ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points [256] -- Most Disappointing Plan B

[ Posted Friday, May 3rd, 2013 – 16:00 PDT ]

Before I get into our main subject, allow me a moment of frivolity. I'd like to be the first (because I'm a day early) to wish everyone a Happy Star Wars Day! Yes, tomorrow is unofficially known as Star Wars Day, because (get ready to groan if you haven't heard this one before) it is the fourth of May. Put another way, "May the 4th," as in (I'm warning you, this is pretty cringeworthy) "May the fourth be with you."

But this year's Star Wars Day is a big one, because the original film ("Episode IV" to be fully accurate) is going to be dubbed into Navajo. They're having casting calls today and tomorrow to fill the parts, and they've already translated the script. That's pretty cool, I have to say. The people behind the effort did this to raise awareness of their language especially among their youth. Which, as I said, is a pretty great idea. I might just get a copy of the Navajo Star Wars when it comes out, just to hear what it sounds like. I have driven through the Southwest and tuned my radio into Navajo stations just for the novelty of hearing a Native American language spoken on the airwaves, so I could see sitting through a movie (where I pretty much know all the dialog anyway) just to hear it in such a unique and interesting format. So, more power to the people who put this together, or (more properly) "May the Force be with them!

In other Native American news, I read with interest this week a proposal put forth by Tim Giago, a Native American journalist, to build a museum at the site of the historically-significant Wounded Knee to present the history of the decimation of Native Americans throughout the Americas. While a quick look at a map suggests that such a museum might draw more visitors if it was located at the Crazy Horse Monument site (which is a lot closer to South Dakota's main tourist draw, Mount Rushmore), the Wounded Knee site isn't all that out of the way, especially for any tourists driving through Badlands National Park. The historic significance of the site is an excellent argument for building such a "Holocaust Museum of the Indigenous People" upon the site of a massacre.

In other early American news, there is now solid proof that the first English permanent settlement in America almost immediately resorted to cannibalism. It's been in the historical record all along, including one man who "slew his wife as she slept in his bosom, cut her in pieces, salted her and fed upon her till he had clean devoured all parts saving her head," but apparently some anthropologists hadn't been convinced. Now there's proof, in the form of bones from a teenage girl who was (to put it bluntly) butchered for her flesh after she was dead. Nothing like making a good first impression, when Europe first settled America! This is why children's schoolbooks have one whale of a lot more about Plymouth Rock than they do about Jamestown, incidentally.

OK, this is a pretty bizarre introduction to this week's news, but hey, I'm just passing along what was reported, folks. In more modern (but equally stunning) news, a professional pundit was fired because he wrote an opinion piece that was factually inaccurate and pretty ignorant all around. Is that even a thing? "Journalists" can get fired for saying things which are false (things which five minutes of fact-checking would have proven laughably wrong), and for other stupid comments? Really? Wow, I had no idea. Could've knocked me over with a feather.... Of course, while Howard Kurtz no longer is welcome on the Politico site, he's still got a television program on CNN, so I guess the universe isn't tilting as radically as a first glance might imply.

OK, that's enough, let's get on with it....

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

There are two winners of the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week, even though the impressive thing they did didn't happen last week. The impressive results (so far) did, though.

Senators Mary Landrieu and Kay Hagan are both Democrats from two rather reddish states (Louisiana and North Carolina) with plenty of rural gun owners within them. They both went ahead and voted for expanded background checks anyway. Well, the polls are now in, and they both increased their approval significantly by voting the way they did.

This is important for a number of reasons, not least that it might convince a few more senators to vote for the bill if it is brought back up again (which may, indeed, happen -- especially if Democrats see it as a winning campaign issue). But the real significance is that this is the first time the old Washington conventional wisdom has been proven wrong -- voting for gun control is not suicidal for "purple state" Democrats. It's not the "third rail" it used to be.

So while the award properly belongs to the people of Louisiana and North Carolina who are showing strong support for their senators, we simply don't have enough awards to send to them all, so we're instead sending both Mary Landrieu and Kay Hagan awards, for their courageous votes which caused the bump in their poll numbers.

Other Democrats (and Republicans, too), please take note.

[Congratulate Senator Kay Hagan on her Senate contact page, and Senator Mary Landrieu on her Senate contact page, to let them know you appreciate their efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

While some on our Friday Talking Points Awards Committee argued strenuously to give the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award to either Kathleen Sebelius or Eric Holder this week, we must instead give it to their boss: President Barack Obama.

Last week, President Obama appeared before a Planned Parenthood meeting and gave a rousing speech, promising his administration would fight for women's rights as hard as they possibly could. It was, from all reports, a good speech and got lots of applause. This week, Obama's Department of Health and Human Services (led by Sebelius) suddenly announced they were relaxing -- but not removing -- age restrictions on the Plan B "morning after" birth control pill. They insisted that it was purely coincidental that their decision to allow younger women to have better access to the pill came five days before a deadline to comply with a court order where a federal judge blasted the "politics over science" policy of the Obama administration, and which would have completely removed the age restrictions of Plan B -- making it as available (if not as cheap) as condoms.

There is no medical reason to restrict this drug. None. The FDA initially recommended it be sold over-the-counter to all. Sebelius overruled them, in unprecedented fashion. Remember when Obama, out on the campaign trail, used to blast the Bush administration for putting "politics over science"? I remember that, personally.

The day after this announcement, the Justice Department (headed by Eric Holder) stated that it would be appealing the federal judge's ruling. Obama, when asked about all of this, pronounced he was "comfortable" with the new policy.

Allowing politics to trump science is not pretty when Republicans do it. It is equally as ugly when Democrats do it -- if not more so, since when you campaign on specifically not doing so, you add a heaping helping of hypocrisy.

Which is why, although Sebelius and Holder certainly have earned a (Dis-)Honorable Mention, there truly is only one choice for this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award. For the record, this will be Obama's eighteenth MDDOTW, putting him behind only Harry Reid's 26.

[Contact President Barack Obama on his White House contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 256 (5/3/13)

While there was other political news this week (unemployment dropping to 7.5 percent, the lowest level since Obama took office and down 0.4 percent in three months), I'm going to forego the usual talking points this week. Congress was off on yet another weeklong vacation (their fifth so far this year), so there wasn't a whole lot of news from Capitol Hill this week. Obama gave a press conference, which is (sadly) a rare enough event, then he flew off to Mexico.

Instead, you'll have to forgive me for harping on about this, but the Plan B decision really sticks in my craw. Not because of the decision itself, and not even because of the laughable "oh, this had nothing to do with the court case... nothing!" nonsense, but because of the sheer hypocrisy involved. To that end, I am going to offer up seven quotes this week. The first is from Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, from an article she wrote not long ago touting Obamacare's benefits. The next four are quotes from the speech President Obama gave to Planned Parenthood one short week ago. And the last two are quotes from the judge's ruling. If you're tired of the subject, then I'd just advise skipping over the rest of the column. Fair warning.

 

1
   Except when I'm capriciously making the decision...

The first of these comes from Secretary Sebelius herself, spouting an ideal it would have been wonderful to see her live up to in the case of Plan B:

Women's health decisions shouldn't be made by politicians or insurance companies. Rather than wasting time refighting old political battles, this Administration is moving forward and putting women in control of their own health care. If women are going to take care of their families and friends, they have to take care of themselves.

 

2
   Except when I violate that principle for political reasons...

The next four are from President Obama's Planned Parenthood speech. This one came from the third paragraph, very early on.

[W]omen should be allowed to make their own decisions about their own health. It's a simple principle.

 

3
   Except when my administration lays down such laws...

Obama made the point that there are a lot of Republicans out there who were working very hard to place barricades and hurdles in the way of women having access to contraceptive care.

Forty-two states have introduced laws that would ban or severely limit access to a woman's right to choose -- laws that would make it harder for women to get the contraceptive care that they need.

 

4
   No politician... except me, that is...

Once again, a wonderful ideal that it truly would have been wonderful to see the Obama administration live up to -- especially that last line.

Forty years after the Supreme Court affirmed a woman’s constitutional right to privacy, including the right to choose, we shouldn't have to remind people that when it comes to a woman's health, no politician should get to decide what's best for you. No insurer should get to decide what kind of care that you get. The only person who should get to make decisions about your health is you.

 

5
   Except when I'm fighting against you...

This was the rousing, crowd-pleasing end to Obama's speech. What a nice ideal -- shame he didn't live up to such a strong statement.

As long as we've got to fight to make sure women have access to quality, affordable health care, and as long as we've got to fight to protect a woman's right to make her own choices about her own health, I want you to know that you've also got a president who's going to be right there with you fighting every step of the way.

 

6
   Politically motivated, scientifically unjustified

We come now to the excerpts from the judge's ruling [download the PDF]. Both of these appear near the end, after exhaustively proving the administration's position is factually wrong, for 40 or 50 pages. This was the heart of the ruling, aimed directly at Sebelius ["the Secretary"]. You have to love that "cannot withstand any degree of scrutiny" bit.

In sum, the Citizen Petition denial was inevitable after the Secretary ordered Commissioner Hamburg to deny the Plan B One-Step SNDA. Because the Secretary's action was politically motivated, scientifically unjustified, and contrary to agency precedent, it cannot provide a basis to sustain the denial of the Citizen Petition. The Citizen Petition Denial Letter, which came five days after the denial of the Plan B One-Step SNDA, was clearly prompted by the Secretary's action, despite the FDA's fanciful effort to make it appear that it undertook an independent review of the Citizen Petition. Nevertheless, even considering the Citizen Petition Denial Letter in isolation, the agency's decision cannot withstand any degree of scrutiny, not only because of its unexplained failure to follow the FDA policies discussed above but also because of its disregard for the scientific evidence that the FDA had before it.

 

7
   An administrative agency filibuster

This week's news was nothing more than an attempt to extend this filibuster, which is so accurately described in the judge's final paragraph.

Finally, even if the defendants' arguments would be sufficient to carry the day in the run-of- the-mill case, the bad faith that has permeated consideration of the Citizen Petition, not to speak of the Plan B sponsor's applications, should rule out such relief here. More than twelve years have passed since the Citizen Petition was filed and eight years since this lawsuit commenced. The FDA has engaged in intolerable delays in processing the petition. Indeed, it could accurately be described as an administrative agency filibuster. Moreover, one of the devices the FDA has employed to stall proceedings was to seek public comment on whether or not it needed to engage in rulemaking in order to adopt an age-restricted marketing regime. After eating up eleven months, 47,000 public comments, and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars, it decided that it did not need rulemaking after all. The plaintiffs should not be forced to endure, nor should the agency's misconduct be rewarded by, an exercise that permits the FDA to engage in further delay and obstruction.

-- Chris Weigant

 

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

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

51 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [256] -- Most Disappointing Plan B”

  1. [1] 
    Michale wrote:

    While a quick look at a map suggests that such a museum might draw more visitors if it was located at the Crazy Horse Monument site (which is a lot closer to South Dakota's main tourist draw, Mount Rushmore), the Wounded Knee site isn't all that out of the way, especially for any tourists driving through Badlands National Park.

    You ever drive thru the Badlands?? It's surreal.. Like a different planet...

    When we moved from WA State to Florida we drove it and did the grand tour. Little Big Horn, Badlands, Devils Tower, Sturgis... It was awesome..

    Last week, President Obama appeared before a Planned Parenthood meeting and gave a rousing speech, promising his administration would fight for women's rights as hard as they possibly could.

    Please explain to me exactly how making the I-Can-Have-Consequence-Free-Sex pill to minors is protecting "WOMEN'S" rights???

    Carrying that idea further, it's like saying that allowing girls to have drugs and alcohol is "protecting women's rights"....

    Don't get me wrong. Stick it to Obama all ya want! Hell, I'll hold the SOB for ya. :D

    But this is one issue where everyone on BOTH sides of this discussion are wrong...

    Ya'all for making it available to everyone and Obama et al for making it available to minors...

    but because of the sheer hypocrisy involved.

    I've been calling out the Obama administration for it's hypocrisy for years... Nice to have company.. :D

    Michale

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    In the "IT'S FUNNY BECAUSE IT'S TRUE" Department..

    "This president wouldn't be president if they had caught him" smoking pot. He'd still be a community organizer."
    -Bill Maher

    Maher appears to be arguing FOR strict drug laws!

    :D

    Michale

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    “How can we attack another country unless it’s in self-defense and with no Security Council resolution?. If he drops sarin on his own people, what’s that got to do with us?”
    -Obama Administration Official

    Let the Fast And Furious back-pedaling begin!!!

    Michale

  4. [4] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Thanks to Kay Landrieu and Mary Hagan sent!

    -David

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW (or anyone else who wants to respond)... Lemme ask you a serious question..

    Are all telephone calls recorded and accessible to the US government?
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/04/telephone-calls-recorded-fbi-boston

    I am sure that everyone here will agree that, eventually, we will have a GOP Administration..

    Given the facts provided in the afore link, do you believe that the Left will have ANY credibility whatsoever in defending personal liberties under a GOP Administration???

    Why?

    Michale

  6. [6] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Are all telephone calls recorded and accessible to the US government?

    Here, here, Michale. This is because Obama is a center-right President.

    Would love to see more disclosure around federal wiretapping.

    And if you're arguing for replacing Obama with a more liberal President, you won't find any argument here.

    -David

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    And if you're arguing for replacing Obama with a more liberal President, you won't find any argument here.

    Well, the original question was will the Left have any credibility when they oppose these policies under a GOP POTUS..

    But, since you ask... I am wondering how much power that '-D' carries??

    Here we have a POTUS who is more Bush than Bush in this regard and yet, the vast majority of the Left still shows massive fealty to Emperor Barack The First..

    What would Obama have to do for ya'all to become an ABO American like me???

    In other words, do ya'all have *ANY* red lines in Obama's governing??

    Or are you on board with ANYTHING he does as long as he is a Democrat??

    Michale

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Or are you on board with ANYTHING he does as long as he is a Democrat??

    Put it another way...

    You support Obama like I support Bush..

    You don't agree with everything he does, but overall you will support him loyally and defend him against those that would disparage him...

    Is there anything that Obama could do that would stop you from feeling that way???

    Michale

  9. [9] 
    akadjian wrote:

    You support Obama like I support Bush.

    I thought you were an ABO American ... whatever that means.

    Here we have a POTUS who is more Bush than Bush in this regard and yet, the vast majority of the Left still shows massive fealty to Emperor Barack The First.

    Fealty?

    You sure have some unusual perspectives.

    I think we've spent most of his administration urging him to actually be the liberal that conservatives make him out to be.

    Are you sure you're not being overly dramatic?

    -David

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    I thought you were an ABO American ... whatever that means.

    Anyone But Obama :D

    I think we've spent most of his administration urging him to actually be the liberal that conservatives make him out to be.

    Yea, ya'all have been "urging" him like a traffic cop on valium...

    phweeet... stoooop... phweeeet stooop

    And what do ya'all do when Obama gives you the finger and does what he want??

    "Please sir. Can I 'ave some more"

    Like I said, you support Obama like I support Bush.

    Is there anything Obama could do that would change your mind??

    Anything at all??

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Would love to see more disclosure around federal wiretapping.

    Then why don't you lobby against it??

    Why don't you write op-eds and comments decrying the police-state tactics and the secrecy and the violations of privacy..

    Ya remember..

    Like ya'all did in the Bush years.. Day in and Day out it was "Bush is Hitler!!!" "Bush is a war criminal!!!" "Bush is violating our privacy!!!" "Bush eats babies!!!" "Bush lied, people died!!" etc etc etc ad nasuem...

    But now that we have Obama doing WORST (by ya'alls definition) things, it's one big collective yawn..

    If you are truly against those things, then doesn't it behoove you to be against those things as strongly regardless of WHO is giving the orders???

    I'm just sayin...

    How can ya'all have any credibility in denouncing those things when you are passive about them when it's a Dem POTUS calling the shots???

    Which brings me back to my original question..

    Do you think the Left will have any credibility when they start denouncing these programs under a GOP Administration??

    If so, why?? And how??

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lemme put it this way..

    Has ANYONE here (sans yours truly), in the last 4+ years, wrote a free-standing comment, commentary, op-ed or opinion piece either here or somewhere else, decrying the Counter-Terrorist policies of the Obama administration??

    Anyone???

    Anywhere???

    Beuhler???

    I think the answer is no...

    Ya'all say that you oppose Obama in these actions..

    But the proof is in the puddin'....

    And their ain't no puddin'....

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'll help ya out here and move on to something different.. :D

    Senators Mary Landrieu and Kay Hagan are both Democrats from two rather reddish states (Louisiana and North Carolina) with plenty of rural gun owners within them. They both went ahead and voted for expanded background checks anyway. Well, the polls are now in, and they both increased their approval significantly by voting the way they did.

    The polls were conducted for AMERICANS UNITED FOR CHANGE which is a progressive/Lefist organization who has a vested interest in how the polls were worded...

    I would out little faith in their polling in 2014....

    Political Organizations are notorious for putting out what they WANT to believe rather than what the facts are...

    A much better indication would be Democrats who voted for the 1994 Gun Ban and were promptly decimated in the following Mid-Term Election.

    THAT is a much better indicator of what is to come..

    Past Is Prologue... :D

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    akadjian wrote:

    If you are truly against those things, then doesn't it behoove you to be against those things as strongly regardless of WHO is giving the orders?

    Let me flip this a bit since you are self-admittedly ABO even though many of his policies are those you agree with.

    If you are truly for those things, then doesn't it behoove you to be for those things as strongly regardless of who is giving the orders?

    Shouldn't you be supporting Obama's wiretapping of America?

    Why don't we hear you raving about the bang-up job Obama has done wiretapping the American public?

    The reason is obvious. You would prefer someone else in office, someone more conservative. The reason we support Obama in many aspects is just as obvious, he's better than the conservative alternative.

    As I've mentioned, however, I'm happy to work to get someone even better in office. Someone opposed to wiretapping the American public. No argument there.

    -David

  15. [15] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Allowing politics to trump science is not pretty when Republicans do it. It is equally as ugly when Democrats do it -- if not more so, since when you campaign on specifically not doing so, you add a heaping helping of hypocrisy.

    teachers noticed this pattern three years ago.

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Shouldn't you be supporting Obama's wiretapping of America?

    I AM... I DO! :D

    I have never made any secret about that fact. My beef has always been that supporting aggressive actions against terrorists is my schtick. I don't like the competition in ya'all.. :D

    Seriously, you make a good point..

    But I think the distinction is how much ya'all were against Bush's CT policies. As evidenced by the daily, sometimes hourly, rants against the POLICIES...

    To put it into it's proper context, you know how big I am on leadership. Or, in Obama's case, lack thereof...

    Postulate a scenario where, in 2016, we have a GOP President and he exhibits the exact same lack of leadership that Obama displays in the here and now. Now, if I supported that POTUS in spite of that, wouldn't ya'all wonder what gives??? Wouldn't ya'all take every opportunity to comment on the hypocrisy of such a position??

    As I've mentioned, however, I'm happy to work to get someone even better in office. Someone opposed to wiretapping the American public. No argument there.

    But, by supporting Obama, you DIDN'T work to put someone better in office.

    THAT's my point...

    Sure, now it's a moot point. But you could have made your displeasure known at the ballot box or by staying home.

    But ya'all didn't..

    CW is a PERFECT example of what I am talking about. He has come down HARD on Obama, several times in the past few weeks for various issues that are important to him..

    But with that (and one other) exception, it's almost as if people here are AFRAID to be critical of Obama...

    Joshua,

    Allowing politics to trump science is not pretty when Republicans do it. It is equally as ugly when Democrats do it -- if not more so, since when you campaign on specifically not doing so, you add a heaping helping of hypocrisy.

    teachers noticed this pattern three years ago.

    I have been saying that ad nasuem for about 6 years now...

    Democrats give great lip service to being the Party of Science. They are MUCH better at the lip service than Republicans.

    But it's ONLY lip service.. I can name several things right off the bat where Democrats only accept the science that is ideologically and politically sound...

    To me, if you are totally committed to science (as I am) then you take into account ALL the science..

    Not just the science that supports your political ideology...

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have to say, though, that ya'all decrying Bush/Obama CT policies under a GOP POTUS won't be ALL bad..

    Ya'all will be BACK on the side of condemning those policies and I'll be on the side supporting those policies...

    So, the universe will be restored in it's balance. :D

    The only difference is I will have the end all/can't beat all of closers..

    "You didn't come down on those policies when Obama wielded them.."

    :D

    Michale

  18. [18] 
    akadjian wrote:

    by supporting Obama, you DIDN'T work to put someone better in office.

    And by supporting Reagan (who was left of Obama) the Right didn't accomplish everything they wanted right away either.

    They worked at it over years with a strategy that looks like the following:

    1) Support the most liberal candidate you have
    2) Work to elect more liberal candidates

    You can keep trying to sow dissent because you're ABO, but the fact is that Obama has accomplished many good things as President.

    Do we want more? Sure. Then we need to elect even better candidates and work to shift public sentiment towards what we believe is best for our country.

    I return you to your anti-Obama screeds :)

    -David

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    You can keep trying to sow dissent because you're ABO, but the fact is that Obama has accomplished many good things as President.

    I completely and 100% agree. And I have stated so when that is the case..

    Just like BUSH had accomplished many good things when HE was POTUS.

    Yet no one here gives him any credit for it?

    So, why is it that ya'all complain that I DON'T give Obama credit for anything (which I do) yet ya'all refuse to give Bush credit for the "many good things" that HE did??

    Don'tcha think it's a little bit contradictory??

    Do we want more? Sure. Then we need to elect even better candidates and work to shift public sentiment towards what we believe is best for our country.

    Yet, you unconditionally support a POTUS who, by your OWN adminssions, is doing things that are NOT best for the country.

    You see my point??

    Ya'all say, "We hate a POTUS who tortures and kills and eavesdrop. But we support a DEM POTUS who tortures and kills and eavesdrop."

    So, the ONLY possible conclusion from that afore FACT is that having a DEM POTUS is *MORE* important to ya'all then your principles..

    In other words, ya'alls principles are conditional on which Party holds the White House...

    No other conclusion is possible, given the available facts..

    I return you to your anti-Obama screeds :)

    And I return you to your Obama-Love fests... :D

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    I return you to your anti-Obama screeds :)

    And I return you to your Obama-Love fests... :D

    Remember.. I am just a mirror image of ya'all...

    If I am so out of control over Obama, then ya'all are too.. :D

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Yet, you unconditionally support a POTUS who, by your OWN adminssions, is doing things that are NOT best for the country.

    But we don't, Michale. That's just it.

    There's been plenty of criticism of Obama from the 'left'.

    We're constantly trying to get him to act like a 'liberal'.

    Support for an issue and support for a person are two different things.

    What you seem to be arguing is that a person must do everything you want or you shouldn't support them.

    This is ridiculous.

    Especially given your views about Bush even though the economy collapsed under his laissez-faire policies. You like him because of his military policy even though you disagreed with him about his stimulus.

    What I'd like to see are Republicans advocating for better positions. The anti-Obama stuff really doesn't do anything for me.

    -David

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    There's been plenty of criticism of Obama from the 'left'.

    Ignoring for the moment that this is simply not true, I am constrained to point out that I am talking about HERE in Weigantia, not the Left in general..

    Further, you simply CANNOT support the conclusion that there is as much criticism of Obama from the Left as there was of Bush.

    And, since we both agree that there isn't, then my case for hypocrisy still stands, even if I were indicting the entire Left.. Which I am not..

    We're constantly trying to get him to act like a 'liberal'.

    No, you are constantly complaining when he doesn't act like a liberal.

    What actions have you (or anyone here) done to induce Obama to act like a liberal.

    Lip service. Nothing more..

    What you seem to be arguing is that a person must do everything you want or you shouldn't support them.

    No, I am arguing for consistency..

    What I'd like to see are Republicans advocating for better positions. The anti-Obama stuff really doesn't do anything for me.

    Of course it doesn't.. Because you support him.. You feel he can do no wrong.

    Benghazi is a PERFECT example of this.

    If it had been a GOP POTUS ya'all would have hung him by his entrails..

    We're obviously never going to agree on this.

    And it's going to take having a GOP POTUS and having ya'all going back to hysterically bashing his CT policies for you to see that I was dead on ballz accurate...

    Michale

  23. [23] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Further, you simply cannot support the conclusion that there is as much criticism of Obama from the Left as there was of Bush.

    It's a good thing I'm not arguing that then!

    No, I am arguing for consistency.

    By which you mean, when a person doesn't support 1 thing you believe in, then you attack that person.

    Bush generated so much hostility because there was widespread disagreement with him on his beliefs and policies. Not just one thing.

    Similarly, this is quite likely why you're far more hostile to Obama than you were to Bush.

    -David

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's a good thing I'm not arguing that then!

    Yea, that's what I said!! :D

    By which you mean, when a person doesn't support 1 thing you believe in, then you attack that person.

    No, by that I mean is that if a policy is bad enough to call a person a war criminal or a terrorist and then you remain silent when another person takes that policy and expands on it what's the only logical conclusion??

    That the policy really isn't that abhorrent...

    Similarly, this is quite likely why you're far more hostile to Obama than you were to Bush.

    Of course. Bush was an honorable man, a GREAT leader and a good American...

    Obama is none of those things and so much less...

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    So, why is it that ya'all complain that I DON'T give Obama credit for anything (which I do) yet ya'all refuse to give Bush credit for the "many good things" that HE did??

    Don'tcha think it's a little bit contradictory??

    it's not just the policy, it's the execution. a president of the united states is, after all, supposed to be some sort of "executive." bush's education policies were awful, and under obama's effective execution they have gotten even more awful.

    as to bush's foreign policy, i was mistaken about the policy itself being ineffective. it turns out not to have been the bush doctrine itself that made bush foreign policy a failure, but the bush execution. sure, apologists can blame it on domestic opposition, but then obama has to be let off the hook for the weaknesses in obamacare. in either case, the buck has to stop somewhere.

    I don't mind a parasite. I object to a cut-rate one.
    Humphrey Bogart - Casablanca

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    sure, apologists can blame it on domestic opposition, but then obama has to be let off the hook for the weaknesses in obamacare.

    Fair enough...

    But, the difference is, ObamaCare DOES suck... It was the wrong plan at the wrong time...

    Bush's CT policies WERE the right plan at the right time..

    In other words, it's in this country's best interests to oppose ObamaCare..

    Democrats opposed Bush completely and unequivocally for Partisan reasons, to the DETRIMENT of this country's security..

    THAT is something that I will NEVER forgive Democrats for...

    They put this country at risk, SOLELY for their own ideological agenda...

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kudos on the movie quote..

    I am embarrassed to say that I have never seen Casablanca...

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Democrats opposed Bush completely and unequivocally for Partisan reasons, to the DETRIMENT of this country's security.

    'Fraid not, Michale.

    Democrats were 100% behind Bush after 9/11. Ok, maybe not 100%, but 90+%.

    In fact, the entire G****dammed world was behind Bush and America.

    The world was united against bin Laden and was with Bush.

    Until Bush lost our trust. It started when he decided to invade Afghanistan rather than go after bin Laden.

    This was the first sign. But even then Democrats almost universally supported the war. The Senate voted 98-0 to go to war and the House voted 420-1.

    Then, however, he went to war on the flimsiest of excuses with Iraq justifying it by invoking "terror" in every other sentence.

    Two wars ... no bin Laden. That's his legacy. He deserves criticism for these decisions.

    But please don't tell me Bush failed because of the 'Left'. He had universal support. Until he demonstrated he didn't deserve it.

    Bush failed because of Bush.

    -David

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats were 100% behind Bush after 9/11. Ok, maybe not 100%, but 90+%.

    In the immediate aftermath, sure..

    But that lasted about 6 months tops...

    Until Bush lost our trust. It started when he decided to invade Afghanistan rather than go after bin Laden.

    I am sure you mean Iraq, right?? :D

    The fact is, Democrats didn't confine their Anti-Bush hysteria to Iraq.. If they had done that, then your argument might hold water.

    But Democrats went after Bush on EVERYTHING, across the board...

    ESPECIALLY the VERY policies that they embrace right now under Obama..

    Policies that have been PROVEN to be effective..

    But please don't tell me Bush failed because of the 'Left'. He had universal support. Until he demonstrated he didn't deserve it.

    No, until he made the hard calls, the unpopular calls that gave Democrats a partisan ideological wedge... Democrats just love their wedge issues as much as Republicans love theirs...

    THEN Democrats decided to look out for their own partisan agenda rather than look to the safety and security of this country..

    You can spin it all you want, but you cannot deny the facts.

    Democrats fought Bush tooth and nail over the very policies that they embrace under Obama.

    This is fact.

    Those policies have been unequivocally vindicated as completely and utterly necessary and effective in the safety and security of this country.

    This is fact.

    Democrats were wrong to oppose those policies under Bush.

    This is fact.

    Democrats put their own partisan agenda BEFORE the safety and security of this country.

    This is fact.

    And I, for one, will NEVER forgive or forget.

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:
  31. [31] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I am sure you mean Iraq, right?

    Afghanistan.

    Bush decided that war was the answer rather than going after bin Laden. First mistake.

    Unjustifiable unilateral war with Iraq. Second mistake.

    These are pretty big mistakes. And this doesn't count his numerous poor domestic decisions.

    -David

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bush decided that war was the answer rather than going after bin Laden. First mistake.

    Uhh.. You trying to re-write history??

    Bin Laden WAS in Afghanistan. As was the vast majority of Al Qaeda..

    Even your guy, Obama, said Afghanistan was the RIGHT war...

    These are pretty big mistakes.

    Yea.. Hindsight is always 20/20..

    Michale

  33. [33] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Hindsight is always 20/20.

    Let's use it then to evaluate criteria for what makes a good leader when it comes to these types of situations.

    Bush-
    1. First option is war.
    2. Little consideration of other options or the cost of war.
    3. Doesn't consult with or work well with others. Goes it alone.
    4. Ignores any evidence that doesn't support conclusions he's already arrived at.
    5. Makes hasty decisions.

    Obama-
    1. Identified the correct target- bin Laden
    2. Considers options and costs.
    3. Consults with others and works towards multilateral solutions.
    4. Considers all the evidence thoroughly.
    5. Makes well thought through decisions.

    I want a leader who, if & when he decides to start a war, is doing it having thought through what it means and the commitment.

    Not someone going off half-cocked.

    -David

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    I want a leader who, if & when he decides to start a war, is doing it having thought through what it means and the commitment.

    No..

    What you describe is an advisor... NOT a leader..

    As far as Bush goes, if he is such a bad leader, why is Obama following and expanding Bush's Counter Terrorism policies???

    Seems to me that, if Bush is as bad you think he is, Obama would have done EVERYTHING differently than Bush did.

    As it turns out, Bush made the right calls each and every time..

    His only disadvantage is he had to fight Democrats as much as he had to fight Al Qaeda...

    In short, Democrats were as much the enemy as Al Qaeda was...

    Spin it all you want, but that is undeniable...

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    akadjian wrote:

    In short, Democrats were as much the enemy as Al Qaeda was...

    So Democrats = terrorists because they don't agree with you?

    Sure, Michale.

    -David

  36. [36] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Here's a few other views on leadership ... This one has criteria used by FedEx

    http://www.fastcompany.com/33587/9-faces-leadership

    BTW- I'm looking for "bitches incessantly about Democrats" in these criteria but haven't found it in any of my leadership materials. :)

    -David

  37. [37] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Another good article from some noted CEOs

    http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/225804#

    -David

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    So Democrats = terrorists because they don't agree with you?

    Sure, Michale.

    Even though I didn't say that, I am constrained to point out that many here in Weigantia said that EXACT thing about Republicans.. And no one, sans yours truly, corrected it..

    Regardless all this "Bush is a moron" discussion is totally irrelevant to my main point..

    Democrats fought Bush at every turn over his CT policies.

    Democrats embrace an EXPANDED version of those policies under Obama..

    Those policies have been PROVEN to be effective and necessary to the survival of this country..

    Ergo, the *ONLY* logical conclusion is that Democrats opposed policies that were necessary and effective to the survival of this country SOLELY AND COMPLETELY for partisan gain..

    Now.. If you have ANY facts that dispute this conclusion, by all means. Aire them...

    But this "Bush was a moron" response to every slam against Democrats is getting tedious..

    BTW- I'm looking for "bitches incessantly about Democrats" in these criteria but haven't found it in any of my leadership materials. :)

    Did you find any listing for "bitches about and blames everything on Bush"??

    No??

    Then I guess that shows Obama ain't a good leader either..

    But the ONE thing that the Left simply cannot take away from Bush is that his Counter Terrorism policies were dead on ballz the right thing to do..

    And that just drives the Left batshit.. :D

    Michale

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hay David... If this is getting old and boring, we can always talk about Benghazi... :D

    Michale

  40. [40] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Did you find any listing for "bitches about and blames everything on Bush"?

    No bitching here. Just establishing leadership criteria based on the actions of two Presidents using hindsight as you recommended.

    Analysis = looking at actions and results and drawing conclusions

    Bitching = using every situation for complaining or personal attacks

    Those policies have been PROVEN to be effective and necessary to the survival of this country.

    The proof offered so far is pretty flawed.

    It kind of goes like this:
    - We haven't had any terrorist attacks so the approach must work.

    The flaw in this logic is that there could be many other reasons for a lack of terrorist attacks.

    To put it another way, I could say we didn't have any terrorist attacks from 1950-1960, and this proves that we should implement the policies from 1950. Long before any of the "Bush policies".

    Hell, for all we know terrorists might not be attacking us because they achieved their objective of baiting us into war and they're just sitting back watching as our country devolves into financial ruin.

    -David

  41. [41] 
    akadjian wrote:

    BTW- Been posting and writing all morning against the FBI expanded use of wiretapping. Thanks for bringing this up, Michale!

    -David

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bitching = using every situation for complaining or personal attacks

    You mean, like the Left and Obama does whenever confronted with the incompetence of the current Administration???

    Let's face the facts. Obama and the Left (including everyone here) has elevated blaming and bitching about the previous Administration to an art form..

    :D

    The flaw in this logic is that there could be many other reasons for a lack of terrorist attacks.

    The flaw in THAT supposition is it is based on wishful thinking and absolutely NO FACTS whatsoever..

    Michale

  43. [43] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The Left ... the Left ... the Left ... the Left

    Bitch ... moan ... bitch ... moan ... bitch

    :)

    Nicely illustrated, Michale!

    Here's a great example of leadership from the movie "We Were Soldiers". In this example, the squad leader comes up with a solution and demonstrates it. And then places responsibility for executing with his soldiers.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fpK9591u6M

    Love this because it's about more than giving orders.

    It's about recognizing problems and coming up with creative solutions so that people want to follow you. Otherwise, you're just pulling rank. If all you're capable of is pulling rank, you're not going to be much of a leader and it won't be long before people want to follow someone else.

    -David

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Left ... the Left ... the Left ... the Left

    Bitch ... moan ... bitch ... moan ... bitch

    Bush Bush Bush..

    It's all Bush's fault.

    4+ years into the Obama Presidency and everything is STILL Bush's fault..

    Further, I am constrained to point out that, from ya'all during the Bush years, ya'all were MORE critical of Bush than I am of Obama.

    And least *I* acknowledge that Obama has done some good.

    Ya'all can't acknowledge that at all.. Even today when Obama has followed EVERY ONE of Bush's CT policies..

    It's about recognizing problems and coming up with creative solutions so that people want to follow you. Otherwise, you're just pulling rank. If all you're capable of is pulling rank, you're not going to be much of a leader and it won't be long before people want to follow someone else.

    Which brings us back to my original question.

    When we have a GOP POTUS and the Left starts complaining and bitching about the Counter Terrorism policies, do you think the Left will have any credibility??

    I noticed how you STILL haven't answered that...

    BTW- Been posting and writing all morning against the FBI expanded use of wiretapping. Thanks for bringing this up, Michale!

    Not here, you haven't..

    How come??? :D

    I am ready to talk about Benghazi whenever you are.. :D

    Michale

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    BTW- Been posting and writing all morning against the FBI expanded use of wiretapping. Thanks for bringing this up, Michale!

    And, while you are at it, I would love to see a commentary from ya about Obama's extra-judicial killing of American terrorists.. :D

    Are you for it or against it??

    Michale

  46. [46] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Not here, you haven't. How come?

    Because you keep distracting me ... :)

    -David

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Because you keep distracting me ... :)

    Touche'

    On that note, let me relay to ya'all a little epiphany I had last night..

    Anyone watch the new show REVOLUTION??

    Last nights episode had a segment that was kind of relative to Obama's actions in governing..

    And it occurred to me that I totally misread ya'all..

    I have always wondered why I post so much and get very little in the way of response..

    After watching that episode of REVOLUTION, it hit me..

    Ya'all spent 8 years under Bush saying that torture is wrong and killing terrorists is wrong and we should rehabilitate terrorists and try to understand WHY they are terrorists and mitigate and extenuate their actions because they have been oppressed or a victim of American Imperialism..

    Ya'all spent EIGHT YEARS living, breathing and embracing that point of view..

    THEN..

    Then, wonder of wonders occurs!! A LIBERAL Democrat is elected President..

    HAPPY DAYS ARE HERE AGAIN..

    "NOW things are going to be different. NOW things will be done with compassion.."

    Then..

    W.T.F.!!???

    This Democrat POTUS, this LIBERAL of LIBERALS starts EXPANDING on the very programs that ya'all spent almost a decade decrying and castigating..

    This Savior of the Progressives PROVED for the entire world to see that torture and killing and aggression and brutality DOES win the day!!

    After watching that episode of REVOLUTION, it dawned on me...

    Ya'all are EMBARRASSED over Obama's actions..

    Ya'all chafe at having to defend what was heretofore INDEFENSIBLE... Ya'all cringe that ya have to stand with Obama against his enemies even though his actions should *MAKE* him the enemy..

    Ya'all HATE that, when it comes to counter terrorism that Bush, the Republicans and (HORROR OF HORRORS!!!) Michale was right...

    They were all dead on ballz accurate...

    I understand ya'all a little better now..

    Ya'all should catch that episode. It's a real window into the political psyche of the here and now...

    Michale

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    A second professor at the University of Southern California (USC) has been caught on video using his political science class as a platform for bashing conservatives.

    In the video, Political Science Professor Richard Dekmejian claims former President George W. Bush suffered from mental instability and stupidity during his time in office.

    Bush was bound by “serious intellectual and mental problems,” he said before going on to claim Bush must have been “stupid or lying” to initiate Operation Iraqi Freedom for the reason of promoting democracy.

    Dekmejian also alleges Bush dodged the draft when he was a young man because he was busy “getting drunk and high” and was “lazy for the first several months when he came into the presidency until 9/11.”

    In the 20-minute secret recording, captured by student Tyler Talgo, during the Fall 2012 semester, Dekmejian also leveled a number of derogatory comments against members of the Bush administration, alleging both Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice “lied” to the American people during their service.

    http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4745

    No wonder higher education is in trouble.

    With morons like this teaching our young adults, it's amazing this country is still as great as it is..

    Michale

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since this thread is winding down, let me leave everyone with a quote...

    "Those who fight monsters must take care not to become the monster."
    -Nietzsche

    Michale

  50. [50] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Nah.

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    So... You think the best way to fight the monster is to become the monster..

    Kudos.. :D

    "You have learned well, young Jedi"

    :D

    You DEFINITELY need to watch that episode of REVOLUTION..... :D

    Michale

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