like democrats and saying republicans should do what the democrats are proposing IMO that dosen’t make sence, it wouldn’t be a two party system then. Then the fact that other people have a different opinion or conservative thoughts and you make them out to be Republicans, what is it, everyone has to think like a liberal? Liberals are right and everyone else is stupid? If liberals were so great you would have more than the 20% of voters you have now.

Posted by: KAP at December 22, 2011 4:57 PM
Comment #333404

KAP-
Okay, now I’m clear: he’s not a loser, but his nomination was a screw-up!

To be clear, Congress’s approvals have gone down, even as they have repetitively gone after Obama and frustrated his agenda. Who’s the real bad choice, the one who endures, and actually gets some things done when he has the power to get things done, or the people who end up making entirely voluntary screw-ups that put our economy at risk?

As for the 20%?

You need to understand something here: The source for such sentiments come from Gallup polls measuring self-identification. Those same polls, though, show that Democrats are only about 38% Self-identified Liberal. The remainder is about 40% moderate, and 20% conservative.

Another thing to note: self-identification polls are notoriously unreliable as a predictor of actual politics.

The game here is that anything less than Hard-Right politics gets the liberal label slapped onto it, and the socialist label too, these days.

So the question is, how do what you call liberal attitudes align with self-identified liberals? If you see all these polls for Democratic Party-favored attitudes, like support for tax hikes against the rich, greater regulation of Wall Street, support for the Public Option, and other various interventions, the lack of alignment is profoundly obvious. What you would call Liberal is supported by many moderates, independents, and even Republicans.

The labels, it seems, aren’t very helpful in providing an accurate picture of where America’s politics lay, especially since Democrats split their ranks roughly equally between those who declare themselves moderate and those who call themselves liberal, whereas Republicans are dominated by a supermajority of self-described conservatives.

Perhaps what it measures is greater confidence in the label of conservatism, not necessarily greater appeal for the policies set behind it. Republicans have sold the name of conservatism well, but its policies are not so popular as its name.

Is it any wonder that the man many Republicans call a Republican in name only is shaping up to be the default candidate for the party? Conservatives have better brand loyalty, but not better ideological loyalty than the Democrats have. If you think otherwise, ask yourself why it’s so tough to cut benefits for Social Security and Medicare? Conservatism in America is mostly aspirational, not all that pragmatic these days, especially after OWS has changed the conversation.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 22, 2011 5:55 PM
Comment #333455

SD

Took time to catch up on a couple of threads above.

I never use Google.

Sly attempt to discredit my correct posture.

You can’t falsely accuse people. Your saintly attitude will step on your gonads every time.

Have a turly Merry Christmas each and every one of you that just read or just write on WB.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at December 23, 2011 5:24 PM
Comment #333545

tom humes-
You made a very specific, very cleanly testable claim: Obama had only one client, ACORN. A few minutes research uncovered several clients. Your argument fails a fundamental test of its own inference, and is unsound on the basic facts.

There’s nothing sly about this. What shocks me is that you think there’s anything especially sly about such an obvious, simple refutation. You said he only one client and failed to prove it, I said he has more, and I bring proof of other clients. I win.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 25, 2011 10:27 PM
Comment #333564

SD

You made a statement about the clients belonging to the law firm not to Obama. period. You won nothing. I stand by my claim. There are not winners or losers. Things are going the wrong way for you.

Posted by: tom humes at December 26, 2011 1:01 PM
Comment #333565

Your right Stephen after a few minutes research we come to find that Obama was a junior partner in a law firm in Chicago and ASSISTED other lawyers with their clients. If you go on to read the firm knew Obama had political asperations and aided him in those asperations and that he had NO real clients other than Acorn.

Posted by: KAP at December 26, 2011 2:34 PM
Comment #333571

Thanks KAP for the backup. If I say anything more it could provoke someone to kick me off.

Posted by: tom humes at December 26, 2011 7:48 PM
Comment #333573

Tom, Judson Miner, Obama’s old boss even said that Obama only partisipated in about 30 cases. He only worked for the firm full time for 3 years and counceled for 7. I guess after that was his political career which was much like his career with his former law firm full time some then part time the rest.

Posted by: KAP at December 26, 2011 8:26 PM
Comment #333575

KAP

Sometimes it just does not make sense to even go to any extent to prove some things to the liberal mindset. A phone call from Obama to SD with the info you gave would not be enough. I got the info from another source. I don’t like to write essays to make my point. Others do. Nothing wrong with that it is just not the way I do things.

Hope your 2012 is prosperous not just in the financial way, but with your family and health.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at December 26, 2011 11:06 PM
Comment #333576

Likewise Tom.

Posted by: KAP at December 26, 2011 11:10 PM
Comment #333586

tom humes-
If, as a member of his law firm he assisted other lawyers with their clients, they were his clients, too, for all intents and purposes. He could not be made to divulge their secrets, he would be writing briefs, taking depositions, doing other things for them. A person who I know, who is a lawyer, says this is the normal way of things for young lawyers starting out

Even so, if they are a client of the firm, they are his clients, too. If he did work on their behalf, writing up motions, doing research and the like, then they were his clients.

I’m really curious to know what the grounds are upon which you make your distinction, because I’m sure that in the eyes of the law, Obama was their lawyer, just like anybody else the firm had work on their cases was. That Lawyer I mentioned just summarily dismissed your case that they were not his clients, simply because he wasn’t the lead on their cases.

In terms of the liberal mindset? That’s a dumb attack. You want to know why? Because to anybody else than a far-right ideologue, it sounds like partisan sniping. Nobody else takes that BS remotely seriously.

As for Essay writing? I’m not someone who writes casually, for the most part. If you have a problem with that, it’s your problem, not mine. I simply communicate in a way that’s comfortable to me. I do my best to make what I say interesting, correct, and salient, but I also like to nail my points down rather than leave loose ends.

KAP-
Then he had about thirty clients. There’s not much use in disputing this. tom’s point was meant to imply that he really just was an agent of socialist forces, or something like that, and nothing else besides.

What Obama was, was a newly minted lawyer who spent most of his time doing the grunt work that the junior associates in a law firm do. It’s not easy, simple, or short work. Obama’s situation, in other words, was not as remarkable as you think.

Television often gives the impression that firms work dozens and dozens of cases all at once, but really, firms often work on a few case, and handle them in depth.

As for the brevity of his legal career? Obama did two things after those first three years: he became a professor (Or lecturer, if you want to be technical about it) at a top tier law school, and later, a State Senator. Far from being lazy, Obama was doing a lot of work.

You don’t get where Obama’s gotten without a lot of work. He is generally regarded as very hard working by those who actually know him. Those who claim otherwise are usually rivals seeking to paint a false picture of him to play into reprehensible stereotypes.

Well, all this arguing aside, happy holidays to everybody. I hope you had a Merry Christmas, and I wish all of you a happy new year’s day, and a happy new year period. :-)

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 27, 2011 11:45 AM
Comment #333588

Stephen, Having 30 clients and assisting or partisipating in 30 cases is not the same. As you said he did the grunt work of which most new lawyers attached to firms do. They were not his clients per say but the clients of the lead attorneys

Posted by: KAP at December 27, 2011 1:16 PM
Comment #333589

Stephen By the way Have a Happy and Prosperous New Year.

Posted by: KAP at December 27, 2011 1:18 PM
Comment #333626

Some of this spam and garbage has been up well past the time the editor or WB policeman to take them down.

Posted by: tom humes at December 28, 2011 11:03 AM
Post a comment