home

Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 02:45:40 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Sorry for being AWOL. Busy. And will be busy for the next few days as well.

Open Thread.

< Obama to Propose $300 Billion Job Package | Obama's Inching Closer to His Pink Slip >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread | 200 comments (200 topical)
    Reflections of a GOP Operative: (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 04:15:06 PM EST
    - worth a read:

    Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult

    "To those millions of Americans who have finally begun paying attention to politics and watched with exasperation the tragicomedy of the debt ceiling extension, it may have come as a shock that the Republican Party is so full of lunatics."

    - Mike Lofgren, a congressional insider's insider

    Yes, it says it all (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 04:44:26 PM EST
    I linked to it this morning too.

    Unfortunately it seemed to have come as a shock to the White House too.

    Parent

    Yes. (none / 0) (#28)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 05:37:14 PM EST
    The republican party is chock full of lunatics.

    And it is Obama who enables them.

    Parent

    And, Obama is responsible for (none / 0) (#33)
    by christinep on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 06:09:55 PM EST
    the weather too?

    Parent
    In the (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 06:11:43 PM EST
    sense that we will see less of it than ever through the smog, yes.

    Parent
    I'm not going to take the time (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by christinep on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 07:11:28 PM EST
    to talk about the environment on this thread. Suffice it to say, a major part of my life has centered professionally & personally on improving the environment in which we live. In terms of profession, as I have said in other threads: I worked for 27 of my years with the government at EPA...in enforcement, primarily; but, ultimately, as chief regional strategist and, throughout, with a primary emphasis in air.

     My summary of the prsent issue: If you truly want to talk about individual & cumulative issues about air regulation & enforcement, I would be more than happy to have that conversation.  For now, I can tell you--with every fiber of my being--that the Republican assault on the environment that began with the first term of the Reagan administration cannot be equalled...and, that while the sustained attack has led to a strategic retreat on ozone regulation by the current administration, I believe that anyone who really reviews the record of the last decade or two on the environment can not help but affirm the progress made, in an incremental sense, by the Obama administration.  (Look, lentinel, I read what you say.  But, so much is politically  predictable. If you really are interested in environmental discussion, I would be glad to oblige.  Otherwise, I'll take your point as merely political.  Thanks.)

    Parent

    This is the ONLY area where (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by observed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 07:15:19 PM EST
    I find your opinion at all worth reading, as well as not predictable, and intelligent.
    That said, Obama seems to ME to be a catastrophe on the environment.
    How can you defend the man, with the tar sands pipeline being approved?

    Parent
    If every decision that I ever made (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by christinep on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 08:08:52 PM EST
    would be the be-all-&-end-all, there would be no way that I can/could defend myself nor anyone else for that matter. Every Administration, and every person, makes a complex set of decisions in their lives.  Other than the theoretical philosopher--an important role to be sure--everyone else makes decisions for a number of reasons.  As for the "tar sand" matter, allow me to review at some length, talk with fellow EPAers, and get back to you at a later date. (What I am saying is that the answer is not usually a yes-no in complex environmental matters. Like it or not, we look at incremental & sustained progress. Not the I'll do this now, and have it reversed later.)

    Thanks for your vote of confidence on the environment.  Believe me, the history on a broad sociological level is & probably will be: Two steps forward, one step backward.  What I most recall, in terms of overall societal impact in the US, was the President Clinton approach...He believed & explicitly stated that progress was inextricably tied to the interdependence of the economic reality/situation & the environment. He was the first President in modern times to state that economic downturns did not necessarily mean a turning away from the environment; President Obama follows that belief.

    Seriously, observed, what to say? Believe what you want or must, of course.  But, I can tell you what those who have labored long in the service of the environment think...there is no question of the miles worth of difference between a Democratic president (including Barack Obama) & any Republican on the national stage today.  It wasn't always that way; but, it is unquestionably the case now.  Whether we agree with individual decisions or not....

    Parent

    Obama should be measured against (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by observed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 08:13:23 PM EST
    what another Democrat might do---not some Nazi.
    Obama has completely killed discussion of global warming. He's a frucking catastrophe.


    Parent
    I am measuring him against previous (none / 0) (#91)
    by christinep on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 09:50:01 PM EST
    American Presidents. Not against theory, not against ideologies...against real Presidents.  He does quite well. For example: President Clinton laid out the clear directive (as stated above) and his EPA Adminstrator Carol Browner was superb. But, he kept on a number of Repubs who had burrowed in to high levels...that can be insidious in the day-to-day ground level operations.  While President Obama has not been known for a foremost policy in the environment, he continues Carter & Clinton--btw, please note that the "cap" approach, which is a more lenient approach than individual point source emission/discharge limits, was first proposed by President Carter (a well-known environmentalist) as the "bubble policy"--approach. Where I believe that Obama may have the upper hand in terms of Dem predecssors in the age of EPA is that he is sanguine about the significance of who holds what position beyond the Administrator and the handful of AAs...e.g., my understanding as gleaned from delighted former colleagues is that some of the old "burrowed in" Repubs have been relocated, etc. (meaning that their influence will diminish--a key component if one wants to turn from the bad old days to the good & all that.)

    Parent
    In other words, he is (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by observed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 10:57:08 PM EST
    superior in ways which are making no discernable difference on the level of policy.

    Parent
    That is not what she said at all (none / 0) (#97)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:20:54 PM EST
    Would you guys just pause for a second and consider what someone who has genuine expertise and concern for the environment has to say?

    Parent
    Please read more carefully before you (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by observed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:30:10 PM EST
    jump into a discussion you clearly don't understand.
    She said where Obama has the upper hand is in staffing, without any reference to how this makes a difference.
    I'm reminded of a couple of other areas where Obama's claimed vast superiority is less than convincing. First, the matter of the great number of bills he has signed. No need to re-hash that idiot standard again.
    Second, I was just told how Obama's new food safety bill is the most significant advance in the area since 1938,... and yet, funding for the FDA, and staffing levels, are set to be cut.
    How will that work out.

    As soon as someone tells me that Obama has made key staffing changes in the SEC, I promise to die laughing.

    Parent

    Good staffing did not seem (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by KeysDan on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 12:42:57 PM EST
    to help with President Obama's order to his EPA Director, Lisa Jackson, to shelve EPA's new ozone/smog regulations. Those regulations were supported by staff recommendations including the results of an independent scientific review panel.

    Parent
    the whole point (none / 0) (#127)
    by CST on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 01:05:09 PM EST
    about staffing is that when it comes to getting actual results, what matters most is having the right people doing the job.

    If you have someone who doesn't give a $hit about the environment running the EPA, it really doesn't matter what your regulations are because they aren't going to be enforced the way they should be.  When you have people who care about the work doing the work, who are good at what they do, the result is - a better environment.

    For any parks and rec fans out there, think Leslie Knope vs Ron Swanson.

    It's pretty basic.  Frankly I don't believe none of you understand that, I kind of think you're intentionally ignoring it.

    Parent

    What I do understand is (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by KeysDan on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 01:39:34 PM EST
    that good staffing is important to both formulation of regulations as well as enforcement.  And, so too, in an agency such as EPA, is there a need for  political courage and leadership.  Without regulations, there is little or no need for enforcement--in the case of the ozone regulation cited in my comment, the concern is not for the staff enforcement but for sustaining regulations formulated by staff, which were shelved, as Al Gore put it, because the president listened to big polluters instead of science.  

    Parent
    EPA isn't "Parks and Rec" (none / 0) (#130)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 01:14:46 PM EST
    It's pretty basic.  Frankly I don't believe none of you understand that, I kind of think you're intentionally ignoring it.

    Or, we're not impressed by anecdotal tales of a few "burrowed Republicans" being "relocated" and/or its effect in an agency with over 18,000 employees.

    Parent

    And, I am supposed to believe you over (none / 0) (#135)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 01:39:57 PM EST
    a career environmental lawyer?

    I do know that with respect to the West who the staffers are matters--a lot.  They have control over significant policy by how they report findings, what grazing permits they issue, what mining permits they issue, etc.  This I personally know.  

    I would actually like to hear more from Christine--but you are all set to hound her off the stage.

    Truly abysmal performance by those who say the care avbout the environment.

    If you were to discuss and weigh the opinions and facts Christine has to offer and then conclude that Obama has nothing helpful for the environment.    But I don't see that from anyone.

    Instead, I see posts by those who say that Obama supporters would murder a primary opponent.  

    Parent

    What are you talking about? (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 03:48:14 PM EST
    1.  I could care less whether you "believe me over a career environmental lawyer".  Of course that's not the issue.  The issue is whether to believe that anectdotal stories from former colleagues about "relocated" EPA staffers are enough to convince you that "Obama may have the upper hand in terms of Dem predecessors".  How many?  What level?  Which offices?  Where were they relocated to?  Christina's former colleague may be happy to have a "burrowed Republican" out of his/her office, but this is supposed to be evidence of Obama's superiority when it comes to the environment?

    Not even close.

    BTW - I worked in the federal government for years (DOJ) and my wife worked at EPA headquarters for 14 years.  While she's in the private sector now, she interacts with EPA staffers on a daily basis and maintains regular contact with her "former colleagues", several of whom are close friends.  I asked her if anyone has ever discussed a "relocation" of "burrowed Republicans" with her since Obama took office.

    Nope.

    So much for the anectdotal evidence.

    2.  Yes, a change in staffing can make a difference, depending on their level, how many, where they're "relocated" to (most reassignments are intra-agency transfers), etc.  But apart from this vague, anectdotal reference, there is zero evidence that: a) there has been any significant (or any) reduction in "burrowed Republicans" in the EPA, or that b:  Obama had anything to do with these "relocations".  Who knows, ... maybe an old colleague of Christine's did get lucky an get rid of one or two.  They may be justifiably happy about it, if that's the case.  But this somehow establishes Obama's superiority in environmental matters?

    Please.

    3.  What Christine has offered in this post has been more of the usual - opinion and excuses, not facts or evidence.  OTOH, we all know about the trail of flip-flops and broken promises Obama has when it comes to his environmental record.  Those are facts.  A couple of anectdotes from old colleagues about something that may or may not have happened and for which Obama may/may not be responsible?

    Not so much.

    Parent

    Well, I for one was interested in the anecdotes (none / 0) (#147)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 04:40:39 PM EST
    especially as they did seem to capture a theme--and did dovetail with some of the things I have noticed happening in the West with BLM decisions......

    And the dreaded use of "anecdote" to diminish her obsversations is interesting.   True, in the field of statistics, substituting anecdotes for random sampling is a no-no.  But we are not trying to measure public opinion of millions of people.  A few bad onions at the EPA or BLM can wreak havoc.  Getting rid of them is a good thing.

    So, we got your hearsay anecdote...Christine still according to what she has said did rise to a fairly high level.

    The difference here is that I was interested in the discussion and you were not.

    And, you accuse Christine of bias. So that matters?  Interesting thought.  You willing to apply that standard across-the board?

    The broader point is she provided an interesting perspective and you guys were so very nasty and rude.....

    Parent

    So many things wrong ... (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 06:03:16 PM EST
    ... in one post ... where to start?

    And the dreaded use of "anecdote" to diminish her observations is interesting.   True, in the field of statistics, substituting anecdotes for random sampling is a no-no.  But we are not trying to measure public opinion of millions of people.  A few bad onions at the EPA or BLM can wreak havoc.  Getting rid of them is a good thing.

    No one said it wasn't.  Of course, the argument was a much larger one - i.e. that Obama's environmental record on environmental issues is superior to his Dem predecessor's because of his grasp of the importance of staffing and (presumably) his "relocation" of "burrowed" Republican staffers.  The reason anecdotal evidence is weak holds true in this case - there's nothing to support the idea that this is representative of anything more than the experience of a tiny number of people (in a group of 18,000+) as opposed to than an accurate picture of the whole.  Of course, the experience of a couple of Christine's former colleagues notwithstanding, we have no evidence of how many were "relocated", where they were relocated to, what their level was/is, or whether Obama had the slightest thing to do with it.  Frankly, having some knowledge of how hiring/firing/transfers in federal agencies takes place, I'm extremely skeptical of any suggestion that there was some sort of concerted effort by the administration to get rid of the "burrowed in" Republican staffers, and I'd be very concerned if it did happen.  It would be the sort of thing that Bush did at DOJ, only in reverse.

    So, we got your hearsay anecdote...Christine still according to what she has said did rise to a fairly high level.

    The difference here is that I was interested in the discussion and you were not.

    Funny how, when I ask my wife about this very issue (also a senior employee for many years), you dismiss my statements as a "hearsay anecdote", as opposed to Christine's statements from her former co-workers.  You do realize they're both anecdotal, and they're both hearsay ... right?

    That was kinda my point.

    BTW - I was interested in the discussion of the larger issues.  I was just pointing out the weak case Christine was presenting.

    And, you accuse Christine of bias. So that matters?  Interesting thought.  You willing to apply that standard across-the board?

    I thought that's what I was doing.  Beyond stating the obvious (Christine's pro-Obama bias), you were the one who's been repeatedly complaining about "anti-Obama bias" and dismissing comments critical of Obama based on your perception of such.  "What's good for the goose", as they say ..

    The broader point is she provided an interesting perspective and you guys were so very nasty and rude.....

    Seriously???

    If you want to start playing Emily Post, you'd better come to the table with clean hands ...

    Parent

    Pardon , please (none / 0) (#155)
    by christinep on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 05:22:49 PM EST
    While being quite tempted--as in "count to ten" or "hold the tongue" or learn quickly the art of zen or even "turn the other cheek--I think the best option on the matter of EPA anecdotes & other commentary on my part would be for me to be relatively quiet.  My sense is that the forum would not be receptive to a litany from me at this time. While I can assure you that there have been a number of changes in staffing occurring & about-to-occur in areas that effect policy development, enforcement, and actions over time, it would be inappropriate for me to get into namecalling about who should leave at the Division & Branch levels or not. (And, I am quite sure that yman, who refers to his DOJ experience, would appreciate that...as well as appreciate the importance of the broader Agency picture.)

    As a primer on the longstanding political attempts to lessen the impact of EPA as well as undercut the potentially powerful Interior, please read or scan the excellent recap of the still-existing Repub ploys in this area which Jonathan Lash documented shortly after the first Reagan administration.  The book, called "A Season of Spoils," puts a special focus on the use of well-positioned staff to accomplish the goals set out by the Administration.  Although the book describes the characters in EPA's Administrator Anne Gorsuch' years and Interior's James Watts' reign, the lessons and lasting reality continue in some key respects. E.g., we saw evidence of the lackadaisacal permitting that stemmed from Reagan & Bush years--& continued with "burrowed in" career staff--in the BP travesty.

    Books can & have been written about the Machiavellian approach to federal staffing...see, for example, the the Repub avatar Frederic Mallek from the Nixon years and continuing his personnel advice throughout the years.  (Review the well-known practice of "burrowing in" prior to admin changes.) So...personnel & staffing: Central to an Administration's purposes.  In the past 30 years, Dems have tried to play nice within...the Reaganaut & Bushies burrowed and reemerged in the next Administration. IMO (and the opinion of multiple old feds with whom I have spoken), this Obama administration seems more attuned to the needs & reality of gradually (there are personnel restrictions, remember) changing to the type of leadership that will benefit the Agency in the long run.

    BTW, thank you very much MKS for your interlocutory efforts here. (And, to you also, CST.)

    Parent

    Christine (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by CoralGables on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 05:30:37 PM EST
    I appreciate both your insight and your Zen Master approach.

    Parent
    And, my apologies (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 05:36:45 PM EST
    if I have been a little too impertinent in using your name....

    Parent
    I read the book many years ago, Christine (none / 0) (#163)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 06:36:18 PM EST
    Shortly after it first came out, as a matter of fact.  I'm also well aware of Gorsuch's attempts to dismantle the EPA from the inside (budget cutting, hiring of industry people, refusal to enforce regulations, mishandling of Superfund, etc.).

    That being said, you've stated that "Where I believe that Obama may have the upper hand in terms of Dem predecssors in the age of EPA is that he is sanguine about the significance of who holds what position beyond the Administrator and the handful of AAs".

    On what evidence do you base this claim?  Is it merely what you've stated above (anecdotal stories from former co-workers)?  How many co-workers?  How many "burrowed" Republicans were "relocated"?  What level of staff are we talking about?   What do you mean by "relocated, etc."?  Were they intra-agency transfers to other divisions or branches within EPA, fired, or what?  What makes you think that Obama had anything to do with these "relocations, etc."?

    If you want to try to defend Obama's environmental record on the merits, knock yourself out, Christine - but vague, anecdotal evidence isn't gonna cut it.

    Parent

    Okay, yman...from personal conversations (none / 0) (#166)
    by christinep on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 08:01:15 PM EST
    You seem to have a fascinatingly strong interest in knowing the "source."  And, that is your prerogative. Recognizing that you do not know me nor my veracity, nevertheless I will say--and this is said from my standard of myself--that my sources have been present & past EPA employees as well as more general statements from Democratic officials in the state in which I reside. (The level includes federal reps in Congress...okay.)

    Now...perhaps, you could be a bit upfront as well, hmmm?

    Finally: The matter of what is vague or not often depends on the eye of the beholder, so to speak. If you want to believe, you will; if you don't, you won't. (For goodness sake, why else would so many Repub officeseekers be claiming that climate change either doesn't exist and/or that they have no evidence of anything??  As someone who indicated a previous relationship with DOJ, I am presuming you recognize what people accept as fact & what they disregard...base upon personal beliefs.)

    Parent

    Yeah, I got that from your ... (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 09:05:50 PM EST
    ... first post (that you were basing it on conversations with EPA people).  I would hardly characterize it as a "fascinatingly strong interest with the source".  My point was that, to the extent that someone is willing to rely on anecdotal information as evidence, it's only as convincing as the source/scope of the information, as well as any objective,

    Finally: The matter of what is vague or not often depends on the eye of the beholder, so to speak. If you want to believe, you will; if you don't, you won't. (For goodness sake, why else would so many Repub officeseekers be claiming that climate change either doesn't exist and/or that they have no evidence of anything??  As someone who indicated a previous relationship with DOJ, I am presuming you recognize what people accept as fact & what they disregard...base upon personal beliefs.)

    Honestly, I have no idea what point you're trying to make, and the psychobabble platitudes give me a headache.  When I said your anecdotes were vague, I meant they were lacking in details.  I then followed with a series of questions which would be relevant to determining what (if any) weight to give to your "evidence".  To ask again:  How many "burrowers" were "relocated"?  What level?  Were they "relocated" to other divisions/branches within EPA or did they actually leave the agency?  Did Obama have anything to do with this?

    Without this information (particularly the last one), your anecdotes don't support your statement that Obama has the "upperhand on his Dem predecessors" due to the fact that he is "sanguine" about the importance of staffers.  Frankly, given your history of looking at Obama's actions through the rosiest of rose-colored glasses, it looks like more grasping at straws.

    Now...perhaps, you could be a bit upfront as well, hmmm?

    I'd be happy to, only I have no idea what you mean by that.  If you have a question, ask it directly ... be happy to answer.

    Parent

    dig away, yman (none / 0) (#173)
    by christinep on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 10:19:04 PM EST
    This is not a trial court. This is a political & philosophical discussion. When a persona works in a place for a long time, that person develops numerous sources/friends and knows upon whom to rely. It is not for me to convince you nor to "prove" anything. I gave you my opinion.

    Now...based upon your questions, I would ask again where are you coming from? What is your intent?


    Parent

    Okay, Christine - here ya go (5.00 / 3) (#176)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 09:46:01 AM EST
    As a preface, let me point out that no one said (or implied) this is a trial court, but thank you for once again stating the obvious - I used the word "evidence" in the generic sense of facts which support an argument.  Your argument being that, based on your conversations with colleagues and federal reps, Obama has demonstrated a superior environmental record compared to former Dem Presidents by grasping the importance of EPA staffing and rooting out "burrowed" Republican staffers.  Of course you aren't required to prove anything to me or anyone else, but when you post an opinion on a comment board and then try to support that opinion with vague, anecdotal evidence, you shouldn't be surprised to get called on it.  

    Where I'm "coming from" is someone who saw an extremely weak attempt to rationalize Obama's poor environmental record and grasping at straws to (as usual) justify his record.  While a few people here are willing to defer to your expertise as a (former?) EPA worker, your argument has nothing to do with substantive environmental policy.  When I saw your claims about "burrowers" that were "relocated", it had no details about how many, what level, where they went, or whether Obama had the slightest thing to do with it.  As a former DOJ employee and the spouse of a long-time, relatively senior-level EPA employee, I'm very familiar with the concept of "burrowing".  For those who are not, in essence it's a process whereby political appointees convert their positions (usually near the end of an administration) into a career/civil service positions which affords them a level of job security.  More importantly, I'm also aware of the fact that the number of successful "burrowers" in an administration is very small - usually in the range of @ 100 across the entire federal government.  This, along with the vaguery of your argument, raised big, red flags in my mind, so I took your advice and did a little "digging".  As it turns out, there was some burrowing that occurred at the end of the Clinton and Bush administrations - 111 from the Clinton administration (Oct. 1998 - May 2001) and 139 from the Bush administration (May 2005 - May 2009)*.  Of these burrowers, the Clinton administration yielded four EPA employees and the Bush administration yielded two (a GS-15 Communications Specialist and a GS-13 Program Specialist).  Since you specify Republican burrowers, assuming that Obama had anything to do with the "relocation, etc." of the "bad" burrowers, and assuming he was 100% successful at it, it means that one Communications Specialist and one Program Specialist were "relocated" thanks to (presumably) Obama's superior grasp of the importance of staffing.

    Thank goodness.

    BTW -

    Now...based upon your questions, I would ask again where are you coming from? What is your intent?

    I'm "coming from" the perspective of someone who saw a weak argument based on anecdotal information with big, red flags all over it.  My "intent" was to determine whether there was merit to your claims.

    There isn't.

    *(Information from the Reagan/Bush I administrations was not available, but given similar numbers it's probably safe to assume that there are very few - if any - burrowers left from 20+ years ago.

    Parent

    Clarification (none / 0) (#167)
    by christinep on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 08:09:42 PM EST
    Of course, everyone with whom I have spoken indicated only acting within the scope of what is permitted in a personnel sense. I'm sure that your understand that. People are aware; but, they act legally & properly.

    Parent
    This is precisely the kind of detail ... (none / 0) (#169)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 09:17:01 PM EST
    ... I'm talking about.  The people you spoke with were discussing the "relocation, etc." of Republican staffers at EPA.  Did they say how it was done?  Did they indicate it was part of some directive from the White House?  Did they merely say they "acted within the scope of what is permitted in a personnel sense" without further explanation?  (That last one would be very difficult to believe).

    Parent
    I don't care if it was a directive (none / 0) (#180)
    by MKS on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 12:45:02 PM EST
    from the White House or if Obama knows about it.....The point is that it matters if a Democrat is President and specifically if Obama is President.  These things are happening now on his watch.  

    With a Republcian President, you an entirely different enterprise.

    Parent

    Well, that's nice ... (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 12:54:07 PM EST
    ... that you don't care whether Obama had anything to do with it, but so what?  The point of Christine's argument is that Obama has a superior environmental record because he understands the importance of EPA staffing, as evidenced by the relocation of burrowed Republican staffers.  If Obama had nothing to do with it, how is that evidence of his superiority? ...  particularly when there were only two "burrowed" Republicans from the Bush admin.

    Parent
    Stop being deliberately obtuse (none / 0) (#187)
    by MKS on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 01:03:19 PM EST
    The point is whether it matters if we have a Republican or Democratic President.  

    What policies do we get up and down the line under Obama.....

    I seriously doubt that many Presidents know much about who heads the Fish and Wildlife Service.  But it matters a lot.

    Are you that dense that you do not get the point?  I hope not.  But that would mean that your tendentiousness is a deliberate attempt to obfuscate....

    You are trying so hard to win an argument that you are missing the point over and over again.....

    Parent

    I'm missing nothing ... (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 01:20:12 PM EST
    ... and if you think that was Christine's point - which is what I was responding to - then you're the one who's "dense".

    Let me spell it out in simple words - very clearly.  Christine was arguing that Obama had a superior environmental record when compared to prior Democratic presidents, based on his grasp of the importance of EPA staffing.  As evidence, she cited some former colleagues who told her of the "relocation" of some burrowed Republican staffers.  My point is, with absolutely zero evidence that Obama had anything to do with these "relocations", it's a silly claim.  Beyond that, given that there were only two burrowed Republicans in the EPA from the Bush administration (mid-level staffers), how much of an impact could any "relocations" have had in an agency with 18,000+ workers?

    Got it, now?

    Parent

    Stop being a jerk (none / 0) (#193)
    by MKS on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 01:29:07 PM EST
    The point still stands.  

    An administration may surpass another administration's performance.....whther or not the President has detailed knowledge of what is happening.  The point is that you get an entire team of people with a President.  And that Presidency is judged based on the entire overall record of his administration.  

    Obama will get the blame for staffing decisions.  He should get the credit too.  And it is not just about you winning an arugment with another poster.  It really matters.

    You see, I do care about the environment, not the silly parameters of your small-minded debate with another poster.

    If you have a President Perry, the EPA might not even exist.  And if it does, a lot different staffing decisons will be made than those currently being made.....And, with respect to the EPA, and I would add the Interior Dept., staffing matters more there than perhaps anywhere else.

    Parent

    As an fomer DOJ (none / 0) (#182)
    by MKS on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 12:52:42 PM EST
    employee, you surely know how biased judges act if they want to rule against you while still appearing fair.

    They just place an impossibly high burden of proof on one side that the other side never faces......Just keep raising the bar.

    You do that here.  

    For a political discussion, the level of detail you demand is unreasonable, and not provided by anyone here--ever--that I can recall.

    Parent

    That's a ridiculous analogy (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 12:58:40 PM EST
    1.  I'm not acting as a "judge".
    2.  Vague tales of the removal of "burrowed" Republican staffers, without any kind of detail, are worth no more than some guy on the street who says the economy must be improving because his nephew just got a job.
    3.  That's a shame that you think it's unreasonable, but given the fact that there were only two Republican staffers that burrowed in from the Bush administration, I call BS to Christine's claim.

    Fairy tales don't cut it for some of us.

    Parent
    Sure, you are (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by MKS on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 01:19:46 PM EST
    Only two EPA Republicans are burroughed in????  That sounds preposterous on its face.

    See, if you define the term a certain way....Same thing as raising the burden of proof.

    If you were acting in good faith you would engage in this conversation with a little bit of comity.  But you do not.

    I have come to believe that you are not sincere in your concern for the environment.  

    You are more intent on winning a debate that Obama is horrible; or now, more personally, that you are right in your micro debate here.

    That is why you use insulting language, weaving in pejoratives where you can, and twisting beyond recognition and logic what is being presented.....

    Your bad faith in this discussion is exhibited by your defense of the person who posted the theory that financial powers would murder an Obama primary opponent.  That poster said he based his argument on gut instinct and his feelings.  Where is your demand for detail from that person?  No, didn't think so.  Rather, you dig in with increasing stubborness, presenting even more convoluted defenses of this craziness.  Why?  Because he views Obama the way you do.  He is on your team.

    And, I raise it here with you because you jumped to the defense of the poster, trying to mitigate the absolute craziness of the statement.....

    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#191)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 01:25:52 PM EST
    Only two EPA Republicans are burroughed in????  That sounds preposterous on its face.

    Leaving aside your ridiculous amateur psychoanalysis for the moment, did you even bother to read the GAO report on this very subject that I provided?  I'll make it easy for you - look at page 35.

    It's nice that you think it's "preposterous", but some of us actually know what we're talking about.

    Parent

    You are relying too much (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by MKS on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 01:39:08 PM EST
    on official conversions of political appointees to a different status.

    Remember that Bush did not play by the rules in appointing people to Civil Service positions.

    Were you at DOJ during Monica Goodling's tenure?  If so, you would not be so quick to artificially restrict the scope of the staffing problems....

    There are more than two ideologically motivated people at the EPA........

    Parent

    You are relying ... (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 01:51:14 PM EST
    ... too much on trying to come up with alternative theories and explanations, rather than the one at hand.  Christine was discussing "burrowed" Republicans - that is political appointees who convert to civil service status.  You're conflating that with a politization of the civil service hiring process, which is what occurred at DOJ with Goodling.  Of course, there is zero evidence that any such thing happened at EPA.

    But I understand why you'd want to grasp at any straw you can, even without the tiniest bit of evidence.

    Parent

    You really believe (none / 0) (#199)
    by MKS on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 01:59:08 PM EST
    that during 8 years of Bush only non-ideololgical people were hired at the EPA and other agencies?

    I do follow this stuff off and on, especially the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the people there did change a lot from the Bruce Babbitt days.....

    What you are saying is the EPA has remained, in spite of eight years of Bush, an ideologically free zone, with people hired only on the merits.....Well, I'd love to be that optimistic....

    Do you really believe that, setting aside the posturing for your mini-debate here?

    Parent

    And you jump to the bottom line (none / 0) (#148)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 04:45:47 PM EST
    too quickly.

    What really irritates you is that the sacking of staffers should not justify or overcome an otherwise bad environmental record.

    See, you got to be on your side of anti-Obamism to merit posting here.....It is challenging the orthodoxy here that drew the round condemnation.

    All the open  minded folk here....  

    Before we jump to the conclusion, let's discuss the predicate first, no?

    Parent

    I have no idea ... (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 09:24:15 PM EST
    ... what you're trying to say.  if you're trying to make some sort of accusation, just spit it out.

    Actually, what really irritates me are feeble attempts to grasp at straws (i.e. anecdotal evidence of staff changes) "to justify or overcome an otherwise bad environmental record".

    But they're just the latest in a long line of weak rationalizations, soooooo ...

    Parent

    You are too biased to fairly (none / 0) (#181)
    by MKS on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 12:47:10 PM EST
    consider other views and facts.....

    You do not want a discussion but are trying to diminish and ridicule.....

    Parent

    Right back at'cha (none / 0) (#186)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 01:00:24 PM EST
    OTOH - I don't make up silly claims with anecdotal stories.

    Parent
    I don't know christine at all (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 04:22:26 PM EST
    I am familiar with Al Gore and his stance on the environment. Here is what he had to say:

    Former Vice President Al Gore is condemning President Obama's decision to back off stricter regulation of ozone emissions, saying he has "bowed to pressure from polluters" instead of "relying on science."

    In a posting on his official blog, Gore noted that Obama was disregarding the advice of his own EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, who called the levels of pollution now allowed "not legally defensible." In doing so, Gore writes, Obama has "embraced" the environmental views of his Republican predecessor.

    "The result of the White House's action will be increased medical bills for seniors with lung disease, more children developing asthma, and the continued degradation of our air quality," Gore said. link

    Obama is countermanding the advise of own EPA administrator. Having good people in place is not real beneficial if the president overrides their position on the environment. Others weighing in:

    John D. Walke, clean air director of the Natural Resources Defense Council, an advocacy group based in New York, likened the ozone decision to a "bomb being dropped."  

    President Obama's decision to undercut EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson by cancelling a long-overdue update to smog standards was a mistake on both the politics and the policy. For smart takes on the politics of this, you can read Steve Benen and Paul Krugman. For smart takes on the policy implications, read Brad Plumer, Kate Sheppard and David Dayen.

    I am familiar with most of the people and organizations and their stances on the environment.

    People and organizations opposed to Obama's decision on the ozone:

    Greenpeace, American Lung Association, Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council, Senator Barbara Boxer, Rep. Ed Markey, League of Conservation Voters, Move On, Center for American Progress, Center for Biological Diversity, American Thoracic Society,
    Health Care Without Harm,  and The Trust for America's Health

    People and organizations in favor of Obama's decision on the ozone:

    Senator Mitch McConnell, House Speaker John Boehner (spokesman), Reps. Fred Upton and Ed Whitfield, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Chamber of Commerce, American Petroleum Institute, American Enterprise Institute:, Senator Jim Inhofe, Senator Pat Toomey,    
    Senator John McCain, Electric Reliability Coordinating Council:, Heartland Institute, National Petrochemical & Refiners Association,    
    Electric Power Generation Association

    Source

    Parent

    Named scientist weighs in on (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 04:31:35 PM EST
    Obama's ozone decision.

    Below is a statement by Francesca Grifo, senior scientist and director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Scientific Integrity Program:

    "This delay is shocking. President Obama's decision will leave us with a rule that flouts the Clean Air Act and ignores science. They've allowed politics to trump science at the expense of the American people's health. The law requires EPA to update a new standard based solely on the science. Scientific recommendations were finalized five years ago. But when industry objected, the administration accepted the industry's economic scare tactics at face value.

    "This is a dangerous precedent for every science-based public health, safety and environmental protection we enjoy.

    "The blame here rests squarely on the White House. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has consistently reaffirmed that the EPA can only consider public health science when setting the standard. Cost considerations are appropriate when it's time to implement the standard. But the White House decided to go back on its promise, ignore the science and cave to industry pressure. link



    Parent
    she was asked (none / 0) (#136)
    by CST on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 01:54:56 PM EST
    for her anecdotal experience/opinion and gave it.  What were you expecting?

    Parent
    She was asked for her opinion ... (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 03:53:41 PM EST
    ... re: Obama's record.  I'm just pointing out that her "evidence" of Obama's superiority on environmental issues are some anectdotal stories about staffing changes.

    But it's entirely what I expected ...

    Parent

    That I don't understand? (none / 0) (#101)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:36:36 PM EST
    A tedious personal shot.

    Sorry, I will give more weight to Christine's opinion on the environment than you.  

    Christine made one point about staffing making a difference......

    Parent

    No, she asserted a point for which she (none / 0) (#120)
    by observed on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 09:44:19 AM EST
    could adduce no evidence that a non "expert" could appreciate, while dismissing the approval of the tar sands pipeline in an offhand manner as just one thing.
    That's worse than pathetic.


    Parent
    Her expertise and concern ... (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 12:20:03 PM EST
    ... for the environment are irrelevant to her defense of Obama.  Apart from some anectdotal comments from former colleagues about staffing, the defense is the same as always - "He's doing the best he can under the circumstances.  He's better than Reagan/(insert Republican candidate)".

    Sorry - some of us remember what candidate Obama said on the campaign trail when he was looking for the votes of environmentalists.

    Parent

    I don't understand why your metric is (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Anne on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 11:14:39 PM EST
    the performance of past presidents, and not what is regarded as good science.

    It seems that even those with some expertise can get as lost in the process as anyone else, and lose sight of what the best policy is.

    Parent

    The "tar sands matter" (5.00 / 4) (#92)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 10:24:12 PM EST
    is not complex. The whole thing is an environmental nightmare from start to finish. Obama would have already denied the pipeline, and attempted to dissuade the Canadians from even alowing extraction from tar sands, if he was the environmental President he said he would be. The rise of the oceans will slow and the planet begins to heal yada yada yada.

    Parent
    Exactly, thank you. (5.00 / 4) (#117)
    by Dr Molly on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 06:50:29 AM EST
    This faux complexity argument is trotted out for every bad decision he makes.

    It ain't complicated at all. He's bought and paid for by Big Oil.

    Parent

    yea I don't buy that either (none / 0) (#128)
    by CST on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 01:06:53 PM EST
    It's clearly a bad decision.  There's nothing complex about it other than election season.

    Parent
    Not sure why people thought Obama (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 07:54:06 AM EST
    would be good on the environment.

    In 2005, Senator Obama supported an Energy Bill written by Dick Cheney and the oil and gas industry lobbyists that contained federal funding for "clean coal" technology. Just last year, Senator Obama also introduced the "Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007." The Sierra Club has called liquefied coal, "the dirtiest, most expensive energy gamble we could take."

    Obama says, YES. Gore says, No.

    According to The Washington Post, "The coal industry praises Obama's reintroduction, with Sen Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), of the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007 last week, which would provide incentives for research and plant construction. The industry says the technology, which converts coal into diesel engine fuel, would reduce America's dependence on foreign oil through a new, home-mined fuel that burns as cleanly as gasoline."
    ...
    Gore was asked about pressure from coal interests to have the US government not only pay for the building of coal liquification plants but order 25 years worth of fuel in advance. "That would be a horrible mistake," Gore responded, insisting that we need to shift away from fossil fuels and towards renewables. link

    IIRC the liquid coal bill was the only bill that Obama personally introduced himself. He only redrew the bill after environmental organizations said that they would not support him if he continued to promote the bill.

    Parent

    It's the same defense as always (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 12:11:58 PM EST
    "He's doing what is politically possible.  He's better than a Republican.  He can't perform miracles..."

    Yada, yada, yada ...

    Parent

    The only problem is that he is (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 01:16:16 PM EST
    actually doing the Republican agenda items that were politically impossible for Republicans to accomplish but now are doable under Obama. The safety net programs are the most obvious but that also applies to environmental issues.

    I do hope that people realize that because of Obama's decision

    As a result, the 2008 rules promulgated by the Bush Administration won't be implemented either; the EPA already directed states not to comply with them. So most states are operating under the objectively worse 1997 standards. And that is expected to continue. So the Obama Administration is allowing, for his entire first term, ozone standards that are worse than George Bush's.  


    Parent
    Yada, yada, yada back atcha (none / 0) (#149)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 04:55:48 PM EST
    Obama is really a republican, he really has no inclination to support Democratic values.

    I have heard it all before....(well, not the Obama hit sqauds that would take out a Primary opponent.)  

    Some actual information about something positive at EPA--that is new, and I would like to hear it....

    But the self-righteous boors here put the kibosh on that.

    Parent

    You want to point out where I said ... (none / 0) (#164)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 06:40:31 PM EST
    ... that Obama's really a Republican, or should we just lump together a bunch of statements from Obama supporters and ascribe them to you?

    BTW - "Obama hit squads" - heh.

    Parent

    Obama is trying to accomplish Republican goals (none / 0) (#179)
    by MKS on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 12:41:25 PM EST
    That is pretty mush gospel here.

    Okay, let's step back and see: do you believe it?

    Parent

    Personally, I don't think Obama ... (none / 0) (#188)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 01:09:46 PM EST
    ... is "trying" to accomplish Republican goals, but on many issues, he's put us on the same road.  In a world where he could do anything he wants, I have no idea what he'd do.  In the real world, however, his growing list of flip-flops and broken promises, combined with a risk-averse personality and a willingness to cave make him a lousy President.  The public option, the FISA "compromise", offshore drilling, tar sands, the Bush tax cuts, air regulations, etc., etc., to include putting Medicare and/or SS on the table. - not to mention leaving jobs/economy on the back burner for two years (with a Dem majority) while fiddling with a POS health insurance reform bill.

    Feel better now?

    BTW - We're all individuals here, but if you want to ascibe all anti-Obama statements to every critic of Obama's, we can play that game ...

    Parent

    No, he's complely powerless. (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by observed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 06:20:45 PM EST
    .. the first every imPotus.

    Parent
    How is everybody? (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 01:02:43 PM EST
    I miss you guys, serious TL withdrawal over here, got the shakes!

    Back to the salt mines, lunch is over, at least I got to take one today.  Day 8 of pump-amania, with a side order of water heater water damage-palooza.  Only 16 voicemails this lunch hour, down from a high of 42. FML.

    Though its much better now than last week, 'Dins do wonders for job stress!  Better work enviroments through chemistry:)

    If you ship to PA (none / 0) (#138)
    by CoralGables on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 02:39:27 PM EST
    get ready to be packing and mailing.

    Parent
    Good to hear from you, kdog. (none / 0) (#139)
    by caseyOR on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 02:39:43 PM EST
    I've been wondering how things are going on the front lines of disaster plumbing sales. Glad to hear things seem to slowing just a bit.

    The news is still chock full of stories about the destruction caused by Irene and now this tropical storm moving east and north from the Gulf. And there is another storm, Katia, churning its way toward the USA. This makes me think you are going to be busy for some time yet.

    And I concur-- the judicious application of chemical components can surely ease the trials of the workplace. :-)  All things in moderation, matey.

    Parent

    My usage Nazi moment (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 03:16:21 PM EST
    for an otherwise good opinion (PDF): in the middle of page 9, "principle justification" should really be "principal," right?

    I wonder how many people read this document and missed the problem.

    Yes, a good opinion (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by KeysDan on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 03:26:12 PM EST
    based on principles, and Yes, on "principal (primal) justification".   Now, I better be right or we will both get sent to the Principal's Office.

    Parent
    I think Perry will do poorly in the debate. (none / 0) (#3)
    by observed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 03:44:57 PM EST
    Not that I will watch.

    "Poorly" in which world? (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Erehwon on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 03:49:04 PM EST
    The real world?

    The media world?

    The bizarro GOP world?

    Or else?

    Inquiring minds need to know! :-)

    Parent

    Republicans at large won't like him. (none / 0) (#6)
    by observed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 03:56:22 PM EST


    Parent
    I will watch and let you know (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by loveed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 05:06:12 PM EST
    I wonder if he will bring his gun?

    Parent
    i hope so (none / 0) (#4)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 03:49:03 PM EST


    Parent
    Is he (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 03:58:43 PM EST
    actually going to debate?

    Parent
    Too bad Trump isn't in the field. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by observed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 03:59:42 PM EST
    I'd love to see those to go head to head (of hair).

    Parent
    If I'm not mistaken (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 05:23:18 PM EST
    one has the "goodhair" label and one is a "comb forward". Edge: Perry.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 04:21:12 PM EST
    at least Trump would make the debate fun to watch. With the rest of these clowns, it will probably be a snooze fest.

    Parent
    And Trump was saying some (none / 0) (#20)
    by observed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 04:44:25 PM EST
    populist things about jobs.
    He sounded better than Obama, on some issues.
    He would not have been a joke, compared to Bachmann, Perry and Paul.

    Parent
    Hoo-hah, Trump of the (none / 0) (#36)
    by christinep on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 06:12:57 PM EST
    don't touch my hand because I don't like to shake hands fame??? Based on how he likes to be addressed on TV & in public persona, that "populist" stuff must have been particularly trying for him...even for the almost-record short time that he was in the race.

    Parent
    As opposed to Obama, who is (none / 0) (#41)
    by observed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 06:25:11 PM EST
    the kind of guy everyone wants to have ortolan and bordeaux with.

    Parent
    After watching him dispatch Kay Bailey Hutchison (none / 0) (#26)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 05:28:56 PM EST
    --and it never was close--I think he will do fine and make Mitt appear pale in comparison.

    Parent
    Didn't happen that way (none / 0) (#93)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 10:35:08 PM EST
    Perry looked less smart, at times halting.

    Republicans will vote for the most electable.....That means Romney

    Parent

    Perry is about as dangerous (none / 0) (#8)
    by NYShooter on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 03:59:10 PM EST
    As any candidate for high office has been in my lifetime. And, yes, that includes GWB.

    Were I a religious man, I would say the "anti-Christ"  has arrived.

    What a great campaign. (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 05:48:13 PM EST
    Obama recently called Senator Tom Coburn his, "brother in Christ".

    Yes. He did.
    Amen.
    Glory!

    Obama should run with Coburn.

    They could run against the anti-Christ Perry.

    The Anti-Christ v/s the Christ Brothers.

    Now that's entertainment!

    Parent

    I think Perry... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Romberry on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 04:20:28 PM EST
    ...is the candidate Obama would most like to run against (assuming Palin isn't available.)

    Perry is a clown. He won't play well with the general electorate. (If he does play well, the US is doomed anyway, so it doesn't really matter.)

    Parent

    Well actually O would probably prefer (none / 0) (#22)
    by brodie on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 04:49:14 PM EST
    Herman Cain.  Or Bachmann.

    But back in reality, of the viable contenders Obama definitely would like to get yahoo secessionist Rick Perry.

    And I hope the WH Reelect group appreciates all the effort I've made so far -- to a very mixed reception on this board -- to advance Rock's candidacy.

    Parent

    Why Romney Would Lose in General Election (none / 0) (#10)
    by Dan the Man on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 04:09:52 PM EST
    Poll: Americans still not as tolerant of Muslims, Mormons

    "The survey also showed acceptance of Mormons continues to lag behind other minorities, with 67 percent expressing favorable views of Latter-day Saints, compared with 84 percent for Jews and 83 percent for Catholics."

    Furtheremore, since those least tolerant of Mormons are part of the Republican base, it would make it much harder for Romney to win if he can't get their votes.

    Jews beat Catholics by a point? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by NYShooter on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 04:19:22 PM EST
    Holy Yarmulke!!

    Parent
    You (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 04:20:25 PM EST
    aren't up on the new evangelical way of thinking: Jews are useful because they are going to bring about the apocalypse but Catholics are still idol worshipers.

    Parent
    also (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by CST on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 04:23:16 PM EST
    the enemy of mine enemy.

    Israel is the religious right's new bff.

    Parent

    Yeah, I got that, but (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by NYShooter on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 04:44:02 PM EST
    I presume that poll wasn't just of Evangelicals.

    Anyway, as a long suffering Lower East side Jew, it does my heart good to see us ahead in any poll:)

    Parent

    I find (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 04:19:23 PM EST
    that kind of sad that the country seems to have a religious litmus test.

    Parent
    I don't even wanna know (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by CST on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 04:24:10 PM EST
    what they think of the rest of us heathens :)

    Parent
    I don't (none / 0) (#29)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 05:41:37 PM EST
    really believe that.

    The American people voted in Obama, after all.
    That perceived racial litmus test proved inconsequential.

    I think the American people would vote for BIg Foot if they really were convinced that he would improve their lives.

    How about Jimmy Hoffa?

    That s.o.b. told it like it was.

    Parent

    I don't think the majority of (none / 0) (#113)
    by loveed on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 04:50:07 AM EST
    American cares.
     This is just another issue to divide us. Obama was painted as a muslin. His went to Rev.Wright church.
       He still got elected.
     

    Parent
    How about a Gore primary challenge? (none / 0) (#24)
    by observed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 05:17:53 PM EST
    I don't see him being the nominee (or even wanting to be it, now),but he has the stature to get the serious contenders in the ring.
    I mention this because Gore just went after Obama for caving on air pollution.

    Gore (none / 0) (#27)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 05:33:56 PM EST
    is severely damaged goods.

    I think that at this juncture, no one pays much attention to him.

    But I'm glad he called Obama out on this dreadful cave to the anti-environmental activists.

    If we only had someone with guts and intelligence to challenge Obama.

    But no one is willing to take that chance.

    The left has been conditioned to despise Nader.
    The right can breathe a sigh of relief about that.
    So no one will pay much attention to him either.

    The last time there were serious challenges to an incumbent Democratic president, people were assassinated.

    Not much of an incentive for the faint of heart.

    Parent

    i take it (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 05:59:02 PM EST
    that you don't see Ted Kennedy's 1980 challenge as having been a serious one?

    as for 1968, Johnson had already taken himself out of the running when Bobby Kennedy was assassinated

    some "theorists" claim that it was Richard Nixon, not LBJ, who conspired to murder RFK

    Parent

    Both Nixon and Johnson were both capable of (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by brodie on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 06:24:30 PM EST
    very dark deeds but I doubt Nixon had anything to do with Bobby being killed.  Extremely risky moves like that are taken only when necessary and in June 68 it was still considered HHH was in the dominant position for the nom.  And Nixon was not in office at the time.  Re LBJ well let's just say he hated Bobby with a white hot passion and hi stepping aside in March was probably a ruse meant to improve his chances later on, with HHH Bobby and Gene bloodying themselves badly and splitting the delegates sufficiently for Johnson to make himself available at the convention as a unifying figure of stability. That's one not implausible way of looking at it anyway.

    In any case the rather naive nonfighter Obama isn't remotely in either Johnson's or Nixon's league as a dark deeder.

    Parent

    I (2.00 / 0) (#34)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 06:10:58 PM EST
    just feel, sense, that a good part of the reason that no one is rising up to challenge the incumbent is that it is very physically dangerous to do so.

    These guys in power have adopted the modus operandi of the mob, imo.

    Parent

    "feel" as opposed to evidence, lentinel? (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by christinep on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 06:23:05 PM EST
    Suggestion: Going that far as to suggest fear of personal harm as the reason for not running...well, that's beyond "over the top." (It is one thing to have personal, private nightmares. This kind of talk--and I'm sure that, with reflection, you would agree--is the stuff that the rightist of the right practices. And always has.)

    Parent
    I have (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by lentinel on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 04:48:08 AM EST
    just noticed that the people who tend to get shot or assassinated happen for the most part to be those considered to be on the left of the political spectrum.

    (Reagan is a notable exception, but that appears to be personal rather than politically motivated.)

    I do believe in instinct, Christine.
    I do believe in taking notice of red flags.
    When the government starts talking about "taking out" people, I notice that this is lifted from underworld lingo.
    When I see our government referring to the slaughter of children as, "regrettable", I shudder.

    As I mentioned above, Obama has nothing to do with it.
    He is the current incumbent.
    The people pulling the strings were there before him, and they will be there after he has left office.

    Parent

    This is delusional (none / 0) (#184)
    by MKS on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 12:56:55 PM EST
    There is no conspiracy to murder Obama's primary opponents.

    Your gut instincts are worth no more weight than those of the Far Right.

    There are no black helicopters....

    Parent

    You have a calm (none / 0) (#43)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 06:27:16 PM EST
    way about you. My answer would have been to suggest therapy.

    Parent
    I think it is a lot simpler than that (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 09:05:42 PM EST
    Donors are not going to back such a long shot. It have to be someone willing to spend their own money to make a point. Until we have sensible campaign finance laws  I don't expect to see many incumbents challenged by their party.

    Parent
    WTF? (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 10:52:53 PM EST
    People will not make a Primary challenge to Obama because they are afraid they would be whacked?

    You are basically saying Obama would conspire to murder a Primary opponent.  

    And, you are not biased against Obama?

    This is the same bilge that the Right pumped out against the Clintons.

    Parent

    Not exactly. (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by lentinel on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 04:29:03 AM EST
    What I am basically saying is that I do not believe that we are living in a democracy. I believe that we are living in a corporate state and that the people running these financial interests have no compunction about eliminating annoyances who threaten what they see as the greater good.

    Obama has nothing to do with it.

    Parent

    They eliminate the annoyances (none / 0) (#116)
    by ruffian on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 06:45:28 AM EST
    by throwing large sums of money at their preferred candidates. No need for violence.

    Parent
    So a cabal that supports (none / 0) (#132)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 01:18:56 PM EST
    Obama would unknown to him murder a primary opponent?????  That is a great distintiction.

    And the Banks would do this rather than support a Republican because.....

    This is the kind of insane, delusional thinking that happens when one gets involved with a self-reinforcing group.  

    And you know this because of your "feelings?"

    I don't know who is scarier, you and those who agree with you, or Rick Perry.

    Parent

    If Gingrich and run, then Gore (none / 0) (#44)
    by observed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 06:28:52 PM EST
    certainly can. BTW, Perry's success against KBH in Texas doesn't impress me.
    In Texas, he wouldn't pay a price for his secessionist remarks.

    Parent
    Setting out to challenge the incumbent president (none / 0) (#32)
    by brodie on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 06:01:23 PM EST
    from your own party and the first AA prez in history -- that takes double the courage and chootspah that most major pols could muster.  And  Gore doesn't exactly strike me as that type.

    Who wants to be the person who will be held responsible for destroying our first black head of state?

    Things are bad but not sufficiently bad enough to permit such a political move with impunity.

    Parent

    Well, you're tacitly (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by observed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 06:19:00 PM EST
    admitting the reason many guilt-ridden liberals voted for him in the first place.
    How well did that work out?

    Parent
    I've never doubted white liberal guilt played (none / 0) (#45)
    by brodie on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 06:36:18 PM EST
    a significant role in his nom and election, but that recognition is different from the rational political calculation of going about seriously challenging this historic-first type of incumbent and the obvious pitfalls that would entail.

    Ideally therefore in order to inoculate against such a problem liberals would probably prefer a strong viable challenger from the AA community -- if such a person could be found.

    Parent

    i recognize (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 07:08:58 PM EST
    that many people hold this view

    & i'm sure that there is an element of realpolitik to it

    nevertheless i find it rather patronizing to black voters (not saying that you, brodie, are being that way - i know you're just stating, or reporting on, a particular point of view)

    my take is that there are plenty of AA voters who would avail themselves of the opportunity to vote out a conservative Democratic president in favor of a candidate whose policies would not have a disproportionately harmful impact on African Americans - this is not to say that these voters wouldn't experience a certain level of conflict in sending that message, but i do think they might rise to the occasion

    i think it is condescending & destructive of the Democratic Party & to the Democratic Party that primary voters in the Democratic Party's base are not being given that choice

    Parent

    but you don't think the OFA and Obama (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by observed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 07:12:21 PM EST
    will fail to mention the racial aspect of any challenge, do you?
    Obama would certainly threaten to destroy the Party to stay the nominee.
    I say that because he already is halfway there,and happily so.

    Parent
    i am sure (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 07:35:10 PM EST
    that white fauxgressives from OFA would be all over it

    i don't think Obama himself would (have to) say a word

    but to the extent that this is about otherwise principled white Democratic liberals & progressives holding their fire for fear of being called racists, it amounts to the party's being held hostage, not by African American voters, but by white liberal guilt

    it also strikes me as rather unsavory to say that only a black Democrat can challenge Obama - that's tantamount to saying that if race is the issue, then a black politician must become the sacrificial lamb as a "race traitor," to spare any white Democrat from being called a racist

    i'm comfortable saying that every white person alive today in the United States is both the product & the beneficiary (to some extent) of a profoundly white-racist society

    but it's also possible, while recognizing institutional racism & one's own inculcated racism as constant factors, to act deliberately & with integrity against one's white racist indoctrination

    in this case, the principled anti-racist action, for the sake of principle over party & principle over fear, might be to trust one's fellow citizens enough to see what happens if we're all given a choice of voting Obama out in the 2012 primaries

    in my opinion, Obama richly deserves a primary challenger, as would any other sitting Democratic president with his record

    Parent

    As Bob Hebert said on Smiley's program tonight (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by NYShooter on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:42:39 PM EST
    The job recession for black Americans has ended.

    They are now mired in a full blown depression.

    Yes.....its time


    Parent

    Obama does not need (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Madeline on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 10:58:51 PM EST
    any assistance. He is imploding without any help.

    Obama is taking a risk, going against everything that 80% of the country wants and needs. I think his audacity is to see if he can get elected anyway. He said he is putting his presidency on the line with the decisions he makes.

    It's either the thrill of deliverance or he's getting something else in return. Selfish man.

    Parent

    It seems (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 06:37:47 PM EST
    like Obama is doing a pretty good job of destroying himself.

    And if no one can primary him because of the color of his skin, then we are just going to have to deal with the onslaught of radical fundamentalism maybe sooner rather than later.

    Parent

    That's my political read -- very dicey (none / 0) (#47)
    by brodie on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 06:48:26 PM EST
    for any Dem major to challenge him unless someone from the CBC/AA community.

    Unless things get really worse between now and Iowa on the economic front -- like a full meltdown followed by yet another ineffective Hooveresque response by O. ...

    Parent

    More than that, it tales a lot of moolah. (none / 0) (#89)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 09:07:45 PM EST
    Who is going to finance such a long shot?

    Parent
    What about taking out a bad (none / 0) (#114)
    by loveed on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 05:11:12 AM EST
    president.
     Obama is our first Africa/american president. There is a difference.
     Do you really thinks blacks, who is suffering the most in this economy, give a f*** about his skin color. With black unemployment 17%. 50% black unemployment in Michigan.
     So the whole country must suffer, so we don't hurt his feelings?
     No one is destroying Obama, Obama is destroying himself.

    Parent
    What's up with The Washington Note? (none / 0) (#42)
    by observed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 06:26:07 PM EST
    There are no posts on there since July.
    Perhaps because of (none / 0) (#48)
    by Erehwon on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 07:07:47 PM EST
    this?

    Parent
    Thanks, makes sense. (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by observed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 07:10:10 PM EST
    Steve's not the only contributor at TWN---I thought it might have continued without him.
    Then again, he may have been completely fed up with the comment fights.


    Parent
    The debate (none / 0) (#55)
    by loveed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 07:39:54 PM EST
    Perry looks small. Michelle is in over her head.

     As I said earlier there are 3 candidates. Huntsman,Romney,Perry.

     Gingrich say they will support whomever the nominee is.

     It's a pretty good debate.

    Parent

    I just saw a little bit of Perry (none / 0) (#56)
    by observed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 07:43:30 PM EST
    he certainly is slick.


    Parent
    I'm going to puke. NBC is (none / 0) (#57)
    by observed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 07:46:15 PM EST
    taking time from the debate to give a tribute to Reagan.


    Parent
    why is so little attention paid (none / 0) (#59)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 07:52:05 PM EST
    to the fact that the propaganda factories operating as "news" networks are the primary beneficiaries of what now will become well over $1 billion in presidential campaign funds?

    attention must be paid

    Parent

    Unfortunate but entirely predictable (none / 0) (#61)
    by brodie on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 07:58:04 PM EST
    from the network with the long association with GE the corporation that was so instrumental in the career resuscitation of RR.

    What's worse is next week we get CNN cosponsoring another debate with the Tea Party.  

    Parent

    Well, it is at the Reagan library (none / 0) (#109)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 01:45:31 AM EST


    Parent
    To my ear, Romney is destroying (none / 0) (#58)
    by observed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 07:51:49 PM EST
    Perry on SS
    he only got modest applause.

    Parent
    This is a pretty good debate (none / 0) (#60)
    by loveed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 07:52:51 PM EST
    Perry is really tanking.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 07:59:14 PM EST
    he is. 95% of his so called jobs are low paying and that was the most deadly comment of the night IMO and true.

    Anybody who thinks Perry can win a presidential contest based on what I see of him is clueless. He's like a rodeo clown.

    Parent

    Who said that to Perry? (none / 0) (#66)
    by observed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 08:03:21 PM EST


    Parent
    No the most devastating thing against Perry (none / 0) (#68)
    by loveed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 08:07:26 PM EST
    was when he forced 12yrs old girl to get the cancer shot, by executive order.

    Parent
    yes (none / 0) (#75)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 08:18:47 PM EST
    Gardasil, the vaccine manufactured by Merck, the same company to which Rick Perry has ties

    Parent
    Isn't this illegal? (none / 0) (#90)
    by loveed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 09:27:12 PM EST


    Parent
    It seems (none / 0) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 08:27:42 PM EST
    that for once these bozos have done their oppo homework and here I thought Romney was the only one who was doing it.


    Parent
    Kinda slow and stupid (none / 0) (#98)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:26:26 PM EST
    That does surprise me.....

    Parent
    It shouldn't. He has a reputation (none / 0) (#100)
    by observed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:30:59 PM EST
    as someone who is MUCH dumber than W.

    Parent
    Well, you are such a generous (none / 0) (#102)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:41:25 PM EST
    soul interested in a reasoned discussion.

    Just goes to show what happens if you challenge the orthodoxy here.

    Parent

    what is your problem? (none / 0) (#104)
    by NYShooter on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:48:50 PM EST
    You called Perry Stupid, and "Obseved agreed."

    Parent
    You don't see the dig? (none / 0) (#105)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 11:55:43 PM EST
    In an earlier post in this thread, this same commentator tosses out the tedious insult that I don't know what I am reading, etc.

    The dig here is that I should have known that Perry was stupid....

    Parent

    I don';t know (none / 0) (#106)
    by NYShooter on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 12:09:00 AM EST
    but, I'd be a little more generous. I felt he just made a comment, basically putting an exclamation point on yours.

    but....who knows?

    Parent

    As you can see from my punctuation above (none / 0) (#107)
    by NYShooter on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 12:10:34 AM EST

    We all write a little too fast sometimes


    Parent

    Did you not notice that YOU (none / 0) (#119)
    by observed on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 09:08:17 AM EST
    said I couldn't read Christine's post accurately?
    Talk about tedious.
    And it really  is surprising that you are surprised Perry is dim. He is famously stupid.

    Parent
    No kidding (1.00 / 0) (#121)
    by sj on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 09:59:17 AM EST
    ...Perry is dim. He is famously stupid.

    I've known that for years and I'm not from Texas.  Mostly thanks to Molly Ivins.  Perhaps MKS is too young to have read Molly.  The comments have a sort of ... youthful shrillness ... and lack of depth.

    Parent
    Is this the way orthodoxy is imposed here? (1.00 / 1) (#129)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 01:11:00 PM EST
    BTW, it is called clarity.

    And, thank you for calling me young.

    Yes, I know who Molly Ivins is......And, she has been gone for awhile now.

    Parent

    silly rabbit (2.00 / 0) (#133)
    by sj on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 01:39:26 PM EST
    I didn't call you young.  I said you had a youthful shrillness.  

    Parent
    I'll take my compliments (3.50 / 2) (#137)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 02:32:04 PM EST
    where I can get them.

    You guys pride yourselves on being such great liberals or progressive that rely on facts. And yet you act like a mob of bullies here.  Couldn't take Big Orange, so here you come to self-reiforce.

    We got one commentator here who goes way beyond the conservative black helicopter set and says that he believes the henchmen who support Obama would murder any primary opponent--based on his "feelings."

    Me, I truly like the underdog, so I do take offense at this site's bullying and rudeness to Christine and ABG.

    Argue the facts....but I see so little of that from you Lords of Invective.

    Parent

    You keep raising this (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 04:01:01 PM EST
    We got one commentator here who goes way beyond the conservative black helicopter set and says that he believes the henchmen who support Obama would murder any primary opponent--based on his "feelings."

    ... in your responses to other people, as if commenters here are all the same person.  If you don't like this opinion, take it up with lentinel.  Or, in the alternative, we could lump all the Obamapologist opinions together and ascribe them to you, ...

    ... but somehow I don't think you'd appreciate that.

    Parent

    It is outlandish, no? (none / 0) (#144)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 04:26:32 PM EST
    Sorry, but the black helicopter/assassinatin squad opinion did get my attention.  That is different than the standard, run-of-the-mill Obama-is-an-evil-Republican comments.

    There are others here who have in the past made comments that equally showed an anti-Obama bias, but nothing so creatively whacky and insane as that.

    Parent

    That's nice (none / 0) (#150)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 04:57:07 PM EST
    Although the fact that it got your attention still doesn't explain why you keep referring to it when responding to other people's comments.  Unless, of course, you're trying to diminish their comments by tying them together with "anti-Obama bias".

    In which case, I'd have to say there "are others here who in the past made comments that equally showed a pro-Obama bias, but nothing so creatively whacky and insane as that".

    BTW - Much as I disagree with lentinel's comment, I believe he clearly explained it was directed at "corporate interests" and (more specifically) had nothing to do with Obama.

    Parent

    Yes, I know, poor Obama (none / 0) (#151)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 05:06:55 PM EST
    does not know that the henchmen who rigged the election in his behalf will murder his opponents.....

    That makes it better?

    Well chalk this one up in the same category as:

      1.  A commentator who said she might vote for Palin out of spite--I did research that once ask jbindic--she didn't say it but should remember the conversation.  In defense of he comment, it was ahile ago before Palin's true lunacy became apparent, or so one could charitably claim.

      2.  A very regular commentator who said in 20089 that she could stand the sound of Obama's voice.  Ask her she'll admit it.

      3.  Another very regular commentator who said in March 2009 that she thoughthe countgry would rise up and demand Obama's resignation.  I posted that comment here about six months ago.  I interpreted that comment to be of the "some say" vareity as expressing the opinion of the commentator.

        Now, Mr. Black helicopter hit squads.

    Anecdotal, I guess, but there are not that many more regular commentators here.  It is enough to conclude this is an anti-Obama site.  (Yeah, no sh*t, Sherlock.)

    Doesn't mean biased people can't have valid opinions.  But beware crossing the "anti" orthodoxy here.

    Parent

    Uhhhhh, YEAH, it does (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 06:12:42 PM EST
    does not know that the henchmen who rigged the election in his behalf will murder his opponents.....

    That makes it better?

    Because, in fact, it's a conspiracy theory that assigns no knowledge, blame, culpability, or involvement on Obama's part.  In fact, it is an corporatocracy conspiracy theory that, as lentinel explained, has nothing to do with Obama.  How can it be an example of extreme, anti-Obama bias when the very person making the statement says it "has nothing to do with Obama"?

    BTW - It's not remotely in the same category as those other statements, but it's obvious why you're trying to lump them all together.  Maybe I'll have a go at looking at some of the more ridiculous pro-Obama statements made here and lump those together, then randomly post them in response to the comments of the "pro-Obama bias" group.

    Nahhhhhhhh ....

    ... that would be ridiculous.

    Parent

    You are defending this tripe? (none / 0) (#178)
    by MKS on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 12:36:31 PM EST
    Sure, it is aimed at Obama.

    Obama is only in power because murderous bankers want him to be?

    It is not better because it is still wildly delusional.  This idea has paranoid schizophrenia written all over it.....And you enable.....because it suports your anti-Obama views....

    It is hopelessly illogical as well.  The bankers do not want to see Obama primaried?  Generally past history indicates that when a Democratic President is primaried it leads to a Republican winning the Presidency.  Ah, but no, the bankers think Obama could help them more than a Republican and they are willing to murder to accomplish that.  So they are invested in Obama winning????  And that means corporate money will not support the Republican Presidential nominee?

    And that also means that Obama will win re-election because the bankers want it?

    Truly bizarre and delusional....

    Parent

    I'm no defending it (none / 0) (#192)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 01:28:27 PM EST
    I'm pointing out the difference between what the OP said and your creative reinterpretation of what he said.

    See the difference?

    Parent

    You minimize the craziness (none / 0) (#196)
    by MKS on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 01:46:53 PM EST
    This would have been an opportunity for you to make a clarion call for evidence.....

    See, Double Standard.

    Parent

    I don't need to see evidence, .. (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 01:53:02 PM EST
    ... since I don't believe in conspiracy theories offered with no evidence, ...

    ... or fairy tales offered with only anecdotal stories, for that matter.

    Parent

    So, why bother with one and not the other? (none / 0) (#200)
    by MKS on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:00:20 PM EST


    Parent
    whooosh (none / 0) (#146)
    by sj on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 04:40:24 PM EST


    Parent
    Heh, close the door first (none / 0) (#152)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 05:08:54 PM EST


    Parent
    Very good (none / 0) (#153)
    by sj on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 05:13:35 PM EST
    You are now stalking me on an open thread and not thread jacking on topic-dedicated post.


    Parent
    And I thought you were stalking me (none / 0) (#156)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 05:30:06 PM EST


    Parent
    wrong again (2.00 / 0) (#160)
    by sj on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 05:39:15 PM EST


    Parent
    Then why barge into someone else's conversation (none / 0) (#177)
    by MKS on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 12:20:55 PM EST
    with drive by insults....

    You were acting like an arse....

    Parent

    You really are funny (none / 0) (#194)
    by sj on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 01:29:59 PM EST
    Making snide comments and dropping low ratings right and left and then saying I'm acting like an arse.

    Which I might be, but by comparison to you?  Oh wait, never mind.  That's too low a bar.

    Parent

    Have you noticed how rude ABG is, (none / 0) (#154)
    by observed on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 05:15:36 PM EST
    or how condescending Christine is (on what basis, god only knows)?

    Parent
    I have (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 06:44:49 PM EST
    ... and "condescending" merely suggests that the person with the condescending attitude believes she has greater knowledge.

    Parent
    Not rude imo (none / 0) (#158)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 05:33:29 PM EST
    I can understand that you would interpret disagreement with rudeness....

    And "condescending?"  Really?  That suggests that you believe she may have greater knowledge than you on something.

    Parent

    Cameron Todd Willingham (none / 0) (#171)
    by NYShooter on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 09:32:46 PM EST
    I didn't watch the whole debate, but was there any mention of Mr. Willingham, the almost assuredly innocent man, whose execution Perry refused to postpone?  

    Parent
    Here's your answer (none / 0) (#172)
    by CoralGables on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 09:38:09 PM EST
    as to what was asked.

    Note the cheering about executions

    Parent

    Hey thanks (none / 0) (#175)
    by NYShooter on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 11:57:17 PM EST
    I can just hope that the majority of Americans is reflective of that studio audience.

    What sick morons, really.

    Parent

    i'm for that! (none / 0) (#63)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 07:59:23 PM EST
    Perry is really tanking.


    Parent
    I kinda feel sorry for perry (none / 0) (#64)
    by loveed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 08:00:11 PM EST
    There just going after him,and they have a lot of bullets.

    I don't (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 08:01:40 PM EST
    feel sorry for him one bit. The one good thing is that the GOP is going after each other trying to differentiate which is much better than the snoozefest I love Ronald Reagan debates they usually have.

    Parent
    Romney seems to be winning. (none / 0) (#67)
    by observed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 08:03:59 PM EST


    Parent
    You know me (none / 0) (#71)
    by loveed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 08:12:38 PM EST
     I think Huntsman is winning. Look the people who are supporting Perry,Bachmann,Paul will never support Romney. There taking a good look at Huntsman.
     Because Perry is tanking.

    Parent
    Heck (none / 0) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 08:26:28 PM EST
    Huntsman worked for Obama and is a Mormon. Romney has Romneycare and is a Mormon. Both of those are huge negatives in the minds of these nuts.

    Parent
    I think working for Obama is a plus (none / 0) (#82)
    by loveed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 08:35:07 PM EST
    As far as the mormon issue who really cares.

    Parent
    Gingrich's purple tie is very (none / 0) (#69)
    by observed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 08:08:02 PM EST
    dignified.

    Parent
    "Narco-terrorism"???? (none / 0) (#73)
    by observed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 08:15:08 PM EST
    Go away, Michele.

    She looks really strange (none / 0) (#74)
    by loveed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 08:18:26 PM EST


    Parent
    Her hair looks like it was just released from (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by observed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 08:19:10 PM EST
    the nuthouse.

    Parent
    she's fighting for the crazies (none / 0) (#78)
    by loveed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 08:27:11 PM EST


    Parent
    Matches her eyes, no? (none / 0) (#110)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 01:48:57 AM EST
    Seriously, I got fixated on that hair.  I think she must have fired her hairdresser along with Ed Rollins et al.  Mistake.  She has very nice hair.  But this teased and sprayed helmet is absolutely ghastly.

    Parent
    Huntsman (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Politalkix on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 01:08:09 AM EST
    was the sanest and he looked more orange than Boehner. And he wimped out when he was asked to name who among his rivals was anti-science. He thought if he named Perry, Perry would have him executed and the audience would cheer. Or Perry would torture him like the way the Catholic Church tortured Galileo and make him recant his statement.....
    Ron Paul is terrified of a wall or fence being built at the border because he wants to run to Mexico if any of his GOPer rivals get elected President. I saw fear in his eyes.
    Can "I was bullied by Massachussetts Democrats" Mittens, who could not create jobs in Massachussetts but created mandated healthcare like the President make his sale to GOP primary voters?
    We will have to wait and watch. With a bowl of popcorn of course....

    Parent
    This is so funny LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL (none / 0) (#115)
    by loveed on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 05:16:03 AM EST


    Parent
    I predict Perry will go (none / 0) (#80)
    by observed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 08:30:38 PM EST
    down in the polls after tonight's debate.
    "Keynesian theory is done" .. what a moron.
    (not that this particular statement hurts him with Republicans)

    Perry praising Obama (none / 0) (#81)
    by loveed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 08:31:19 PM EST
    Oh my!!!!!!

    Look, you're talking about the guy who (none / 0) (#85)
    by Rojas on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 08:56:28 PM EST
    worked for Gore. Became a republican instead of a "new democrat"... Like there is a hell of a lot of difference....
    Lions and tigers and bears! oh my!

    Parent
    Bingo! (none / 0) (#125)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 01:01:16 PM EST
    May as well have been a Brand D debate, I sure as hell haven't been able to tell the difference in, ummm...all my life.

    And people are saying get Gore to primary Obama...that sh*t is funny.  The guy who employed Perry and got Lieberman to run with him...power to the people! (NOT)  

    Besides, if he got back into power he'd stop hugging trees and start hugging cruise missiles in two shakes of a lobbyist's tail.

    Parent

    Gingrich says we are in a (none / 0) (#83)
    by observed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 08:41:09 PM EST
    depression.

    Aw I thought Perry would (none / 0) (#86)
    by loveed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 09:03:39 PM EST
    last til Oct.1st.

     I liked this debate.They really asked good question. And everyone even the media went after Perry.
     Romney did well. But Huntsman presented himself as an alternative.

    Parent

    Ron Paul is the nuttiest (none / 0) (#84)
    by observed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 08:50:40 PM EST
    contender in decades. He's far beyond being a crackpot.
    Perry is a complete moron. He was clearly uncomfortable with the question on global warming, and just spouted some word salad.
    that's funny (none / 0) (#87)
    by loveed on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 09:05:07 PM EST


    Parent
    Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread | 200 comments (200 topical)