ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [322] -- Games The Whole Family Can Play

[ Posted Friday, October 3rd, 2014 – 17:55 PDT ]

Since we devoted last week's column to Eric Holder's record, we've got two weeks worth of stuff to cover today, so we're going to have to whip through things in a whirlwind fashion. But we have included not just one... not just two... but three reader-participation contests in this week's edition, for those who want to join in the fun in the comments. Ready for all that? Buckle up, then, here we go.

We got some good economic news, as it was revealed that the American economy grew a whopping 4.6 percent in the last quarter, and the unemployment rate went down to 5.9 percent. This probably won't make much of an impact in the midterms, but both represent continuing good news on the economic front.

The head of the Secret Service abruptly resigned, after she got grilled by Congress over several disconcerting lapses which happened on her watch. She fell on her sword immediately, to her credit, rather than drawing the story out day after day.

The air war continues against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, which incidentally brings us to our first contest. Rather than "the war against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq," why isn't there a catchy name for this new war? All the Pentagon could come up with was "Operation Inherent Resolve," which led Jason Linkins at the Huffington Post to suggest an impressive fifty of his own ideas for a war moniker. Can you do better (in quality, if not in quantity)? What would you suggest we call this new war? My only idea is the rather snarky "Operation Here We Go Again," so let's hear your ideas in the comments.

Also worth mentioning from Huffington Post was a great article from Bob Cesca to remind us all of what Republican blowhards were saying on the subject of criticizing the president during wartime, from a few years back when a different man sat in the Oval Office's chair. A handy reference, when listening to Republicans these days. Another handy reference (and a more serious one) for wartime comes from the Washington Post, which ran a fantastic collection of nine ways to look at the mind-boggling "friend or enemy" complexities in the Middle East.

President Obama is getting a good response from the public in the polling on the war, which proves that even in a "war-weary public" there is still a "rally 'round the president" effect.

The Republican stance on the war can politely be called "incoherent." And that's me bending over backwards to be polite, mind you. For instance, Senate candidate Scott Brown has the answer to defeat the Islamic State -- seal America's southern border! No, really, that's his answer. Marco Rubio is very annoyed at President Obama's war plan, and has his own ideas about what to do:

To confront the Islamic State terrorists, we need a sustained air campaign targeting their leadership, sources of income and supply routes, wherever they exist. We must increase our efforts to equip and capacitate non-jihadists in Syria to fight the terrorist group. And we must arm and support forces in Iraq confronting it, including responsible Iraqi partners and the Kurds. In addition, we must persuade nations in the region threatened by the Islamic State to participate in real efforts to defeat it.

The keener-eyed reader will immediately notice that Rubio's plan is exactly what President Obama is already doing. One hundred percent the same. In other words, Rubio is annoyed at Obama for doing exactly what Rubio would do. "Incoherent" only begins to define such a stance.

Doug Lamborn, Republican House member from Colorado, does have a different idea about what should happen, but that certainly doesn't make it a better idea. His plan? "A lot of us are talking to the generals behind the scenes, saying, 'Hey, if you disagree with the policy that the White House has given you, let's have a resignation.'" That's right, he wants a mass resignation of America's generals, in the middle of a war. Lamborn calls on them to "go out in a blaze of glory."

Now, for just one tiny moment, let's imagine that, say, Nancy Pelosi had suggested such a thing, back in 2003 or so. Let's all imagine what the Republican response would have been, shall we? Think the words "treasonous" or "aiding the enemy" or "traitor" would have been used? Yeah, me too.

In the world of politics, the midterm congressional elections loom over us, and the polling took a turn in the direction of Republicans in some key states this week. There was some good polling news for Democrats from Michigan, though, so things are still in flux. In Kansas, a judge ruled that the Democrat who dropped out of the Senate race will not appear on the ballot, which makes a defeat of Republican Pat Roberts a lot more possible.

Which brings us to our second contest. Sarah Palin was back in the news, first for her family getting into a public brawl (you just can't make this stuff up, folks!), and then for winging in to Kansas in an effort to salvage Pat Roberts with Tea Party voters. Palin, in an appearance, coined a new "Palinism" that we are still scratching our heads over. Here's the full quote, as Palin compares Roberts to Independent candidate Greg Orman:

He's not wishy-washy on the fence like you know who, the other guy. I am so thankful because we need those with that stiff spine, with the principles that are so invicted [sic] within them, that they take a side.

"Invicted"? Um... what? Now, I have previously (gasp!) actually defended Sarah Palin when the point she was trying to make was misunderstood by pretty much everyone, but I have to admit, I have no freakin' idea what she meant to say here. Any guesses? The closest I could even come up with was "invested" but that doesn't really work. So our second contest is: What Was Sarah Really Trying To Say? Good luck. Serious answers and funny ones will both be appreciated.

In other news from outer space (how's that for a segue?), America is apparently keeping old nuclear weapons around because we might need them to shoot down asteroids. That's so cool they could make a movie about it... oh, wait.

And finally, our third contest for you to enjoy (got those entries in for the first two yet?). Because a Republican organization is actually (again, can't make this up) running a campaign designed to get everyone to think warm and fuzzy thoughts about Republicans. No, really. The ad campaign is called "Republicans Are People, Too," and features such thoughts as:

"Republicans read the New York Times"

"Republicans have tattoos and beards"

"Republicans enjoy gourmet cooking"

and, most amusingly:

"Republicans have feelings"

Awww... isn't that cute? They have feelings, the poor dears. Let's try to add to their list, shall we? How about "Republicans have mighty thin skins," for starters? Or maybe "Republicans can dish it out, but sure can't take it thrown back at them." Or perhaps "Republicans are totally OK not caring about you," to capture the full flavor of Republicanism. The possibilities are endless, folks, so please let me know what you'd add to the touchy-feely Republican ad campaign. Points will be awarded for snark, points for originality, and points for accuracy. A game the whole family can play!

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

In what we believe is a first, we're handing out an Honorable Mention specifically for not getting mentioned. Chad Taylor used to be the Democratic candidate for Senate in Kansas, but then he withdrew to give the Independent candidate a real shot at defeating Senator Pat Roberts. The Republicans took the matter to court, in an attempt to force the Democrats to field a candidate. They lost. So Chad Taylor won his battle not to be mentioned in the race, which was indeed impressive.

While not partisan in any way, we also feel that the students in Denver who are vocally protesting their school board's attempt to censor American history deserve our applause. The idiots on the board are trying to scrub American history of any ugly stuff, and leave only pro-USA rah-rah cheerleading instead. What is especially ironic is that they wanted to get rid of teaching the students about civil disobedience, which the students promptly began doing. Way to go, Denver students! Stand up for your right to know the truth!

But our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week goes to Nancy Pelosi. Earlier this week, I wrote a lengthy screed against cowardly members of Congress who are just fine with not voting on America's involvement in another war. I chastised them for not wanting to do their duty. John Boehner tried to weakly put it all on President Obama, by saying he'd be happy to call Congress back if the president would just send him something to vote on.

Nancy Pelosi responded, this week. From her remarks:

If you want to define an authorization, which defines, to use the word again, the authority that you're giving the president, you don't wait for the president to write it. Congress writes it, because we are asserting our willingness to vote for a plan of action.

She then said Congress should indeed vote before the election, while she continued to school Boehner on what is actually in the Constitution:

I think we should have stayed to do it. I think we should be getting ready to do it. I think it has to spring from Congress. Congress has to vote on it, and define how we would limit the power of the president, or not. But it's our decision, it's not the president's decision.

Why is it that those who claim to revere the Constitution seem also to be the ones who have never actually read it? I'm just asking.

For taking the position that Congress should return for a war vote, and for calling out Boehner's cowardice in not holding one, Nancy Pelosi is our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

[Congratulate House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on her House contact page, to let her know you appreciate her efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

We don't have a category for "Most Embarrassed Democrat," but if we did, House member Earl Blumenauer would surely have won it this week, for the brief post which appeared on his Facebook page... on the subject of Dawson's Creek. "It was a post made accidentally" on his page, it was explained. Still, it's pretty funny to see Dawson's Creek commentary (in this day and age) on anyone's Facebook page.

Humor aside, we have a "rest of the story" award, for an incident which already won two MDDOTW awards. Virginia state Senator Phillip Puckett was convinced to step down from his seat -- which swung the balance of power in the state senate -- by essentially getting bribes in the form of cushy jobs for both himself and his daughter from the Republicans. For this disgraceful action, Puckett won Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week in volumes [308] and [310] of this column.

That's the backstory. What was revealed this week is that the office of Virginia's Democratic Governor Terry McAuliffe also extended a blatant quid pro quo bribe to Puckett. This offer was -- incredibly -- made not just over the phone, but on voice mail. From the transcript of what McAuliffe's chief of staff had to say to Puckett:

I know there was a lot of frustration with your daughter, not, you know, getting a judgeship or something. If there's something that we can do for her, I mean, you know, we have a couple of big agencies here that we still need agency heads. We could potentially, potentially, subject to approval of the governor and so forth, you know, the Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy could be available. We would be very eager to accommodate her, if, if that would be helpful in keeping you in the Senate. We, we would basically do anything. We just need you really, we need you for the rest of your term and beyond, but in the immediate future, we need you to help us get this Medicaid deal through and I think we've got a way to do it.

His begging ultimately did no good, as Puckett took the Republicans up on their (better) offer of getting his daughter a judgeship and himself a seat on the state's tobacco commission. But for making such a blatant offer in the first place -- and, in the second place, for leaving it recorded on voice mail -- the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week goes to Paul Reagan, chief of staff to Governor Terry McAuliffe. For shame, guys. For shame.

[Contact Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe's Chief of Staff, Paul Reagan, on his official contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 322 (10/4/14)

For some reason, these get a little titillating towards the end. Hey, I don't make the news, I just comment on it. As always, these talking points are offered up for the use of all Democrats, whether being interviewed on a Sunday talk show or just around the water cooler with your coworkers. Use responsibly, as they say.

 

1
   Tell the good news

Democrats need to get over their fears of talking up the economy.

"The economy is starting to recover, folks. The recovery isn't complete, but things have looked very good over the past few months. The American economy grew at 4.6 percent last quarter, and I defy you to find an economist that wouldn't call 4.6 percent growth very good news indeed. Unemployment is down below six percent for the first time since 2008. In fact, this is the longest period of continued monthly job growth since we started keeping these statistics. We are averaging well over 200,000 jobs created each month, which is also very good news. The American economy is coming back, folks!"

 

2
   Stop voter suppression!

This one was a clear victory for Democrats, obviously.

"A federal judge just ruled that North Carolina Republicans did indeed want nothing more than to suppress the votes from people they didn't like. By enacting restrictions on voting that, in the judge's words, eliminated 'voting mechanisms successful in fostering minority participation,' what would have happened in the election was 'minority voters will be disproportionately adversely affected.' Over and over again, in state after state, Republicans are trying to make it a lot harder for minorities to vote. And then they wonder why few minorities would ever consider voting Republican. It's not that hard to figure out, really. One party fights for their right to vote, and the other one fights to make it more difficult."

 

3
   About that voter fraud problem...

This one is downright hilarious.

"Why is it that whenever I hear of voter fraud actually being committed -- you know, real voter fraud, not the fantasy voter fraud Republicans are terrified of -- it always seems to be a Republican doing it? Leslie Rutledge is running for attorney general in Arkansas, but she just got removed from the voting rolls because she is registered to vote in multiple states. Because she is no longer eligible to vote in Arkansas, state law seems to say she cannot run for public office. I'm waiting to hear all those Republicans who decry voter fraud to denounce Rutledge, but I'm not exactly holding my breath, if you know what I mean."

 

4
   Here's an idea -- why don't you quit?

This one deserves more attention than it has so far gotten.

"House Republican Doug Lamborn recently said in an interview that he has been talking to Pentagon generals behind the scenes in an effort to get them all to hand in their resignations, because Lamborn doesn't like President Obama's foreign policy. This is nothing short of disgusting. Lamborn wants to play politics not just with our country's foreign policy, but with America's military as well. Assumably, the generals all told Lamborn to go pound sand, because I haven't noticed any high-profile resignations, have you? I know what Republicans would have said if Democrats had tried to pull such a trick back when George W. Bush was in office, and their words would not have been kind. I've got an even better idea for Doug Lamborn -- why don't you quit your job? Why not resign yourself if you feel that strongly about it? Or are you too chicken for that, and only like to play politics with other people's careers? You should resign in disgrace, Mr. Lamborn, for trying to undermine America's military in the midst of a war."

 

5
   Open mouth, insert foot

Scott Brown shows us all how not to woo women voters.

"Republicans insist that they are not fighting any sort of War On Women, but Scott Brown has taken Republican cluelessness to a new level, up in New Hampshire. On an appearance on Fox News (of all places), the host asked Brown about his voting record on women's issues, quoting his opponent in the Senate race, Senator Jeanne Shaheen: 'He doesn't stand up for women's reproductive rights and economic security. He co-sponsored legislation to let employers deny women coverage for birth control or even mammograms. He had two opportunities to vote for equal pay laws and both times he voted no.' When asked to respond, Brown said: "Well unfortunately, I'm talking about issues that people care about.' He used the 'things that people care about' line twice, in fact. When asked how Republicans would close the gender wage gap, he responded: 'Well, I’ll leave that to the political pundits.' Scott Brown -- obviously -- is a mental lightweight who is completely unfit for the job he's running for. Republicans -- obviously -- don't care about women's issues. That's why more and more women are bolting the party and voting Democratic. It's not rocket science, Scott."

 

6
   Yet more proof

Always interesting to see a campaign go down in flames, right before an election.

"I see that Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett's re-election campaign seems to be having some problems. Back when Corbett was the state's attorney general, hundreds of emails were exchanged by at least eight of his underlings, including the state police commissioner and the state's department of environmental protection. These emails included photographs, ethnic slurs and other derogatory language, and subject lines such as 'Bikini Wax Job.' I guess Corbett was running his office on those famous Republican family values, eh? Nothing like exchanging hundreds of porn emails to get women voters behind your campaign! I'd say the governor's going to be looking for work, come November."

 

7
   So broke, they're selling sex toys

This one is just too funny.

"Kansas is broke, big time. They are broke because Governor Sam Brownback decided to run the state on pure conservative economic principles -- which, predictably, failed miserably. Brownback is in a race to hold onto his job, and he tried to make a big deal out of the fact that his opponent had once gone to a strip club. Puritanism goes over big in Kansas, right? But the news now is that Kansas is having a massive auction of some property seized for back taxes. Thousands of sex toys and porn are being sold to the highest bidder, because Kansas is so desperate for money. It's always funny to see someone hoist on their own petard, isn't it? Brownback doesn't look so puritanically pure now, does he? I'd advise anyone purchasing sex toys or porn from the state of Kansas to wash them off before using, since they must arrive absolutely dripping with hypocrisy."

-- Chris Weigant

 

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

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: Democrats For Progress
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

80 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [322] -- Games The Whole Family Can Play”

  1. [1] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    #8 Why is the Secret Service so lax about protecting the black guy?

  2. [2] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Republicans are breeders - have yours spayed or neutered today.

  3. [3] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Operation Some Assembly Required

  4. [4] 
    TheStig wrote:

    "It's always funny to see someone hoist on their own petard, isn't it?"

    Sadly, no. The petards were auctioned off two weeks ago.

  5. [5] 
    YoYoTheAssyrian wrote:

    Operation Pottery Barn

  6. [6] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW - not a lot of comments to this edition of FTP, but its quite good. So good, it's taken me a few days to get to all the links. WAPO's 9 ways gets my personal "best in show", but a lot of other good reads, so thanks.

    Shortly after the latest talking points went up, Turkey seems to have joined the anti whatever-ISIS-is-being-called-today coalition in a meaningful way. No commitment of ground forces yet, and there may never be one. Holy Joe Biden! Still, access to air bases in Turkey, or just plain Turkish airspace is very interesting. Incirlik AFB has been mentioned, but there is a major base farther east in Turkey that is closer to the action than Cyprus, UAE and aircraft carriers. Fighter bombers are thirsty little things. Moreover Aerial electronic surveillance platforms can probably see vehicular movement out to a range of 200 miles or so, according to open sources. Something's got to direct those drones and smart weapons. Just saying, might want to keep your eye on this development.

    Turkey knows the ol' Levant region well, having run it for hundreds of years.

    The Rubio statement is more than mere incoherence. The only response I can come up with is "Way to polish those brass balls Marco!" Next thing you know, he'll be pushing a mandated national health plan based on the MA model.

    Hope you're auto is mended, gotta get in mine and pick up some Petards down at the Home Depot.

  7. [7] 
    akadjian wrote:

    When The New Republic calls Kansas a "conservative hell" you know things are bad.

    The New 'effin Republic ...

    When you think about it, one of the key messages I'm taking away from this is that Democrats are actually the conservative party.

    Republicans are the radicals trying to create a weird Ayn Randian paradise (not just in Kansas, but in Ohio, Indiana, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina, etc, etc.

    -David

    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119574/sam-brownbacks-conservative-utopia-kansas-has-become-hell

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    JFC,

    What is it with you and the race card??

    Overall, as we get closer to the mid-terms, I see a mounting hint of desperation in the commentary and more hysteria in the comments.. :D

    Apparently, the writing is on the wall and everyone is finally beginning to read it..

    David,

    When The New Republic calls Kansas a "conservative hell" you know things are bad.

    You always want to talk about Kansas... But never want to talk about Detroit...

    Why is that?? :D

    Michale

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats need to get over their fears of talking up the economy.

    There isn't much to talk UP about the economy..

    Sure, if you cherry pick the numbers, you can find a diamond or two to crow about..

    But the American people are becoming smarter and they are on to political tricks of partisans who only want to give THEIR version of the "truth"...

    "There truth is not YOUR truth!!!!"
    -The Oracle, STAR TREK, For The World Is Hollow And I Have Touched The Sky

    The simple FACT is, if you ask John & Jane Sixpack if their lives are any better, they will flat out tell you, "NO"..

    And THAT is the only measure of a better economy that matter..

    'Sides, even if Demcorats DID crow about how awesome the recovery is going, who would listen?? Democrats have tried to convince the American people wha??? Three times?? Four times?? that the economy is awesome and recovering but it wasn't a fact...

    Remember "The Summer Of Recovery"??? It's a joke...

    Stop voter suppression!

    STOP VOTER FRAUD!!

    Let's face it. Anyone who doesn't want photo IDs for voters is simply trying to make it easier to cheat..

    NO OTHER logical or rational reason is possible..

    'Sides, there are a plethora of statistics that show states that instituted Photo ID for voting actually showed a MARKED increase in minority voting...

    If a person is too lazy to get a photo ID, then they aren't much interested in voting anyways...

    NO ONE can disenfranchise a person from voting without that person's tacit approval...

    This is fact...

    "Why is it that whenever I hear of voter fraud actually being committed -- you know, real voter fraud, not the fantasy voter fraud Republicans are terrified of -- it always seems to be a Republican doing it? Leslie Rutledge is running for attorney general in Arkansas, but she just got removed from the voting rolls because she is registered to vote in multiple states. Because she is no longer eligible to vote in Arkansas, state law seems to say she cannot run for public office. I'm waiting to hear all those Republicans who decry voter fraud to denounce Rutledge, but I'm not exactly holding my breath, if you know what I mean."

    Yea, you NEVER hear about Democrats voting dozens of times for Obama, right?? :D

    For every instance of GOP voter fraud, I can find a dozen instances of Democrat voter fraud...

    So, if ya wanna... :D

    You should resign in disgrace, Mr. Lamborn, for trying to undermine America's military in the midst of a war."

    I agree. That is disgraceful..

    But it's no more disgraceful than Code Pink's General Betray-us or Harry The-War-In-Iraq-Is-Lost Reid...

    I'll have to finish the rest later..

    I have to contend with the horror of horrors here...

    A poopy diaper...

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Whew!! Catastrophe averted!!! That was a mess...

    "Part toxic waste, part velcro"
    -Robin Williams, LIVE AT THE MET

    How do ya'all like Obama's proclamation the other day...

    "Make no mistake. I am not on the ballot this election, but my policies are!!"

    Even when he is not in the election, Obama has to make it all about him...

    The narcissism is nauseating...

    And believe, me no one know more about narcissism than me!!! :D

    But what a tactical blunder, eh??? Democrats have been trying for months to distance themselves from Obama and Obama turns right around and plasters them with the Obama stink...

    Between giving illegals the finger and inserting himself into the election, it's almost as if Obama WANTS to lose the Senate...

    Anyways, where was I???

    Open mouth, insert foot

    You want to talk about THIS after the latest Bidenism??? I mean, come on... After Uncle Joe managed to piss off leaders, world wide, I would think Democrats would not want to mention ANYONE'S foot in mouth disease...

    Besides, the ONLY war on women come from Democrats who refuse to put a serial sexual harasser and rapist out to pasture.. They are actually trying to elect the guy's wife to the Presidency!!!

    Democrats have absolutely NO MORAL or ETHICAL foundation to complain about the GOP's "alleged war on women"...

    Besides (Part 2), the ONLY viable weapon in the Dems arsenal on this so-called "war on women" is the abortion issue.. And THAT can be re-spinned as Democrats War On Unborn Children...

    It's a losing issue for Democrats and there is ample evidence that shows that Democrats are using that issue to death and the American people are starting to turn against Democrats because of that over use..

    Democrats need a new schtick....

    I'd say the governor's going to be looking for work, come November."

    As are many MANY Democrat Senators.. :D

    "I can live with that."
    -Keannu Reeves, THE REPLACEMENTS

    :D

    So broke, they're selling sex toys

    I... I... I got nuttin' :D

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    With an eye on saving his majority, Reid adopted a strategy of limiting legislative amendments to protect vulnerable colleagues from tough votes that could be used against them on the campaign trail.
    http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/219768-democrats-start-to-point-fingers

    Ya know, next time ya'all want to grumble about the "Do-Nothing Congress", I am going to remind ya'all that it's been yer precious Harry Reid who has been limiting action by the Senate due solely and completely to saving Democrats and their political asses...

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, in even BETTER news, as of today, there is a 78% chance that the Senate will end up in GOP control, 53 to 45...

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-tran/politics/election-lab-2014

    Now if THAT is not a statistic to cheer one up, NOTHING is!!! :D

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like Panetta is not done savaging Obama...

    In his first interview about his new book, Worthy Fights: A Memoir of Leadership in War and Peace, Panetta argues that decisions made by President Obama over the past three years have made that battle more difficult — an explosive assessment by a respected policymaker of the president he served.
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/10/06/leon-panetta-memoir-worthy-fights/16737615/

    What about it, people..

    Ready to concede that Obama ain't all that?? That he is in way over his head..

    That's all it's going to take to shut me up... :D

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Grimes Staff Caught on Hidden Camera: She’s Lying About Support for Coal Industry
    http://freebeacon.com/politics/grimes-staffers-suggest-kentucky-dem-lies-about-coal-support/

    Well, Democrats can kiss Kentucky goodbye..... :D

    Michale

  15. [15] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    What about it, people..

    Ready to concede that Obama ain't all that?? That he is in way over his head..

    As someone who grew up on Panetta's district, I'm more likely to trust his words over just about any other politician in Washington including Obama. He's probably right about Obama. Both the good and the bad. But as much as you want this to be a test on us, it's just as much a test on you. As more and more of the stuff in this book comes out are you only going to harp on the bad? Or are you finally going show some of that political agnosticism to which you allegedly aspire to but never actually show and post an even picture of Obama? Even the article you linked to has as much praise as criticism. But you only quote the criticism, and only the criticism of the left. Why is that if you are truly a political agnostic?

  16. [16] 
    TheStig wrote:

    M -12

    As I noted a few days ago, in another thread, WAPO has been a bit of an outlier this cycle.

    Go check their site out. I've noticed some oddities in the state by state probability table (you toggle that at the top).

    Look at the likely Dem win column on the left margin. There is no Hawaii...??? An almost certain Dem win. Now check the right hand side. Kansas .79 Republican? Seems a bit high, given the independent is polling ahead of the incumbent...must be putting a lot of weight on the historical fundamentals. WAPO is also assigning much higher Republican probabilities to Colorado and Iowa than the competition.

    Also on the right hand side. Only one SC entry... but there are two races! Granted, both are sure things to Red, but seems a bit sloppy, clarity wise. Same deal for Oklahoma, which also a twofer.

    If you add Hawaii as a Dem .99 (which everybody else does) the WAPO 78% comes entirely from Kansas, Colorado and Iowa, where the WAPO call is much different than the other shops.

    Bottom line, the outlier WAPO .78 comes entirely from their Kansas and Iowa calls. Aside from these, and assuming they really are counting Hawaii and the other two elections missing in the table WAPO is in line with the 3:2 mainstream.

    You have to ask - is this any way to run a respectable betting line?

  17. [17] 
    TheStig wrote:

    "The idiots on the board are trying to scrub American history of any ugly stuff, and leave only pro-USA rah-rah cheerleading instead."

    If I wanted that sort of history I'd go Disneyland/Disneyworld!

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    I actually felt the most for you because I know you were one of Panetta's biggest advocates...

    As more and more of the stuff in this book comes out are you only going to harp on the bad? Or are you finally going show some of that political agnosticism to which you allegedly aspire to but never actually show and post an even picture of Obama? Even the article you linked to has as much praise as criticism. But you only quote the criticism, and only the criticism of the left. Why is that if you are truly a political agnostic?

    I have actually gave Obama credit on MANY things.. Granted, not as many as of late, because he hasn't done much to praise lately..

    But specifically, I gave Obama credit for calling out the Seals during the Capt Phillips Hostage crisis in the Gulf of Aden and I gave Obama credit for how he handled the General McChrystal affair in Afghanistan..

    Those are the two that come to mind but I am sure if I dig, I can come up with a dozen or more times I have praised Obama and his actions..

    TS,

    As I noted a few days ago, in another thread, WAPO has been a bit of an outlier this cycle.

    Perhaps.. But all the other polls are moving closer to WAPO's position...

    So, while WAPO may be an outlier NOW, give it a couple weeks and it's likely to be simply one of many...

    "The idiots on the board are trying to scrub American history of any ugly stuff, and leave only pro-USA rah-rah cheerleading instead."

    If I wanted that sort of history I'd go Disneyland/Disneyworld!

    Yea... And Democrats would NEVER stoop to re-writing history, right?? :D

    Glass house... Stones...

    Michale

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    As someone who grew up on Panetta's district, I'm more likely to trust his words over just about any other politician in Washington including Obama.

    Given Obama's recent track record, I wouldn't expect that ANYONE would take Obama's word about ANYTHING...

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Given Obama's recent track record, I wouldn't expect that ANYONE would take Obama's word about ANYTHING...

    Then maybe you should read the articles to which you quote? I'm willing to accept Panetta is right or wrong but not that he in only right in places that further your agenda and wrong in places he does not...

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Then maybe you should read the articles to which you quote? I'm willing to accept Panetta is right or wrong but not that he in only right in places that further your agenda and wrong in places he does not...

    Oh I read it..

    The challenge around here isn't to get you guys to say how awesome Obama is... Ya'all do that anyways at the drop of a dime..

    The challenge around here is to get you guys to admit when Obama fraks up...

    THAT is like pulling teeth...

    Even when confronted by Obama's blatant lies and his being more Cheney than Cheney, ya'all refuse to concede... :D

    That's why I emphasize when loyal Democrats start singing the same tune I have been singing for quite a while...

    It's no big deal when a Marco Rubio or a John Boehner says what a bonehead and moron Obama is..

    But when a Panetta or an Axelrod say how bad Obama frak'ed up??

    THAT is a big deal...

    Michale

  22. [22] 
    TheStig wrote:

    "Perhaps.. But all the other polls are moving closer to WAPO's position..."

    Not really. WAPO tends to track up and down with the pack....they just consistently give the Republicans appreciably better odds than the other 3 odds giving sites I track. Everyone is being driven by the same polls. It's how different shops weight the polls, and the "fundamentals" that account for different prediction. Or should. What I've noticed at WAPO is a bit disturbing....at the very least from the standard of transparency, which I weight highly in terms of "consumer satisfaction."

    I like like the NYT senate site the best. Rank ordered probabilities for each state, Blue Red (and now green). Plus, the nifty little monte carlo game which is worth taking a hundred rides on! Let's hope they keep this feature for the 2016 presidential race - and that they add a way to set the local:nation variances.

    Outliers have been known to have the last laugh...but they usually don't.

  23. [23] 
    TheStig wrote:

    quick update on 22

    Huffpollster just bumped the race to 1:1, going in the opposite direction of WAPO. Is this a blip or a pack trend? Probably blip, but we'll see.

    Sorry to blighten your day Michael:-)

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Huffpollster just bumped the race to 1:1, going in the opposite direction of WAPO. Is this a blip or a pack trend? Probably blip, but we'll see.

    And DK is moving up, more in line with WAPO...

    Sorry to be the messenger that ya'all want to kill :D

    Regardless of whether it's 51 or 59, it's becoming ever so clearer that Congress will belong to Republicans.....

    Michale

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am comfortable enough with my prediction of the results of the mid-terms to make a wager in conjunction with the upcoming annual CW Fundraiser...

    Any takers??? :D

    Michale

  26. [26] 
    John From Censornati wrote:
  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Grimes now leads McConnell in barnburner Kentucky Senate race

    Yea... Wishful thinking...

    That poll was likely taken BEFORE Grimes campaign people saying that Grimes is lying thru her teeth as to the support for coal...

    Grimes is history, pure and simple....

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    That poll was likely taken BEFORE Grimes campaign people saying that Grimes is lying thru her teeth as to the support for coal...

    Amend that to say:

    That poll was likely taken BEFORE Grimes campaign people were video taped saying that Grimes is lying thru her teeth as to her support for coal...

    My bust....

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Voters have turned decidedly hostile toward President Obama and his policies. That’s not just my partisan view; it is empirical data. A poll released over the weekend shows that 32 percent of voters are using their midterm election votes to send a message of opposition to the president. That is “the highest ‘no vote’ percentage in the last 16 years” as measured by Gallup. I have never seen a White House or a political party as hollowed out as the Democrats appear to be now. The Obama presidency isn’t officially over yet, but it is receding further into our rearview mirror. And it is becoming clear that many in the Democratic Party think the Obama presidency is effectively over, and they are acting accordingly.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/10/06/the-insiders-voters-have-turned-decidedly-against-president-obama/

    It's time to admit the facts, people.. The American people elected Democrats to do right by this country and the Democrats have been found wanting...

    These are the facts. And they are indisputable...

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    JFC,

    HuffPost Model Estimate

    Mitch McConnell 47.7%
    Alison Lundergan Grimes 43.6%

    http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2014-kentucky-senate-mcconnell-vs-grimes

    That's what happens when the electorate is given proof that politicians lie thru their teeth to get elected..

    Whose yer daddy!?? WHOSE YER DADDY!!! :D

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    Bleyd wrote:

    How about "Operation: Vicious Cycle" or "Operation: Cycle of Revenge"

    Or are those a little too obvious?

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    How about Operation Should Have Done It Right The First Time...???

    Also, a little too obvious..

    Michale

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    There isn't much to talk UP about the economy..

    Even Bill Clinton, Democrats Premier Serial Sexual Harasser agrees with me...

    "They are really running against the president, aren't they? They see these polls, the president is unpopular in Arkansas and, yeah, the economy is coming back but nobody believes it yet because you don't feel it. "

    Michale

  34. [34] 
    Bleyd wrote:

    For contest #2, I'd guess either "embedded" or "instilled"

  35. [35] 
    Bleyd wrote:

    Michale [30],
    I believe the answer to your question is Ka D'Argo.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSOh3CqwREQ

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    I believe the answer to your question is Ka D'Argo.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSOh3CqwREQ

    Now THAT was funny!!!!! :D

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    akadjian wrote:

    But never want to talk about Detroit.

    The auto industry outsourced all the jobs.

    The same is true for many of the rust belt cities up here. They've lost manufacturing because companies decided they could have bigger profits if they took advantage of 3rd world countries for labor.

    Over and over the story repeats. Schenectady w/ GE. Rochester with Kodak and IBM. Erie, PA with GE. Pittsburgh with steel.

    Etc, etc.

    Wait ... I've got it! I think what we need to do is give these companies some more tax breaks so they can pay less and move more jobs overseas!***

    -David

    ***This message brought to you by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a consortium of corporations united for the common purpose of shifting costs onto the American people.

  38. [38] 
    TheStig wrote:

    M-25

    What odds are you offering?

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    The auto industry outsourced all the jobs.

    And WHY did the auto industry outsource all the jobs??

    Because Democrats over-regulated and made it too expensive to do business in the state..

    The point is, ya'all point to California and say, "SEE!! Socialism works!!!" Yet, you ignore the places where Conservatives are doing great and Democrats are doing crappy...

    It's the standard MO around here. Take one isolated case and paint the entire issue with it...

    TS,

    What odds are you offering?

    Why do you need odds??? Can't the Democrats stand on their own... er... ahem... "merits"?? :D

    Michale

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    The point is, ya'all point to California and say, "SEE!! Socialism works!!!" Yet, you ignore the places where Conservatives are doing great and Democrats are doing crappy...

    It's the standard MO around here. Take one isolated case and paint the entire issue with it...

    And yes, I am guilty of that at times as well..

    The difference is, I admit it.. :D

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    'UMMM': Dem Sen Struggles To Answer Question About Obama's Response...
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/dem-senator-tough-race-cant-give-straight-answer-about-obamas-response-ebola_810761.html

    This is why Democrats are going to lose the Senate...

    They can't articulate a message...

    Michale

  42. [42] 
    akadjian wrote:

    And WHY did the auto industry outsource all the jobs?

    Cheaper 3rd world labor.

    Now you are correct that there are less regulations and people are poorer in 3rd world countries.

    What corporate special interest groups want is to do the same with our country, turn it into a 3rd world "paradise" w/ no regulations and mass poverty and cheap labor.

    You can gamble if you want and think somehow you & your family will "win". You probably will but your kids or kids kids probably won't.

    I think a better way would be to reverse the trend and stop buying all the BS trickle down economics and start figuring out what we need for an economy that works for more people.

    Why wouldn't we, for example, fight for an equal worldwide playing field? Why shouldn't China have better regulations?

    -David

  43. [43] 
    TheStig wrote:

    M -

    "Why do you need odds???"

    You have to ask? You're the one opening up the **ahem*** "futures market." I wager when I like the odds. Profit motive. I think the race looks advantage Red, but fairly even. What's the point of fairly even bet???? But, you seem to think it's around 84% red win. That would be a bit north of one will get you five. It's your establishment. Post your payouts.

    Seriously though, I we get the PooBah in big trouble with this sort of fund raising enterprise!
    His avatar over over at HuffPo might need a hat covering the face.

  44. [44] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Last part should read:

    I think we could get the PooBah in big trouble with this sort of fund raising enterprise!
    His avatar over over at HuffPo might need a hat covering the face.

    Touch screens be dammed!

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think a better way would be to reverse the trend and stop buying all the BS trickle down economics and start figuring out what we need for an economy that works for more people.

    Basically, you want businesses and corporations to put people first, ahead of profits..

    Yea.. Good luck with that.. :D

    It's a nice dream... But it's ONLY a dream...

    In the REAL world, you have to give businesses an incentive to do the right thing rather than penalizing them when they don't...

    Because, if all you use is a stick and ignore the carrot, businesses and corporations will give a big mighty FRAK U and take their business elsewhere...

    And, unless Democrats want to impose a dictatorship (which wouldn't surprise me a bit) there ain't a damn thing the Left can do about it if businesses decide to pull up stakes and re-locate...

    And the Left has absolutely no one to blame but themselves for the ensuing joblessness..

    It's like those morons in the states that passed totally stoopid gun control legislation and then were shocked when gun and gun accessory manufacturers gave a big mighty FRAK U to those states and left...

    Democrats need to THINK before they strike...

    Michale

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think we could get the PooBah in big trouble with this sort of fund raising enterprise!
    His avatar over over at HuffPo might need a hat covering the face.

    hehehehehhe It's never really been an issue before.. We have had some real doozys too.. :D

    As far as the odds thing goes, if yer not comfortable with Democrats' chances, if you think that 2014 is going to make 2010 look like a family picnic by comparison, I spose I could be generous with ya'all...

    No sense in adding insult to injury for ya'all, eh?? :D

    Michale

  47. [47] 
    akadjian wrote:

    In the REAL world, you have to give businesses an incentive to do the right thing rather than penalizing them when they don't.

    Fair enough. I don't care how we go about it.

    One example of an incentive to "do the right thing" might look like carbon offsets.

    Reward businesses who figure out how to reduce greenhouse gases.

    I don't give a shit who does it. But we can't keep sticking our heads in the sand.

    If Republicans did something like this, hell, I'd vote for them.

    What I know we can't keep doing is rewarding businesses for stealing from people and f*cking up the planet (i.e. the current situation)

    -David

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    One example of an incentive to "do the right thing" might look like carbon offsets.

    Reward businesses who figure out how to reduce greenhouse gases.

    So, basically, you create a fantasy problem, then reward companies by making them not pay as much to address this fantasy problem..

    Somehow I think you are missing the concept here.. :D

    I don't give a shit who does it. But we can't keep sticking our heads in the sand.

    If Republicans did something like this, hell, I'd vote for them.

    Democrats don't do ANYTHING like that, yet you still vote for them...

    Non-sequitor...

    What I know we can't keep doing is rewarding businesses for stealing from people and f*cking up the planet (i.e. the current situation)

    A no business is stealing from people..

    and

    2 no business is f*cking up the planet...

    So, you are starting from 2 false premises based solely and completely on partisan ideology with absolutely NO FACTS to back it up...

    Hmmmmmmm I think we might have hit on the problem here... :D

    Michale

  49. [49] 
    akadjian wrote:

    My mistake, Michale. I thought you might, for a very small second, have been interested in solutions.

    I return you to your jihad against Democrats.

    -David

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    My mistake, Michale. I thought you might, for a very small second, have been interested in solutions.

    I am interested in solutions..

    I am just not interested in fueling the Democrat delusions that the world is going to end day after tomorrow because greedy corporations are not donating all their money to Democrats... :D

    You say you are only interested in solutions..

    But your solutions seem to be lockstep with a partisan agenda that is slightly above fairy-tale status...

    If you want to discuss REAL solutions for the REAL world instead of huggy kissy koom-bye-ya let's be excellent to each other type solutions.... Well, you know where I am... :D

    Michale

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, seriously.. Look at what The Left is asking...

    The Left wants to say to corporations:

    "Ya know, it would be really nice if ya'all accepted the higher taxes and the increase costs of over-regulation and the increased cost of paying higher wages so that people who are lazy and un-motivated can still have a luxurious lifestyle... I know, I know.. It's going to cut into your profits and make your business un-viable... But honestly.. Did you go into business to make money or did you go into business to help those who are lazy and less motivated than you???"

    THAT is the exact kind of "business plan" that the Left wants corporations to follow..

    And, when they don't, the left demonizes them and calls them names and does their best to make their lives miserable...

    Now, wouldn't it be MUCH better if they Left approaches businesses and corporations and say:

    "Ya know.. We get it.. You are in business to make money.. We get that.. But, see, there is a way that ya'all could STILL make money but yet also help those who are less fortunate and who have had some bad breaks.. What can WE do to help you reach that goal???"

    THAT is how you approach a problem.

    THAT is how you get things done..

    But The Left is much more interested in fixing the blame rather than fixing the problem..

    The Left is MUCH more interested in demonizing ANYONE who doesn't toe their partisan, their ideological line..

    We see it here in Weigantia all the time...

    Tolerance my left arse cheek!! :D

    As long as the Left insists on IMPOSING their will rather than compromising, then we will always be where we are right now...

    Michale

  52. [52] 
    akadjian wrote:

    As long as the Left insists on IMPOSING their will rather than compromising, then we will always be where we are right now.

    Nah. We won't. Because eventually things will get so bad that people will start questioning the purpose of corporations.

    Especially when a few corporations manage to produce more than everyone needs.

    Originally, they were designed with very specific charters related to the public good.

    Today, many of them, especially in finance, do little more than take a cut off the top. What happens when labor is no longer needed?

    I just wonder at what point this tipping occurs.

    -David

  53. [53] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "Especially when a few corporations manage to produce more than everyone needs."

    They definitely produce more weapons and war than we need.

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Nah. We won't. Because eventually things will get so bad that people will start questioning the purpose of corporations.

    Yea??

    They gonna give up their Ipads and their Iphones and their air-conditioning and their cars??

    Not bloody likely...

    I just wonder at what point this tipping occurs.

    It hasn't happened yet despite all the "horrors" that ya'all claim...

    Ya know, it just hit me..

    Ya sound like christians who prophesize the End Of Days...

    "There's going to be a reckoning!!! Repent your sins!!!! REPENT!!! REPENT!!!!"

    :D

    JFC,

    They definitely produce more weapons and war than we need.

    Corporations produce war now??

    More fear mongering... :^/

    Ya know, if you Lefties would act like you CLAIM to act rather than act like you accuse Republicans of acting, this country would be more like the utopia you envision. It would definitely be better off...

    But no... Ya'all are simply intolerant of any ideology that you don't agree with...

    I really miss the liberals of my childhood and young adulthood.. They were annoying, but at least they practiced what they preached...

    Michale

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, this is just perfect... :D

    In This Election, Obama’s Party Benches Him
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/08/us/politics/in-this-election-obamas-party-benches-him.html?_r=0

    Com'on, people!! Ya'll just HAVE to laugh at the irony... :D

    "Oh how the mighty have fallen..."
    -Guinan, STAR TREK THE NEXT GENERATION, True Q

    :D

    Michale

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    TS,

    Talking about Panetta again...

    His isn't the only book out...

    An aide to Richard Holbrooke wrote a book. Hillary wrote a book.. Gates wrote a book. Geinther wrote a book... And now Panetta has a book..

    Obama the victim as officials rush into print before sell-by date
    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/d32a08c0-4e3c-11e4-bfda-00144feab7de.html#axzz3FXxbEtd2

    And they ALL say the same thing.. That Obama is an incompetent leader..

    Are they ALL wrong?? Do they ALL have an agenda???

    Or, would you like to employ Occam's Razor and conclude that the most likely explanation, that Obama IS in fact an incompetent leader, is the correct one...

    I'm just saying... :D

    Michale

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all had mentioned PR slogans before...

    Speaking from strictly a PR perspective, ya just gotta admire the banner headline on Drudge this morning..

    http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=HN.608031553965526461&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0

    Brilliant.... Just brilliant...

    Michale

  58. [58] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    And they ALL say the same thing.. That Obama is an incompetent leader..

    False.

    Give me the page reference(s) in Stress Test where Geithner says that or implies that.

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Give me the page reference(s) in Stress Test where Geithner says that or implies that.

    The FT.COM link above outlines Geinther's claims regarding Obama's competence...

    I can't get at it as I have used my FT allotment for the day, but that's what it said...

    Michale

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    In all fairness, you are partially correct, Liz..

    Geinther's book was the most complimentary to Obama of all the Kiss and Tell books that have come out. But there were passages that took Obama to task for a variety of bone head moves...

    I'll read the book when I get time and point them out to you.. :D

    Michale

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qk8d_Ct5cZk

    Very powerful message...

    Unemployment for 19-29 age group 15.8%... Unemployment for black Americans in that age group is 23.8%...

    All of this can be laid at the feet of Democrats who thought it was more important to pursue their partisan agenda at the expense of the country and it's people..

    Democrats don't DESERVE control of the Senate...

    It's that simple...

    Michale

  62. [62] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I'll read the book when I get time and point them out to you.. :D

    You do that.

    It would be easier just to admit you were wrong about the Geithner book. It's a long one. :)

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    It would be easier just to admit you were wrong about the Geithner book. It's a long one. :)

    I will conditionally concede that I might have been wrong about Geinther.. :D

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/10/07/the-insiders-panetta-gates-and-clinton-are-trying-to-tell-us-something-about-obama/

    This article details the revelations from Gates and Panetta and Clinton. It doesn't mention anything about Geinther. So the previous article I quoted was likely not entirely accurate... :D

    Michale

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama slams GOP as party of billionaires then attends $32k-a-head fundraiser hosted by billionaire property tycoon named Rich Richman
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2785161/Obama-slams-GOP-party-billionaires-attends-32k-head-fundraiser-hosted-billionaire-property-tycoon-named-Rich-Richman.html

    This is why I roll my eyes when ya'all complain about the Right Wing millionaires and billionaires that are the sole cause of the problems in this country..

    Ya'all conveniently leave out all the Left Wing millionaires and billionaires that are just as much to blame...

    Proof positive that ya'alls alleged populist message is nothing more than thinly disguised partisan and ideologically based...

    So, why not be a little more honest about things??

    You don't have a problem with millionaires and billionaires controlling this country as long as they support Democrats...

    Michale

  65. [65] 
    dsws wrote:

    We got some good economic news, as it was revealed that the American economy grew a whopping 4.6 percent in the last quarter,

    No it didn't. That's an annualized rate, 4.6% per year. In other words, it grew 1.13% in the quarter.

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    No it didn't. That's an annualized rate, 4.6% per year. In other words, it grew 1.13% in the quarter

    And the 4.6% is not even a hard number, but an assumption based on the idea that the growth will remain constant throughout the subsequent quarters...

    That's are guv'ment... Always projecting the rosiest BS possible...
    :D

    Michale

  67. [67] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale

    And they ALL say the same thing.. That Obama is an incompetent leader..

    Secretary Geithner's view of the leadership of President Obama is the polar opposite of your quote above.

    Also, amongst all of the former Obama administration officials cited in your comments and links, Geithner, alone, stands head and shoulders above the lot of them in terms of personal character and integrity, intelligence, and patriotism.

    I have always been surprised that you, of all people, would take such a dim view of this most underrated Secretary of the Treasury.

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Also, amongst all of the former Obama administration officials cited in your comments and links, Geithner, alone, stands head and shoulders above the lot of them in terms of personal character and integrity, intelligence, and patriotism.

    That's what many here said about Panetta... :D

    I guess it's an Eye Of The Beholder type thing.. :D

    Michale

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Also, amongst all of the former Obama administration officials cited in your comments and links, Geithner, alone, stands head and shoulders above the lot of them in terms of personal character and integrity, intelligence, and patriotism.

    But, you raise an interesting conundrum...

    If a leader IS incompetent doesn't it behoove the HONORABLE person to let others know??

    To "sound the alarm", so to speak??

    There is really no reason for Gates or Panetta or even Clinton to lie...

    If 3 different people who are respected and respectable all make the same claim independent of each other, and a 4th person who is as "in the know" as the other 3 remains silent???

    What does that say about the integrity of that 4th person??

    Michale

  70. [70] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    This is all about YOU, Michale, and why it is important for you to adhere to the facts and ensure that your arguments are based on accurate information and stand up to scrutiny.

    Often, they do not, and, this is just one example that does not stand up under minimum scrutiny.

    Also, your simple arguments are notoriously just that - simple statements of "fact" that often have no basis in reality.

    And they ALL say the same thing.. That Obama is an incompetent leader..

    Actually, Clinton, Panetta and Gates say no such thing. They do point out what they feel are President Obama's mistakes, errors in judgement and shortcomings in leadership when it comes to matters of foreign policy. The points they make are fully arguable and debatable. One point they do not make, however, is the president was and is incompetent.

    In the case of the Geithner book, Stress Test, we are talking about the president's very competent handling of the most destructive financial crisis since the Great Depression. The competency demonstrated by President Obama on this file begins and ends with his extremely adept appointment of Secretary Geithner.

    So, no former Obama official has made a claim of presidential incompetence. YOU are the only one around here making such a fantastical claim that they did.

    Don't make things up, Michale, and you will find that your credibility around here improves, exponentially.

  71. [71] 
    dsws wrote:

    When something increases exponentially, that means that the rate of increase is proportional to where it's currently at. Once it's gotten big, the rate of increase is big too, and just keeps on increasing. But when the current value is minuscule, the rate of increase will be small too.

    Not sure which implications you want to suggest, in the case of Michale's actual and hypothetical credibility.

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually, Clinton, Panetta and Gates say no such thing. They do point out what they feel are President Obama's mistakes, errors in judgement and shortcomings in leadership when it comes to matters of foreign policy. The points they make are fully arguable and debatable.

    Really?? Fine.. Debate the points then and give me examples of Obama's competence...

    One point they do not make, however, is the president was and is incompetent.

    Actually, they do... They don't use the exact word, but it's clear from Panetta's words and Clinton's words and Gates' words that Obama is an incompetent leader...

    Now, we can discuss what the meaning of 'is' is until the cows come home, but if a person says that a leader is "feckless" and "lost his way" and made mistake after mistake after mistake, "incompetent" is surely a word that comes to mind...

    I can understand why you don't agree with the word and I understand that it's not a word that YOU would choose to use..

    So, no former Obama official has made a claim of presidential incompetence. YOU are the only one around here making such a fantastical claim that they did.

    Let me put it this way.. If we were in a court of law and Clinton, Gates and Panetta were witnesses and they were questioned and their testimony was what it was in their books and I used the word "incompetent" to sum up their testimony and you would object because NONE of the witnesses actually used the word "incompetent" you would be overruled. Because, while it IS true that none of the "witnesses" used the word "incompetent" it is also true that what the "witnesses" DID say amounts to the same thing...

    I am also constrained to point out that you have all but stated that, in the vein of foreign policy, Obama is incompetent.. You may have never used that exact word, but it's been clear that you and I are on the same page, as far as Obama's competency in foreign affairs is concerned..

    Or did I read too much into our previous discussion in that area??

    Michale

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, getting back to the alleged "War On Women"...

    http://online.wsj.com/articles/kim-strassel-america-is-war-on-women-weary-1412900814

    Americans are sick and tired of all the bogus hype and Democrats are LOSING ground because of it..

    Michale

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I am also not the only one who has seen that Obama has been called "incompetent"... At least by Leon Panetta...

    https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#safe=off&q=%22Leon+Panetta%22+Obama+Incompetent

    A man whose integrity as a loyal Democrat is beyond reproach...

    One has to ask.. Why would Panetta, of all people, say these things if it weren't true???

    Clinton, a case can be made... Gates, OK that MAY be iffy...

    But if Panetta is saying the same things that Clinton and Gates are saying, then it's a pretty sure bet that what they are all saying is dead on ballz accurate...

    Wouldn't you agree??

    Michale

  75. [75] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    dsws,

    It sounds, to me, like you understand perfectly well what I said and what I meant to say.

    Michale,

    Later.

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    "Hasta Lasagna, don't get any on ya"
    -Emilio Estevez, MISSION IMPOSSIBLE

    :D

    Michale

  77. [77] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    It's no secret that I think President Obama's foreign policy has been less than effective on a number of issues.

    However, I don't chalk most of that up to poor judgement or even bad polices. This is a very complicated world we live in and, consequently, the policy choices for any POTUS have become limited, both in scope and effectiveness.

    Also, as far as the Middle East is concerned, the foreign policy choices have been limited by one disastrous foreign policy decision by President Obama's predecessor. Much - but, certainly not all - of US foreign policy in this part of the world revolves around cleaning up the mess left in the wake of the Iraq war and the utter mismanaging of the Afghanistan war.

    If you want to attach 'incompetent' to any US administration policy or strategy or doctrine, then look no further - literally - than the last Bush administration.

    So, while I think the Obama doctrine has been, so far, ineffective in a number of foreign policy areas, I believe Obama is on the right track and, with a lot of persistence and increased US leadership, much progress can be made during the last years of his administration.

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    believe Obama is on the right track and, with a lot of persistence and increased US leadership, much progress can be made during the last years of his administration.

    There is a corollary to the NOTHING SUCCEEDS LIKE SUCCESS mantra..

    NOTHING FAILS LIKE FAILURE..

    Obama's Coward Of The Country Doctrine has failed at every turn..

    Even in Syria it's failing spectacularly..

    These are the facts...

    Michale

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you want to attach 'incompetent' to any US administration policy or strategy or doctrine, then look no further - literally - than the last Bush administration.

    Yet, under Bush's leadership, Iraq was an outstanding military success that Obama frak'ed up to hell... Panetta said so and, around here, Panetta is the cat's meow.. Ask Bashi...

    Obama makes Bush look like a great leader.. Which, granted, doesn't say very much because, in most things, Bush IS a great leader...

    But Obama makes CARTER look like a great leader..

    Now THAT says a lot....

    Michale

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya see, Liz.. You just have to ask yourself one question.

    In the here and now, who is more popular. Bush Or Obama??

    Numerous polls clearly show that Bush is more popular than Obama.

    That pretty much says it all..

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.