Simplistic Message Befuddled in the Real World

As the Obama Administration entered its third week the soaring rhetoric that propelled it to election-day history in November has found tough slogging in the political swamps built in the floodplain of the Potomac.

Political writers have begun even to hand out critiques disguised as news stories as the easily digestible messages of the campaign began to produce heartburn on Capitol Hill.

Obama’s decision to provide broad guidelines for the stimulus -- “targeted, timely and temporary” -- rather than issuing specific legislation, was done in deference to Hill lawmakers, especially the Democratic leaders that lord over the legislative branch.

But it’s hardly a secret that the president found unhelpful the House Democrats’ decision to slip funding for special groups into its version of his stimulus bill.

Funding to allow Medicaid programs to provide contraceptives as part of its family planning services to low income recipients was the Republicans’ first easy mark for attacking the legislation.
On top of that Obama's cadre of supporters began to display unmistakable signs of being tone deaf to the sensitivites of the reality of their man being president of ALL the people. From the Politico article-
More discordant, however, was the impact of a radio ad by Americans United for Change.
“Are you with Rush or with Obama?” the commentator asked.
The commercial ran in only three states, but it wound up capturing national headlines, elevating a mere radio talk show host to presidential status and sending the White House efforts to recruit moderate Republican support wildly off message
The "mere radio talk-show host" line, echoing the sentiments of television interviewers post-inauguration, shows one of the most powerful, and potentially crippling deficits of the nascent administration; a deep insensitivity to conservative, and even moderate Americans' conceptions of the role of participatory citizenship.

Further complicating the Obama Administration's message problems is the fact that what sounds simple in a campaign can quickly become contradictory down in the swamps. Obama ran on a message of putting our reputation right with the world, but the reaction in Europe to potential stimulus plans, now that they have entered into the peristalsis of Congress, has been anything but a lovefest:

Just weeks after hailing Obama's election, E.U. officials are now howling that his plans are putting a global economic recovery at risk. They want Obama to resist any retreat into protectionism, warning that it could turn the recession into a 1930s-style slump.

Add to these issues the fact that the new administration has, by Obama's own admission, stumbled into the impression it accepted a double standard on ethics and you have a disconnect between the ideals of change and the realities of politics-as-usual.

The new administration was elected in the atmosphere of a tent revival. When the tent folds up and the newly saved have to face the real world of temptations, greed, arrogance, and a world full of other people they are faced with the very real challenges of figuring out what "change" actually means.

The followers of the congregation of Obama are finding out that is hard to do.

Posted by Lee Emmerich Jamison at February 5, 2009 9:42 AM
Comment #275034


It has been known all along that Democrats do not walk in lockstep with their leaders. Democrats can be beaten every time by a solid front, no matter how ignorant the front may happen to be.

Lamebrain may get his way, and Obama’s administration may fail. I hope at the end of it all it has been worth all the togetherness you all have contrived.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 5, 2009 10:22 AM
Comment #275039

Who is “Lamebrain”? Rush?

If the Obama Administration “fails” it won’t be because of Rush Limbaugh. Republicans failed because of Republicans. If Democrats fail it will be because of Democrats.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at February 5, 2009 12:05 PM
Comment #275041


Much was made by Rush about the comments Obama made about him. Whether or not I agree with either one of them, I seriously doubt that taking the “Oath of Office” requires Obama to discard his opinions once he assumes the office.
On another issue;
Much hay was made by the commentators on the right about how the auto workers needed to take a pay cut, that the unions were greedy to suggest that the workers might keep the “gains” they have made over the years, and that $30.00 an hour was just too much to ask for.
Now many of these same commentators are appalled that Obama might ask for a cap on the wages and benefits that Wall Street CEOs that are “on the dole” so to speak because their companies are being rescued.

Am I the only one that sees a double standard here?


Posted by: Rocky Marks at February 5, 2009 12:25 PM
Comment #275043

Nobody expects Obama to discard his opinions. This piece has much more to do with how the simplicity of Obama’s message made it possible for people to see in him anything they wanted to see, and how wanting him to BE what they thought they saw is really a different matter.

As to the pay cap publicity ploy, and it is nothing more than that, it doesn’t even address the issue that spawned it! That was the news of ridiculous bonuses paid to middle-level brokers that sometimes ran to the millions. Those bonuses are unaffected by the cap.

OK, Obama can play cap-and-switch. Want to solve the economy’s problems? Deal with the fact that huge money is going to keep extremely bright people in the financial services sector, where we’ve seen they actually do more harm than good. A rational system will put huge money in places where innovation today will produce technologies that can be turned into jobs tomorrow. That means funding scientific research in areas at the edge of current understanding. It means space programs and chemistry and mathematics. It means astronomy and serious music programs where people learn how to read the mathematical notation we call written music, and serious art programs where people learn how to draw and scale images up as people did in classical educations for wealthy folk a century ago and more.

It means teaching foreign languages with an eye to revealing the intellectual heritage buried in the linguistic roots we share.

Woah, dude… Not sexy.

Yeah, and it means remaking culture into something intended more for the development of successful human beings than for the entertainment of ne’er-do-well escapist adults.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at February 5, 2009 12:54 PM
Comment #275045

Lee, I just love your prose…”The new administration was elected in the atmosphere of a tent revival. When the tent folds up and the newly saved have to face the real world of temptations, greed, arrogance, and a world full of other people they are faced with the very real challenges of figuring out what “change” actually means.”

Wow…that was powerful and elicits an accurate image. I recall reading a snippet from one of PO’s books that, if I recall correctly, portrayed himself as a blank slate upon which a diverse electorate could write their own most cherished political objectives.

PO is beginning to remind me of the movie “The Portrait of Darian Gray” or something like that. The plot involved a man who had a portrait of himself hidden away in his attic that would reflect the nefarious deeds done by Gray while the actual man remained unchanged in appearance. The portrait contained the soul of Gray which grew more hideous as the soul-less man remained attractive.

I draw this comparison to Gray as I wonder what PO’s soul will look like at the end of his term. Will it continue to resemble the man, or be distorted and ugly? One can hope that PO will not sell his soul, and America to the highest bidder.

Posted by: Jim M at February 5, 2009 1:04 PM
Comment #275046

You can look at the gains in the congress in 2006 and 2008 by the Democratic congress they were mostly by moderate and conservative Democrats. and there backing off some, Sooner or later they will have to answer to there own folks at home.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at February 5, 2009 1:12 PM
Comment #275048

Jim M,

Perhaps you might want to read the Oscar Wilde novel “The Picture of Dorian Grey”, instead of relying on the “tarted up” Hollywood version.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at February 5, 2009 1:28 PM
Comment #275050

Rodney Brown, your insight is one of a couple reasons I have for many moons argued that Obama’s biggest hurdle on route to success will be the Democrats in Congress.

This stimulus bill may actually not pass due to an alignment between Republicans and the Blue Dog Democrats, though I must add, those Blue Dogs live in states that will benefit considerably if this stimulus package passes, warts and all. So, home political networks may cause Blue Dogs to pull the rug out from under Republicans at the last moment of voting on this bill. Hard to say either way.

Little else matters to the American people right now other than their job security or safety net if they have already lost their job, and or home. This stimulus bill is really the only political issue the majority of Americans are paying attention to, if they are paying attention at all.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 5, 2009 1:45 PM
Comment #275053

Rodney Brown-
You’re being very charitable in your assessment. You have to believe that a majority are against federal economic stimulus, which they’re not. The best Republicans are doing is selling doubt about the bill, not about the agenda in general.

Which means that your people are one good explanation away from having to explain to their constituents what THEY are doing.

Jim M-
That’s The Portrait of Dorian Gray. And you folks have been alleging he was a two faced liar all along, so what else is new?

Lee Jamison-
Rush Limbaugh says, “I want Obama to fail.” Even takes the trouble to insist that this is the headline he wants the paper to read.

The Republican’s talk about being a Taliban-Style insurgency against the advance of Liberalism.

The Republicans in the House, in total unison, with no warning or threat made, vote against the stimulus bill. Reason given? It didn’t stimulate the economy their way, with tax cuts for the rich.

The Republicans, in response to Obama’s across the board outreach, have essentially decided to fortify and make like it’s the Seige of Jerusalem.

Just who here is failing to serve general interests rather than theirs alone?

Analysis like that in the article has a way with running away with itself, conclusions drawn from loaded questions, failures imputed along lines of rhetorical least resistance, rather than along chains of causality.

The Republicans are the ones who can choose to respond or not respond to Democratic outreach. Their decision? They responded against it, bitterly, as an organization. That smells more of strategy than individual initiative. The GOP as an organization has decided to get in the stimulus packages way.

The thing they have to to decide right now is whether they want to play for today’s headlines, or history’s verdict. Failing to do the latter has lead them on an eight year decline the likes of which can mark the end of a party as a national presence, if the party leaders do not relent.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 5, 2009 1:57 PM
Comment #275057

Joe Klein asks reporters not to make the mistake he did in covering Clinton’s economic stimulus plan from 1993, which not only succeed, but was far more of a mess to legislate than this plan.

Or, long story short, a veteran reporter is telling us that Obama’s doing better than Clinton did at this point, and Clinton was wildly successful.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 5, 2009 2:25 PM
Comment #275058

“Which means that your people are one good explanation away from having to explain to their constituents what THEY are doing”

Why? Their constituents are the ones swamping them with emails and phone calls telling them NOT to vote for it. I have done both, many many times myself.
If the Dems will not get rid of the tons and tons of BS in the stimulus package, the GOP as an organization, has no choice but to do what they are being told to do by their supporters.

You are going to have to stop blaming others and just accept that 46%+ of Americans do not like or agree with liberal policy and they will demand they are represented as such. I know I do.

Posted by: kctim at February 5, 2009 2:33 PM
Comment #275059

You Noticed i said there backing off some! There’s That Question you know like what do i do! And like i said before on this red site about the supreme court what’s the fuss all about because the two oldest members were the most liberal, I hope the best for her .

Posted by: Rodney Brown at February 5, 2009 2:39 PM
Comment #275063


Clinton’s 1993 stimulus plan failed. But the supposed “recession” had really been a figment of pre-election reporting anyway.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at February 5, 2009 3:14 PM
Comment #275064

Pancreatic cancer…

That’s awful.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at February 5, 2009 3:16 PM
Comment #275065

Daugherty writes; “The thing they have to to decide right now is whether they want to play for today’s headlines, or history’s verdict.”

Yawn…didn’t we hear this same liberal pablum about the surge strategy in Iraq. Now, liberals are quiet as mice since it has succeeded.

Conservatives understand that a stimulus plan that fails to stimulate is worse than no plan.

Posted by: Jim M at February 5, 2009 3:20 PM
Comment #275067

Rocky and Daugherty make a point of correcting my spelling of the name Dorian with Rocky suggesting I read the book. I thank them for the correction and suggestion. I’ll read it when I am finished reading the six volume book set of Winston Churchill’s account of his memories of WWII. I find many parallels of his time with the present.

Churchill’s warning cry of impending doom consistently fell upon deaf ears as the government and public were unable to think beyond tomorrow and their immediate gratification. Stupid, reckless and asinine public policy following the lead of a majority of its citizens lulled into complacency by its leaders nearly cost the empire everything.

Today, we are being rushed into stupid, reckless and asinine spending as we are lulled into believing in political deliverance from our financial problems. If it feels good today we must do it, we’ll worry about the consequences tomorrow on someone else’s watch.

Posted by: Jim M at February 5, 2009 3:37 PM
Comment #275073

Lockstep into oblivion…too bad the rest of us can’t get out of the parade. There is no way 46% of Americans can agree to disagree with the stimulus plan…45% have no idea what they are in for, or how culpable they are…HEIL sig HEIL! We’ll follow you anywhere der Fathead…

Posted by: Marysdude at February 5, 2009 4:57 PM
Comment #275074

Jim M,

Nobody is perfectly prescient but when liberals are wrong (Wilson consistently before W.W.I, Britain and France before W.W.II, etc., etc.) the things that happen as a result are just so hideously bad it’s hard to believe they ever recover any credibility.

Now they are going to try to outdo policies that failed all but completely from 1933 to 1941 (and that, in fact, Hoover got started in 1930) as though in an effort to recover lost ‘face’ for economic liberalism. The trouble with the parachute they are constructing is that the bag is filled with everything but a parachute. We’re looking at spending three thousand dollars for every man, woman, and child in the country for a bag loaded with wishful thinking.

I’m still thinking about twelve years to the next historical cataclysm, but with prescience like that of modern Democrats it could be less.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at February 5, 2009 5:04 PM
Comment #275075

The Republicans have plenty of choices. They’re adults. You don’t have to do the obvious thing. You can get creative, then justify it afterwards. Unfortunately, That’s not what they’re going for.

This was what the leader of the NRCC, the congressional Republican organization said, and I think it should put to rest any idea that the Republicans intend to be bipartisan as a matter of course:

NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas) repeated the request during his own briefing for members Friday — telling Republicans that they need to get over the idea that they’re participating in legislation and ought to start thinking of themselves as “an insurgency” instead.

You hear that? Get over the idea that you’re particpating in legislation, and think of yourself as an insurgency.

Well gee, doesn’t that sound like bipartisanship at work.

Lee Jamison-
One version of his economic plan failed, but that doesn’t imply he didn’t pass another. Funny enough, your people were being bipartisan back then, too. Who’d of thought that ten years later they’d be threatening to revoke the right of a Senate member to filibuster when it suited them?

As for a “supposed” recession? First, let’s understand here that the NBER’s terms are very technical: negative growth for two quarters. There’s nothing supposed about a recession there: your linked article talks about an eight month recession in real terms between 1990 and 1991.

Second, lets consider something: the NBER’s numbers are about negative growth in GDP. However, long before and long after, people may be feeling the pinch from that, and feeling it for real. You think people are that gullible, so as to believe tight economic times are going on, when they’re not? No, they’re not. They just have measures that don’t necessarily correspond with GDP, but are every bit as real, if not more so.

Finally, lets be clear about something else: there is nothing unreal about the current recession, even by NBER’s technical standards. There’s also good reason to believe that things are going to get worse before they get better.

The stimulus is clearly necessary because we are on the verge of going into a deflationary spiral, a simultaneous drop in prices and the economic activity that those prices sustain. The credit markets are in no shape to prevent it, and neither are the businesses of America.

If economic self-destruction is your cup of tea, root for the Congressional Republicans, who see themselves more like the Taliban and the guerillas in Iraq than they see themselves as part of a deliberative body.

If your interest is dealing with the rest of us in a calm, mature manner, be my guest. We obviously need all the help we can get.

As for FDR’s failed policies? Maybe you should look at a graph sometime. He succeeded in relieving the economic woes of the country, cutting unemployment by more than half, recovering much of the damage of the previous four years under Hoover.

The trouble was, there was just so much damn damage to undo! You act as if failing to completely resolve the depression is failing to improve the economic situation. You would have the magic market fairy (which makes ponies for free, according to the GOP) cause recovery.

And so what did cause recovery? Massive government jobs programs. Massive infusion of government capital into the economy. Massive near-term investment in industry and infrastructure. In essence, what Obama’s trying to do, only without a war as an reason.

FDR wasn’t wrong, it just took a war to give him the go ahead to tax and spend and borrow enough to pull it off!

Jim M-
Do be a good boy and remind me: when did we leave Iraq? The changes in policy did change things, and for the moment, it seems like they changed for the positive. But it took several years and us handing you folks your ass in a sling for you to even consider those changes seriously. Also, even while you made those changes, around a thousand soldiers were killed in some of the worst violence of the war. So color us presumptuous for doubting the ever capable Bush Administration.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 5, 2009 5:20 PM
Comment #275076

No idea of what they are in for?
They know what they are in for when it passes and it is something they do not want.

Posted by: kctim at February 5, 2009 5:23 PM
Comment #275081

I was a professional artist back in 1991-1992, too, and from firsthand experience I can tell you there is a huge difference between ersatz politically enhanced recession of those years and the very real recession we are in now. When one provides a service people know they can live without one gets a keen sense of when folks who normally don’t feel at risk are frightened.

Technical numbers have a way of cutting through the nonsense spouted by a campaigning press corps.

I have also not stated opposition to stimulus in principle. I have even given my opinion as to what sort of stimulus has a chance to really stimulate the economy. It is heavy on fundamental research and education, the sorts of things that, when applied to real world problems and the deepest questions we can find, can actually make us all better able to create the goods and services that will solve the problems of a burgeoning world.

Let me repeat one thing from a comment above again- $3,000.00 for every man, woman, and child in the United States. For my immediate family alone that is $18,000.00 in additional debt. For Marysdude’s immediate family, as I recall, it is over $30,000.00.

We should all be breathing hot down our congressmen’s necks to be quite sure it is spent very, very well.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at February 5, 2009 7:40 PM
Comment #275084

Now that the House of Representatives and the Senate have made their feeling heard about Americas’ Recovery and Reinvestment Plan I do believe that President Obama his allowed to have his voice heard on the issue. And why this may depart from President Bushs’ “My Way or no way” of passing bills. I do believe that over the next week or two Congress can pass a bill more in turn with the Voice of “We the People” and not “I the Idiot” that stands on both extremes.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 5, 2009 8:14 PM
Comment #275085

The question here is whether the other 54%, in a democracy, should be denied what they want on account of your minority.

Moreover, there’s also a question of whether the unwillingness of the Republicans to go for reasonable compromise is depriving an even more considerable majority of people of a bill that they could live with.

The Republican’s underrepresentation of those people has been a clear reason that they’ve lost constituents. They may choose to side with the Democrats now because they believe siding with the Republicans is economic suicide.

Lee Jamison-
You should be breathing down their necks not to be putting party politics ahead of getting good stimulus passed.

I agree with your idea that it should be money well spent, but my feeling is that if we want this bill to get out in due time and not get stuck in a morass of politics, that the Republicans had better be willing to compromise, because nobody’s going to have the same opinion on what’s good spending.

As far as the recession goes, there are always events and trends in parts of the economy that go South before it hits official recession territory, and parts which lag behind the recovery, and as Bush’s performance with Katrina haunted him long after New Orleans was dried out, so too did the recessions hurt the elder Bush in his time.

Let me be plain about politics and the media: they can only exaggerate so much before they lose credibility. The problem of considering things in terms of media bias is that it becomes the go-to explanation for voter dissatisfaction, and that itself becomes a reason that the politicians don’t address the real causes of that satisfaction aggressively enough.

It can also convince people to only listen to partisan sources, to only serve the most partisan elements of their party. It becomes a vicious feedback loop alienating party and even party members from other folks in society.

So, there’s a danger to considering the complaints about a declining economy the result of uncritical intake of political propaganda and a biased media’s broadcasts; the politicians may be exploiting real dissatisfaction and distress rather than ginning it up, and the media may simply be reflecting the facts as they are, rather than as the Republicans would like them to be. If you tell people they’re being gullible then, that they’re being exploited then, they may not be in much of a mood to give you much of a chance on any other message you have to give.

People don’t want to be told they’re being fools. At times like these, they want politicians who are being useful to the people, not merely to themselves or their cause.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 5, 2009 8:25 PM
Comment #275086

I would take your last statement further and add Political Pundits being useful and not merely looking out for themselves or cause.

Yes, like in 2004 the Red, White, and Blue can call each other names and blame the other opponent for all the problems in the world. Or “We the People” can work together of the Isues facing the Children of the 21st Century and guide them over the creeks that My Peers have had to forge over the last 30 years.

For why I may hold a Magic Bullet to make America Energy Independent in 5-10 years. I can assure the Learned and Unlearned of Society that not even Their Children are going to let this Unlearned Unbridled Anti-Authoritarian Child of the 70’s by Freewill and Self-Nature build an Uncivilized World.

So cry if you must; yell if it makes you feel better; however, unless you are willing to prove to Your Children that the Ignorange of Man will keep them from using Their Guaranteed Civil and Constitutional Rights to build a Better World than the Youth of the 60’s and Silver Spoons of the 70’s. Than coming up with a fair American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan over the next few weeks is the only option Congress, Washington and “We the Corporation” have.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 5, 2009 9:08 PM
Comment #275088

BHO’s big problem was he has been trying to compromise. He but unneccesary tax cuts into the stimulus bill before presenting it. He should have left that to the Reps. I hope he has learned that the fundemental world view of the Rep leadership is so profoundly wrong that they are not worth the effort when creating and advancing vital legislation. They will do the job of trying to weaken and poison any help for other than the wealthy without his help.With luck he has learned the lesson in time for healthcare reform.

Posted by: bills at February 5, 2009 10:45 PM
Comment #275097

Killing the middle class and creating a third world country of the United States has been the plan and conspiracy of and by conservatives since 1982. The very essence of modern conservativism is the creation of a nation of ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’.

Reagan did not mean, ‘Mr. Gorbachev, take down that wall’, he actually meant, ‘if we increase our national debt by 2 or 300 percent, we’ll be that much closer to our conservative dream world.

GHWB, having come out of the CIA leadership position and having been VEEP for eight years, knew that every policy issue must coincide with the Reagan agenda, or the massacre of the middle class could not occur. Adding to the debt was his one contribution.

The 1994 Revolution, and the Contract With America, were a continuation of that pogrom (yes, I mean POGROM) to annihilate the middle class. Only Clinton stood in the way of their success, by balancing the budget, if even for a short time. GLB and NAFTA, though were his inadvertent contributions. The Contract With America was a greater hoax than Madoff’s Ponzi Scheme.

Cheney/Bush have tried to ice the cake. No one has been able to figure the reasoning behind our stupidity in Iraq, but one thought keeps coming to mind…it is actually the continuation of the Reagan Conspiracy, to kill the middle class. Cheney slipped up when he said, ‘Reagan proved that deficit spending is not harmful to the economy’. By bringing it into the open like that, he forwarned us of the conservative intent.

This current block voting by Republicans in Congress, does not make sense unless you look at it through Reagan’s eyes. How would it be possible for the totality of a party, no exceptions, to vote against a program to stop a recessionary slide? Only if the intent is to kill America’s dwindling middle class. That’s the most obvious possibility.

In the war of the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’, the ‘haves’ are ahead, and increasing their lead.

Modern conservativism explained…

Posted by: Marysdude at February 6, 2009 5:27 AM
Comment #275098

Why I will admit that President Regan Trickledown Economics is designed to encourage citizens to get a “Specialized Training” in college at the expense of the lower 10% of the population and Unskilled Labor. The goal was not to bankrupt the Nation, but to get future generations to give up their liberal thinking. Hence, the 94 Revolt led by the Republicans took advantage of the fac that most citizens figured out that the Welfare State as designed in the Late 60’s and Early 70’s was flawed.

And why you may blame Bush 43 for being ignorant about paying for the Iraq War in the manner that Mr. Snow said would take them years to figure out. I do not believe that the Republican Citizens or Leadership was prepared to have the Chicken come back to roost so quickly and on their watch.

No, the War between the Haves and Have-Not is more of a political smoke screen than one driven by Pure Profit and Pure Greed. And though potocol prevents me from proving that point in public. This mess America finds itself in can be shown to be worse on the Haves than the Have-Nots.

For say Congress gives the Wealthy a $1 Trillion and provides no livable wage jobs for the Have-Nots. Well, when the lack of sells in goods and services cause inflation and interest to rise as they did in the Late 70’s than how are the “Haves” going to make money?

Since unlike the 80’s they have no Corporations and Retirements to raid. So why Americas’ Democratic and Republican Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders and the Elected Officials of “We the People” to struggle over the concept of building a Sustainable Green Civilized Society in the 21st Century. I do believe that Political Correctness prevents us from debating their motives unless we first are willing to surrender our own to the same test.

Because why you can say that the Republicans are only for the “Haves” knowing that Conservative means more than the “God Almighty Dollar.” You might be surprised to know that I speak out in support of Jim M. and others who see this more as a Battle of Right vs. Wrong than the “Have” and “Have-Nots.” And even though I may not agree with their Ideology or those of the “Haves” and “Have-Nots.” Seeing this Debate of Change between those Citizens over the Age of 30 and those Citizens of the 21st Century. I let My Democratic and Republican Pundits as well as Ameticas’ Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders and your Parents hold the Authority of Man.

For in seeking that which is Political Unallienable Right in the Debate of Labor and Management. I do believe that the Question of Logic and Reason facing President Obama and the Members of Congress is How and Why will America work to build a Sustainable Green Society based on the Principles and Standards of Man & Nature.

Because why Plausible given the current Knowledge and Wisdom of Society, you’ll need to ask the Children of the 21st Century about Crystals and Carbon Motors were Every American can “Have” and help the Rest of Humanity achieve the same?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 6, 2009 7:56 AM
Comment #275103

The real question is whether either side will ever understand that we are basically divided in half and learn to govern as such.

Unwillingness of the Republicans to go for reasonable compromise? What about the unwillingness of the liberals? I would bet you would get alot more compromise if you guys trimmed the BS.
Fewer tax-cuts, less BS, would be compromise.

If Conservatives and Republicans don’t like that their rep didn’t cave in to the liberals and sign this monstrousity, then they will “choose to side with the Democrats,” as you said. But I believe you are seriously over estimating just how many will do so.

Its 53/47 Stephen, not 80/20. All this bickering, name calling and blaming the other side is the exact same crap we started off with in 2000, and that is very sad my friend.

Posted by: kctim at February 6, 2009 9:33 AM
Comment #275104

“Killing the middle class and creating a third world country of the United States has been the plan and conspiracy of and by conservatives since 1982”

Then why are they the ones who fight for 2nd Amendment rights? Shouldn’t they be trying to limit and eventually void that right? Or would that be more in line with just enslaving the middle class, rather than killing it?

Posted by: kctim at February 6, 2009 9:46 AM
Comment #275105


The number and types of weapons in a third world country are not relevant. Look at those nations today…do you see any restrictions on weaponry?

The proof of my story, is in the pudding, so to speak. The ‘haves’ have more, and the ‘have-nots’ have less. It could not have been choreographed any better. The choreographer? The Gipper’s protoge, of course. What a wonderful legacy…

Posted by: Marysdude at February 6, 2009 9:56 AM
Comment #275107

So if the Haves’ have and the Heve-Nots’ have less how do you make it so All have Equal in the Right Way. For surely given to the Rich and given to the Poor does not work. Now add the Argument of being Self-Sufficient and America is halfway there.

For as I challenged Senator Lindsay. Shouldn’t a Tax Cut be aimed at getting the Consumer to spend? So where in the current House Bill does either have the Proper Mix of Economic Stimulus.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 6, 2009 11:01 AM
Comment #275108

The proof of your story is in partisanship and fear, nothing more.

The number and types of weapons are very relevent…if one has been there and knows what they are talking about. Why? Because there are restrictions on weaponry and those with the weapons are the ones who make, control and enforce those restrictions in order to enslave and control the people.

Comparing us to a third world country is apples and oranges though.
They fight to protect themselves, whereas we fight to preserve and protect our country and our freedoms.
Their govts are set up for the people to fear them, whereas our govt was originally set up for govt to fear the people.

Posted by: kctim at February 6, 2009 11:22 AM
Comment #275120

Thanks to Marysdude for his fictional novel “Modern conservativism explained…”

Had Marysdude included a short love scene with a little nudity, some car chases, and a damsel in distress he could have had a real winner. I am looking forward to his next novel to explain even more conspiracy theory.

Beyond that, the spending and stimulus argument is growing larger each day. If I understand correctly the liberal theory is that; if individual Americans won’t spend their money willingly, government must do it for them.

We are being told that American’s are fearful and thus, sensibly cutting back on individual spending to husband their resources to carry them thru so they have money for essentials. I contend that any reasonable person would agree that this is the correct course for individual Americans.

Now comes the liberal congress and PO who, supposedly representing the will and sense of the electorate, tell us that since we won’t spend our money it must be taken by force from us.

My liberal friends will of course say that’s nonsense…and maintain that congress and PO are proposing tax relief along with the spending. Please help me understand the logic in forcing taxpayers to spend their own money by giving some of it back to them makes any kind of sense.

If the elected officials in my county in Texas told me they were going to increase my property taxes so they could send me a rebate I, and my neighbors would have them run out of town. Yet, congress and PO are telling the nation that by taking more money from our pockets they will be able to put more money back into our pockets. And, the rationale they use is that government knows best how to spend our money. We work for the money, try to save some, and then along comes government with their hand in our pocket to take it, by force of law if necessary, away.

Why would they do this? Well they say, big spending is the answer and only government is capable of, and willing to, spend enough to make a difference. Since I won’t or can’t spend it they will do it for me.

Folks, there is a better way. Government should follow the example of its citizens and cut spending…and there is plenty of wasteful spending around to pay for a real stimulus. Government should follow the sense of its citizens, who in their collective wisdom have shown the way out of this mess, by following this wisdom and getting their own house on a balanced budget.

Has congress, with acquiescence by both parties in its deficit spending of recent years, produced consumer confidence or lifted themselves from their dismal approval ratings? What is lacking in the American consumer is the confidence to spend their own money at this time. Only a demented and truly ignorant person could believe that government will increase confidence by spending vast sums of money that the owners of that money have the common sense not to spend. For me, I will be stimulated when I see congress displaying the same fiscal restraint that its people are.

Congress and PO, if they are honest and wish to continue this wasteful spending should immediately call for across the board tax increases on everyone sufficient to pay for the spending in the time frame they estimate for its success. In other words, if the spending places a tax burden on the average American family of $10,500 (which is a figure I read in the NY Times) then they should call for an increase in individual taxes of the same amount spread out over the period of time calculated for the spending to work.

Neither congress or PO have the balls to do this of course as that would mean that the American people would immediately recognize the folly of their intention. No longer would all those goodies in the proposed spending be free. There would be a cost, not measured in some unfathomable amount of billions, but in the pocketbook of every taypayer.

Posted by: Jim M at February 6, 2009 1:33 PM
Comment #275163

>They fight to protect themselves, whereas we fight to preserve and protect our country and our freedoms.
Posted by: kctim at February 6, 2009 11:22 AM


Is that what we’ve been doing in Viet Nam, Panama, Grenada, Kuwait/Iraq, and Iraq??? fighting to preserve our country and freedoms?

With the Patriot Act, the suspension of Habeas Corpus, the suspension of the fourth and fifth amendments, just what freedoms are in more jeopardy from outside than from US?

Posted by: Marysdude at February 7, 2009 9:11 AM
Comment #275164

Jim M.,
Why I wish the Republicans would of done that when President Bush was in office. Seeing that it is no longer an option due to the fact that the average American cannot survive under the pressure of an additional $10,500.00 of debt. I do believe that the Conservatives in America may want to think about the possibility of the Average American being able to invest another $10,500.00 in order that “We the People” may face the Issues of Man and a Nation.

Yes, armed with jobs that pay a Livable Wage and some good Old Fashion Lessons learned by Americas’ Grandparents of the Great Depression the World may never be the same again. Nevertheless, under the proper guidance of Authority held by Americas’ Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders America can build a Sustainable Green Civilized World. The only question is how?

Invest or be Taxed should be on the lips of My Peers and their Elected Officials, yet all “We the People” hear is a debate about spending and tax cuts. Because why I realize that some on the Left and Right may want to take money out of the pockets of the Taxpayer, I am shocked to see these same Americans scream Political Foul when the President of the United States of America and Congress attempts to put money in the pockets of the American Consumer, Small Business Owner, and Taxpayer instead.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 7, 2009 9:18 AM
Post a comment