ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [234] -- Advice For The Republican Party

[ Posted Friday, November 9th, 2012 – 14:43 PST ]

Well, that was certainly a fun week, wasn't it?

Let's see... more Democrats in the House, more Democrats in the Senate, President Obama in the White House for a second term, Joe "You Lie!" Wilson was defeated, Allen West has likely been defeated, and Alan Grayson fought his way back to a House seat again. Oh, and I called every single state correctly on the day before the presidential election, too. So, all in all, a pretty good week!

But rather than getting all schadenfreude-y towards Republicans (although it is amusing to see the finger-pointing and recriminations on their side this week, I do have to admit), I'm going to be magnanimous in today's column. Instead of offering up advice to Democrats, this week I am going to offer up some excellent political advice to Republicans. Someone please forward this to Republican Party Headquarters, with the subject line: "How to save the Republican Party."

No, seriously. All kidding aside. I've got the winning issue that -- if Republicans were to jump on it right at this very moment, and get out in front and show some leadership -- could revitalize their entire party, save them from the brink of demographic extinction, and enormously boost their chances to win future national elections.

So, you ready, Republican Party? Are you sitting down? Here's what you have to do to avoid going the way of the Whigs. It's pretty easy -- it would fit on a Twitter message: "Begin championing Puerto Rican statehood."

This may seem counterintuitive, but it's not. It's actually heartfelt advice that could do wonders for changing the Republican Party's image, especially among the ever-growing Latino demographic (you know, the one that just handed Mitt Romney his rear end on a platter...).

Little-noticed in the United States, Puerto Rico voted this week to start moving towards statehood. This is a very big deal, although it is by no means assured. But it is historic -- Puerto Ricans have voted a number of times in the past on the statehood question, but they have never managed to get a majority of people to vote for it. This time, they did.

But the United States Congress will be involved in this process. Which means it could be a big partisan fight. Or maybe not. If Republicans were smart, they would jump on this issue and be seen as the ones pushing for Puerto Rico to be accepted as the 51st state.

This is not as crazy as it sounds. In the first place, it would have nothing to do with immigration. Puerto Ricans are Americans already -- they are citizens by birth, and have been for a long time. Therefore, there is no immigration question at all. This avoids the problems of the hardliners in the Republican Party who always scream "Amnesty!" at the drop of an immigration reform proposal. Once again: this has nothing to do with immigration in any way shape or form because Puerto Ricans are already American citizens. That's key to getting Republican politicians to go along with the scheme.

Republicans might balk at letting Puerto Rico into the Union. This would be a gigantic mistake. Republicans might figure that one more state with a bunch of people who would likely vote Democratic would work against them -- they'd see it as cutting their own throat, in other words. Again, this is shortsightedness. Because while Republicans try to brainstorm how they're ever going to get Latinos to vote for them, how about the following idea: how about doing something for Latinos, as a party? Be seen on their side for once. Maybe by doing so, Republicans could shift the entire trend of Latino voting patterns, for a generation. It certainly is worth a try, because not much of anything else is going to help them, at this point. If Republicans were -- loudly and publicly -- championing Puerto Rican statehood every chance they got, who's to say that they couldn't turn the new state into a Republican Latino stronghold? Right now -- other than Miami's Cubans -- that phrase is almost an oxymoron. But it doesn't have to always be that way, and the only way to change it is to take the Latino side of an issue, for once.

Republicans could be seen as leading the charge on statehood, garner a whole bunch of goodwill among Latino voters everywhere, and all the while not have to even address immigration. The more I think about it, the more perfect it sounds for the GOP.

Rather than doing an endzone dance and spiking the Democratic football this week (well, not too much), I instead felt so sorry for the Republican Party's future prospects that I decided to offer up this idea as a way for their party to come back in from the demographic wilderness. So, like I said, please forward this column right on to Republican Party Headquarters. If they're open to new ideas, I think this one would be a dandy one for them. But they'll have to move fast, because Democrats are going to start talking about it, once they realize it's happening. Once Democrats take the lead on Puerto Rico, the opportunity will be lost. There's a short window of time before that happens, one the Republicans ought to jump on with both feet. If they're smart, that is.

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

This is a tough one this week, because we have so many impressive Democrats to choose from. Not only President Barack Obama, but many many other Democrats either won re-election or got elected for the first time this year. Plus, there were all the behind-the-scenes folks who made such victories happen. Which, as we said, makes the choice tough.

The obvious selection is President Barack Obama, not only the first African-American president ever, but now also the first one to serve a full two terms. But Obama's won the last two MIDOTW awards here, so we're going to put his accomplishment aside, hard as that is to do this week. There were other obvious selections as well, such as Senators-elect Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin -- the first open lesbian senator ever -- and Elizabeth Warren, champion of the average consumer, and icon of the Left.

Less well-known but also impressive were people such as Colleen Lachowicz, who won a state senate race in Maine, even though her opponent tried to score political points against her by using the fact that she was an active participant (a "level 85 orc") in the MMORPG online gaming universe that is "World Of Warcraft." When even the level 85 orcs are getting elected, it certainly was some sort of wave year, that's for sure.

But while all of them were indeed impressive (as well as all the other Democrats we don't have room to name), we feel that one man and one man alone deserves the lion's share of credit for Barack Obama's victory, even if it was motivated by familial spite. James Earl Carter IV, grandson of "Jimmy" (our 39th president), apparently got rather annoyed at Mitt Romney's use of his grandpop as a "worst-case ever" example in comparison to Barack Obama's first term, and on his own initiative hunted down the full video of a speech Mitt Romney gave (privately, or so he thought) to a group of his well-heeled donors. In it, Mitt said several off-the-cuff things, but none was more damaging than his rant against the "47 percent" of Americans who don't pay federal income taxes. These leeches, Romney said, could never be convinced to vote for him or any other Republican, since they were quite obviously sucking at the government teat and refused to take responsibility for their sorry and pathetic lives.

This, more than anything else, guaranteed the re-election of President Obama. Which is why we're giving Carter (whom we shall now refer to as "Jimmy Four," just because we like the sound of it) this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week. Years from now, when the 2012 election is studied by historians, many subjects and events will emerge as pivotal points (we're going to cover the biggest of these in the Talking Points, never fear). But the single-most important turning point was when the "47 percent" recording was released.

Three far-reaching campaigns set this crucial moment up. The first was last year's "Occupy" movement -- which made headlines across the world about the "99 percent" versus the "one percent." Inequality, corporate malfeasance, big banks, and Wall Street in general were all painted as pariahs, quite effectively. The "Occupy" movement itself collapsed of its own self-important weight soon afterwards, but they had scored a valuable point in the American consciousness. This wasn't even the earliest of the setup machinations, however.

Two years ago, Barack Obama faced his first lame-duck Congress. The Tea Party was triumphant and about to be sworn into office. The health care bill was nearing a crucial point, and Joe Lieberman was sticking up the works (side note: the most wonderful thing about the incoming 113th Congress is that Joe Lieberman will not be in it -- this is even more wonderful than Joe Wilson and Allen West being shown the door, we might add). "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was heading for a showdown. In the midst of all of this horse-trading in the waning days of Congress, the Bush tax cuts were set to expire. Obama cut a deal. He got "DADT" repealed, he (and Harry Reid) got Lieberman on board by finally jettisoning the "public option," but Obama also negotiated an extension of the Bush tax cuts. For two years.

At the time, I thought this was crazy, and said so. Obama could have picked any extension time period he wanted. He could have picked one year -- so he could have the fight again next time around. He could have picked three years -- comfortably beyond the 2012 election, where he didn't even need to have the fight again. But instead, he consciously picked two years -- which put the issue right at the center of the 2012 election.

Although the Left excoriated him at the time for "selling out" on the Bush tax cuts, Obama actually was the bravest Democrat I've seen since the 1980s. He picked a fight on raising taxes, which he knew would become one of the centerpieces of the upcoming election, and he actually staked out a very traditional Democratic position -- raising taxes on the very wealthy -- which no Democrat had truly fought for for a period of roughly 30 years. That takes guts, folks, and that was part of what set up the whole income inequality argument -- long before Mitt Romney was named the nominee of the Republican Party for 2012.

The third thing which set up the "47 percent" tape was pre-planned by the Obama folks after they were certain that Mitt Romney would be the Republican nominee. They took advantage of one basic political fact -- Romney had to win a primary and then the general election, but Obama was free to focus solely on Romney the whole time.

This led to a turnabout of what usually happens in the dog days of summer. Democrats were the ones on the attack, and Republicans were the ones completely absent from the stage. This happened to John Kerry, when he was "Swiftboated" and did not respond. This happened to Obama in his first campaign, when the whole "Reverend Wright" controversy erupted. It happened to President Obama in the Tea Party Summer, with the rage at the town halls. Each time, mostly in August, Democrats were largely not to be seen, while Republicans ranted and raved enough to cement their own position in the public's mind.

This time around, it was Romney who was absent during the hot summer months. Now, to be fair, this is because he had largely spent all his primary money and couldn't spend his general election money before the conventions -- which Obama, remember, did not have to worry about. So Team Obama spent roughly two month painting a picture of Mitt Romney as the unholy offspring of Thurston Howell III (from Gilligan's Island) and Scrooge McDuck. The Bain Capital ads were relentless and they absolutely defined Romney for the voters in several very blue-collar states. Romney was a plutocrat, plain and simple. Not only didn't he care about "people like you," he was completely clueless about the average person's life.

Thus the stage was set. The "Occupy" thing had demonized greed, in general. Obama himself had set up the argument about taxing the uber-wealthy at the end of 2012 before the race was even run. And then the Obama team hit Romney hard on the whole Bain Capital thing starting in early summer and not letting up for a minute.

Enter Jimmy Four. Back in FTP [227], when we gave him his first MIDOTW award, we had this to say:

But our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week is none other than James Earl Carter IV, grandson of ex-president Jimmy. Carter was the one who found the Romney video online, and who ferreted out the person who posted it anonymously -- and then promptly put it in the hands of Mother Jones, and the rest is history. Carter doesn't approve of Romney's characterization of his grandfather's time in office, apparently.

For performing this public service, James Earl Carter IV is our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week. His action certainly set the tone of the campaign, all week long. We even have an amusing photo of the two Carters to share, which had been filed under "Ten Epic Yawns." All I can say is, nobody in the Romney camp is yawning now.

The impact of the "47 percent" video was, in my opinion, the body blow that Romney never recovered from. A good debate performance wasn't enough to erase (or "Etch A Sketch," if you will) the sneering contempt Romney showed in this video for half of America's citizenry. Romney elitism dovetailed perfectly with the picture the Obama camp had been painting of him all along. "Gaffes" (as Washington calls it when a politician is caught telling the public what he really thinks) only really work when they feed into a narrative that already exists in the public's mind. Thanks to the Occupy folks and a whole lot of very smartly invested money by the Obama team, the 47 percent comments were the final nail in Romney's electoral coffin.

For this reason -- although there certainly were many other deserving people to choose from this week, including the president himself -- we are going to give the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week (really "...Of The Election") award to none other than Jimmy's grandson James Earl Carter IV. Revenge is sweet.

[James Earl Carter IV is a private citizen, and it is our policy not to provide contact information for people not officially in politics.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

Can't think of a one. It was that good a week. Anybody disappointed in any Democrats out there? Let me know, although all I saw this week was pretty impressive, I have to admit.

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 234 (11/9/12)

Today's talking points are going to be a special post-election edition, and (once again) they will be dedicated to helping out the Republican Party, since they quite obviously need so much help with their party right now.

The 2012 election was such a crushing defeat for Republicans that the word "liberal" is even going through a renaissance, or at least a rehabilitation among the public. Long demonized by the right, people (I'm one of them) are now openly using the word with pride.

Before I get to the serious stuff, though, I learned one thing about Romney post-election that I really think would have helped him beforehand (not much, maybe, but still...). Mitt Romney's Secret Service name was "Javelin." That's pretty cool, since it refers to a muscle car from his dad's old company: the AMC Javelin. And Javelins were indeed cool cars. One more way to get in touch with the NASCAR types (instead of the NASCAR owners) that was blown by Mitt on the campaign trail, I guess.

Which brings us to the talking points -- these are the seven soundbites which tanked Mitt Romney. These are the "bad examples" that the Republican Party would do well in the future to avoid, to put it another way.

There are other things Republicans should avoid from the campaign as well. Like Karl Rove. Back in the 2008 election, I actually had a lot of respect for Rove, because as "numbers man" for Fox News, he was actually admitting -- something like three weeks before the election -- that Obama was going to win big. On Fox News. You could trust Karl's numbers, because he was obviously not showing any bias.

This year? Well, let's just say we've lost all respect for his numbers, and leave it at that. But we're supposed to be giving advice to Republicans, so here goes: maybe rethink that whole "give Karl $400 million" thing next time, guys, OK?

Second piece of advice: pay attention to the ground game. This is how you got beat. The Obama team put together quite possibly the best "get out the vote" operation this country's ever seen. It worked. All that money Obama spent, early, on this operation paid off enormously. Fair warning.

Here's a piece of advice: Don't go to sleep in the summer. Here, let me translate it into Republicanese, to make it easier: "You know who goes on vacation all August long? The French -- that's who. Are you French? Or are you an exceptional American? Get to work in August!"

Heh. OK, that was a little football-spikey, sorry. But you get my point, hopefully.

This last one may be hard for Republicans to admit, but Nate Silver was right. Math works. Deal with it. You can either believe the math and do something about it, or you can live in denial... and lose elections. Your choice. Just remember next time around: demonizing Nate Silver is beyond ridiculous. You should listen to Nate Silver, not say snarky things about him.

Enough of the preliminaries, though. While there were a plethora of things from Romney's 2012 campaign to choose from -- too many to list here -- which added up to his defeat, we've chosen the top seven, in our humble opinion. Not making the list were notables such as: "don't tie your dog to the roof of your car," and "don't piss off Chris Christie in any way, shape, or form," and "release your damn taxes," and "don't take photographs of yourself with money literally coming out of the seams of your clothes," and the ever-crucial "you have to do Dave Letterman's show at least once, or he will eviscerate you for months on end." We haven't even included the "47 percent," since we've already dissected that matter in detail.

These were all damning to Romney, but not as damning as the following items.

 

1
   Self-deport

The first and arguably largest thing which tanked Romney's chances for election was to attempt to get "to the right" of Rick Perry on immigration, during the primary season. During a debate, when asked about the 10-12 million people here illegally, Mitt Romney responded with what must have seemed to him to be a reasonable answer: make life so miserable here for these people that they would just give up and move back to their country of origin. But it wasn't the answer so much as the term he used: "self-deportation." This was deeply insulting to a whole lot of Latinos. Who voted for Barack Obama to the tune of 71 percent. If this trend continues, Republicans are never going to hold the White House again. For decades, at the very least.

 

2
   Let Detroit Go Bankrupt

To be fair, Mitt Romney didn't write this headline. Sarah Palin didn't say "I can see Russia from my house," and Al Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet, either -- but that's not what people remember. Mitt Romney wrote an op-ed piece during the height of the Detroit crisis, which must have seemed reasonable to him at the time. The only problem was, it wouldn't have worked -- it would have resulted in two of the "Big Three" automakers being dismantled and sold off, piecemeal. This would have destroyed the entire auto industry, because it would also have taken down the chain of supply for the automakers (even Ford, who didn't need a bailout). People in Michigan and Ohio remembered what Romney said, and he was never able to convince them otherwise.

Especially not after Clint Eastwood cut an ad for the Super Bowl. When I saw that ad, my immediate response was to wonder where the "I'm Barack Obama, and I approved this message" was, at the end. Even if Clint had been brilliantly funny and scintillating at the Republican National Convention (instead of doddering and foolish), he never would have undone the damage this ad did to Romney in general. Barack Obama made a bet on the American worker. Mitt Romney disagreed with it. Obama was right, and Mitt was wrong. This handed Obama Ohio and Michigan, and their 34 collective electoral votes.

 

3
   Just borrow some money from your parents

This remark was caught at a campaign event, and once again cut to the core argument against Mitt Romney -- that he was dangerously out of touch with average people's lives. When asked how a struggling college graduate was supposed to transform himself or herself into an entrepreneur and start a business, Mitt's answer reeked of the elitism he's known his entire life -- maybe you should just borrow the money from your parents to get things started. Well, um, Mitt... not everyone has rich parents to make this sort of thing possible, you know? What's that? You don't know? Well, see, that's a big problem right there.

 

4
   I'll bet you $10,000

This remark was also painfully awkward for Mitt. One pundit summed it up as "exactly the wrong amount to bet," by the reasoning that (1.) if it was a real bet, the amount was way too high -- if Romney were seriously betting, he should have said "a hundred bucks" -- and/or (2.) if he was trying to be hyperbolic, he should have said something like "I'll bet you a million bazillion dollars." By hitting the not-so-sweet spot between these two, nobody had the slightest idea whether he was seriously offering Rick Perry a bet or just trying to make a point. Once again, Mitt himself feeds the theme of out-of-touch elitism, on national television to boot.

 

5
   Obamneycare

The remaining three of these were things Mitt didn't actually say, himself. But they hurt him just the same. The first was, again, during Republican primary season, when Tim Pawlenty accused Mitt of championing what he brilliantly called "Obamneycare." Just on wordsmithing alone, that was a clever quip. Cram Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, and Obamacare all into one word. Mitt Romney's Massachusetts health care reform was exactly the same as Obamacare. Which made it all but impossible for Romney to make it an enormous issue in the general election campaign. Another Republican candidate could have used it as a blunt object for months, but this route was denied to Romney. This was a fundamental problem that he never managed to overcome.

 

6
   Etch A Sketching

This comment came from a top Romney operative, who suggested that Mitt was going to be an "Etch A Sketch" after he sewed up the Republican primary. In other words, just turn him over and shake him and you'd be left with a blank slate that you could draw anything you wanted on. This terrified the Republican base so much that Mitt had to reassure them for months that he wasn't going to go all soft and squishy on them. When he finally did so, they forgave him immediately because it was during the absolute high point of his campaign -- the first debate. But this tack back to the center should really have happened about a month earlier, and Mitt's delay in moving to the center hurt him enormously. By the time it happened, most people had already made up their minds about him, and what he stood for. Mitt wasn't hurt so much by the Etch A Sketch comment as he was by how it tied his hands for so long.

 

7
   God's will includes rapists' babies

Republicans were hurt -- badly -- by their antediluvian attitudes towards rape, abortion, and compassion for women faced with tough choices. And please take note, Republican Party, this was due to the honest position of the Republican Party, not some sort of "gaffe" or "inartful language." Todd Akin didn't just "say something stupid," he really believed that women couldn't get pregnant from rape. Many Republicans also believe some version of this idiocy. Richard Mourdock didn't just have a "slip of the tongue" -- he really does believe that God's will works in mysterious ways, and sometimes that includes making babies from violent rape. Because these weren't some sort of "whoops, I said that wrong" moments, they were impossible to apologize for. Because to truly apologize, you would have had to have said "one of my core beliefs is absolutely wrong, and I have now seen the light of day on the matter" -- which neither man did.

Akin's comment came fairly early, and the Republican Party decided he wasn't viable enough of a candidate for them to back for Senate -- while also deciding that he was still just fine in the House of Representatives (no Republican I am aware of called for him to resign, in other words). Later, they pumped money into his campaign anyway. But Mourdock's comments were a lot closer to the election, and Mitt Romney blew it because an ad he had cut for Mourdock aired just after the comment. Romney refused to take the ad down, or entirely disavow Mourdock.

Guess what, Republican Party -- women noticed. And they remembered. And they took it into consideration in the voting booth. The War On Women may not be over, but women won this battle in triumphant fashion. Let that be a lesson for next time.

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

154 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [234] -- Advice For The Republican Party”

  1. [1] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Oh, and I called every single state correctly on the day before the presidential election, too.

    w00t!

    y'know, i noticed that the folks at cnn and msnbc were tooting about some other guy who also made the correct predictions, and i was thinking about how unfair it was that CW didn't receive the same acclaim. i propose an e-mail campaign to correctly credit CW's prediction at least as much as that sabermetrics guy.

    ~joshua

  2. [2] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Absolutely spot on column. As I have been mentioning, this election will go down in history as Obama vs 'that 47% guy who ran against Obama' :)

    The Republican party may take time to learn their lessons but so far I am seeing nothing. They just haven't recognized reality in the 21st century. I have seen 'it was the fault of X/Y/Z' but nothing to admit that their POLICIES are just not electable in today's climate. In place of X/Y/Z they are trying many things: Romney, Christie, Hurricane Sandy, Santa Claus, the weather. But not their actual policies.

    Being a maths guy I find this quite amazing. How can they not realize how bad their policies poll? For example, everything in Obamacare polls well (except the mandate), taxes on the rich poll well, gay marriage is polling above average, the DREAM Act polls well, regulation polls well, tightening the rules on the bank polls very well, abortion polls well, women's equality polls well... trickle down polls very bad. I could go on. All of these things Republicans ran on the wrong side of the polls on. They thought, for most of the election, they could get away with this just running on an anti-Obama platform. Huge mistake.

    The only time they were close to Obama in the polls was after the first debate when that-47%-guy had a magical performance where he managed to convince America that all these policies were not their actual policies! America bought it...for about a week before they realized they had fallen for an act.

    My advice: Trickle Down is DEAD. Most of your policies are DEAD. There is no way you are ever going to sell them to people again. People are not stupid. Come up with reasonable 21st century moderate Conservative solutions. Even you Republicans know this, this is why the latter part of the campaign was spent running away from your actual policies.

    These failed policies added to the fact that they put in one of the worst Presidential candidates ever seen, as you have detailed very well CW, and this was election suicide from the get-go.

  3. [3] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    These failed policies added to the fact that they put in one of the worst Presidential candidates ever seen, as you have detailed very well CW, and this was election suicide from the get-go.

    i've long maintained that the best thing barack obama had going for him in this election was that he was running against mitt romney. even gingrich would have fared better.

  4. [4] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    I've have one more point of advice for the Republican party: "Dump the crazies."

    This election has something in common with Goldwater's: the faithful didn't see it coming. That was one of the greatest landslides in history, and everyone outside the bubble knew it was coming. This time, they didn't see it coming, either, although the signs were everywhere.

    The reason common to both campaigns and supporters: when you talk only to the faithful, when everyone outside is the Enemy, your information set spirals to it's lowest possible level.

    The likes of Morris, Hannity, Coulter, and the wackos on Fox and Friends need to go. They can keep themselves rich enough in the niches they've carved for themselves; there are enough in the Swamps to feed them (at least the first three can; the latter three are just hairdos, but there's always a market for attractive weather readers in local TV).

    There's some evidence this is happening. See, for example, the College Republicans canceling Coulter here: http://www.salon.com/2012/11/09/fordham_head_blasts_ann_coulter/

  5. [5] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Darn it! I wish there were an edit function; sometimes I write too fast. It's its lowest possible level.

  6. [6] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    joshua [1] -

    Oh, I heartily agree. The more pressure there is, the better! More power to you!

    michty6 -

    OK, two things. Really, one thing, and one almost-unrelated story.

    First, the issues polling. Six years ago (has it really been that long?) I got so annoyed at Democrats who refused to realize that their issues were really the winning ones, I wrote a book and sent it to every Democratic member of Congress. Contact me privately (see the footer at the bottom of every page, and click "Email Chris" unless you've already got my email address) and give me a snail mail address, and I will send you a copy of this book (it's really short -- Congresscritters' attention span is notoriously limited). I got one of them to endorse it on the record. He was a House member at the time, but he is now Senator Sherrod Brown from Ohio, who just got re-elected (woo hoo!).

    Secondly, a story. I was schmoozing and drinking a beer earlier this year with a Democratic senator (NOT Brown, I should mention, although it was "off the record" so I cannot confirm who it actually was beyond that), and his main assistant. I asked how his election chances were (he was up for re-election this year) and who his opponent was. The assistant thought a minute, and could not come up with the opponent's name, but he assured me that the senator was up 20 or 30 points against "some guy." That is the ultimate confidence in a politician -- that he was running against "some guy."

    Oh, when the results were in, "some guy" lost. Your "47 percent guy" made me remember this incident, though, so I thought I'd share it.

    LeaningBlue -

    Good points, all. I tend to call it the Republican "echo chamber" but I totally agree.

    As for your last sentence, let the Republican circular firing squad begin... Heh.

    And I'll add an edit function right after I finish my next book's publicity tour, I promise! Heh.

    -CW

  7. [7] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale not here yet?

    Michale -

    That first segment is absolutely serious -- I offer it up as serious advice to the GOP. I'd be interested to hear your take on whether it'd be a smart thing for the Republicans to do or not.

    The rest of the column you'll probably hate, but that first part was totally serious, so I'm interested to hear what you think of the idea.

    -CW

  8. [8] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    One last piece of advice. Since the only likely thing the Republicans will be able to agree on is that they need a Hispanic Strategy: "Be careful in your tokenizing."

    Now there's a new generation Bush getting ready to run a couple laps in the state that will host the Grand Prix of the United States next week (little plug for Austin there. Wait. Ignore that. Austin votes Democrat.)

    It's worth remembering that one of the party's elder statemen, President GHW Bush, once was identifying family members on a stage into an open mike, and referred to the grandson El Arbusto nuevo as one of "the little brown ones." (True fact; Google it)

    This position is even more dangerous than the presumption that a Cuban necessarily has the same concerns and sensibilities as other Hispanics because they all speak Mexican.

  9. [9] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    CW [7]: Your analysis of 47 is spot on. It reinforced the impression of Gov. Romney better than additional tens of millions worth of ads.

    But another video, that surfaced during the "two minute offense" churn, in worth pointing out. On Nov 4th, when Huff first mentioned it, it had already gone viral, with about 500 thousand views. By the morning of the 7th, it was over 3 million.

    It was, in its way, as damning a view of him as was 47. It said that not only was he a plutocrat and a stiff, but he was a nasty, petulant stiff at that.

    That video is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxMD02zU9SE

  10. [10] 
    Osborne Ink wrote:

    Republicans also need to stop using the word "socialism" before they make it sound cool, and a whole generation of hip youth decides to be "socialists" just to piss off the old white men.

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale not here yet?

    Michale's in a snit because no one here (sans LB) can be intellectually honest... With the exception of our illustrious leader, of course.. :D

    I'll get to this commentary later in the day.. Charlie Daniels/Craig Morgan concert is today and prep work has been brutal...

    I just want to say now though, that with the stunning development regarding General Patreaus, it looks Benghazi is going to figure prominently in our daily lives, even though the election is over..

    **EXACTLY AS I SAID IT WOULD**

    It's tough being right AGAIN..... :D

    I'll jump into your commentary in a few hours, CW...

    Michale.....

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    LB,

    But now, real journalists will begin to sense something in the wind. We might have a chance to really find out.

    I hope you're right.. But considering that the only journalists working on this are those from Fox News, it's likely things will just trickle out, as they are now...

    The current MSM have proven they will ignore ANY story, no matter HOW MUCH it would serve their corporate masters, if it puts Obama in a bad light.

    Recent history is replete with examples that prove this beyond ANY doubt to those not drunk on the kool-aid...

    But, I have no doubt that the facts WILL come out... It may take a while, but when the facts ARE known, Obama and Democrats are going to pay a huge price...

    But the majority of Weigantians will STILL believe that there was a huge protest, that the obscure video was the SOLE cause of the attack and that Obama bravely fought the attackers off single-handidly, while our Ambassador, diplomats and SEALs bravely sacrificed themselves to save The Exalted One...

    The blind devotion around here is almost SCARY....

    Michale....

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK The calm before the storm..

    CW,

    On the surface, that appears to be good advice. And I have *NO* doubt that it is advice sincerely given.

    But consider this..

    After the Great Democrat Shellacking Of 2010, Democrats defied conventional wisdom and tacked FURTHER to the Left. They also elevated their OWN crazies to near god-like status...

    Such actions were roundly ridiculed for being a recipe for the predicted Great Democrat Massacre of 2012...

    But look what happened. Democrats actually did BETTER in 2012 than 2008...

    So, while the advice is sound, logical and (I am sure) sincerely given, I don't agree...

    I think that the Right should stay true to their beliefs (even though I don't agree with a lot of them) and simply bide their time...

    Benghazi is just the tip of the 14 Apr 1912 iceberg that will likely have the same effect on the Left that it had on the Titanic...

    You have Fast/Furious waiting in the wings. You have an Obama/Democrat-Allowed Nuclear Iran...

    That's the problem when reaching your heights...

    There is no where to go but down....

    Michale....

  14. [14] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Michale's in a snit because no one here (sans LB) can be intellectually honest... With the exception of our illustrious leader, of course.. :D

    *cough*

    *cough*

    *cough*

    It's tough being right AGAIN..... :D

    agreed, except for that little hiccup last tuesday...

    I hope you're right.. But considering that the only journalists working on this are those from Fox News, it's likely things will just trickle out, as they are now...

    that's what happens when you cry wolf, as fox has. when FNC was still shiny and new, MSM types tended to run with their stories uncritically, as they do with every other story they find. now even when fox happens to be correct, anyone who isn't a die-hard conservative remains skeptical.

    The current MSM have proven they will ignore ANY story, no matter HOW MUCH it would serve their corporate masters, if it puts Obama in a bad light.

    this seems to be somewhat true, but i maintain that the media bias is less about ideology than it is about superficial stuff, like how he looks on a basketball court or in a bathing suit.

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    *cough*

    *cough*

    *cough*

    True, you are more than able and willing to ding Obama when he deserves it.. But I don't think you chimed in on Benghazi.. Would love to hear your thoughts, especially in light of Patreus being forced out, literally a (business) DAY before he was to testify before Congress...

    agreed, except for that little hiccup last tuesday...

    Yea, when I go WRONG, I don't frak around.. :D

    that's what happens when you cry wolf, as fox has. when FNC was still shiny and new, MSM types tended to run with their stories uncritically, as they do with every other story they find. now even when fox happens to be correct, anyone who isn't a die-hard conservative remains skeptical.

    True.. But there is "skeptical" and there is absolute refusal to accept the facts.. FNC was right about the fantasy protest. THAT alone would give one reason to at least CONSIDER the validity of the current allegations..

    this seems to be somewhat true, but i maintain that the media bias is less about ideology than it is about superficial stuff, like how he looks on a basketball court or in a bathing suit.

    The two biggest indications of the MSM Bias is the Afghani Kill Teams and Benghazi.. Plus a lot, a LOT of minor indications...

    No one can explain these biases so they simply refuse to acknowledge they exist...

    Michale....

  16. [16] 
    TheStig wrote:

    The biggest problem the Democrats face right now is complacency after a big, and to many on both sides, a somewhat surprising, victory. I hasten to add that if you were paying attention (and reading CW.com was a good start), you weren't all that surprised, Obama went in with some profound advantages:Incumbency, electoral landscape, and perhaps most importantly, a well oiled and well drilled political machine from 2008.

    This machine has to kept in running order, and even more importantly, updated and exercised to stay one step ahead of the opposition. This will not be easy, cheap or glamorous. Preparedness never is.

    Citizens United did not prove decisive THIS TIME, but the Republicans didn't know how to use their big wad of money effectively and basically resorted to carpet bombing with not-their-best-ever TV ads. (Hat tip to Karl Rove).

    As a rule, Armies and Political Parties tend to learn more from defeat than victory. Not always, but Democrats shouldn't count on opposition stupidity. They can count on their own tendency to re-fight the last glorious war, and they need to resist this laziness STARTING NOW.

    Political campaigns, and the political parties that run them are evolving rapidly. The dominance of TV advertising is waning. Data mining, micro targeted marketing (using multiple electronic media)backed up by person to person relationship building is how I see things going. Both parties can purchase the technical expertise, and frankly, Republican money will be to their advantage here, if they can get their act together. Democrats will have an advantage in the personal relationship department, dedication and community ties can't just be purchased. Well trained (not just enthusiastic), well led foot soldiers will be more important than ever. Think unions. Foot soldiering favors the young, and the Dems are a young party, demographically speaking.

    So, if you think politics is too big, too expensive, and starts too early each cycle, you haven't seen anything yet.

  17. [17] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    True, you are more than able and willing to ding Obama when he deserves it.. But I don't think you chimed in on Benghazi..

    truth be told, i don't really understand what happened in benghazi. i read austin bay's analysis at RCP a couple weeks ago, and came to the conclusion that there wasn't enough information available for me to have any sort of informed opinion.

    it certainly seems within the realm of possibility that lack of public access (as i think you're intimating) is due the administration stonewalling on information that could have impacted the election. the administration's initial position seems kind-of silly in retrospect, but i am very much a lay person when it comes to foreign policy and the military. i don't have the expertise to surmise who might have known what. until the rest of the facts come out (and they will come out), anyone (like myself) who lacks the expertise to guess, is basically just speculating.

    A Gnostic scholar asked, "Can you put an end to speculation
    that you had relations with Mary Magdalene?"
    "Yes, I can," said the second coming.
    The crowd leaned forward.
    "Stop speculating."

    ~Ken Siegmann

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    i don't have the expertise to surmise who might have known what. until the rest of the facts come out (and they will come out), anyone (like myself) who lacks the expertise to guess, is basically just speculating.

    That's what kind of chaps my ass...

    My military expertise is never questioned. Unless I use it to show Obama frak'ed up...

    Then I am mocked and belittled incessantly... Which, I really don't mind (much ;D) if it's at least consistent...

    To acknowledge the expertise when it's used to call into question actions of the Right, but then question the expertise when it's used to call into questions the actions of the Left is just a bridge to far for me...

    A Gnostic scholar asked, "Can you put an end to speculation
    that you had relations with Mary Magdalene?"
    "Yes, I can," said the second coming.
    The crowd leaned forward.
    "Stop speculating."

    Now THAT was funny!!!! :D

    Michale......

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of military expertise...

    Navy guy and a Marine are in the bathroom taking a piss...

    The Marine finishes up and starts to leave.. The Navy guy calls after him and says, "Ya know, when I went thru Navy Basic Training, they taught us to wash our hands after we take a piss.."

    The Marine stops, thinks for a second and then replies, "That's funny. When I went thru Marine Corps Basic, they taught us not to piss on our hands.."

    :D

    Michale....

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of employment matters....

    I have read dozens of reports where employers are laying off thousands of workers because Obama won the election....

    I'll be surprised if the U-6 doesn't hit 20%..

    It's going to be a rough and rocky 4 years...

    Michale....

  21. [21] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    My military expertise is never questioned. Unless I use it to show Obama frak'ed up...

    who, me? i didn't question your expertise. there's a reason i was silent on the matter.

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joshua,

    who, me? i didn't question your expertise. there's a reason i was silent on the matter.

    Nope, not you at all... As you point out, you didn't chime in...

    It was a general opinion directed at the peanut gallery..

    And, considering it didn't garner any rebuttal, I guess it hit pretty close to dead on ballz accurate.. :D

    We're all friends here and so I try not to take it personally..

    But, BECAUSE we're all friends here, it's hard not to.. :^)

    Michale.....

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/state/john-schnatter-papa-johns-ceo-obamacare-likely-to-raise-costs-employees-hours-being-cut

    Yea... Obamacare is going to be SOOO good for this country... :^/

    Once Americans find out how really bad they are screwed over, Democrats are in for a world of hurt...

    Michale...

  24. [24] 
    dsws wrote:

    The obvious selection is President Barack Obama, not only the first African-American president ever, but now also the first one to serve a full two terms.

    I hate to say this, but you're getting ahead of yourself. If nothing else, the guy smoked for a number of years. The odds of him dying in office are only something like 50 to 1 against. Long odds, sure, but the chicken still isn't hatched.

    The "Occupy" movement itself collapsed of its own self-important weight

    How do you figure that? From where I sat, Occupy collapsed because it had no infrastructure that could sustain it after the cops threw the tents in the dumpster. That same near-zero-cost organizing strategy was the key to its transient success, though.

    ... of Thurston Howell III (from Gilligan's Island)

    You have to tell the readers who Thurston Howell III is? Doesn't Youtube show reruns?

    Advice For The Republican Party ... 1 Self-deport

    Much as I might like the idea, I can't think of a country I would wish it on.

  25. [25] 
    dsws wrote:

    [4]
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    I've have one more point of advice for the Republican party: "Dump the crazies."

    That's what I've been wanting to see for twelve years: the entire Republican Party dumping itself, just ceasing to exist as a major party. If they did, the Democrats would schism and we'd be back to having two center-right parties instead of a far-right and a me-too.

  26. [26] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    dsws -

    You're right, that should have read "the first African-American to win two terms in office." Don't want to enumerate the unhatched poultry ova, do I?

    As for Occupy, the measure I used: where were they in election 2012? The answer: nowhere to be seen, unless you count navel-gazing. Sorry about that. I actually think they were a victim of their own success. Reading the "General Assembly" meeting minutes, their biggest problem was trying to figure out what to do with all the money that came rolling in.

    As for Gilligan and the Minnow's crew, I think it's been like a half-century since it began, and there're a whole lot of younguns who have never even heard of it. So I had to stick the reference in... overkill, maybe...

    -CW

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's what I've been wanting to see for twelve years: the entire Republican Party dumping itself, just ceasing to exist as a major party. If they did, the Democrats would schism and we'd be back to having two center-right parties instead of a far-right and a me-too.

    I am constrained to point out that the Left did just fine with IT'S crazies.....

    Michale......

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Oh, and I called every single state correctly on the day before the presidential election, too.

    Don't think I don't know what's going on!

    You obviously have a Time Machine and went forward in time to note the states results... :D

    Michale.....

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here is an Election map that I find fascinating...

    http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2012/countymap30701024.png

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    akadjian wrote:

    y'know, i noticed that the folks at cnn and msnbc were tooting about some other guy who also made the correct predictions, and i was thinking about how unfair it was that CW didn't receive the same acclaim.

    Yeah! Nate Silver who?

    Btw- Nice thought about Puerto Rico. I heard that Republicans are looking at Hispanics as the missing component. Looks like Lindsay Graham is already taking up the mantle.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/11/11/schumer-says-hes-restarting-immigration-reform-talks-with-graham/

    The issue Republicans face, however, is losing support with their rabid base if they support any issues which are 'moderate'.

    -David

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Have been feeling nostalgic this morning..

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2008/04/03/another-secret-yoo-memo/#comments

    What a difference that little '-D' after the name makes, eh?? :D

    Michale.....

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, seriously.. Did ya'all every think, in your WILDEST dreams that ya'all would be completely and unequivocally on board with torture, rendition, summary executions of US Citizens, sweeping TelCom surveillance and the like?? :D

    "Strange times...."
    -Dean Winchester, SUPERNATURAL

    :D

    Michale.....

  33. [33] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Here is an Election map that I find fascinating...

    Did you read the rest of the article, Michale?

    It's about how maps like the above are misleading :)

    http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2012/

    -David

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's about how maps like the above are misleading :)

    Yes I did.. I especially liked the "area doesn't vote, people do" comment, as it succinctly explained the flaw..

    Here is the map that accounts for population densities..

    http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2012/countycartpurple1024.png

    While this map is better contexed, the map I posted is compelling, nonetheless.. :D

    Michale.....

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Given my map, it IS accurate to say that this COUNTRY is definitely a RIGHT WING country..

    It's only the people that are whacked... :D

    hehehehehehehehehehe

    Michale.....

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    I bet the MSM is in a tizzy, trying to decide what to do about the Patreus scandal..

    Do they smear Patreus to hell and back, as is their SOP when being able to take down a military member??

    Or do they close ranks around an Obama Hi-Level Administration official??

    Well, I am sure the White House will tell them how to spin things... :^/

    But I do have to give a special "Are You Frak'in Nuts!!!???" to the woman in Tampa who started this thing..

    Rule Number 1- Don't THREATEN anyone if you are involved in an illicit affair with the Director of the CIA...

    Rule Number 1a- If you MUST threaten anyone, for gods' sake, don't do it in EMAIL!!!!

    Michale.....

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    But I do have to give a special "Are You Frak'in Nuts!!!???" to the woman in Tampa who started this thing..

    That would be the woman in VIRGINIA, not Tampa... The Tampa woman was the one receiving the threatening emails.

    My bust...

    Michale.....

  38. [38] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale,
    After the Great Democrat Shellacking Of 2010, Democrats defied conventional wisdom and tacked FURTHER to the Left... I think that the Right should stay true to their beliefs (even though I don't agree with a lot of them) and simply bide their time...

    This was an absolutely perfect post. Could not have said it better myself - for all my writing in post [3] you summed it up more perfectly that I ever could: Republicans have no clue how bad their policies are!

    Even now, after just being hammered in the polls, they still do not consider that every single major policy they just ran on polls incredibly bad. I'd just love to see Republican world in their heads: 2010 was a very normal year and, despite the evidence of 2012, we shall continue down our far right path and wait for it to come again. Screw reflecting or re-examining your policies. Amazing.

    I've got bad news for you. 2010 was a year where Republicans did very well on a single issue - the evil Obama-care with death panels coming to kill them. They fooled people pretty good, did a great job I must say. Come 2012 - what happened? I'll let Bush describe it:

    There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.
    - President Bush, 2002.

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    This was an absolutely perfect post. Could not have said it better myself - for all my writing in post [3] you summed it up more perfectly that I ever could: Republicans have no clue how bad their policies are!

    Many on the Right said the same thing about the Left after Democrats got their clocks cleaned..

    It's sound conventional wisdom that is almost always correct.

    Key word there being 'almost'..

    Democrats defied conventional wisdom after 2010 and 2012 was the result...

    No reason to think it can't happen in the other direction..

    I was asked for my opinion and I gave it..

    If you have a problem with it, well.. It's YOUR problem..

    "You have a problem with the way that I am.. This ain't my problem cuz I don't give a damn."
    -Whitney Houston, QUEEN OF THE NIGHT

    :D

    Michale.....

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Even now, after just being hammered in the polls, they still do not consider that every single major policy they just ran on polls incredibly bad. I'd just love to see Republican world in their heads: 2010 was a very normal year and, despite the evidence of 2012, we shall continue down our far right path and wait for it to come again. Screw reflecting or re-examining your policies. Amazing.

    Congrats..

    You JUST described what was going thru the Democrats heads in 2010....

    Even now, after just being hammered in the polls, they still do not consider that every single major policy they just ran on polls incredibly bad. I'd just love to see the Democrats world in their heads: 2008 was a very normal year and, despite the evidence of 2010, we shall continue down our far right path and wait for it to come again. Screw reflecting or re-examining your policies. Amazing.
    -Democratic Party, Post 2010 election...

    Apparently, the Democrats were right..

    But, you can't bring yourself to concede that, this time around, the GOP might be right..

    Of course not.. What was I thinking!! :D

    Michale.....

  41. [41] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Democrats defied conventional wisdom after 2010 and 2012 was the result...

    No reason to think it can't happen in the other direction.

    Again, this is amazing to hear because you, like Republicans, have learned nothing from this defeat.

    Democrats didn't lose in 2010 because their major policies were unpopular in polls. In fact, their policies are largely unchanged because they are largely popular.

    Democrats lost in 2010 because a vast number of people were single issue voters, that single issue being Obamacare. The issue they voted on was, at the time, polling bad for Democrats - sure, this is fact. Part of the reason for it polling badly was a because of a campaign of lies and nonsense from Republicans/FNC.

    Where are we now? Well now, everything (including Obamacare) that the Democrats stand for is polling well. Obamacare is 50/50 and that's about the worst issue for them. Could the polls change? Sure. Is it likely that the polls will reverse on EVERY single major issue? No.

    You are comparing 2010 - an election that Republicans won based on a single issue that polled badly for Democrats - to 2012 - an election Republicans lost because their ENTIRE party platform polls badly.

    This is an important distinction as the former (losing a single issue election) does not require you to re-examine your party positions; the latter (losing an election because every position you have polls badly) does. If Republicans don't learn this lesson it could be a while before they become electable again...

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    As far as Benghazi, I realize that many of ya'all are getting sick and tired of discussing it.

    I felt the same way about Abu Ghraib.. :D

    But there is a simple way to get past it..

    Simply admit ya'all were wrong about the protest..

    Admit that the Obama Administration screwed up by ignoring security requests from SecState personnel and royally screwed up by trying to cover up the incident as a random, video-induced protest..

    Doing that will go a LONG way in taking the wind out of my sails...

    Further, ya'all have to know that the whole truth will come out. And, as more and more facts emerged on the Administrations handling of the debacle, it's going to get harder and harder for you to side with Obama over it..

    I am not even asking that ya'all admit I was right and called it dead on ballz accurate even BEFORE the facts were known by the general public.

    I know ya'all would rather eat glass than admit THAT, so....... :D

    Michale.....

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats didn't lose in 2010 because their major policies were unpopular in polls. In fact, their policies are largely unchanged because they are largely popular.

    Spoken like a true and true Lefty with absolutely NO cognization of the facts... :D

    Individual aspects of certain policies were popular.. But the majority of Americans were against the policies over all. Sometimes as high as 75% against..

    But by all means, don't let facts dissuade you from your Utopian/Democrat fantasy... :D

    Michale.....

  44. [44] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale,
    Further, ya'all have to know that the whole truth will come out.

    Finally, something I can agree with on Benghazi.

    I am not even asking that ya'all admit I was right and called it dead on ballz accurate even BEFORE the facts were known by the general public.

    Yes exactly: you jumped to a conclusion before the facts were known then continued to ignore all the facts that disproved your conclusion. It is a textbook example of how NOT to make objective decisions on something.

    Individual aspects of certain policies were popular.. But the majority of Americans were against the policies over all. Sometimes as high as 75% against..

    Lololol amazing. You really do live in a fantasy world. I'd LOVE to know what issues you are talking about. Or any of the slightest evidence of this. Bare in mind you are talking to an avid poll-watcher here. Even Obamacare didn't have 75% against it in 2010 polls...

    It's funny that before this election Republicans were screaming but 2010-2010-2010! Now, after the election, they have clearly learned their lessons and are screaming 2010-2010-2010... Lol.

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Simply admit ya'all were wrong about the protest..

    I am also constrained to point out that ya'all were dead wrong about Benghazi being only an "election issue" and that, after the election, it would "all go away."...

    Another point that I called dead on ballz accurate...

    Michale....

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes exactly: you jumped to a conclusion before the facts were known then continued to ignore all the facts that disproved your conclusion.

    No, I used my vast and varied experience in military and CT circles, with some intel from backroom sources and made the correct conclusion..

    The fact that ya'all ridiculed the claim simply makes things taste so much sweeter in the here and now.. :D

    You were wrong about the protests.. I was right.

    You were wrong about Benghazi being an election issue only. I was right.

    :D

    It's a bitter pill to swallow, I know...

    Michale.....

  47. [47] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Admit that the Obama Administration screwed up by ignoring security requests from SecState personnel and royally screwed up by trying to cover up the incident as a random, video-induced protest..

    I will admit -no, I have held- that it's evident that someone dropped the ball in Washington. But you have to admit that it is at least possible that this indicates the problems that can arise when a facility is under joint concern, if not control, of both the diplomatic mission and the intelligence mission.

    You've undoubtedly heard from your contacts that, for example, Benghazi was important in US involvement in Syrian liberation logistic and weapons support. Gen. Petraeus knows the facts from one-the-ground interviews, and I think it's still possible that he may testify.

    All I'm saying, Michale, is don't be blinded by your pursuit of the administration to the reality that intelligence may have played in major role in garbling the messages out of Libya in the eight hours starting with the attack.

  48. [48] 
    michty6 wrote:

    You were wrong about Benghazi being an election issue only. I was right.

    That's true, I remember you saying very clearly that President Obama's 'screw ups' over Benghazi would cost him the election. And you were proven absolutely correct, definitely not exaggerating or spewing over-the-top rhetoric, as we all hail President Romney. Oh. Wait.

  49. [49] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Ninety four years ago yesterday, Pvt. Henry Gunther of Baltimore, Maryland thought he saw a suspicious movement in the German trenches they were facing. Fearing that Germans were using the mid-morning sun to launch an attack while the peace talks dragged on, Gunther decided to recon the movement. A shot from a German sniper struck him in the heart and killed him instantly. The time was 11:01 a.m. just 1 minute after the war officially ended, making Pvt. Henry Gunther the final casualty of World War I. (HT, Art Cashin)

    For the millions who have served, including Michale and myself, but especially for the nearly three million killed or wounded in service to the nation, this is a day to remember.

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    LB,

    I will admit -no, I have held- that it's evident that someone dropped the ball in Washington. But you have to admit that it is at least possible that this indicates the problems that can arise when a facility is under joint concern, if not control, of both the diplomatic mission and the intelligence mission.

    I will gladly admit that Obama might not be directly responsible for Benghazi..

    But the buck DOES stop with him. A position, I might add, was the LEFT's position during the Bush years...

    So, while Obama is not DIRECTLY responsible for actions prior to 11 Sep 2012, he is undeniably responsible for his Administration's response to the actions of 11 Sep 2012..

    And those actions are, unquestionably, found wanting...

    All I'm saying, Michale, is don't be blinded by your pursuit of the administration to the reality that intelligence may have played in major role in garbling the messages out of Libya in the eight hours starting with the attack.

    As I said, my biases against Obama are wide, varied, AND ADMITTED...

    But I have also amply proven that I can rise above them and look at the FACTS in the cold light of objectivity...

    That's what sets me apart from most everyone here..

    That's true, I remember you saying very clearly that President Obama's 'screw ups' over Benghazi would cost him the election. And you were proven absolutely correct, definitely not exaggerating or spewing over-the-top rhetoric, as we all hail President Romney. Oh. Wait.

    Be that as it may, I was still right about Benghazi being an issue after the election.

    Ya'all were wrong...

    Confession is good for the sole... Try it... :D

    For the millions who have served, including Michale and myself, but especially for the nearly three million killed or wounded in service to the nation, this is a day to remember.

    Hooooaaaaaaaaa

    Thanx LB... For your service and your sentiments...

    Very well said...

    Michale.....

  51. [51] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I especially liked the "area doesn't vote, people do" comment, as it succinctly explained the flaw.

    Well said ...

    Given my map, it IS accurate to say that this COUNTRY is definitely a RIGHT WING country.

    It would be accurate to say that the people of this country are center left.

    http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2012/countymappurple1024.png

    Much as that probably sticks in your craw :)

    -David

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    It would be accurate to say that the people of this country are center left.

    http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2012/countymappurple1024.png

    Much as that probably sticks in your craw :)

    Touche' :D

    Michale.....

  53. [53] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I was still right about Benghazi being an issue after the election.

    Well, I'll give you that. Though it seems to be largely because of the Petraeus scandal.

    -David

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, I'll give you that. Though it seems to be largely because of the Petraeus scandal.

    Not so.. There were several news stories about Benghazi prior to the Patreus revelation..

    But it's undeniable that Patreus being forced out mere days before testifying undeniably gave the story legs...

    Personally, I think Obama made a mistake. He should have let Patreus testify. Riding off the election high, Obama could have likely withstood the storm..

    Going this route, when the story does fully come out, Obama will look like someone with something to hide...

    Michale.....

  55. [55] 
    michty6 wrote:

    David,
    It would be accurate to say that the people of this country are center left.

    The mistake you're making is to assume that Democrats are centre-left. Sure, by American standards they might be. But Americans consider the statement 'people should be able to see a Doctor regardless of their income' a 'centre-left' statement ;) To the rest of the Western world such a statement would just be met with 'DUH' by every wing of every mainstream party!

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like I am not the only one disappointed by Obama's election:

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/11/white-house-website-deluged-with-secession-petitions-from-19-states/

    Petitions for 19 states have been put forth to secede from the US...

    By the White House's own rules, if the petition garners 25,000 signatures, the Administration is obligated to respond...

    This outta be interesting.. :D

    Michale.....

  57. [57] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Yes, that sounds like a great way to come across to reality. Lololol.

  58. [58] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    This outta be interesting.. :D

    Do you not see the bitter irony that those undoubtedly who are advancing those petitions are nominally (but only nominally) in the party of Lincoln?

    And, anyway, that particular form of nonsense was settled 150 years ago.

    By the White House's own rules, if the petition garners 25,000 signatures, the Administration is obligated to respond...

    I don't know why they're whining to the President. But in any case, an appropriate response would be a copy of a short little speech Lincoln gave in the fields of Pennsylvania.

    What. a. bunch. of. duchebags.

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    What. a. bunch. of. duchebags.

    And how many from the Left made similar statements after Bush was elected??? :D

    Michale....

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you not see the bitter irony that those undoubtedly who are advancing those petitions are nominally (but only nominally) in the party of Lincoln?

    About as ironic as the Party Of The KKK advancing the cries of racism..... :D

    Michale.....

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, anyway, that particular form of nonsense was settled 150 years ago.

    You don't see any value in some states breaking away from the US, the way the colonies broke away from the UK???

    Michale.....

  62. [62] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    And how many from the Left made similar statements after Bush was elected??? :DSecession? Find one.

  63. [63] 
    akadjian wrote:

    What. a. bunch. of. duchebags.

    A.men.

    I always wonder why they don't take their own advice and simply move to another country.

    However, it does make the Democratic Party look more and more sane (kind of like the birthers) so perhaps we should encourage them

    :)

    -David

  64. [64] 
    michty6 wrote:

    You're right Michale. I could imagine a lot of people wanting to leave (or secede) if Romney had won!

    The good thing for them is that they don't have to go as far as secession though, they can simply move to any English speaking Western country in the world. To those on the right, any English speaking Western country in the world is like a nightmare for them with 'socialism' abound everywhere!

    I heard the President of Australia was a good Christian man though... ;)

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    And how many from the Left made similar statements after Bush was elected??? :DSecession? Find one.

    "Personal" secession???

    I said "similar" not exact.. :D

    Surely threatening to move out of the US is a "personal" form of secession...

    Michal

  66. [66] 
    michty6 wrote:

    David,
    I always wonder why they don't take their own advice and simply move to another country.

    Because there is no country on earth, other than the USA, which preaches their brand of crazy...

  67. [67] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    You don't see any value in some states breaking away from the US, the way the colonies broke away from the UK???

    Absolutely not.

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    You're right Michale. I could imagine a lot of people wanting to leave (or secede) if Romney had won!

    So, you can see how a bunch of people would want to leave if Romney won.. But it's not possible that a LOT more people would want to leave if Obama won???

    Bigot much?? :D

    Michale.....

  69. [69] 
    akadjian wrote:

    But Americans consider the statement 'people should be able to see a Doctor regardless of their income' a 'centre-left' statement ;) To the rest of the Western world such a statement would just be met with 'DUH' by every wing of every mainstream party!

    Heheh. Indeed. Other countries haven't gone quite as wingnutty as us (see above secession comments). Here's to changing this!

    -David

  70. [70] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    I heard the President of Australia was a good Christian man though... ;)

    Now that was precious.

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    You don't see any value in some states breaking away from the US, the way the colonies broke away from the UK???

    Absolutely not.

    Why fer???

    If things are going to be as untolerable under US rule for State X as it was for the colonies under King's rule, I would think such independence mindedness would be applauded???

    Walking in the steps of our fore-fathers and all that other stuff...

    Mind you, I am not condoning such actions.

    I just find it strange that liberals who profess to believe in freedoms would come down on states who, as unified body, would wish to go their way for THEIR freedom....

    Michale.....

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like Texas got the required signatures....

    http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/11/the-petition-to-let-texas-secede-from-the-u-s-to-be-reviewed-by-the-white-house/

    How many on the Left would REALLY be sad to see Texas go?? :D

    Michale.....

  73. [73] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Because there is no country on earth, other than the USA, which preaches their brand of crazy.

    C'mon man ... don't you think the Aussies would take 'em?

    They started as a penal colony and all.

    There's gotta be someone who could profit off of them somehow. Maybe put them to work building something instead of endlessly bitching.

    Something ... ?

    -David

  74. [74] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    So, you can see how a bunch of people would want to leave if Romney won.. But it's not possible that a LOT more people would want to leave if Obama won???

    There's a big difference between deciding to leave (or dreaming of leaving) the United States, and encouraging the notion that a state should secede.

    Many honorable people leave their country out of conscience. Traitors propose to split the nation because they object to the flow of events.

  75. [75] 
    akadjian wrote:

    How many on the Left would REALLY be sad to see Texas go?

    You got me there, Michale. That's one I'm not sure I could argue.

    Unfortunately, I think the great state of Texas probably gets too much federal aid to really want this :)

    -David

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Unfortunately, I think the great state of Texas probably gets too much federal aid to really want this :)

    Actually, if you take their industry and turn it inward, Texas would be one of the few states in the country that would be completely self-sufficient...

    No Uncle Sam needed in Texas...

    Which is why the US won't let Texas go..

    The US needs Texas a LOT more than Texas needs the US...

    Michale.....

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Maybe put them to work building something instead of endlessly bitching.

    Yea, the Right tried that with the Left during the Bush years...

    The Left were too lazy to actually WORK, though... :D

    Yuk Yuk Yuk

    Michale.....

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    You got me there, Michale. That's one I'm not sure I could argue.

    See!!!???

    "Well, that wasn't such a chore, now was it!?"
    -Peter Venkmen, GHOSTBUSTERS

    :D

    Michale.....

  79. [79] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Michale, I have to believe you're trolling here. We both took the following oath. I still stand by that promise, and I assume that you do as well.

    I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

  80. [80] 
    michty6 wrote:

    So, you can see how a bunch of people would want to leave if Romney won.. But it's not possible that a LOT more people would want to leave if Obama won???

    Bigot much?? :D

    Lol where did I say this? Is this addressed to me or that random guy called the 'left' you know so well? The reason why Romney supporters are less likely to move is because there is no Western democracy that tailors to their kind of crazy other than America... I mean people getting access to healthcare regardless of their income levels - PREPOSTEROUS!

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale, I have to believe you're trolling here. We both took the following oath. I still stand by that promise, and I assume that you do as well.

    No, not trolling.. And, as I said, I am not condoning such actions..

    But, intellectually speaking, the actions do appear to be in the vein of what our fore-fathers did to escape the tyranny of the majority...

    How are the actions in the here and now any different??

    I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

    Actually, I believe the phrase is "will obey the lawful orders" etc etc etc...

    Is an order from the POTUS to execute an American citizen w/o due process a "lawful" order???

    That's one for those in a higher pay grade, to be sure, but the question is an interesting one...

    If I recall, Bush gave "orders" to have terrorists tortured and I think I recall that the Left had a really big problem with that...

    I'm just sayin'..... :D

    Michale.....

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    If I recall, Bush gave "orders" to have terrorists tortured and I think I recall that the Left had a really big problem with that...

    CW did a commentary a while back, before torture was the flavor of the month...

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2008/04/03/another-secret-yoo-memo/#comments

    Interesting changes in attitudes between then and now.. :D

    Michale.....

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    Like I said, it's all just fruits for discussion...

    If Romney had won the Election, people would be talking about California and Massachusetts seceding from the Union and most here wouldn't say boo...

    It's all just politics.... :D

    Michale.....

  84. [84] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Interesting factoid to toss out...

    The first organized secession movement (unless you count the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, which didn't get very far and were really about nullification and not outright secession) came from none other than New England.

    That's right -- not the South, but New England. In the runup to the War of 1812 (as early as 1804), the Federalists were in a RAGE up in their stronghold of New England. Why were they in a rage? The other party (Jefferson) had tossed them out of power in the "Revolution of 1800." And they HATED Jefferson with the same white-hot rage that Liberals hated Bush with, or Conservatives hated both Clinton and Obama. New England preachers were -- absolutely literally, and in no way metaphorically -- calling Jefferson the Anti-Christ.

    Never heard this in history class, but came across it in research. Google "Hartford Convention" if you want more details.

    -CW

  85. [85] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    people would be talking about California and Massachusetts seceding from the Union and most here wouldn't say boo...

    It's all just politics....

    I would. It's not good politics to promote the idea of secession. Good politics is advocacy of a position or direction for the nation which, if it wins the opinion of the electorate, can come to being.

    People can decry the direction of the nation, be civilly disobedient, burn the flag, even as a majority direct or elected, choose to forgo federal monies to avoid compliance with attached regulations.

    They can govern their state in any way they democratically choose, in compliance with the Constitution. They can even pass laws which stand in contravention of federal law, and wait for the resolution in the ballot box, the Congress, or the federal courts.

    They can say they wish they were not citizens of the United States, and, of course, can act to privately make that so, after they have left.

    They cannot, by majority of those alive today in that state, or otherwise, elect to have that state leave the Union and demand that it be so.

    You know that as well as I do.

  86. [86] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    whoa, secession? we're there already? really?

  87. [87] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Actually, I believe the phrase is "will obey the lawful orders" etc etc etc...

    I'm pretty sure it's not in the oath. Rather it is incorporated in the oath by the language "according to ... the Uniform Code of Military Justice," where is most certainly is.

    Is an order from the POTUS to execute an American citizen w/o due process a "lawful" order???

    It is not.

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    LB,

    I would.

    Which is why I like discussing things with you. :D

    You know that as well as I do.

    Yes I do...

    Which is why this is in the realm of discussion/debate rather than outright advocation... :D

    Is an order from the POTUS to execute an American citizen w/o due process a "lawful" order???

    It is not.

    And yet, that is EXACTLY what occurred under Obama's watch...

    And no one here said "BOO"...

    Now, personally, I don't have a problem with the action per se... If, in the course of my duties, I am ordered to take out a terrorist, American or otherwise, I would simply ask, "Head shot or gut?"...

    No, my point has always been how the vast majority of Weigantians (current and past) would hysterically decry such actions under a GOP President and remain silent about such actions under a DEM President...

    One of the biggest disappointments of an Obama victory is I won't be able to see my fellow Weigantians do a complete 180 on the issue of torture, rendition, Gitmo, domestic surveillance and all the other Bush CT Policies that Obama expanded on and wielded with such success... :D

    Michale.....

  89. [89] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Changing the subject, I've gotta say I've always respected Newt Gingrich. He's just about the right combination of firebrand partisan, realistic politician, and thoughtful scholar. I still won't forgive him for the Impeachment, but partisans are quite generally blood sportsman.

    As things are showing more by the day, that's the kind of person who is needed to have a national dialogue.

    He wrote in a piece published today:
    "The president won an extraordinary victory. And the fact is we owe him the respect of trying to understand what they did and how they did it." He added, "But if you had said to me three weeks ago, Mitt Romney would get fewer votes than John McCain and it looks like he’ll be 2 million fewer, I would have been dumbfounded."

    That's the attitude that can save the Republican party.

  90. [90] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    One of the biggest disappointments of an Obama victory is I won't be able to see my fellow Weigantians do a complete 180 on the issue of torture, rendition, Gitmo, domestic surveillance and all the other Bush CT Policies that Obama expanded on and wielded with such success...

    No President has ever willingly diminished the scope of his power. (Thankfully, that's one of the few remaining places we don't have to have to worry about matching the gender of the pronoun to the subject. At least until late 2015.)

    That's one reason why "wars on things" are so dangerous and erosive. Whether the "thing" is drugs, or poverty, or terror, they tend to permit expansion of "emergency" governmental powers without provision of sunset, and encourage situational 'good' to mask permanent harm.

  91. [91] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Changing the subject, I've gotta say I've always respected Newt Gingrich. He's just about the right combination of firebrand partisan, realistic politician, and thoughtful scholar.

    he also would have had a better chance than romney in the general election. i'm not saying he necessarily would have won, but he had a number of things going for him that would have made him a tougher match for obama. i believe i wrote something to this effect around primary season.

    ~joshua

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    No President has ever willingly diminished the scope of his power.

    Oh, no doubt..

    My only beef has been the effect of that '-x' behind the POTUS name amongst Weigantians..

    If it's a '-R', the actions amount to war crimes and the POTUS is branded a "Hitler" or worse...

    If it's a '-D', it doesn't even warrant a mention except to applaud the results...

    Michale....

  93. [93] 
    akadjian wrote:

    My only beef ...

    Oh, I highly doubt that :)

    -David

  94. [94] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    he also would have had a better chance than romney in the general election. ... i believe i wrote something to this effect around primary season.

    In the primary season, I wrote that it would be Romney, because it's Harvard's turn right now; one term would be too brief, and only Romney could assure the streak would continue. Eight is probably too short as well, which does not bode will for Sec'ty. Clinton in 2016. The Wellesley alumni association keeps the official record on such things, so it can be checked out when the time comes.

    My choices, more or less in order, were:
    Bachmann
    Perry
    Cain
    Santorum
    Paul
    Romney
    Gingrich

    In that order, for the reason you mention: Gingrich was the only one who could have come into summer close or ahead in the national poll (not the voter polls; the public poll).

  95. [95] 
    dsws wrote:

    As for Occupy, the measure I used: where were they in election 2012? The answer: nowhere to be seen

    No question, Occupy collapsed. The question is whether it was "from its own self-important weight" or from its failure to transition from a lightweight to a welterweight form of organizational infrastructure.

    They didn't know what to do with the money coming in. They were committed to the near-zero-cost infrastructure that had served them so well in the transition from flyweight to bantamweight.

    Is an order from the POTUS to execute an American citizen w/o due process a "lawful" order???

    It is not.

    True by definition: whatever process is due, it must be fulfilled or the order is unlawful. But what process is due to a presumed combatant, outside the jurisdiction of the United States? Does it matter whether the person is a citizen? And can one honestly be said to "execute" a person not in custody?

  96. [96] 
    dsws wrote:

    Note that I say "they" when referring to Occupy organizers or General Assembly participants, but "we" when referring to Occupy supporters. I went and held a sign, and donated some odds-n-ends, but I only went to an assembly once. It was an obvious waste of time, which meant that the people who might have organized a better structure weren't involved.

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    My only beef ...

    Oh, I highly doubt that :)

    Touche'....

    OK, let's say it's my BIGGEST beef.. By far... :D

    Michale.....

    Michale.....

  98. [98] 
    michty6 wrote:

    My only beef has been the effect of that '-x' behind the POTUS name amongst Weigantians..

    If it's a '-R', the actions amount to war crimes and the POTUS is branded a "Hitler" or worse...

    If it's a '-D', it doesn't even warrant a mention except to applaud the results...

    This, like many of your beliefs, is not resemblant of reality and, like many of your beliefs, continues to be one you cling to and repeat over and over again believing that repeating it enough will make it true!

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    This, like many of your beliefs, is not resemblant of reality

    Really??

    What else explains the Hysteria from the Left against the CT policies under the Bush Administration and a completely blase' and appreciative attitude to the EXACT same policies under Obama??

    What else explains the Hysteria from the Left about Abu Ghraib, which was nothing worse than college hazing and the complete ignoring of the Afghani Kill Teams???

    NOTHING else explains that except for the '-D' vs the '-R'

    Michale...

  100. [100] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Well, regarding Benghazi Or Not, it just gets worse and worse. Now General Allen is in the soup, which means at least two more news cycles on the scandal.

    Pretty soon the public is going to need a bingo card to keep all the floozies and actors straight, and then Greta will start to go to work on Fox.

    I'm not optimistic.

    As long as the press sees sex and drugs behind the left hand, you can park a battle carrier behind the right hand and no one's gonna f**king notice. -- Gust Avrokatos, in Charlie Wilson's War

  101. [101] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Yep. There's nowhere to go but down from here.

    From http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83738.html :

    In another surprising development in an already shocking case, the Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday night that the FBI agent originally contacted by Jill Kelly — the same agent who opened the “preliminary investigation” that led to Petraeus’ downfall — was later suspended by the bureau after allegedly sending “shirtless pictures of himself to Ms. Kelley, according to the people familiar with the probe.”

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    LB,

    Yep... It's going to get worser and worser...

    It's not the action... It's the cover up...

    These issues have been brewing for months... They could have been addressed LONG before they would have been a problem for Team Obama and his re-election campaign..

    My guess is Team Obama felt they could control the press... Which is true, they can..

    But they can't control the American People... And it's the American people who are the final arbiters of what is news and what isn't...

    However, the fact remains, Benghazi is going to be with us long after the election fades in memory...

    Michale.....

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yep. There's nowhere to go but down from here.

    It's become a witch hunt.. Where even the most innocent of messages becomes a major transgression..

    Once again, I point out the irony that 1984 is finally here...

    And it's the Democratic Party who ushers in the era....

    Go figger...

    Michale....

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    I read an article where it outlined the exact timeline of how this all came about..

    And the BIG conversation was NOT, "what do we do about this criminal activity??"

    The biggest debate in the whole thing was, "is this REALLY a crime??"

    Michale.....

  105. [105] 
    ninjaf wrote:

    It's not the action... It's the cover up...
    So far, it is just a bunch of people having sex and getting caught. Broadwell gets jealous and forgets herself and threatens who she thinks might be "the other Other Woman." The other Other Woman takes those threats and calls in a favor with a friend at the FBI, who just so happens to be sending her shirtless photos. The friend at the FBI doesn't think his crush is getting the results she deserves because he is removed from the case for not being objective. So, he then goes to Reichert who goes to Cantor who goes back to the FBI. The FBI either now has to examine things more closely, or the investigation was already progressing to the point that they have to contact Petraeus.

    It is my understanding that the FBI had/has concluded no laws were broken (with Petraeus and Broadwell) but rather that this affair makes Petraeus vulnerable to blackmail.

    So far, there has been nothing about this being the cause for anything that happened in Benghazi, outside of the Right wing conspiracy theorists (represented here locally by Michale). This reads more like an episode of Desperate Housewives than any kind of cover up for malfeasance. And just because Petraeus has resigned does not mean he can't be compelled to testify. Like Jon Stewart said last night, it's not like he is dead and can't ever be questioned.

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    So far, there has been nothing about this being the cause for anything that happened in Benghazi, outside of the Right wing conspiracy theorists (represented here locally by Michale).

    Yea.. The fact that Patreus was forced out mere DAYS before he was to spill the beans about Benghazi..

    In your fantasy world, it is unrelated... No where else..

    I am also constrained to point out that I am not the only one here who thinks there's a connection...

    Anyone who DOESN'T think there is the possibility of a connection is simply drunk on the kool-aid

    Michale.....

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    Like Jon Stewart said last night, it's not like he is dead and can't ever be questioned.

    It's funny how you always slam the Right for their devotion to a Right-wing entertainer and you quote a Left-wing entertainer to make your point. :D

    Naw, no hypocrisy there.. :D

    Michale....

  108. [108] 
    ninjaf wrote:

    Michale,
    You see me as a hypocrite. Fine. Move on. Ignore my comments. Your opinion of me is no skin off my nose. But seriously...picking at me for agreeing with irrefutable facts?

    Is Petraeus still living? Yes. Can he still be forced to testify before Congress? Yes.

    Do you dispute those two facts? I don't think anyone does.

    If this affair was supposed to be a cover up, it was a piss poor cover up (it doesn't even remove the witness in question from being able to testify). And I would hope that the FBI and CIA could come up with something better, if a cover up was the goal. If not, we have more serious Intelligence problems to deal with.

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    Awww, Frak!!!

    Sorry, Ninjaf, sincerely....

    I thought that was Michty posting... Had I realized it was you, I would have been a LOT more diplomatic...

    Sowwweeeee......

    As far as the cover-up, I don't think for a minute that Patreus was set up.....

    However, it's unlikely that it coming out at this time is coincidence...

    I mean, look at it.. A couple days AFTER the election and a couple days BEFORE Patreus' Benghazi testimony... *AND* on a Friday to boot....

    Seriously... The revelation was at the PERFECTLY EXACT moment it would do the LEAST amount of harm to the Obama Administration...

    That sort of perfect timing simply CANNOT be just happenstance..

    Again, sorry for being such a prick.. I only reserve THAT for michty... :D

    Michale....

  110. [110] 
    ninjaf wrote:

    Sorry, Ninjaf, sincerely....
    Apology accepted.

    As for this soap opera being perfect timing? I don't know. I am not a political strategist. But to me, it does not seem to be perfect timing. If it had been, I would think sometime during next summer after the Benghazi situation had been further investigated and the testimony had already been delivered. Having it come out now seems rather like a pain in the butt because it allows conspiracy theorists to fan the flame that there is some sort of cover up, instead of a tawdry soap opera that appears to be unraveling now.

    And to clarify, when I first heard the breaking news about Petraeus, I did wonder if it was a cover up. But in light of the information that has come out since then, I just don't see it that way. It is all too juvenile and petty to be anything more than egos and human nature at work.

    Plus, that whole "still able to testify" thing. :)
    And by the way, Sen. Feinstein (with the all-dreaded D- behind her name) is saying it is likely they will still require him to testify at some point, so he is not off the hook.

    Quoting here for Liz:

    Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat, told MSNBC on Monday that her panel "should go ahead with Mike Morell and the way it is now set up.

    "But I also think that the community should know that this is not sufficient," she continued. "And I have no doubt now that we will need to talk with David Petraeus. And we will likely do that in closed session, but it will be done one way or the other." Feinstein also said that the Senate would fight, if necessary, to obtain a report from a Petraeus trip to Libya in late October.

    "We have asked to see the trip report. One person tells me he has read it, and then we tried to get it and they tell me it hasn't been done. That's unacceptable," she said. "We are entitled to this trip report and if we have to go to the floor of the senate on a subpoena, we will do just that."

  111. [111] 
    ninjaf wrote:

    CW,
    I just wanted to say my husband and I were talking about your PR suggestion above here, and neither one of us could come up with a negative for Republicans to follow your advice. It will be interesting to see if they take you up on it.

  112. [112] 
    michty6 wrote:

    What else explains the Hysteria from the Left against the CT policies under the Bush Administration and a completely blase' and appreciative attitude to the EXACT same policies under Obama??

    What else explains the Hysteria from the Left about Abu Ghraib, which was nothing worse than college hazing and the complete ignoring of the Afghani Kill Teams???

    There is a very simple explanation. It is the fact that this 'the left' person is completely made up by you, so YOU can form what opinions this made up 'left' person has and extraloplate them on to everyone else, completely ignoring what they are actually saying...

    Maybe you should start reading some blogs by people on the 'left' and you will see that there is outrage. Watch The Young Turks or a progressive news network. Here I'll give you a simple one where the outrage is in cartoon format so kinda fun: http://www.rall.com/rallblog/

    Again I don't know how many times I have said it but you can't just pick the opinion of 1 (often imaginary) person and make them 'the left'... I know this suits your 'right vs left' style of posting, but it doesn't add anything to the conversation except more blatant rhetoric.

  113. [113] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Michty,

    A quick note on the 'right vs left' tactic. You likely grok this already but for anyone else out there.

    Republican strategists understand that when you stick to talking about issues, the majority tends to have pretty liberal views. For example, most people are pretty charitable.

    So how do you counter this when your views are not popular with the general public?

    Simple. You create false divisions. Cue Republican vs. Democrat. Cue the culture wars.

    If everyone thinks the divide is Republican vs. Democrat, you can provide as many tax breaks as you want to your well-heeled backers.

    Or, in the words of one of my favorite jokes:

    A CEO, a union employee, and a Tea Party member are sitting at a table. There's 12 cookies on the table. The CEO grabs 11 of them and turns to the Tea Party member and says "That union guy wants a piece of your cookie."

    :)

    -David

    p.s. Now the real question is how much will the Democrats play along with this game. *fingers crossed you're right about who they owe*

  114. [114] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Hahaha David, very good I like that joke! As Fat Tony would say:

    "it's funny because it's true! (well obsurved!)"

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, ya'all are saying that there WASN'T any cries from the Left against Bush over Abu Ghraib??

    Further, you are saying that the Left was as on board with Bush's CT policies as they are on Obama's continuation and expansion of Bush's CT Policies???

    Is THAT what ya'all are REALLY saying!???

    REALLY!!!?????

    "We are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at way with Eurasia."

    1984 is here....

    Michale.....

  116. [116] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Nope, I think you need to read better Michale. Either that or the character you created called 'the left' keeps changing his (your) opinion... You need to get in control of your own characters!

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh I see.. You're right.. I misunderstood..

    You are claiming that the outcry from the Left is as vocally opposing the US's CT policies as it was during the Bush years..

    What HAVE you been smoking???

    Just look at our little corner of the world.. Look at how many anti-torture, anti-surveillance, anti-rendition commentaries there were under the Bush years and compare that to the number that there has been under the Obama years..

    Where were the Anti-War protests when Obama did his Afghan surge???

    Comparatively non-existent...

    I have to give you credit though for a large set of cajones... To blatantly try and compare the hysteria level to the CT policies now to what it was in the Bush years???

    It takes a large set of brass ones to utterly bullshit so grandly... :D

    My hat is off to you... :D

    Michale.....

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting turn of events in the "Secession" story...

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/wh-petition-calls-stripping-citizenship-and-exile-anyone-who-signs-petition-secede_663282.html

    The Left is demanding that those who sign secession petitions be stripped of their US citizenship....

    Comments??? :D

    10,000 quatloos say many here don't have a problem with that. :D

    Michale.....

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ninjaf,

    I agree that the current situation is not IDEAL for the Obama Administration.

    But the timing is as close to perfect as could possibly be, given that no secret of this magnitude can be kept forever..

    It will be interesting to see how this all plays out...

    Michale.....

  120. [120] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    RE: Petition signing for secession = sedition.

    Of course -and no one likely will disagree- utter nonsense.

    That said, utter nonsense is not necessarily bad politics if it is advanced in opposition to utter nonsense. Then, they are, in particle physics terms, a muson and anti-muson, neither of which have any mass at all, and, perhaps, don't even exist.

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    One thing I find very sad..

    The FBI has spent more time at Patreus' misstress' house investigating then they have in Benghazi....

    Michale.....

  122. [122] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    So maybe this is the way it's going to go:

    Sen. Feinstein says (see above report):
    "We have asked to see the trip report. One person tells me he has read it, and then we tried to get it and they tell me it hasn't been done. That's unacceptable," she said. "We are entitled to this trip report and if we have to go to the floor of the senate on a subpoena, we will do just that."

    That trip report is undoubtedly classified. The Agency is evidently saying it doesn't exist. Morrell can claim he didn't see it. Petraeus can't discuss it in public because it's classified.

    I suppose they could conduct the testimony in closed session, but it seems that there is an increasingly bipartisan view that the whole thing is somehow toxic. Point in example: Cantor was alerted by FBI to the affair, but remained silent.

    I'm getting the sinking feeling this one is going to pass into the night.

  123. [123] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The FBI has spent more time at Patreus' misstress' house investigating then they have in Benghazi.

    Sheesh. No kidding. What a tremendous waste of resources.

    And if you think the FBI is wasting resources, look at all the time the media is spending.

    *sigh*

    It was an affair. Petraeus admitted it. It was unfortunate but I don't see any crimes committed. But unless I'm wrong, I don't see any crimes committed. Let's move on people ...

    -David

    -David

  124. [124] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Michty ... still early, but this is a good sign ...

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/13/obama-bush-tax-cuts_n_2124324.html

    -David

  125. [125] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    As long as they don't give in to the "cut deductions/ close loopholes" scam, they hold the cards.

    I was surprised nobody pointed out that's a long game scam. So long as there is not a line item veto, deductions and "loopholes" can find their way back into force though arcane amendments to a wide array of bills.

    That's why Gov. Romney could propose it without any comment from the affected parties on either side.

  126. [126] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I was surprised nobody pointed out that's a long game scam. So long as there is not a line item veto, deductions and "loopholes" can find their way back into force though arcane amendments to a wide array of bills.

    Good point, LB. This is partly why I don't really believe the "reform the tax code" rhetoric.

    -David

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    It was an affair. Petraeus admitted it. It was unfortunate but I don't see any crimes committed. But unless I'm wrong, I don't see any crimes committed. Let's move on people ...

    See! We DO agree on somethings!! :D

    LB,

    That said, utter nonsense is not necessarily bad politics if it is advanced in opposition to utter nonsense.

    That sounds suspiciously like "The Ends Justifies The Means"..

    I KNEW there was a reason I liked you!!! :D

    Michale.....

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:
  129. [129] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale,
    Yes you did misread and yes I was pointing out that there is plenty outrage from the left. I am glad to hear about this miraculous system you have of 'measuring' outrage and how it indicates the 'level' of outrage isn't the same as during the Bush years. I look forward to seeing some concrete data on this (but won't be holding my breath).

    And yes that petition to throw out those who signed a secession petition is just as stupid as a secession petition.

    David,
    More good signs: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/13/obama-activist-base-fiscal-cliff_n_2127100.html

    It looks like Obama is now preaching to the people who elected him (finally!). Let's hope it holds.

    LB,
    Yes everyone with half a brain who looked at Romney's tax plan knew this. The reality in American politics is that the deductions that would be left/put back in place would be heavily correlated to the lobbying power of the organisation wanting the deductions.

    It is one of those ideas that theoretically sounds ok but practically is horrendous. This is why he could never give an answer of how it would work in PRACTICE.

    Michale,
    Looks like a LOT of people are disappointed in Obama's election...

    Lolol more than 62 MILLION voted for him (likely to be more than 63m when States have finished counting votes). Again, as I said before the election, if you thought this election was close you are deluding yourself. Obama is going to end up taking the popular vote by close to 3.5% (i.e. bigger than Bush in 2004, bigger than Bush in 2000 (lol)) and won the EC by a 24% margin (bigger than both of Bush's margins).

    So if you think people are upset over Obama winning imagine how they felt for BOTH of Bush's wins, which were much, much closer...

  130. [130] 
    michty6 wrote:

    David,
    This is an excellent diagram to show how Democrats, despite winning the popular vote by close to 1%, have not been able to take the House because of undemocratic re-districting by Republicans. You can see Ohio is pretty bad. An analysis by Sam Wang at PEC showed that he believes Democrats would have to win the House popular vote by 2.5% to have a 50/50 chance to take the House under current conditions. Yay! Democracy American style!

    http://assets.motherjones.com/interactives/projects/2012/11/gerrymandering/votes-worth-ratio.png

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    yes I was pointing out that there is plenty outrage from the left.

    Only two Lefty pundits consistently call out Obama on being more Bush than Bush..

    That's Unger and Greenwald...

    Compare that to EVERY Left Wing pundit calling out Bush on his CT Policies...

    For being a "numbers guy" you sure don't have then in your corner on this issue...

    Michale.....

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am glad to hear about this miraculous system you have of 'measuring' outrage and how it indicates the 'level' of outrage isn't the same as during the Bush years.

    It's an awesome system!! It's called Eyes, Brains and common sense... You should try them sometimes..

    I look forward to seeing some concrete data on this.

    Ask and ye shall receive...

    Look at the number of Torture/Rendition/Gitmo/Domestic Surveillance commentaries CW has done from 2005 thru 2008.. Although I won't go back and count each one, I believe the number is in the hundreds.. CW can likely provide us with more accurate figures..

    Now, go back and look at how many commentaries CW has done on Torture/Rendition/Gitmo/Domestic Surveillance since Feb of 2009...

    NONE... ZERO.... ZILCH..... NADA.....

    Big fat nothing....

    Now, this may appear to be a slam against CW, but it really isn't.. At least I hope it's not taken that way....

    I completely and unequivocally understand WHY there isn't any outcry from ya'all...

    Obama is your guy.. And ya don't trash on your guy, even if it is deserved...

    But for the gods' sake, at least admit it!!

    I don't care if you support Obama even in spite of his being more Bush than Bush...

    But at least be honest about it! :D

    We are all on record as conceding that we're all a bunch of political bigots...

    Let's see if we can open up with some more honesty and admit that ya'all will support Obama even if he is more Bush than Bush on CT issues because Obama is your guy..

    Michale.....+

  133. [133] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale,
    Only two Lefty pundits consistently call out Obama on being more Bush than Bush..

    You mean only two lefty pundits IN MICHALE WORLD that MICHALE watches consistently call out Obama for this. Heck I even provided 2 more sources in my post that started this chain. Again: just because YOU think the left are not criticising Obama for this does not mean that they are not.

    Your example of CW is another example. In MICHALE WORLD it is another example of this imaginary guy called 'the left' who doesn't care about Obama's CT policies.

    Let me put it this way. If we can agree on one thing surely it is that I read more left-wing orientated news stories/blogs than you? So perhaps I, being someone who regulars left-wing media, might be more better suited to talk about what left-wing media is reporting than you, who frequents right-wing media sources more...?

    Heck here's a piece written on HuffoPo just a few days ago on Drones: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-astore/military-robot-war_b_2113257.html?utm_hp_ref=drones

    I bet you hadn't read this?

  134. [134] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Another piece from HuffPo yesterday:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-whitehead/obamas-track-record-liberties_b_2119168.html?utm_hp_ref=drones

    Not only did Obama continue many of the most outrageous abuses of the George W. Bush administration (which were bad enough), including indefinite detention and warrantless surveillance of American citizens, but he also succeeded in expanding the power of the "imperial president," including the ability to assassinate American citizens abroad and unilaterally authorize drone strikes resulting in the deaths of countless innocent civilians, including women and children.

    Again I repeat: the outrage is there. Just because you haven't seen it in imaginary 'the left' guys life in Michale-world is not anywhere near evidence that it isn't...

  135. [135] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Small business owners, by an almost 2-1 margin, in a poll voted that spending cuts are waaaay worse than tax increases: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2012/11/smallbiz.jpg

    Most people's reaction would be 'duh!' but of course it is useful to remind Republicans of this at times (especially deficit reduction negotiation times)...

  136. [136] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Arianna Huffington herself chirps in today. You might want to check out the 2nd, 3rd and 4th items on her 'list' and her thoughts about it Michale. Again, the outrage in the 'left' is abound (except for in Michale-word ;)).

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/the-president-asked-us-to_b_2130035.html

  137. [137] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Lol Michale I saw this on wingnut conspiracy theories and thought of you. Wingnut views:

    1. The Benghazi affair is more politically consequential than Watergate, Whitewater, Iran-Contra, Chappaquiddick, the Keating Five and the Teapot Dome scandals all rolled into one, and Romney totally would have won the election if it had been covered properly.

    2. President Obama must’ve ignored warnings infinitely clearer than the 8/6/01 Presidential Daily Briefing entitled “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US,” which was obviously not worth investigating after 3K civilians were killed on Bush the Lesser’s watch.

    3. The only way Obama could cover his ass in the Benghazi affair was to orchestrate a scandal to compromise the country’s most prominent general, and he fiendishly used a wingnut FBI agent’s obsession with a seemingly flaky Tampa socialite to kick off an investigation that would lead down paths those two pawns could not foresee.

    4. Obama further used Jedi mind-tricks to silence noted political opportunist Eric Cantor after Cantor was briefed on the scandal before the election, thanks to the aforementioned wingnut FBI agent.

    5. Petraeus is either, A) such a dummy that he was willing to lie to Congress on 9/13 to buy a short reprieve from the announcement of the scandal, which he knows will then engulf him and destroy his career, or B) such a dupe that he will keep lying about Benghazi even after Obama has betrayed him and destroyed his career.

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, michy...

    You can find a commentary here and a post there. Sure.. I'll give you that..

    But for you to claim that the condemnation from the Left under Obama is at the same level of condemnation as it was under Bush????

    Well, I have to fear for your sanity... :D

    Michale.....

  139. [139] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Actually it is worse than under Bush. Bush didn't use drones. I don't know if you gathered this, but people on the left don't particularly like the use of drones...

    The only difference between Obama and Bush is that under Bush the CT measures were quite new, given what happened during his 1st term. So you may be correct in that they were more WRITTEN about but this doesn't mean that there is less OUTRAGE. Case in point, your CW.com example makes no sense. Of course CW could've written about CT measures every single post but that would get kinda boring - plus he has got marijuana to write about (BOOM)!

  140. [140] 
    michty6 wrote:

    The only difference between Obama and Bush is that under Bush the CT measures were quite new, given what happened during his 1st term. So you may be correct in that they were more WRITTEN about but this doesn't mean that there is less OUTRAGE. Case in point, your CW.com example makes no sense. Of course CW could've written about CT measures every single post but that would get kinda boring - plus he has got marijuana to write about (BOOM)!

    To illustrate this point, the newest CT measure Obama has adopted is the use of drones. You can find PLENTY of writing on the left (including the many articles I linked to on this page) outraged by this new CT measure.

  141. [141] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michty,

    Actually it is worse than under Bush. Bush didn't use drones. I don't know if you gathered this, but people on the left don't particularly like the use of drones...

    Yep I gathered that.. And yep, I agree, Obama's actions are much worse than Bush's...

    I still wonder why the Left gives him a pass..

    It would appear that they don't mind the harsh CT policies of the Bush era, as long as it's THEIR guy who's wielding the power...

    To illustrate this point, the newest CT measure Obama has adopted is the use of drones. You can find PLENTY of writing on the left (including the many articles I linked to on this page) outraged by this new CT measure.

    And yet, it's all lip service...

    Michale.....

  142. [142] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I still wonder why the Left gives him a pass..

    Lol maybe you should open the gates of Michale-world ad look outside. Then you will no longer be wondering.

    And yet, it's all lip service

    Sorry I'm not sure what exactly you mean by this?

  143. [143] 
    dsws wrote:

    When someone gets killed by a missile launched from a plane, why the _ doesn't anyone care about anything except whether the plane was controlled by a pilot onboard or by a remote-control operator?

  144. [144] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I don't think it's about how the plane is controlled. It is about the ease and ability of drones to kill people that manned planes quite simply don't have.

    For example, around ~2,800 people have died in drone strikes in Pakistan (including many many innocent people). I'd reckon that is probably more people than have died in dronke strikes in 1 country than have been killed in manned planes in the last 5 years across the world put together (imo, not saying this is a fact!)...

  145. [145] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I thought this cartoon was pretty good on drones: http://www.rall.com/rallblog/2012/11/12/worker-drones

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    I thought this cartoon was pretty good on drones: http://www.rall.com/rallblog/2012/11/12/worker-drones

    Now THAT was funny!! :D

    The Left has only themselves to blame....

    Michale....

  147. [147] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/11/15/florida-restaurateur-to-impose-surcharge-for-obamacare/

    Yea... ObamaCare is SOOO good for this country... :^/

    Michale.....

  148. [148] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Yeh fuck poor people. Bunch of moochers don't deserve healthcare. Americu!

  149. [149] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yeh fuck poor people. Bunch of moochers don't deserve healthcare. Americu!

    While I wouldn't be so callous as that, that is basically the point..

    This country, NO great country, wasn't built by people who always need a hand out..

    I don't mind people who need a hand UP...

    But people who constantly need a hand out??

    We can send them to the UK..... :D

    Michale....

  150. [150] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Healthcare isn't a 'hand out'. It is a fundamental human right. The sooner Americans realise this (and the logical conclusion of this - a single payer system) the better...

    But you're far behind the times on social standards (I mean ABORTION is still an issue in your country!) and I understand that these things take time. You are a much newer country and not a 'true' colony (like Canada) after all... ;)

  151. [151] 
    Michale wrote:

    It is a fundamental human right.

    In YOUR opinion.. An opinion you have absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support, save your Left wing tendencies..

    (I mean ABORTION is still an issue in your country!)

    Not for me, it isn't :D

    You are a much newer country and not a 'true' colony (like Canada) after all... ;)

    Now THAT was funny! :D

    Michale...

  152. [152] 
    dsws wrote:

    It is about the ease and ability of drones to kill people that manned planes quite simply don't have.

    How so?

    We're very risk-averse with our onboard-piloted aircraft, but we don't have to be. And in previous wars, such aircraft have killed far more than 2800 people.

  153. [153] 
    michty6 wrote:

    In YOUR opinion.. An opinion you have absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support, save your Left wing tendencies..

    Lol well it is the opinion of me and every single Human Rights expert in the world, including the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

    "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one's family, including... medical care
    - UN Declaration of Human Rights

    Fwiw I believe you should have access to a basic level of Education regardless of income too - for some reason I believe you will have less objection to this 'opinion'. But hey, I'm just used to living in a 21st Century Western democracy providing basic Human Rights to it's citizens... The 'leader of the free world' probably doesn't need to provide 'basic human rights' to it's citizens right!?

    DS
    How so?

    Because Drones can get to places that manned aircraft can't, are harder to shoot down and, when shot down, don't kill the pilot :) And Drones have been around for a lot less time than manned aircraft - give them some time, they will make up the 'killing deficit' quickly!

  154. [154] 
    dsws wrote:

    Manned aircraft could go anywhere. It's just that having a pilot on board is superfluous for most purposes, and we're very risk-averse with our pilots. On-board pilots will continue to be used where there's a possibility that kill decisions will have to be made despite effective anti-communications measures. Remote operators will presumably be used with all future fighter planes, where the ability to accelerate at pilot-killing gees outweighs any concern about communications interference.

    The aircraft with the greatest firepower will probably continue to be manned: heavy bombers don't pull high gees, their payload is large enough that the added weight of a pilot isn't all that significant, and they're not used to suppress anti-aircraft capability.

Comments for this article are closed.
[Powered by WordPress]