home

Friday Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 12:13:47 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

It's a jail day for me. I have two to visit, and they are 40 miles apart. At least it's a beautiful day for a long drive.

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< ICE Resumes Deportations to Haiti | SuperTrains! >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Friday Open Thread | 127 comments (127 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    The circular firing squad (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 12:58:06 PM EST
    courtesy of the Republican party:

    What was supposed to be a routine vote in the House -- to knock down an amendment authored by conservative Republicans -- turned into pandemonium on the House floor Friday, as Democrats tried to jam the plan through, and hang it around the GOP's necks.

    The vote was on the Republican Study Committee's alternative budget -- a radical plan that annihilates the social contract in America by putting the GOP budget on steroids. Deeper tax cuts for the wealthy, more severe entitlement rollbacks.

    Normally something like that would fail by a large bipartisan margin in either the House or the Senate. Conservative Republicans would vote for it, but it would be defeated by a coalition of Democrats and more moderate Republicans. But today that formula didn't hold. In an attempt to highlight deep divides in the Republican caucus. Dems switched their votes -- from "no" to "present."

    Click or TPM Me

    Great move (none / 0) (#16)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 02:00:22 PM EST


    Parent
    What Obama said when he didn't know the mics were (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 01:29:34 PM EST
    on.

    Link

    Talking (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 02:02:15 PM EST
    to donors. He's certainly not going to tell them that he caved.

    Parent
    He also said some funny stuff (none / 0) (#30)
    by lilburro on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 02:20:26 PM EST
    about telephones, technology at the WH, etc.  CBS

    Parent
    Surprising. (none / 0) (#37)
    by brodie on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 02:52:34 PM EST
    I thought it was the FBI that was always several generations behind the current technology.

    Lyndon Johnson never seemed to want for the latest fancy gadgetry as president -- telephones wired for surreptitious recording (including in the VP's office), those famous 3 tv's each tuned to one of the 3 networks, his ranch in TX brought up to state-of-the-art high tech standards of the time (at taxpayer expense).  Basically, whatever he asked for, he seemed to get.  And quickly.

    Obama might start barking orders like Lyndon, but then again if word got out to the press about this Dem prez spending tax dollars in a time of economic hardship, just to get the latest fancy technology -- well modern-day Dems just don't get the kind of easy pass Dems like LBJ used to get from the MSM.

    Parent

    LBJ used to have a (none / 0) (#67)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 04:04:44 PM EST
    Fresca button.

    The drink has changed (no more cyclamates), but I always keep Fresca around myself.

    Parent

    I knew he loved (none / 0) (#78)
    by brodie on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 04:22:44 PM EST
    Fresca (his favorite drink before starting in later in the day on the whiskey), but didn't know about the special button.  Always something new and colorful to learn about that guy.  

    Me, as a kid -- and it would have been about the time LBJ was in the WH guzzling Fresca -- it was one of my secondary favorite carbonated beverage drinks, behind Dr Pepper.  Wasn't as sickly-sweet as most of the others and had an interesting tangy taste to it.  No longer -- swore off all carbonated well over a decade ago.

    Lyndon -- Fresca addict, 3-tv's-at-a-time watcher, womanizer-in-chief, exhibitionist, last skinny dipper president, and so much more!

    Parent

    Ever since I kicked the Diet Coke (none / 0) (#83)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 04:33:12 PM EST
    a couple of years ago, I still allow myself as much seltzer as I can drink--and a case a Fresca and Diet Sprite a week.

    There are many health threats in this life, but I'm comfortable with the safety of aspartame and acesulfame potassium. I personally think that sucralose has a funny flavor. "Made from sugar" or not, I still think NutraSweet tastes best.

    Parent

    Nothing but natural (none / 0) (#94)
    by brodie on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 04:59:40 PM EST
    is going into this guy's body, thank you very much.  Not that I can eliminate all health risks in this world, but I believe I'm responsible for at least doing what I can.

    And I'd hate to find out -- when my number is finally called -- that I could have had those final 5-10 years or so be mostly pain- and trouble-free but for my unfortunate decision to put substances into my body from the labs of Monsanto and DuPont.

    Besides, with LBJ and Fresca, and Nixon and Pepsi, I automatically associate soft drinks in my mind with two of the worst presidents and crooks ever to sit in the WH ...

    Parent

    a case a week? (none / 0) (#95)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 05:05:07 PM EST
    wow.

    have you looked into getting a seltzer 'machine'? i love mine. i use 100% concentrates (from health food store etc) like blk cherry, cranberry, etc to make flavored bubbly drinks. can also make a ginger simple syrup to make ginger ale type of drink.

    Parent

    12-pack (none / 0) (#100)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 05:39:22 PM EST
    And seltzer by the bottle is cheap.

    Parent
    ahhhh (none / 0) (#114)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 10:23:45 PM EST
    for some reason I was thinking case = 24 :}

    What I like about my seltzer maker is not having to buy it (lug it home) and just need my filtered tap water and a couple secs to make a bubbly :) and it's cheap. (and fun)

    Parent

    My aunt still (none / 0) (#91)
    by sj on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 04:49:46 PM EST
    ...occasionally waxes nostalgic over cyclamates which she swears had no aftertaste.

    I was surprised to note just now that it's still available outside of the US.

    Parent

    The studies purporting to show (none / 0) (#101)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 05:42:57 PM EST
    that cyclamates (like saccharin) caused cancer have long-since been called into considerable question. What's funny is that, in Canada, cyclamates are legal, but saccharin is not. Most artificial sweeteners are amenable to synergistic blending, and it is widely thought that the original blend (that your aunt likely loved) of saccharin and cyclamates has not really been improved on. Each masks the unpleasantness of the other.

    Parent
    Hmm, I see why someone's (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by observed on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 01:52:59 PM EST
    cheerleading is so ferocious  these days. Obama's approval rating is at 41% on Gallup today.
    I"m sure he has at least a hefty 67% approval from Dems though.

    Polls matter (none / 0) (#15)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 01:59:07 PM EST
    Selectively?

    Parent
    In any event (2.00 / 1) (#17)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 02:01:50 PM EST
    If they do matter, Obama is where Clinton was at the same time and Clinton didn't have a recession, 2.5 wars and Birthers to deal with at this point.

    He's doing better than he should be doing given all of the circumstances.

    Parent

    It's good to know Libya is only half a war. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 02:05:25 PM EST


    Parent
    how many half dead ar there, so far? (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by observed on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 02:06:54 PM EST


    Parent
    Um. I believe the PC term is (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 02:08:49 PM EST
    "collateral damage."

    Parent
    Heck, they're muslims. We can just (none / 0) (#24)
    by observed on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 02:09:52 PM EST
    call them martyrs.

    Parent
    Jihadists. (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 02:17:18 PM EST


    Parent
    The "half war", I think, (none / 0) (#33)
    by KeysDan on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 02:30:14 PM EST
    must refer to Pakistan or, maybe, Yemen.  Libya is not a war, it is a UN Resolution 1973 humanitarian transmogrifying regime change intervention.  

    Parent
    According to the WH, Libya is (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 03:09:16 PM EST
    only a kinetic military action.

    Those are "freedom bombs" which do not cause casualties.

    Parent

    True, the kinetics of (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by KeysDan on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 03:47:05 PM EST
    Resolution 1973 do require bombs and bullets but they are well-intentioned, well-aimed and well-oiled.

    Parent
    But what if they damage property? (none / 0) (#46)
    by observed on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 03:21:35 PM EST


    Parent
    Well there are properties (none / 0) (#50)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 03:33:21 PM EST
    and there are properties.

    Mar 17, 2011 ... The United Nations Security Council approved a resolution Thursday evening authorizing a no-fly zone over Libya.

    Parent

    You don't (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 02:05:26 PM EST
    remember the 90's very much do you? You had the GOP accusing him of murdering half of Arkansas, dealing drugs from the Mena Airport and million other conspiracy theories.

    I know the poll numbers are never bad to you. Obama could have a 25% approval rating and you would excuse it.

    All those "bad things" were known when Obama ran for President so I don't make excuses about that. if he didn't want to be in a tough situation, he shouldn't have run.

    Parent

    I think the GOP is so crazy now, (none / 0) (#35)
    by observed on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 02:43:41 PM EST
    it helps Obama, politically.
    Gingrich is a  moron, but he didn't sound THAT crazy or stupid.
    Now they have Ryan, Bachmann, etc..
    the GOP really is a circus.

    Parent
    I think (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 02:55:02 PM EST
    they are just as crazy now as they were then. The main difference is that NOT everyone was crazy in the GOP but they all seem to be now.

    Parent
    Look, 30 years ago, Dick Cheney was (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by observed on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 03:01:53 PM EST
    the most batshiit crazy Republican in Congress, and he's relatively sane, as right wing Republicans go.
    There's just no comparison between then and now.

    Parent
    Well, just wait until (none / 0) (#72)
    by KeysDan on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 04:09:19 PM EST
    Fred Thompson rides in and saves the Republican presidential aspirations.    Fred is my man.

    Parent
    Not to mention Bill or Hill (none / 0) (#39)
    by brodie on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 02:59:39 PM EST
    being accused of having Vince Foster knocked off.  Nah, no honeymoon period for Bill.

    But I look at the latest downturn in Gallup for O as a good thing -- something which could poke him into continuing to move back to embrace his Dem base as with the Wednesday speech.

    Meanwhile these things tend to jump around depending on the latest news.  When a real negative trend develops over a period of months, then he's got a problem.

    Parent

    Oh I agree (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 03:02:21 PM EST
    I just think the constant talking point of he's at the same point as Clinton or his numbers aren't so bad considering etc. etc. need to be debunked. A lot of what happens in '12 is going to be due to the economy and who the GOP nominee is.

    Parent
    Has Obama moved left once since (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by observed on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 03:04:45 PM EST
    he took office? Every bad poll makes him move further to the right, as I recall.

    Parent
    Well, the president (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by KeysDan on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 03:51:32 PM EST
    did throw some pink meat to the base in this week's budget speech.  

    Parent
    We get words (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 05:11:45 PM EST
    The Republicans will get more spending cuts.

    CHICAGO (AP) -- President Barack Obama confidently predicted Friday that a divided Congress would raise the nation's borrowing limit to cover the staggering federal debt rather than risk triggering a worldwide recession, but he conceded for the first time he would have to offer more spending cuts to Republicans to get a deal.
    ...
    Yet when pressed on how the stalemate with House Speaker John Boehner would end, Obama said: "I think he's absolutely right that it's not going to happen without some spending cuts."
    ...
    When asked if he thought the perilous stakes alone would cause Republicans to give in, Obama said: "Well, no, I don't expect the Republicans to give in and I get 100 percent of my way, and I don't expect that we're going to give 100 percent of what the Republicans want. I think what we want to do is make sure that we have a smart compromise that is serious." link

    I believe that Obama will stick to his guns this time and only give the Republicans 99.9% of what they want. The days of him giving them 100% of what they want and 50% more than they asked for are over. :-(

    Parent

    But the speech was so good, (none / 0) (#103)
    by KeysDan on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 06:51:49 PM EST
    I thought that he must have sent Jon Favreau off packing along with his cardboard cutouts.

    Parent
    According to the Gallup narrative, the (none / 0) (#60)
    by christinep on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 03:51:49 PM EST
    reason for the low curve this week has to do with two things: Rising gas prices & (probably related) the Independents.  Of course, the Independents may really have a problem now--more yo yo than usual--given the Repub Ryan budget and Medicare solution, since yet other polls are showing that the Independents (like most everyone else) oppose the approach rather strongly.

    So...even in the down times, we Democrats have a "supporter" in the arrogant ignorance of the Repubs. I wonder how many commercials will be made in close/marginal (& even broader) Repub districts during the general election as the vote today becomes larger than an albatross???

    Parent

    Approval dropped among (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 05:19:47 PM EST
    Democratic voters (77%) and Independent voters (35%). Direct quotes from Gallup's narrative.

    The economy is likely also a factor in Obama's declining ratings. Though unemployment is improving according to government estimates, the economic recovery remains slow and is being challenged by rising fuel prices. Presidents' approval ratings have historically suffered in times of high gas prices.

    Obama's approval rating in April 12-14 polling is down most among independents when compared with his 2011 average to date as well as his term average among this group. Currently, 35% of independents approve of the president, nine points off his average from independents this year. Democrats' current ratings are also below what he has averaged thus far in 2011 (down four points), while Republicans' are the same.



    Parent
    What's the projection on gas prices (none / 0) (#65)
    by observed on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 04:00:35 PM EST
    for the next year and half?
    If Obama is suffering from that factor now, he may have it worse in the future.

    Parent
    'Wish I knew the projection (none / 0) (#66)
    by christinep on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 04:04:44 PM EST
    But, I don't think anyone really does insofar as the current excuse for the rise purportedly is related to the unrest, destabilization in the MidEast. Especially Libya...from what I've quickly read.

    Parent
    Well, you seem to be offering (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by observed on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 04:06:07 PM EST
    high gas prices as an "excuse" for Obama's low ratings. Does that mean Carter woulda won in 1980 if it hadn't have been for gas prices?

    Parent
    I'm not offering it as an excuse (none / 0) (#77)
    by christinep on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 04:22:12 PM EST
    Gallup lists gas prices as a major factor. (And, I recall that gas prices was one of several factors for the growing disenchantment with Carter that led to the "malaise speech." The embrarrassment in Iran and the split-Dems were the major factors.)

    Parent
    You are offering high gas prices as (5.00 / 0) (#80)
    by observed on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 04:24:56 PM EST
    a reason to soften the comparison between Obama and Clinton's poll numbers. It's not relevant, IMO.


    Parent
    No, I'm only repeating Gallup's findings (none / 0) (#85)
    by christinep on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 04:34:09 PM EST


    Parent
    We should forgive ABG his ignorance (none / 0) (#89)
    by shoephone on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 04:41:05 PM EST
    He was only 10 years old back then.

    Parent
    Funny (none / 0) (#104)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 07:11:34 PM EST
    That people assume I am a kid. There is probably a sociological reason for why that is. Be interesting to figure it out.

    Parent
    It's the last possible excuse for (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 07:24:52 PM EST
    what often seems like a combination of stunning but unabashed ignorance and complete indifference to educating yourself.

    Now, you got nothin'.

    Parent

    Maybe because you told us (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by shoephone on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 09:34:19 PM EST
    you're in your early 30's. Yeah. But your ignorance surpasses your age.

    Parent
    Clinton came into office with top Republicans (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by observed on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 02:06:27 PM EST
    saying he should be impeached.
    This happened in Jan. 93, before he even took the oath of office, and IIRC it was Delay or Armey who said that.
    Anyone who thinks Clinton had it easier, politically, is naive.
    About those wars though... aren't we out of Iraq completely now? It is 2011 isn't it?

    Parent
    Good historical point. (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by brodie on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 02:42:20 PM EST
    Sam Donaldson (ABC's This Week) also, iirc, chimed in, ca Jan 25, 1993, to assert that "Clinton's presidency might be numbered in days ..."

    As to wars, it might be said that with fierce opposition from the GOP and MSM -- no honeymoon period for Bill -- he almost had two wars to fight, domestically, from the get go.

    Two and a half if we count some of the many faint-hearted Dems and DINOs that were around back then.

    Parent

    "....no honeymoon period for Bill ...." (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by NYShooter on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 04:53:23 PM EST
    I happened to be watching TV when Clinton was sworn in. The reporter narrating the event called over one of the Republican bigshots (sorry, can't remember who) and said, "as is customary Presidents are accorded a 'honeymoon period' at the beginning of their term, what length do you think President Clinton will get?" the guy looked over at the podium as Clinton was leaving, and said, "He just had it."

    The knives were out the minute CNN called the election for Clinton.

    Parent

    Nice fairytale (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 03:51:12 PM EST
    If they do matter, Obama is where Clinton was at the same time ...

    You keep trying that argument, and you're always wrong.  Clinton was at 46% and rising steadily for the rest of his first and second terms (with a dip in Jan., '96.  Obama's at 41% and falling, with only 35% approval among independents..

    May want to take off the rose-colored glasses when you look at polls, next time.

    Parent

    Not exactly accurate (none / 0) (#63)
    by christinep on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 03:59:42 PM EST
    When reading the comparison charts on other Presidents vis-a-vis Obama at similar points in a presidency, Clinton & Obama are compared in the Gallup chart by the week.  The comparative week is 47/46 and for the adjacent week 46/47.  (The reason I looked up the Gallup background & narrative is because the other polls--including Rasmussen are in the 47% mark, or a point more, per the conservative-leaning Realclearpolitics.com. It is worth the comparison...and the special eye on gas prices. Side note to those, like myself, who advocate higher gas prices to grow a greener environment: Talk about a tough position to sell.)

    Parent
    May not be accurate, but still (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 04:08:15 PM EST
    essentially meaningless: that was then, and this is now, and now is really all that matters.  Taking any kind of refuge in "That my policies suck and real people are being hurt by them doesn't matter because my numbers are the same as Bill Clinton's at this exact point in his presidency" just perpetuates and legitimizes the essential suckiness of Obama's policies and the harm they are doing.

    What a ridiculous metric, and a colossal waste of time.

    Yes, I know we don't agree about the policy; it's still a waste of time to compare Clinton's numbers to Obama's.

    Parent

    I know, and everyone who does this (none / 0) (#73)
    by observed on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 04:11:44 PM EST
    is someone who loathes Clinton, almost without exception.

    Parent
    Here is an exception (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by christinep on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 04:31:33 PM EST
    Myself. Under the circumstances of the early attacks by the orchestrated (courtesy Scaife-Mellon) rightwing and considering the early attempt by the Admin then to take on too much at once, I strongly believe that President Clinton was a great President. (Certainly, human flaws--like everyone has--but, a great President.)  I was fortunate to attend and participate in both Clinton inaugurals; and, quite fortunate to be able to meet & ask a few questions a few times in Denver. And--a little humor--I even pay full price for his books.

    It may be that your quick typing, observed, made some incorrect assumptions as to what people think. Don't ya think?

    Parent

    I said almost without exception. (none / 0) (#84)
    by observed on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 04:33:44 PM EST
    I stand by that.
    I actually have come to loathe Clinton, now.
    I think he's a corrupt slimeball.
    That's about what I think of anyone politician of that stature though.

    Parent
    'Appreciate your honesty (none / 0) (#87)
    by christinep on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 04:38:36 PM EST
    To state that noone at "that level" would meet your expectations or standards is a very different measuring stick than I use for job performance in or out of politics.

    Parent
    Look, we should pay Presidents (none / 0) (#90)
    by observed on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 04:43:12 PM EST
    $5 million/ year. Then they wouldn't be looking for ways to line their pockets.
    I'm sorry, but the fact that Bill Clinton is worth over $100 million just a few years after leaving office is corrupt on its face.

    The particular reason I have lost respect for him is his weaselly, self-interested defense of the banking industry. The fact he has been as as$-kissing Obama booster doesn't actually bother me. He's done it fairly gracefully, IMO.


    Parent

    "If wishes were fishes..." (none / 0) (#102)
    by christinep on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 06:20:25 PM EST
    One of the most corrupting influences on our system is the enormous (& growing) ##### ladled into high-level Presidential elections. In that sense, it is the seeking of & moving toward office and the consequences of that that trouble me most. The fact that a successful President, like Clinton, can make moneys from speechifying, etc. after leaving office does not trouble me.  In fact, I think that his service as a citizen of the world--being truly responsive to needs in crisis has been superlative.Maybe we can figure a way to rid ourselves of the ramifications of Citizens United...another appointment when the time arrives on the SCt.

    Parent
    Agree with you about paying (none / 0) (#122)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Apr 16, 2011 at 04:24:31 PM EST
    the person who occupies the office of President, but disagree that Clinton's current net worth reflects anything untoward.  He's a highly sought after speaker-- who does not tell people what they want to hear -- to wit, he went to Mid-East and told them they should be investing in green technology because world is running out of oil; and he works very hard to support meaningful projects through his foundation.  

    Parent
    Clintons (none / 0) (#105)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 07:15:44 PM EST
    Numbers are only relevant to place perspective on Obama's numbers. Someone used a poll number. I used one back. And now I am somehow missing the point because I used poll numbers.

    I'll take my chances playing the game with the skill I have but switching from checkers  to chess mid game and then declaring victory isnt going to work.

    Parent

    Okay - I'll get back to you in 3 days (none / 0) (#92)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 04:53:04 PM EST
    ... when the 3-day Gallup average will be averaged in to the weekly numbers reflecting his declining numbers.

    The main point is the trend.  Apart from the fact that his argument is irrelevant, whenever ABG tries to make this ridiculous defense of Obama (last time he actually claimed Obama was 10 points higher than Clinton), he completely ignores the trend.  From Sept. of '94 onward, Clinton numbers climbed steadily.  Obama came into office with approval numbers not seen in 50 years, they declined drastically, and they still aren't climbing.

    I do like the finger-pointing at gas prices, though.  Hey, it's not his fault!

    Parent

    Obamas (none / 0) (#106)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 07:17:54 PM EST
    Poll numbers have been ridiculously constant for almost year now. He's floated between 45 and 50 percent for the duration.

    But let's use your rules. If you see a trend I'll acknowledge it if you a knowledge the trends in the other direction when they happen.

    And we both know they will so your whole point is silly..

    Parent

    We both know WHAT will? (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 08:32:08 PM EST
    Are you saying we both know Obama's numbers will trend upward?

    Uhhhhhmmmmm ... no we don't.

    Maybe you should stick to speaking for yourself.

    Parent

    BTW - Whatever happened ... (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 08:38:36 PM EST
    ... to your claim that Obama was 10 points higher than Clinton at this point in his presidency?  I knew that ridiculous claim was false without even looking it up.  At least your claims are slightly more plausible, now.

    Guess that was just another one of those posts you "overlooked".

    Parent

    Not according to Gallup (none / 0) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 02:12:22 PM EST
    link

    Clinton's approval rating didn't drop to this range until Jan 1996 and then went up continuously until reelected.

    Parent

    I just read (none / 0) (#1)
    by CST on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 12:18:56 PM EST
    this piece from huffpo about politico's coverage of "the speech".

    It's pretty funny.  And I think it's safe to say that no matter what you think of Obama or his speech we should all at least be able to agree that Politico is a joke.

    Headline:

    "Politico Criticizes Obama For Following Advice Offered By Politico"

    For Howdy (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 12:25:40 PM EST
    Trump takes the lead

    Carnival Acts are in, these days (none / 0) (#32)
    by KeysDan on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 02:21:47 PM EST


    Parent
    Friday afternoon soundtrack (none / 0) (#3)
    by CST on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 12:44:43 PM EST
    Can't get this song out of my head.

    Ironically I think it was oculus or someone on here who brought up some npr interview with him and it got me listening to it again.  Great album.

    WTF (none / 0) (#4)
    by lilburro on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 12:48:43 PM EST
    this is a good article in general (go digby!), but this:

    And yet, the president's budget director, Jacob Lew, was quoted this morning saying that Obama doesn't rule out raising the retirement age to 70 and that the administration believes "it's important that we deal with Social Security and we deal with it now."

    WTF.

    Do I think this will happen?  I don't know.  Why did he feel compelled to say that?  I.don't.know.

    It's (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 01:19:30 PM EST
    because you can't trust Obama. He's Nixon with a D by his name. That's the only thing I can figure.

    Parent
    Causality reversed: he got (none / 0) (#9)
    by observed on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 01:23:31 PM EST
    campaign financing because he said SS was on the chopping block. He spoke in general terms and code in public, but what deals did he make behind closed doors?

    Parent
    We could almost wish he (none / 0) (#26)
    by sj on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 02:14:34 PM EST
    was Nixon.  I knew that te EPA and OSHA were Nixon era, but I didn't realize until a couple of days ago that SSI was also.

    Egad.  Defending Nixon.  That is wrong on so many levels.

    Parent

    Yep...things can get complicated with (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by christinep on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 04:07:23 PM EST
    good parts here, bad parts there. Tho, for Nixon, the bad parts outweigh the good, IMHO.

    Parent
    Absolutely. (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by brodie on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 04:32:37 PM EST
    A crook and would-be dictator but for a strong and large enough group in Congress and in the public who called a halt to it (with an assist from Alex Butterfield).

    Parent
    Wel (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 02:17:41 PM EST
    I wasn't talking policy. I was talking trustworthiness which is about zero in my book.

    Parent
    Oh that :) (none / 0) (#31)
    by sj on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 02:20:37 PM EST
    yeah, I agree.

    Parent
    Much as I also shudder (none / 0) (#48)
    by Zorba on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 03:27:14 PM EST
    at the thought of saying anything whatsoever positive about Nixon, I know what you're saying, sj.  Noam Chomsky even said that Nixon was "in many respects the last liberal president."  Link.

    Parent
    On most DP issues, (none / 0) (#57)
    by brodie on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 03:49:36 PM EST
    Nixon didn't care.  He was very much FP-oriented as prez.  That's where presidents' reps are won or lost, he believed.  Domestic stuff?  Congress was heavily Dem and it was still the tail-end of the liberal era.  Nixon also had re-elect against a liberal on his mind, and wanted to win big.

    Hardly a natural liberal himself -- he did what he felt he couldn't avoid doing or what suited his personal political fortunes.

    Parent

    I have never cared about... (none / 0) (#70)
    by sj on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 04:07:28 PM EST
    ... anyone's intentions.  Only their actions.  Nixon committed some grievously despicable acts -- both in FP and DP.  

    There is still EPA, OSHA and SSI.  

    I remember, so you don't need to educate me.  Please don't make me have to defend him anymore. That's not how I want to start my weekend. :)

    Parent

    Just got an email from David Plouffe, oh boy (none / 0) (#6)
    by Dadler on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 01:01:48 PM EST
    Says for the first time, taxpayers will be able to go online and see how their dollars are spent.

    I'm sure they're going to show me the trillions they gave away to the oligarchs in the secret budget.

    More lies to the people.

    Fiddle fiddle, burn burn.

    Wonder if this transparency includes (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 01:17:28 PM EST
    U.S. expenditures re Libya.

    Parent
    What's a Libya? (none / 0) (#11)
    by KeysDan on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 01:38:51 PM EST
    Something like an Afghanistan? or  an Iraq?

    Parent
    Operation Enduring Tax Burden. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by observed on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 01:50:25 PM EST


    Parent
    Not bad, not bad.... (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 01:53:13 PM EST
    Operation Feed the Wealthy Wards of the State.

    Parent
    Operation Hoodwink. (none / 0) (#29)
    by KeysDan on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 02:20:19 PM EST


    Parent
    Cute, KeysDan (none / 0) (#75)
    by christinep on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 04:16:18 PM EST
    Which raises a bitty question: So, in your estimation, NATO (&Britain & France & the US as early proponents) should have left it all to Qaddafi and left the rebels to their own devices? The reason I ask is because my own take has gone back & forth...eventually, transforming into support for the NATO operation (with no US troops on the ground & no direct armament sales)...especially after Egypt & The Arab Spring, etc.  The involvement now seems as limited as it can be from our end; but, mayhaps, you and others are suggesting that the NATO approach is too much???

    Parent
    Chris, my concern from the outset (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by KeysDan on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 08:22:02 PM EST
    has been that the American people, once again, were being hoodwinked into military intervention.  We have an historical record of deceptive justifications for doing so from Remember the Maine to Saddam's WMD and some skepticism does not seem unreasonable just for starters.

    Qaddafi has been in power for about 40 years and his international transgressions were forgiven and his reputation refurbished as recently as 2003 along with the end of sanctions.  The American people were told that now we need to intervene militarily to prevent a bloodbath in Benghazi and to avoid imminent genocide as a result of the armed rebellion against the Qaddafi government.

    The humanitarian rationale tugs at the heart strings of the good American people and it is too easy to use that quality as a pretext.  On March 17, we were to impose a no fly zone (in accord with UN 1973) along with freezes and other measures.  It would be "days not weeks".  March 28, we learned that we would be better off without Qaddafi, but we would not broaden the military mission to include regime change. On April 14, we find that so long as Qaddafi is in power, NATO must maintain their operations so that civilians remain protected and pressure remains on the regime.

    So, it seems, the mission has either morphed or was not presented honestly in the first place. The US is trying for a low profile but it is not out of this by a long shot.  We are  a significant member of NATO.  US strikes are continuing, AC 130's and A 10 tank busters are in Europe just in case.  The Boston Globe has reported that the military intervention and statements of genocide served as a false pretense (perhaps inflated by the rebels--we still do not know just who they all are).  Now maybe it is in our national interests to be so engaged in Libya (although I doubt it) but I do fear that we are seeing mission creep and, hence, Operation Hoodwink seems apt.

    Parent

    Thank you; very good summary (none / 0) (#113)
    by christinep on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 10:09:05 PM EST
    One unanswered part that may eventually be answered: Who was/is doing the hoodwinking? The French? The British?  The US? The Rebels (who are now advocating more involvement?) All of NATO?
    Apart from future situations & potential calls for international involvement, the discouraging part--to date (& the jury is still out)--is that the ambiguities could reinforce overall isolationism. (While I am hopeful that we can resolve the foreign military entanglements we have fairly soon, my query is ultimately directed to the longer haul in the 21st century...to the question of when is international military involvement called for/imperative and when should we and others step aside and allow the forces of rebellion, revolution, and whatnot to take their course(s)?


    Parent
    The Guardian (none / 0) (#116)
    by Politalkix on Sat Apr 16, 2011 at 01:48:31 AM EST
    is a left of center newspaper in the UK. Please read link.

    Parent
    Thank you for the link to the Guardian; (5.00 / 0) (#119)
    by KeysDan on Sat Apr 16, 2011 at 10:37:06 AM EST
    Having just returned from London, I have been following the more expansive coverage there about  Libya, which seems to be quite supportive of its and the French government. (It seems that left or left of center is not necessarily meaningful as noted by the NYT cheerleading for the Iraq war, at least initially, cf. Judy Miller)

    The horrors of war as illustrated by the damage from modern weaponry is all the more reason for cautious commitment to its entry and to a means of exit.   The Guardian article referenced does note that the claims of cluster bomb usage came as US, UK and France committed their countries to pursue military action until Qaddafi is removed.  It also came, I might add, at a time that NATO is in some disarray on the goals and prosecution of the war (and I do believe skepticism is not uncalled for, given the history of warfare).

    Human Rights Watch noted that cluster bombs had fallen around a kilometer from the front, but could not confirm civilian deaths, even if true at present it will not be long before civilian deaths do occur from the usage.  Libya denies use of such weapons, although it has not signed the International ban on cluster bombs (nor has the US--such weapons have been used by the US in Iraq and Afghanistan).  It should be pointed out that the Human Rights Watch is the organization that claimed that the bloodbath in Benghazi was a false pretense for the humanitarian justification for military intervention--the real reason being for rebel support for the overthrow of Colonel Qaddafi.

    Parent

    BBC has reported (none / 0) (#115)
    by Politalkix on Sat Apr 16, 2011 at 12:44:11 AM EST
    that Gadaffi is using cluster bombs in Misrata. Their report is based on reports of human rights organiztions.
    link


    Parent
    That puts Obama and the U.S. in a difficult (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 16, 2011 at 09:45:33 AM EST
    position. How does the U.S. condemn or justify increasing military action because Gadaffi is using cluster bombs in Misrata when they coninue to use these bombs whenever they chose?

    Neither the U.S. or Libya is a signatory to the international Convention on Cluster Munitions. And the U.S. has used the weapons in Iraq, Afghanistan and, in 2010, Yemen. Source

    Parent

    Good point about the lack-of-clean-hands (none / 0) (#120)
    by christinep on Sat Apr 16, 2011 at 01:13:16 PM EST
    as to "cluster bombs." Still...what should we do? Not past...but, present...and, what guidelines for the future.  

    I keep pushing to friends and those with whom I might disagree alike. And to myself. The matter of when the US should consider any level of military involvement--alone, with some allies, or under NATO or UN leadership--ultimately will not disappear because conditions in different countries over the coming years will raise tempting issues. As to major wars, full-out combat, etc., society and the Constitution will always serve to be guidance, direction enough. But, as to the more limited involvement(strategically surgical & variations)...the Libya model...it would be useful to articulate a handful of factors that should be considered. While we must learn from the past, how can we navigate the 21st century with its multilateral accords and agreements and world bodies? Is there a difference?

    Parent

    Did I miss something? (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 16, 2011 at 03:54:22 PM EST
    When did the U.S. change its policy and become a signatory to the international Convention on Cluster Munitions? While Obama did sign a Mar. 2009 law which would make it harder for the U.S. to sell cluster bombs, the U.S. used cluster bombs as late as Dec. 2009 in Yemen. The U.S. continues practices that we condemn when used in other select countries and ignore in others.

    Let's deal with the present. The U.S. might want to consider signing the international Convention on Cluster Munitions and removing those weapons from our arsenals before it uses that as an excuse to escalate the war in Libya. The U.S. might want to abide by international standards on torture and other standards for humane treatment. Adhere to Constitutional amendments which require warrants and habeus corpus.

    Parent

    What I intended to get at (none / 0) (#124)
    by christinep on Sat Apr 16, 2011 at 05:06:18 PM EST
    is the broader question about "when any kind of intervention" in situations like or similar or related to Libya-type rebellions? In this century, what are our guidelines as to limited intervention? Not wars; but, the NATO/UN or other multilateral operations of limited duration & involvement (no ground troops, etc.)?

    Your comments about cluster bombs are ethically right on, I believe.

    But, what do you think about guidelines or reasons for future and present involvement? For example: Starting with Libya, should we have stayed away from any involvement or is the NATO led concept/reality something that might be acceptable in certain, defined situations?

    Parent

    I think that the U.S. involvement (none / 0) (#125)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 17, 2011 at 08:16:40 AM EST
    in Libya is another extremely costly mistake. How are we going to define the circumstances of our intervention? Do we use the current standard which consists of using our "freedom bombs" in some countries because of humanitarian reasons while ignoring similar abuses in countries where the abusers are among our trading partners or oil providers?" Does fighting around or threats to bomb oil producing wells suddenly heighten the need for humanitarian intervention? Does the U.S. use practices, which we employ such as cluster bombs as an excuse to escalate military action in other countries.

    UN and NATO?

    LUXEMBOURG - France and Britain urged their NATO allies, including the United States, to step up the campaign Tuesday against Muammar Qaddafi's forces, exposing a major faultline in the military alliance after three weeks of airstrikes have failed to oust the Libyan leader.

    Paris lamented the limited U.S. military role in Libya and chided Germany for its lack of involvement. In a dire analysis, France's defense minister acknowledged that without full American participation in the combat operation, the West probably can't stop Qaddafi's attacks on besieged rebel cities.
    ...
    Germany does not take part in NATO's military airstrikes in Libya because it sees the operation as too risky. Italy has also been reluctant to get involved in the airstrikes because it was Libya's colonial rule.

    Bottom line most participants in the UN and NATO are unwilling to devote the money or military resources to this war and want the U.S. to do it.

    Parent

    Arab League (none / 0) (#123)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Apr 16, 2011 at 04:29:33 PM EST
    I believe barely half of the Arab League nations voted.  

    Parent
    Yes and the Saudi's (none / 0) (#126)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 17, 2011 at 08:23:06 AM EST
    are not using their military forces in support of the humanitarian intervention in Libya. Instead, the Saudi forces were sent into Bahrain to put down protests for democracy.

    Parent
    Yeeesh (none / 0) (#49)
    by Zorba on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 03:33:06 PM EST
    You're still getting emails from the Democratic/Obama machine?  I removed myself from so many Dem lists (OFA, DNC, DSCC, DCCC, and so forth), I get nothing.  Thank goodness.  Do you get phone calls, too?  They've pretty much stopped those calls to me, too.  I recite such a long list of reasons that I am unhappy about Obama and the Dems, the last time someone called, they hung up on me.

    Parent
    I don't get calls, for some reason (none / 0) (#54)
    by Dadler on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 03:41:34 PM EST
    And I swear I unsubscribed to the White House Bull-Gazette.  Must try again.

    Parent
    Just unearthed (none / 0) (#36)
    by lilburro on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 02:51:48 PM EST
    this post from Booman.  Now I understand why I incessantly disagree with him.

    That (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 03:00:11 PM EST
    post shows a blindness to reality that I can't even begin to understand.

    Parent
    Booman (none / 0) (#45)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 03:20:25 PM EST
    rocks.

    Parent
    OMG, I just realized you are a parody (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by observed on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 03:23:41 PM EST
    poster. I am SOOOOO slow.
    Excellent job!

    Parent
    I wish I could (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Zorba on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 03:37:43 PM EST
    give you a 100+ rating for this.  Excellent, excellent comment.  As far as I'm concerned, you win the thread!

    Parent
    I think you left a few words out of (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 03:37:24 PM EST
    that sentence:

    Booman is about as astute as a box of rocks.

    There...fixed.

    Parent

    Fun Fact (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 03:48:02 PM EST
    The level of respect a pundit or other person gets appears is inversely proportional to the number of good things such person has to say about Obama.

    Funny how that works.

    Let's try it this way:

    Is there any pundit, blogger or writer out there that is a big fan of Obama that is not an idiot, stupid, ignorant, or a closet conservative.

    Interested to hear what Obama fan gets respect around here.  Also interested to see if people understand what that says about the credibility of attacks on folks like Booman.

    C'mon Anne.  There is not one person who is a fan of Obama that you will give any legitimacy is there.  You can admit it.

    Parent

    MKS gets a lot of respect from me. (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by observed on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 03:52:30 PM EST
    He has been a strong Obama supporter, although I'm not sure of his current politics. I disagree with him a lot, but generally find arguing with him not a waste of time. He's intelligent, informed, and he responds to points made.

    Someone else here who is an Obama fan and shall remain nameless has said over and over that people who didn't support ACA just didn't want poor people to get health care. Do you see the difference?

    Parent

    I don't put much stock in what "fans" (4.20 / 5) (#64)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 04:00:16 PM EST
    have to say, because the nature of the word and the culture that surrounds it is that "fans" will always find a way to keep the object of their adoration on a pedestal, regardless of how much they have to contort reason and logic to do so.  

    Booman does this all the time - he has an extensive and really quite embarrassing track record on this - and so do you; it's all based on the "who" and not on the "what;" if we assigned to Hillary Clinton - or [name a Republican] - everything Obama has said and done, both you and Booman would be apoplectic.

    No, I do not regard Booman as legitimate, and neither does anyone I know who cares about policy, not personality.

    Parent

    Booman strikes me (none / 0) (#96)
    by lilburro on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 05:06:24 PM EST
    as an "anybody but Clinton" type of person.  Of course he is very supportive of Obama specifically as well, but I buy the idea that he thought electing Obama would take DLC out of DC.  Of course it didn't.

    Voting for someone based on who surrounds them is kind of weird though.  Isn't that just an indirect way of voting on issues?

    Parent

    Also (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by lilburro on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 05:07:02 PM EST
    I have to say, I found the "as a box of rocks" comment pretty funny.  +1 Anne.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#62)
    by lilburro on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 03:55:36 PM EST
    he does have a different perspective on things...I enjoy reading him.


    Parent
    "Booman rocks" (none / 0) (#88)
    by shoephone on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 04:39:46 PM EST
    ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Comedy Central material.

    Parent
    The House passed the Ryan plan. (none / 0) (#51)
    by observed on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 03:34:56 PM EST


    Now they've gone too far (none / 0) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 04:15:24 PM EST
    The founders of the three largest online poker sites were indicted by the FBI on Friday in what could serve as a death blow to the thriving industry.

    Eleven executives at PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker and Absolute Poker were charged with bank fraud and money laundering in an indictment unsealed in a Manhattan court. Two of the executives were arrested on Friday morning in Utah and Nevada. Federal agents are searching for the others.

    Prosecutors are seeking to immediately shut down the sites and to eventually send the executives to jail and to recover $3 billion from the companies. By Friday afternoon Full Tilt Poker's site displayed a message explaining that "this domain name has been seized by the F.B.I. pursuant to an Arrest Warrant."

    Link

    I went on Poker Stars and the gave me a message that rings played for real money are now allowed in my area.

    I think I have stumbled on to some (none / 0) (#79)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 04:24:55 PM EST
    legal gambling. I saw the TV ads for an 'entertainment auction' site the other night. Don't want to name names in case I am about to slander them. But the model is that you buy "bids", aka raffle tickets, for 60 cents a pop, and then use as many as you want to bid for the item you want. If you do not 'win' the auction, you lose the money you spent on the tickets. They have a legal out by allowing you to buy it at the full price if you lose, and you can put your ticket money towards that.  The trick is that their 'auto-bid' system is impossible to predict or beat - so if you a are trying to be the last bidder, and some other bidder has an auto-bid going on, it is sheer luck (or perhaps rigged) that lets you - or anyone else on auto-bid- win.

    Very interesting...I have never investigated the seamier side of the net like that.

    Parent

    Wow (none / 0) (#86)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 04:35:30 PM EST
    Poker Stars was a pretty big name, no?

    Parent
    Yet another way to defraud homebuyers (none / 0) (#76)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 04:18:28 PM EST
    Fromn today's [http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-foreclosure-sale-problems-20110414,0,2605501.story ]Orlando Sentinel, reporters have discovered that investors buying up foreclosed homes register their sales tax higher with the county tax collector, thereby inflating the appraised 'value' of the home accordingly. Of course the next buyer thinks the appraisal was honest.

    Weasel words form the County Property Appraiser, Bill Donegan:

    "It has some implication in there that borders on the side of fraud," said Donegan, who was unaware of the sale-price differences until the Sentinel told him about the increases Thursday.

    Borders on the side of fraud? Yeah, I would think so. Apparently due to budget cuts in 2008, purchasers no longer have to sign a form attesting to their real purchase price.

    The paper links this only to foreclosed homes bought at auction, but if you believe similar shenanigans have not been happening for years, I've got some swamp land to sell you. Really, I do.

    I'm sure someone will tell me now that it is incumbent upon the homeowner to detect fraudulent appraisals when he buys his house.

    I would definatly advise (none / 0) (#108)
    by Rojas on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 07:50:20 PM EST
    That a buyer relying on a sales tax affidavit to establish the price paid is not doing due diligence, not to mention a taxing authority...
    I wonder where the banks and real estate companies are pulling the data used for comps from.

    Parent
    It is not the buyer relying on the sales tax (none / 0) (#117)
    by ruffian on Sat Apr 16, 2011 at 07:39:40 AM EST
    affidavit- it is the County appraiser. I think a buyer ought to be able to look at the county appraisals for at least a decent ballpark estimate.

    IMO banks were basically making up their own comps. They were being rewarded by people investing in mortgage securities for making high value, risky loans. And then bailed out when they failed. Why show any restraint? They would still be doing it if the pool of buyers was still deep.

    Parent

    Understand it is the County Appaiser (none / 0) (#127)
    by Rojas on Sun Apr 17, 2011 at 12:41:49 PM EST
    see my statement. I specifically said it's not due diligence. And if the county relies on this metric and the buyer is aware of it, it is foolish to rely on this data.
    My advice to buyers has been to ignore the county appraisal. I've been consistent on this for 30 years. The general incentive for taxing authorities is to shoot high in their curbside appraisals. I have also seen it work the other way. Specifically in Westover Hills, Texas a enclave for the politically connected, super-rich in Tarrant County.

    As to the banks you are correct. I foolishly assumed the structure of two decades ago when banks actually held the notes. My time reference precedes the house of cards that Clinton built.

    Nonetheless, real estate agents do have a fiduciary duty to their clients. Are they using the same comps when advising their clients? Do they use actual auction data much the same as car dealers to weigh the transaction. My bet is they do on their own purchases or advise given to sophisticated investors.

    I'm no Trump but if an agent started pulling county data and handed it to me as some reflection of value I'd can their ass.

    Parent

    Friday Open Thread | 127 comments (127 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment