ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points [173] -- Obama 2.0?

[ Posted Friday, July 15th, 2011 – 16:50 UTC ]

Are we seeing the new model of Barack Obama's presidency? Is this (in the parlance of Silicon Valley) "Obama 2.0"?

This seems to be a large point that all the overanalysis of rumors in the past few weeks has largely missed. Partisans on both sides have been kept busy having fits of the vapors over unconfirmed (and, for the most part, unsourced or anonymous) rumor leaks about what is "on the table" in the debt ceiling negotiations, while the media is content to sit back and fan the flames. In the midst of this frenzy, nobody seems to have noticed that President Obama is negotiating in a markedly different way than what we've seen from him in the past. Obama is at the absolute center of the showdown, he is using the bully pulpit for all its worth, and he has not (so far, unless you choose to believe this rumor or that) backed down on a few key "lines in the sand." All of this is nothing short of a sea change from how Obama handled (for example) the healthcare reform battle.

Since there is no agreement yet -- no grand "deal" has emerged from the talks between the White House and congressional leaders -- I'm going to wait to discuss the particulars of such a deal until it actually... you know... exists. I realize I am jeopardizing my standing among my peers by doing so, because apparently I'm supposed to be fulminating about whatever is the current rumor du jour right about now, along with the rest of the pack. Instead, I'd like to focus on the process, and the way President Obama has conducted himself in the negotiating process.

Republicans will, of course, discount any such discussion by stating that Eric Cantor singlehandedly got Obama involved by petulantly walking out of the discussions Vice President Joe Biden was holding, a few weeks back. This can be largely ignored, since it doesn't really matter what led Obama to take a commanding role, now that he has done so.

Several complaints about President Obama's governing style (admittedly, many of them expressed in this very column, in the past) centered on his inability to effectively conduct legislative negotiations. Rightly or wrongly, Obama was portrayed as a mere cheerleader on the sidelines, while Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid struggled to get the details worked out on paper. Even this cheerleading was judged ineffective, since Obama showed a strange aversion to taking his case directly to the American people (or, at the very least, making his case to the mainstream media). Obama seemed content to ride out the fray, holding himself above the messy business of hammering out details, and expressing only vague "goals" which he later could claim were "90 percent met" by whatever legislation emerged. This, the complaint went, allowed Obama to avoid risking any political "failure" which came as a result of supporting any facet of the plan which did not actually make it into the final agreement. It also avoided the heat from the public (especially his base), and redirected this annoyance to the leaders in Congress who were actually up to their elbows in the dirty work of give-and-take negotiations. And, at the end of the day, Obama would cave on just about anything merely in order to get some sort of bill -- any bill -- through Congress and onto his desk. No matter where you stood on past fights (again, such as healthcare reform), this portrait of the president in such negotiations should sound pretty familiar.

Compare this to what has happened in the past month on the debt ceiling talks. Obviously, since we're not done, we can't compare what the final result will be. But all the rest of the "conventional wisdom" of how Obama negotiates seems to have been turned on its head, to one degree or another.

Obama is indubitably at the center of the debt ceiling negotiations. He is not "passing the buck" to Congress on these talks. Obama has given an extraordinary (and, for him, unprecedented) three press conferences in the space of less than two weeks -- in addition to appearing in any media interviews which will put him on camera. In these appearances, he has been using forceful language to frame the issues as he sees them, instead of just allowing his opposition to hog all the television time and present their argument unchallenged. By doing so, Obama has set the Republicans not only back on their heels, but also at each other's throats (or so it is rumored). Obama has drawn lines in the sand, and then defended them and not backed down (so far, at least) -- such as saying any large deal must include tax increases in a 1-to-3 ratio with spending cuts. He has threatened to use his very large political ace-in-the-hole by hinting that letters soon will go out to Social Security recipients which will warn that the checks will stop if the debt ceiling isn't raised. He has been playing the "multi-dimensional chess" which was ascribed to him in the early days of his presidency, by offering a plan he knew would never pass the House, so that his own party could howl about how he was giving away the store on Social Security and Medicare -- when there was no chance of this actually happening. He is, to be blunt, taking heat from both sides in the debate. By doing so, he has positioned himself exactly where he wanted to -- as "the adult in the room." Call it Clintonian "triangulation" if you will, but heading into a presidential campaign, it's not actually that bad a political stance for Obama to take. By doing so, Obama has shown with crystal clarity the extreme positions of the Tea Party Republicans (and, by extension, the Republican Party itself) these days, in a way that he simply has not managed yet in his presidency.

All of this adds up to a very big shift in governing style by the president. Now, you can speculate about what caused this sea change (the upcoming election, the fact Republicans control the House, the exit of Rahm Emanuel from the White House, etc.), but it's getting harder and harder to ignore the fact that Obama has indeed changed how he conducts himself in these legislative fights. We did see a precursor to this, back in December, when Obama personally got involved in the "lame duck" session of the outgoing Congress. He cut a deal on extending the Bush tax cuts (which Democrats howled over), but by doing so also gained other legislation which Democrats loved -- including the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," an important nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia, medical care for 9/11 first responders, a payroll tax cut for everyone, and an unemployment benefits extension -- none of which would have gotten done if Obama hadn't personally cut the tax deal. The result, with the public, was that his approval ratings jumped upwards for the very first time in his entire term in office. Which, undoubtedly, the White House took note of.

Lest I be accused of being too Pollyannish (Pollyannaish?) here, it's obvious that whatever deal gets struck is going to have some things contained within it which are going to upset some Democrats. It will, in all likelihood, also have some features which will upset me personally. No deal is perfect. More importantly, Obama was going to disappoint a certain amount of both his base and the Lefty blogosphere by whatever he did in the debt ceiling fight. The very fact that we're even having this battle (rather than, say, a fight over further stimulus spending) is annoying some on the Left already -- and they will be annoyed by any outcome, no matter what it contains. Dire predictions abound that Obama has so alienated his base that they simply won't turn out for him next year, however, these must be weighed with the astoundingly good fundraising numbers Obama just announced. It seems not all of Obama's base is that eager to jump ship. Perhaps the debt ceiling deal will be the straw that breaks the proverbial camel's back for large portions of Obama's base, but then again it may not be. If Obama can sell whatever deal emerges as "balanced" (something he's done a remarkably good job of framing, in this whole debate), then he may retain quite a bit of public support. And if his "Obama 2.0" strategy actually works for him, then maybe he truly has changed his negotiating style for the better, and maybe his poll numbers will go back up again (as they did in December).

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell made the biggest news this week, by making a "Plan B" proposal as to how to get beyond the immediate crisis. The proposal is so astounding that it makes me seriously wonder if the fantasy speech I imagined in last week's "Friday Talking Points" actually happened (to some degree or another). Obama, I wrote last week, should just lay down the law and state that he would -- at a certain date -- go with the "Constitutional option," or play the "Fourteenth Amendment" card. He should state to the negotiators that he would act unilaterally under the clear text of the Constitution to declare the debt ceiling itself unconstitutional and void, and just go ahead and pay what needed to be paid since it had already been approved by Congress in this year's budget.

What McConnell is proposing is extremely close to Congress agreeing with this reasoning -- in advance. McConnell would, in essence, agree that President Obama could raise the debt ceiling on his own, at least until after next year's election. The Republicans in Congress would get to vote on this after the fact, but could only overturn Obama's decision with a two-thirds vote (much like a veto). McConnell knows he's never going to get two-thirds in either house, meaning the whole vote would be nothing more than political nonsense to be served up in the heat of the campaign season. Republicans could strongly position themselves politically as being against raising the debt ceiling, with no consequences at all to the actual debt ceiling. It's called "having your cake and eating it too," at least when it comes time to beg political donations from Wall Street. The only gaping flaw in McConnell's Machiavellianism is the hard cold fact that Congress would have to vote on this scheme in the first place. Republicans in Congress (at least a few of them) would have to vote to abdicate their power (as they see it) to President Obama, so they could later gnash their teeth when Obama actually used the power Republicans would thus hand him.

Which is the key fact -- Congress would be, in essence, agreeing with the president that the power to raise the debt ceiling was too serious to be left in the hands of Congress. "Stop me before I screw up again!" is another way of putting it. The Republicans, of course, are gleeful that they'll be able to frame the issue as "Obama's debt ceiling hikes," because they figure that if the president is the one singlehandedly doing so, then the public can be conned into believing that Congress had nothing to do with it, and that the Republicans in Congress were actually strongly fighting to keep him from doing so. This is complete elephant manure, of course, since Congress would have already abdicated this power with Republican votes, but Republicans are betting the American public won't figure that part out. Or (more accurately) remember it.

Either way, though, I do seriously wonder if Obama laid down some sort of drop-dead date, as this column suggested he do last week. Because when you strip away the political tinsel from McConnell's proposal, at its core it is nothing more than Congress just giving up on the whole debate and admitting in full view of the public that President Obama is, indeed, the only adult left in Washington.

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

Both of our awards this week go to Obama administration figures. An argument can be made -- for either of these awards -- that the real recipient should indeed be President Obama. But since we've spent our entire introduction talking about Obama, we thought it best to spread the coverage around a bit. If you disagree, feel free to vent your feelings in the comments, as always.

Senator Sherrod Brown deserves an Honorable Mention this week, for proposing the idea that members of Congress should have to wait until the retirement age that most other Americans have to hit, before they get their overly-generous retirement benefits themselves. This is the sort of legislation that Democrats should be backing, because it is so easily understood by the public at large, as an issue of basic fairness.

But our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who just announced that the United States would diplomatically recognize the rebel ad hoc council as the official government of Libya. Now, diplomatic recognition is a weighty matter, and America should never make this move too quickly. But, as the British saying goes: in for a penny, in for a pound. Ever since we've officially declared the Ghaddafi government illegitimate, Libyans have been waiting for America to follow the lead of others in this regard. Making this declaration will free up tens of billions of dollars for the rebels, which would give them a needed boost right about now.

The only quibble with Clinton's announcement is a silly one, but to be fair, we must address it. Clinton, in explaining why America hadn't acted sooner, said the following: "We really have acted in warp time in diplomatic terms, but we took our time to make sure that we were doing so based on our best possible assessments."

Um... "warp time"? Shouldn't that be "warp speed," Madam Secretary? Not to get into relativistic physics or anything, but one thing science fiction (back to the era of the original Star Trek television show) has taught us is that the correct phrase should really be "warp speed."

Hey, we warned you it was going to be silly. Ahem.

Quibbles aside, though (insert your own "tribbles quibbles" jokes here, if you must), Hillary Clinton's diplomatic recognition of the Libyan rebels as the true government of their country earns her this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

[Secretary of State Hillary Clinton does not have a contact page at the State Department site, but you can always contact the White House, and let her boss know you appreciate her efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

Our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week, as previously mentioned, is also a Cabinet department head, and -- again -- the argument can be made that he's merely "following the orders" of his boss.

Attorney General Eric Holder's Justice Department has, in the past few weeks, been severely backtracking on the administration's policy on medical marijuana. First a memo was released which backs up a strange policy. Then an even stranger Justice Department policy (to the point of being ludicrous) was released in a court case.

The memo doesn't completely reverse what was supposed to be the Obama policy on medical marijuana providers, but it certainly puts an odd spin on things. When Obama came into office, the new federal policy was supposed to have changed -- the feds would now only raid and prosecute people who were falling afoul of their own state's medical marijuana laws. If providers were hewing to the appropriate state laws, then the feds would look the other way, even while maintaining that marijuana was illegal, all the time, for everyone. Call it the "Sergeant Schultz" policy ("I see nothing!!!") if you will.

There are three basic problems with this approach. Number one, most state medical marijuana laws are completely silent on the production of medical marijuana, leaving a legal void. Number two, the federal raids continued (and by some measures, increased). Number three, a lot of leeway was given to individual federal prosecutors in deciding what cases to push.

The new memo seems to back up the fact that the feds seemed to be concentrating on the biggest growing operations. If an activity is deemed legal (or even "look the other way" quasi-legal), then what difference does it make whether the activity is large or small? The second problem with the new memo is that it seems to give a green light to overzealous federal prosecutors to go after state government officials for making an honest attempt to fill in the legal void when it comes to legalizing the entire seed-to-end-product production chain. Some states -- rather than leave a gaping legal hole -- decided to lay down a few rules as to what was acceptable and what was not for growers of medical marijuana. Before the new rules were even given a chance to be enacted, a few federal prosecutors sent letters to very high-ranking state officials warning them that the feds would haul their butts into court and charge them with conspiring to break federal drug laws. Got that? If a state's attorney general released regulations for legally growing medical marijuana in their state, then they would be prosecuted (read: "persecuted") for falling afoul of the drug laws. This is ridiculous, but the new Justice Department memo seems to back this reasoning up.

The memo was bad enough, but it was soon followed by the federal government releasing a lengthy report which unequivocally stated that marijuana would remain a "Schedule I" dangerous controlled substance -- which (by definition) means it "has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States." This is patent nonsense, on two levels. Number one: the federal government is still supplying a few patients with medical marijuana on a daily basis, which they are allowed to legally smoke -- by federal law. This is a holdover from the 1970s and 1980s, when a pilot program was set up for people with glaucoma and other ailments which demonstrably were made better by smoking weed. Number two: fully one-third of the country has now legalized medical marijuana. Sixteen states and the District of Columbia (17 out of 51 jurisdictions, a perfect third) now have medical marijuana laws on the books. For the federal government to continue to refuse to reclassify marijuana as a Schedule II drug ("has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions") is now completely and utterly absurd.

For assumably signing off on both the recent memo and the recent report introduced in court, Attorney General Eric Holder is our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week. This is shameful, and is (to put it in Obama-esque terms) "looking backward, not looking forward." The only reason for continuing this losing war and for putting out absurd legal reasoning is political cowardice. Which is nothing short of shameful.

[Attorney General Eric Holder does not have a contact page at the Justice Department site, but you can always contact the White House, to let his boss know what you think of his actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 173 (7/15/11)

This week, obviously, is "debt ceiling week" in Washington, and our talking points will be reflecting this. I wrote earlier in this week on the periphery of the whole discussion, first predicting exactly what has come to pass -- that both Congress and the White House had a vested interest in stalling the talks until the absolute last minute, so that Congress won't have any time to dither at the end of the process. Then, on Wednesday, I attempted to provide some historical context to the debate with a quick look back at 1995 and 1996, when Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton were at loggerheads over both the budget and the debt ceiling.

Today, we're going to dive into the fracas, head-on. Because, with the negotiations happening behind closed doors, the only thing left for politicians outside the room to do is to make their side's case to the media. Which Democrats have actually been doing a fairly good job of, so far, led by Obama himself.

As always, these talking points are offered up to Democrats everywhere to make use of, most especially those who are in office facing television cameras this weekend.

 

1
   Fair and balanced

There's a reason why Fox News pushes these two words as a slogan: America likes the concepts. President Obama, to his credit, has been using both terms to bolster his position in the negotiations, for the same reason. Help him out whenever you can.

"President Obama has called for balance in the debt ceiling negotiations. He thinks it is only fair that everyone in America should have to contribute to solving the debt problem. He is right. The president has offered to give ground on many issues which are near and dear to Democrats -- like fighting Republican attempts to gut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The Republicans, led by Eric Cantor in the House, have given precisely nothing. They have offered no ground, they refuse to consider any idea which does not fit within their rigid and extremist ideology, while the president continues to negotiate in good faith. We agree with the president -- any agreement should strike a balance between raising revenues and spending cuts. It is only fair to ask everyone to share the burden."

 

2
   The American people

Another thing Obama has been framing quite well is the fact that the public is behind most of the Democratic positions, in a big way. Poll after poll shows the American public agrees that it might be time to ask the millionaires and billionaires to pay a bit more in taxes. These polls rarely make the news, probably because the "journalists" would be embarrassed to admit what tax bracket they all fall into (hint: it isn't the same one as most of the rest of us). But by repeating one phrase, Obama is showing the strength of his position. Back him up!

"You know, I keep hearing Republicans trying to frame this issue as somehow 'Obama's debt ceiling hike.' They feel that if they just repeat Obama's name in conjunction with 'debt ceiling hike' that people will somehow think he's the only one who thinks the debt ceiling needs to be raised. This is nonsense. The debt is America's. It is all of America's debt, and it is the American economy which will crumble if the debt ceiling is not raised. Republican citizens will be hit by the consequences just the same as Democrats if America defaults.

"Luckily, the American people have shown, in poll after poll after poll, that they are solidly behind what the president and Democrats are saying. The American people do not want Social Security slashed. The American people do not want Medicare and Medicaid radically changed. The American people are just fine with millionaires and billionaires paying a wee bit more in taxes -- by overwhelming margins. Every time you hear an idea considered by Washington politicians, it would behoove the media to check the poll numbers to confirm that what the president says is correct -- the American people believe in a balanced approach to fixing our debt problems, unlike the Republicans."

 

3
   Instant Greece!

This should be used to counter Republican idiocy that "everything will be OK, nothing bad will happen on August the third, trust us...."

"That is utter nonsense. Republicans have been using the country Greece as a rallying cry all year now, warning us that 'America could wind up like Greece in the near future.' Now that we are faced with exactly this scenario, the Republicans are saying 'Oh, it won't be so bad.' Nothing could be further from the truth. Instead of dire warnings about some future scenario where America become Greece, Republicans will be forcing the rest of the world to immediately treat us the same as Greece. If the bond markets turn against the United States, then we would have 'Instant Greece' here at home. Why -- after warning us of the dire straits Greece is in all year -- why would the Republican force America into the same situation as Greece on the world markets? It makes no sense whatsoever."

 

4
   Instability insanity

Here's another chestnut from the Republican mantra that can be turned around and thrown back in their faces.

"Likewise, Republicans have been warning all year long that the American economy is terrified of 'instability' or 'uncertainty.' Markets, this thinking goes, are afraid of this instability whenever Democratic ideas become law, and the instability disappears whenever Republican ideas become law -- it's apparently very selective market uncertainty, I guess [pause for laughter]. But even with the naked partisanship, how do Republicans square this belief that instability is a bad thing for the American economy with the massive and unprecedented instability they are now advocating happen, by forcing America to default on its obligations? I guess that sort of instability is somehow less terrifying... or something... it's hard to follow such logic, isn't it?"

 

5
   So much for clean bills

The Republicans actually campaigned on this one. Guess they were lying, eh?

"You know, what I find amusing in the debt ceiling debate is how blatantly the Republicans in the House are breaking one of their core campaign promises. When they were campaigning, the Republicans put forth a grand document entitled the 'Pledge to America.' If I may quote from this document, the Republicans brought up the following issue: 'Advance Legislative Issues One at a Time: We will end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with "must-pass" legislation to circumvent the will of the American people. Instead we will advance major legislation one issue at a time.' That was what they pledged before they got elected. I call on every Republican who signed this document while a candidate to join with me in demanding a 'clean' bill to raise the debt ceiling right now. There is no reason why we cannot raise the debt ceiling separately from the negotiations underway to reduce our debt. In fact, House Republicans campaigned on just such a promise. I'd like to hold them to this promise right now."

 

6
   Even Reagan raised taxes

This one should be played as a trump card in debating Republican purity over raising taxes, because it puts Republicans in a very uncomfortable position.

"While I do not agree with George W. Bush's vice president or Treasury Secretary, who both famously said, 'Reagan proved that deficits don't matter,' I would like to remind the House Republicans that none other than Ronald Reagan himself agreed to multiple tax increases during his term in the Oval Office. That's right -- Ronald Reagan raised taxes. When the situation demanded it, and when negotiations would have broken down otherwise, Reagan agreed to tax increases on the wealthy. Do Republicans repudiate Reagan, or will they follow the Gipper's lead in this matter?"

 

7
   China before America's seniors?

Although this sort of thing would be the least of our problems if we did indeed default, since the Republicans have stuck their neck out, it is only fair game to use it against them.

"Nancy Pelosi pointed out this week that House Republicans are trying to pass some gimmicky legislation which guarantees that America's debts will be paid even if we go beyond the August second deadline and face defaulting on our obligations. House Republicans introduced a bill which would prioritize paying China off before paying American seniors their Social Security checks. This is the type of choice we would face if we don't get the deal made before the deadline -- deciding who to pay first. Republicans have shown their priorities, which makes me wonder why Republicans got so upset when President Obama said he couldn't guarantee that Social Security checks will go out beyond August second. Republicans howled that the president was 'demagoguing' the issue. But as far as the Republican House is concerned, Social Security will be taking a back seat to China. You can't have it both ways, guys."

 

-- 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

 

36 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [173] -- Obama 2.0?”

  1. [1] 
    dsws wrote:

    Now, you can speculate about what caused this sea change (the upcoming election, the fact Republicans control the House, the exit of Rahm Emanuel from the White House, etc.)

    Indeed I can. My suggestion is that it's the prospect of no deal. Consider --

    From HuffPo:
    Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner warned that failing to raise the debt ceiling would be disastrous to the economy, telling Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) in a May 13 letter that rapidly reducing federal outlays in the event of default "would likely push us into a double dip recession."

    A second dip of the Great Recession, particularly since the rest of the plausible consequences of default mean that it would live up to the name and then some, amounts to a failed presidency. We don't have third parties that amount to anything, so unless we have a new major party (which hasn't been seen since before the Civil War), the only possible beneficiaries are the Republicans.

    Given the scorched-earth nature of contemporary Republicanism, business as usual simply could not work.

    Dire predictions abound that Obama has so alienated his base that they simply won't turn out for him next year, however, these must be weighed with the astoundingly good fundraising numbers Obama just announced.

    Weigh away. I haven't donated to the 2012 campaign, and have no plans to do so. If he hadn't made the Bush tax cuts permanent, he wouldn't have gotten DADT or New START at the time, although they would still have been on the table for this session. Would Republicans really have wanted to stand up against medical care for 9/11 first responders, though? The unemployment benefits were crucial to our painfully slow progress out of recession, but it doesn't add up to an excuse for turning the 10-year Bush tax cuts into the permanent Bush/Obama tax cuts.

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    Quibbles aside, though (insert your own "tribbles quibbles" jokes here, if you must),

    Be still, my beating heart! :D

    For assumably signing off on both the recent memo and the recent report introduced in court, Attorney General Eric Holder is our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week.

    Once again, I have to offer up a better choice for the MDDOTW award.

    President Obama is much more deserving of this award for his blatant fear-mongering and his downright extortion of SS recipients..

    To state that "I don't know if SS payments will be able to be sent out" is a bold-faced lie and does nothing but attempt to use fear and extortion to get his way..

    This egregious lie is made even worse by the fact that Obama will be having a gala birthday party several days after "Armageddon"...

    For this, Obama is much more deserving of the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award.

    At the VERY least, he deserves a strongly worded dis-honorable mention..

    Once again, I have to wonder what the Left's reaction would be if a GOP President tried such blatant fear mongering...

    There's a reason why Fox News pushes these two words as a slogan: America likes the concepts. President Obama, to his credit, has been using both terms to bolster his position in the negotiations, for the same reason. Help him out whenever you can.

    Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.. :D Looks like Fox News scores another coup.... :D

    "Luckily, the American people have shown, in poll after poll after poll, that they are solidly behind what the president and Democrats are saying.

    I have to call foul on this one.

    Not ONE poll shows that the American people are behind Obama when it comes to raising taxes..

    There is, however, one grossly obvious "poll" that shows the American people want to reign in big government spending.

    That "poll" was the 2010 mid-term elections...

    It's ironic. Republicans are doing EXACTLY what the American people elected them to do..

    You have to admit, the Democratic Party could take a lesson from the GOP on how to represent the people who voted them into office..

    As Boehner said, "Excuse us for trying to lead"

    If there is a default, you can bet that the American people will hold Obama responsible moreso than the GOP...

    Michale.....

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am not sure what polls Obama is looking at....

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20056258-503544.html

    63% of Americans are against raising the Debt Ceiling.

    Only 27% of Americans are for raising the Debt Ceiling.

    Once again, President Obama finds himself on the WRONG side of the majority of Americans..

    I know these pesky facts bother some people here, but hay... I calls em as I sees em... :D

    Michale.....

  4. [4] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    President Obama is much more deserving of this award for his blatant fear-mongering and his downright extortion of SS recipients..

    To state that "I don't know if SS payments will be able to be sent out" is a bold-faced lie and does nothing but attempt to use fear and extortion to get his way..

    From your own link in your second post:

    As The Economist explained in January, "almost everyone takes it for granted that a failure to raise the debt ceiling will eventually force the United States to default on its Treasury debt." However, as that magazine points out, the government could potentially prioritize paying bond interest over other spending, such as Social Security payments, in order to avoid default.

    Gettin' sloppy. Trying out for a job at FOX News? :D

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    Gettin' sloppy. Trying out for a job at FOX News? :D

    While I always welcome fact checks (it shows me that people ARE paying attention :D) this time you're wrong.

    Obama said that he can't guarantee that checks would go out for AUGUST...

    The prioritizing referred to in the article won't come for months down the road...

    The revenue coming in for August comes to something like 120 Billion dollars.. I don't recall the exact figures, but after paying the military, the SS checks, the interest on what's already borrowed and other necessary payments, there will still be about $30 billion left over..

    It's nothing but Fear-Mongering, Bashi... A valid point I am certain you would make abundantly clear if it had been a GOP President making such extortionist statements... :D

    Michale.....

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    This egregious lie is made even worse by the fact that Obama will be having a gala birthday party several days after "Armageddon"...

    Where's Joe Wilson when ya need 'im!??? :D

    Michale.....

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Another good nomination for the MDDOTW award would be Sheila Jackson..

    Saying that the reason Republicans are fighting Obama so is because he is black...

    Seriously???

    It's people like Jackson that set race relations back decades....

    Michale.....

  8. [8] 
    Osborne Ink wrote:

    Chris:

    "All of this adds up to a very big shift in governing style by the president"

    It's been a journey from consensus to hostage negotiations, hasn't it? But here's the thing: when the story is written, Republicans drove him to it. "Take-charge" Obama is a monster they created; well may it profit them.

  9. [9] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Obama may be playing politics and pushing the truth, but it is far from a "bold-faced lie"

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Republicans drove him to it.

    What a great campaign slogan!!

    "It's not MY fault I am such a crappy leader! The mean old Republicans made me do it!!"

    All that is needed is a caricature of Obama with his thumb in his ears, waggling his fingers and saying, "Naaaneeee Naaannneeeee booo booo"...

    Yea, THAT will win him re-election... :^/

    Bashi,

    Obama may be playing politics and pushing the truth, but it is far from a "bold-faced lie"

    Sorry, it's not politics. It IS a lie and a bold-faced one at that...

    Even if you were correct, that it's possible that the SS payments would be "prioritized" away, who is it that would be doing the "prioritizing"???

    The Obama administration...

    Now, how could he explain the fact that he refused to make the SS payments, even though the money WAS there for it..

    I know, Bashi, I know.. In your mind, Obama is the second coming and can do no wrong..

    But let's face the facts... If a GOP president had tried this kind of crap, the Left (yourself included) would have strung him up by his balls... And I would have been right there to hold the rope...

    So, this begs the question..

    Why does Obama get a pass???

    Why does the Left give Obama such a pass on gross actions that a Republican would be (rightly) castrated over??

    The ONLY logical explanation is bigotry... Be it racial or be it political, it is bigotry pure and simple...

    Michale.....

  11. [11] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Earlier today I commented on just how risky this political theater was becoming.

    Now, here's an encouraging report.

    If this story is true, evidently the real decision makers in the Republican party shuttled the word down that while lip service to the morons in the party's base may be all well and good, letting the markets open Sunday night without any evidence of movement toward resolution would be far too risky.

    This may be the first time that the Tea Party nonsense has been in perfect counter alignment with the needs of the corporatist interests that form the true core of Republican philosophy. It will be fun to see them spin their way out of this one.

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    When will our leaders learn that the ONLY way to fix this frack'ed up system is to let the whole thing come crashing down and rebuild a better system from the ashes..

    "Let them die!!"
    -Captain James T. Kirk, STAR TREK VI, The Undiscovered Country

    All we're doing is putting band-aids on a dying patient and hoping the patient will live until the next election.

    It's frackin' ridiculous...

    Michale.....

  13. [13] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I'd like to submit an honorable mention for the MIDOTW: Eric Cantor and the Tea Party.

    John Boehner had a deal where Republicans got about 80% of what they wanted and would have put Obama at odds with his base.

    The Tea Party and Eric Cantor snatched defeat from the hands of victory by saying that they wouldn't be happy with anything but 100%

    BTW- Here's an amazing interview with Mitch McConnell:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ7Teug7Tq4&feature=player_embedded#at=219

    In it, he talks about what's really driving Republicans: beating Obama in the next election. Basically, McConnell says "screw the country" it's all about electing Republicans.

    Imagine if President Obama or any Democrat for that matter took McConnell's stance.

    Simply amazing ...
    -David

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Perhaps you remember the shellacking that the Democrats received at the hands of the voters during the last mid-terms..

    Voters, in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, declared loudly that they were sick and tired of taxes and orgasmic spending.

    Republicans are simply acting like the voters WANT them to act...

    You can't blame Republicans for actually LISTENING to the voters who voted them into office..

    Perhaps if Democrats had done more of that (actually LISTENING to the American People) this country would not be as frak'ed up as it is today...

    Something to think about..

    When you consider that over 60% of the American people are with the Republicans over raising the Debt Limit..... Well, it's obvious that the Democrats will be blamed for the mess that results...

    Michale.....

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    When you consider that over 60% of the American people are with the Republicans over raising the Debt Limit.....

    Of course, that SHOULD read....

    When you consider that over 60% of the American people are with the Republicans over NOT raising the Debt Limit.....

    My bust...

    Michale.....

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/07/17/budget_director_wont_answer_if_wh_would_prioritize_social_security_payments.html

    Dance, Obama Administration, Dance!!!! :D

    I absolutely DARE Obama to prioritize SS and Mil Pay payments down so low that they don't get paid...

    That would absolutely GUARANTEE a complete GOP takeover in 2012....

    What's the big deal??? In 2006 EVERY Democrat in the Senate, INCLUDING Obama, voted against raising the Debt limit...

    So, were they all playing politics then?? Or are they all playing politics now??

    Michale.....

  17. [17] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Here's a news flash for you ...

    The debt ceiling will be raised. Or, prioritizing SS and Mil Pay payments will be the least of your concerns.

    And, you can take that to the bank. Or, not.

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Voters, in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, declared loudly that they were sick and tired of taxes and orgasmic spending.

    I have to tell you ... that me laugh out loud. Because it's so hilarious to think that voters were okie dokie when the middle-class busting spending spree went through the roof on failed foreign and economic/tax policies during the Bush/Cheney era but, now, when the spending has been done to save them from the Great Depression 2.0, now they are ... how did you put it? ... right, they are sick and tired of taxes and orgasmic spending.

    That's just so precious.

    Maybe, in 2012, the voters, in all of their infinite wisdom, will show more support for the policy prescriptions of the Republican cult of economic failure and then they will bask in their own misery, or something.

  19. [19] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    liz,

    Maybe, in 2012, the voters, in all of their infinite wisdom, will show more support for the policy prescriptions of the Republican cult of economic failure and then they will bask in their own misery, or something.

    highly likely. we all know very well the collective wisdom of the voting population. how else would the guy who paid the biggest medicare fraud settlement in history (and took the fifth 75 times to avoid self-incrimination) be the governor of the state with the second highest percentage of residents on medicare?

    michale/bashi,

    your hair is on fire! wait, i think you meant "bald-faced lie."

    michale,

    Not ONE poll shows that the American people are behind Obama when it comes to raising taxes..

    There is, however, one grossly obvious "poll" that shows the American people want to reign in big government spending.

    sorry to go all grammar police on you again, but i think you meant "rein in spending." in theory at least, the people are supposed to reign already. as for evidence of support for taxing the rich over cutting services:

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53455.html

    CW,

    considering all the talk about fox, i'm surprised you didn't mention the newscorp scandal in the UK.

    i'd also point out that while fundraising is important, so is motivating volunteers to canvas the neighborhoods and man the phone networks. considering the overwhelming feeling of betrayal among a large portion of the nation's teachers and educators - well, who do you think does those things the summer before an election?

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    The debt ceiling will be raised. Or, prioritizing SS and Mil Pay payments will be the least of your concerns.

    A week ago, I would have whole-heartedly agreed with you...

    Now, I am not so sure....

    I would say you are probably right, but I never underestimate the ultimate stupidity of our politicians...

    I have to tell you ... that me laugh out loud. Because it's so hilarious to think that voters were okie dokie when the middle-class busting spending spree went through the roof on failed foreign and economic/tax policies during the Bush/Cheney era but, now, when the spending has been done to save them from the Great Depression 2.0, now they are ... how did you put it? ... right, they are sick and tired of taxes and orgasmic spending.

    You obviously missed my previous post on this issue..

    Allow me to fix that... :D

    Here are the facts...

    All figures are for 2000 and 2006 respectively.

    The bottom 20% of Americans actually get money back from taxes, to the tune of (-)2.8% Incidentally, this "rose" from (-)1.6%

    The next 20% tier also gets money back. At (-).8% This also "rose" from 2000 when this 20% of Americans actually paid 1.1% of the taxes...

    The next 20% of Americans also saw their tax liability shrink. It was 5.7% in 2000 but went down to 4.4% in 2006..

    The next to the top 20% of Americans ALSO saw their taxes go down. Their tax percentage was 13.5% in 2000 and it went down to 12.9% in 2006..

    The top 20% of Americans by income saw a tax INCREASE... Their taxes were 81.2% in 2000 and that went up to 86.3% in 2006.

    In short, 20% of the top earners pay over 86% of the taxes..

    And Democrats think they should be taxed MORE!!????

    I guess the Left won't be happy until the top 20% is paying 100% of all the taxes and entitlements etc etc and the bottom 80% just get a free ride..

    Yea, THAT will insure a productive economy, eh?? :D

    Read up about the College Sociology professor who did a socialism experiment in this vein. It's an eye opener...

    Oh, and just for the record... The reason why the bottom 80% of Americans' taxes went down from 2000 to 2006 and the top 20% of Americans' taxes went up is due to the Bush Tax Cuts...

    ..... And now you know the REST of the story... :D

    Maybe, in 2012, the voters, in all of their infinite wisdom, will show more support for the policy prescriptions of the Republican cult of economic failure and then they will bask in their own misery, or something.

    And you don't think the US is in misery now??

    Seriously???

    With Obama's approval ratings underwater and Congress' ratings in the toilet, what indications do you see that the American people support the orgasmic spend and tax and tax and spend policies of Democrats??

    Over 60% of the American people are with Republicans over the Debt Ceiling issue.. Considering that's a CBS poll, the numbers are probably a lot higher...

    Whether you want to admit it or not, it's clear that the American people are solidly in the Republicans corner on this issue...

    NYpoet,

    sorry to go all grammar police on you again, but i think you meant "rein in spending." in theory at least, the people are supposed to reign already.

    Touche.... :D

    as for evidence of support for taxing the rich over cutting services:

    The "rich" are already taxed! Over 85% of the taxes in this country come from the top 20% of Americans!

    And ya'all think they should be taxed more!!???

    Anyways, as we see above, the facts clearly show that the Bush tax cuts have been responsible for the bottom 80% of Americans' taxes going DOWN and the top 20% of Americans' taxes going UP!!

    So, ya'all want to stop those tax cuts. But, if that happens, the 80%, the "middle class" taxes will go UP...

    Where is the logic in that??

    Democrats are falling back on that old dead horse, "TAX THE RICH, TAX THE RICH" simply because they have NO PLAN...

    But, as I had mentioned before, if Democrats were REALLY and TRULY serious about their "TAX THE RICH" idiotology... (er... I mean.. ideology :D ) then they would lead by example and voluntarily donate more of their millions and billions to the IRS.

    The fact that they DON'T do this leads one to the only logical conclusion. That Democrats aren't really serious about "TAX THE RICH"... They just pay it lip service and continue to game the system to their own personal financial advantage...

    To be fair, Republicans are the same way.. But at least they are, by and large, honest and upfront about their greed and don't put on airs for political gain..

    I much prefer an "honest" jackass than a jackass who is just as greedy and just as corrupt, but insists on blowing smoke up me arse...

    i'd also point out that while fundraising is important, so is motivating volunteers to canvas the neighborhoods and man the phone networks. considering the overwhelming feeling of betrayal among a large portion of the nation's teachers and educators - well, who do you think does those things the summer before an election?

    I have to agree with you here..

    The two main groups that made Obama in 2008 (young people and Independents) are not going to raise a pinky to help him in 2012...

    My only indecision is whether Palin or Bachmann would make a better President. :D

    Sorry, now I am just being mean.... :D

    Michale.....

  21. [21] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    The "rich" are already taxed! Over 85% of the taxes in this country come from the top 20% of Americans!And ya'all think they should be taxed more!!???

    in this case my own opinion and its wisdom or lack of wisdom is irrelevant. "72 percent said they support tax increases on people with incomes of more than $250,000, including 54 percent who strongly support them." please acknowledge that i factually refuted your statement about there not being polls to suggest people are behind obama when it comes to raising certain people's taxes. then we can argue about the lies, the damnlies and the statistics.

    as to what i think, the solution isn't really taxing more, it's taxing differently. we don't so much have to raise tax rates as close loopholes and prevent more from opening. my opinion on the percentages you provided is that they are misleading on two counts:

    1. 85% (presuming it is correct) is a percentage of government revenue, not a percentage of individual income - much less a percentage of overall gains in wealth, much of which is not even officially classified as "income."

    2. both figures are placed at a cutoff point that doesn't qualify as "rich." the 80th percentile in 2003 was 86,867. it's a healthy income, but pretty darn far from rich. even the 95th percentile of 154,120 doesn't really qualify as rich.

    http://blogs.forbes.com/janetnovack/2010/09/23/the-very-rich-are-different-they-pay-a-lower-tax-rate/

    factually, the mega-rich pay a lower percentage of their real individual income than the middle class. some taxes like social security are even capped at around 100k so millionaires and billionaires pay an insanely lower rate than you and me.

    as to the republicans supporting this regressive tax overtly versus most democrats supporting it covertly, the evidence seems to be in your favor on that point.

    ~joshua

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    in this case my own opinion and its wisdom or lack of wisdom is irrelevant. "72 percent said they support tax increases on people with incomes of more than $250,000, including 54 percent who strongly support them." please acknowledge that i factually refuted your statement about there not being polls to suggest people are behind obama when it comes to raising certain people's taxes. then we can argue about the lies, the damnlies and the statistics.

    Once again, it's all in the phrasing...

    Yes, if you ask people if they support raising taxes on people making more that $250K, they are going to say, HELL YEA...

    But if you actually put out the facts that "people" also include small businesses and that by raising THEIR taxes that will hinder economic recovery, all of the sudden, the poll numbers start going down.

    In other words, "TAX THE RICH!!! TAX THE RICH!!" is a great political slogan. But it plays on emotionalism that has little to do with reality..

    Once again, I must point out. If it's such a great idea, why don't Democrats voluntarily "tax" themselves and lead by example???

    I know, I know.. We had this discussion before and, while I agree with you that human nature being what it is, people will take the best deal they can..

    But damn it, if it's such a great idea, imagine the PR coup if Democrats actually did it, instead of just jaw-boning about it..

    1. 85% (presuming it is correct) is a percentage of government revenue, not a percentage of individual income - much less a percentage of overall gains in wealth, much of which is not even officially classified as "income."

    Actually, it's 86% and it's the percentage of government revenue by taxes that the 20% top income earners pay...

    At least, according to CBO figures...

    factually, the mega-rich pay a lower percentage of their real individual income than the middle class. some taxes like social security are even capped at around 100k so millionaires and billionaires pay an insanely lower rate than you and me.

    I agree with you on this...

    The problem with the $250K figure is that it encompasses a LOT more Americans and businesses than the average American Joe realizes...

    My personal take is eliminate all the loopholes for individuals and families only that earn more than $1 million a year and tax the hell out of THEM....

    Let's start with the Pelosis, the Reids and the Soroses of the country and see how well it works out.. :D

    They won't mind a bit, since they are all for the TAX THE RICH idea, right?? :D

    as to the republicans supporting this regressive tax overtly versus most democrats supporting it covertly, the evidence seems to be in your favor on that point.

    Yea, the blatant hypocrisy is what really galls me...

    Michale.....

  23. [23] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I know, I know.. We had this discussion before and, while I agree with you that human nature being what it is, people will take the best deal they can..

    But damn it, if it's such a great idea, imagine the PR coup if Democrats actually did it, instead of just jaw-boning about it...

    and that in a nutshell is what makes our political system so frustrating. the dems buy us a drink before they screw us, and later stick us with the tab. the republicans just tell us to bend over and take it...

  24. [24] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    your hair is on fire! wait, i think you meant "bald-faced lie."

    Well, I was just copying Michale but both are correct. From wikipedia:

    A barefaced (or bald-faced) lie is one that is obviously a lie to those hearing it. The phrase comes from 17th-century British usage referring to those without facial hair as being seen as particularly forthright and outwardly honest, and therefore more likely to get away with telling a significant lie. A variation that has been in use almost as long is bold-faced lie, referring to a lie told with a straight and confident face (hence "bold-faced"), usually with the corresponding tone of voice and emphatic body language of one confidently speaking the truth. Bold-faced lie can also refer to misleading or inaccurate newspaper headlines, but this usage appears to be a more recent appropriation of the term.

    Though both could be correct in regards to Obama as he is clean shaven, I think "bold-faced" is more what Michale was going for...

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    NYpoet,

    and that in a nutshell is what makes our political system so frustrating. the dems buy us a drink before they screw us, and later stick us with the tab. the republicans just tell us to bend over and take it...

    A very apt, albeit er... graphic, description...

    I would just make one little addition...

    the republicans just tell us to bend over, take it and LIKE it!!

    :D

    Bashi,

    Though both could be correct in regards to Obama as he is clean shaven, I think "bold-faced" is more what Michale was going for...

    I actually had to mull this over.. I opted for "bold" faced as I figured it would be the "emphasis" part of "bold" that made it the right choice.

    Looks like my entomology was all frack'ed up.. :D

    Michale.....

  26. [26] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Looks like my entomology was all frack'ed up..

    now you're just playing with us... like insects. ;)

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    now you're just playing with us... like insects. ;)

    Damn spell checker!!!!

    Etymology????? :D

    Michale....

  28. [28] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Voters, in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, declared loudly that they were sick and tired of taxes and orgasmic spending.

    Correction: I believe voters said that they wanted to focus on jobs. At least this is what the polling supports and what all the Republicans I know of ran on.

    Here in OH-2, Steve Chabot's campaign slogan was "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs"

    What did Mr. Chabot think the issue was? Hmmm ... I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say "Jobs"

    Of course that was before the election.

    After the election, conservatives stopped talking about jobs.

    Where's Joe Wilson when we need him ;)

    -David

    p.s. I believe entomology is the study of insects. So your etymology is still on the fritz ... you might want to get that looked at (WIth apologies. You know we luv ya, Michale. I just couldn't resist. :) )

  29. [29] 
    akadjian wrote:

    BTW, nypoet-

    This morn, I read a fantastic op-ed in the Washington Post about compensation and teaching.

    What I like about it is that the authors take a bit of a different approach. They talk about corporate compensation mistakes and the parallels w/ No Child.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-leadership/want-to-stop-teachers-from-cheating-a-history-lesson-from-corporate-america/2011/07/18/gIQAtEbtLI_story.html

    Thought you might enjoy and/or provide you w/ some ammo!

    -David

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Correction: I believe voters said that they wanted to focus on jobs. At least this is what the polling supports and what all the Republicans I know of ran on.

    That wouldn't explain the rise and the impact of the Taxed Enough Already Party on the Mid Term elections.

    While jobs may have been important, it is undeniable that the American voter wanted the GOP to rein (:D) in the Tax and Spend Democrats...

    p.s. I believe entomology is the study of insects. So your etymology is still on the fritz ... you might want to get that looked at (WIth apologies. You know we luv ya, Michale. I just couldn't resist. :) )

    Yea yea, kick a man when he's down... :D

    Michale.....

  31. [31] 
    akadjian wrote:

    That wouldn't explain the rise and the impact of the Taxed Enough Already Party on the Mid Term elections.

    I don't care about the Tea Party. They're just another front group for the far-right fringe of the Republican Party.

    If the Tea Party were so important, Republicans would run on "Less Taxes, Less Taxes, Less Taxes"

    Instead they run on "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs". Then flip-flop once elected.

    While jobs may have been important, it is undeniable that the American voter wanted ...

    I'm glad you're not worried about getting too big a head and are able to speak for all Americans :)

    This American voter thinks Washington is focused on the wrong thing.

    -David

  32. [32] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    david,

    all three of those articles are outstanding examples of the range of educated viewpoints regarding high-stakes standardized tests. pearlstein seems to think that the high stakes tests are good and that some degree of cheating is just the price we have to pay. ariely sees it as a poor system because it motivates the wrong sort of behavior. gardner's take is probably closest to my own view. whatever the cause, teaching is not thought of or treated as a profession in the U.S. the way it is in most other developed countries.

    i think teachers need professional autonomy and a competent infrastructure for self-regulation within the profession. whether it's high stakes student testing or some other harebrained accountability scheme, the core problem with accountability is that the people who judge teacher competence are fundamentally not teachers. even in places where principals or superintendents are required to teach first, it's often no more than the token three year minimum. the statisticians who construct measures like "value-added" probably couldn't teach even if they wanted to. and the most competent, respected and experienced teachers almost never attain school leadership positions anymore.

  33. [33] 
    akadjian wrote:

    People who don't know how to do the job judging those who do ... that doesn't seem isolated to the teaching profession. Unfortunately.

    Anyways, I won't comment much more on this issue here because I know it's far from the topic but glad you enjoyed the post.

    Tried to go to your page on livejournal (the link attached to your "nypoet22" alias) when I posted the original link, but it doesn't seem to work. Just as an FYI.

    -David

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    If the Tea Party were so important, Republicans would run on "Less Taxes, Less Taxes, Less Taxes"

    But it worked out so well for the GOP because they got the best of both.. :D And all Democrats got was a shellacking... :D

    This American voter thinks Washington is focused on the wrong thing.

    I completely agree... Washington is too focused on adding revenue and not focused at all on cutting spending. :D

    I know, I know. That's not what you meant...

    But when prioritizing targets, you want to put more emphasis on the guy in front of you with a shotgun, rather than the kid across the street with a squirt gun..

    Frankly, I think the Administration should forget about the Debt Ceiling and create those jobs that were promised 3 years ago.. And yes, the GOP should also do the same as well...

    Ya know, Obama could fix everything by just eliminating CrapCare... :D

    Michale.....

  35. [35] 
    akadjian wrote:

    But when prioritizing targets, you want to put more emphasis on the guy in front of you with a shotgun, rather than the kid across the street with a squirt gun.

    Huh?

    Not only is your etymologizer on the fritz but your analogizer seems to be having problems as well.

    I'd really suggest having someone take a look :)

    -David

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not only is your etymologizer on the fritz but your analogizer seems to be having problems as well.

    It's simple...

    In the here and now, the bigger danger to this country is the out of control spending and taxing of the Democrats and this administration..

    Getting people back to work, while important, won't be much effective if they are paid less, and taxed more...

    Ergo, Jobs is the little kid across the street with a squirt gun and OOCTAS is the guy with the shotgun in your face...

    Michale.....

Comments for this article are closed.