home

Friday Open Thread

Obama will be the proverbial Rolling Stone in 2012 if he keeps on his current path. Seniors will throw him under the bus.

How does it feel?
To be on your own?
With no direction home?
...Like a rolling stone ?
Back to work. Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Raising Medicare Eligibility Age: Who Gets Hurt? | NY Terror Threat Centers on Car Bombs , Bridges, Tunnels >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    One nation... (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 01:35:12 PM EST
    under a bus, utterly divisible, with no liberty and no justice for anybody making under 250k a year.

    Paging all pirates...soon time to make our move, very very soon.


    Yves slices and dices Bernanke (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 01:57:28 PM EST
    Let Them Buy Cake

    ....and the conclusion is pretty clear: the irrational person in this picture is Bernanke, not the suffering and correctly cautious consumer.

    Let's go kdog!

    Parent

    nice linkage... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 05:04:44 PM EST
    Sure does take economic brainiacs like Benny alotta words to say most folks are broke and scared to spend the little they got.

    We're gonna have to figure something out ruff, cuz the people we pay to figure it out figured out how to leave us out.

    Parent

    Advanced planning - throwing DC under the bus (none / 0) (#83)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 06:45:47 PM EST
    The town of Pittsboro, North Carolina [...] houses the nation's largest biodiesel cooperative, a food co-op, a farmers' market and, most recently, its own currency, the Pittsboro Plenty. Pittsboro is one of a number of communities across the country printing their own money in an attempt to support local business.

    Amy Goodman interviews community activist, entrepreneur and author Lyle Estill [...] author of Small Is Possible: Life in a Local Economy, and he's founder of Piedmont Biofuels.
    April 09, 2009

    AMY GOODMAN: Plenty [...] tell us about Plenty. What does it stand for?

    LYLE ESTILL
    : It's an acronym for Piedmont Local Economy Tender. And it was started by a group of activists in Carrboro, North Carolina back around 2001. And it is predicated on the idea that by having a role in our own monetary circulation, we'll all be better off. Our local economy will be better served.

    video and transcript here

    Parent

    Throwing DC under the bus is a (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by MO Blue on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 07:37:54 PM EST
    "grand" idea. The people's version of a "grand bargain."

    Hey Zorba, did you read this? Will the Republic of Zorba have its own currency? ;o)

    Parent

    And the Ithaca HOUR (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 08:22:47 PM EST
    'The Ithaca HOUR is a local currency used in Ithaca, New York and is the oldest and largest local currency system in the United States that is still operating. It has inspired other similar systems in Madison, Wisconsin, Corvallis, Oregon, and a proposed system in the Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania.] One Ithaca HOUR is valued at US$10 and is generally recommended to be used as payment for one hour's work, although the rate is negotiable...

    'Ithaca Hours were started by Paul Glover in November of 1991. The system has historical roots in scrip and alternative and local currencies that proliferated in America during the great depression.'....

    -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ithaca_Hours



    Parent
    Such communities... (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by kdog on Sat Sep 10, 2011 at 07:26:20 AM EST
    are where hope resides...I like it.

    Parent
    Imagine Pelosi were still Speaker (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:11:33 PM EST
    and the economy the same.  Do you think Obama/Geithner even makes this jobs proposal knowing it might very well pass?  

    Perhaps I am too cynical but I think a big reason Obama (and finance guru Geithner) is OK making this proposal now is because it will not pass.  So he gets to pose, again, and campaign.

    His track record suggests, however, that if he is re-elected and Democrats retake the House and hold the Senate, this proposal will have served its purpose & be forgotten.

    If it is a pose, it sure is a weak one (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:18:00 PM EST
    Would not even make runner up for Mr. Universe.

    But I think you are probably on the right track. It is impossible to be too cynical these days.

    Parent

    Probably (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:48:12 PM EST
    simply because Obama really didn't do what he could do when he had the ability. It's easy to propose stuff now and that's why I was thinking he should go BIG since a small bore thing that won't do much might be worse than passing nothing.

    Parent
    Post bday bash report: (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:26:16 PM EST
    Lots of rain; reorg. at Pittsburgh airport, making the purportedly nearby Hampton Inn-Pittsburgh Airport a challenge to find via rental car; power outage at first bar meetup nearby, but the generator kicked in and our pizza was delish; Fallingwater and Kentuck Knob are delightful to visit; bday dinner was wonderful and well-presented--practically our own private restaurant.  Whole event exceeded my best expectations.  So fun. (One guest never got out of Newark airport, probably because the Pres. was visiting Patterson NJ, but who knows.)

    Yes, we frequently discussed politics, Obama, religion, GOP candidates, economy, etc.  No fist fights as we are all "progressives."  

    Happy belated! Glad you lucked out travel-wise (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:34:58 PM EST
    and had such a good time.

    Parent
    Ruffian, I should have shot you the (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:37:20 PM EST
    e-mail invite.  I just know you would have braved all obstacles flying-wise to join us!

    Parent
    I just may have! I drove up to Charleston (none / 0) (#21)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:40:57 PM EST
    last weekend to visit friends...maybe I would have driven up from there for the big party! Sure did not feel like coming home.

    Have you been to Charleston? What a nice place!

    Parent

    Not yet. S.C. or W VA? (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:43:11 PM EST
    S.C. (none / 0) (#25)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:46:09 PM EST
    Not sure what the fine arts situation is there, but I loved all the old historical buildings, and the great food.

    And getting to secretly applaud the Yankees for winning the 'War of Northern Aggression'.

    Parent

    I was there as a 13-yr. old. Either the (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:48:28 PM EST
    harbor area hadn't been restored yet or the adults in our family group weren't interested.  Kids went w/Nebraska-born cousin, long time resident of Charleston, to Ft. Sumter.  He informed us the South is still fighting it--never surrendered.  News to us.  

    Parent
    I didn't sense anything either way (none / 0) (#29)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:59:51 PM EST
    Didn't really talk to any natives except a tour guide or two. I just can't help but keep the history in mind when I go places, and in that case remember most of those old buildings I was admiring were built by slave labor. Very interesting history we have in this country - mainly because it is so recent. Most of the ruins all over the world were built by slave labor but I don't think so much about it because it was so long ago.

    anyway, a different experience than sightseeing in the north!

    Parent

    Ruffian (none / 0) (#34)
    by CoralGables on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 03:39:43 PM EST
    I've been to Charleston more than a handful of times and always enjoy the architecture, the old churches, and the cemeteries. My daughter enjoys the King Street shopping and of course the market.

    We did the Fort Sumter trip once and the thought of being inside those walls with the cannons blasting day after day is mind-boggling.

    Parent

    And of course (none / 0) (#36)
    by CoralGables on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 03:47:08 PM EST
    during baseball season a trip to Joseph P. Riley, Jr. Park for some RiverDog Ripple or, if you're a runner, the Cooper River Bridge Run all make it a great place, but may be growing a little too fast to maintain its charm.

    Parent
    and also (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Madeline on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 05:12:21 PM EST
    Happy Birthday!

    Parent
    Oh, and also, power had just gone out (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:29:40 PM EST
    when we landed at home airport.  Rumor had it later flights would be diverted to LAX.  We really lucked out.  Bday magic.

    Parent
    Addendum: neither kdog not jeffinalabama (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:30:31 PM EST
    showed up!

    Parent
    Probably didn't want to be surrounded by (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 03:33:05 PM EST
    so many progressives! You know how they are...

    :-)

    Parent

    Actually, younger brother was going on (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 04:11:13 PM EST
    about Rahm (I asked) re bike path to downtown Chicago and how he isn't buckling to the unions as the Daleys did.  Of course, the back seat was filled with former public employees.  And older brother's solution to Medicare/health care crisis is some kind of medical care savings account, which, when one depletes it, that's it, folks.

    Parent
    Regretably... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 05:07:19 PM EST
    absent, glad you somehow managed to enjoy your bday bash without me:)

    Happy Birthday young lady!

    Parent

    You were needed in the sump pump (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 05:20:25 PM EST
    supply chain!

    Parent
    I'm from Uniontown (none / 0) (#52)
    by Madeline on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 05:10:25 PM EST
    right down the mountain from Laurel Highlands.  I love those mountains. Also where I developed admiration for Frank Lloyd Wright. You take visiting relatives there enough, you sound like a tour guide!

    Feels good that someone on a blog admired my hometown area too.

    Thanks

    Parent

    Absolutely beautiful We agreed the (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 05:21:58 PM EST
    rain enhanced the foliage/architecture.  Made it difficult to get the "money" photo of our group, with the water and the house above.  We did wave to the webcam.  

    Parent
    But what the heck is in those choc. (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 05:26:22 PM EST
    Gobs?  

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#103)
    by Madeline on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 10:00:07 PM EST
    Yep.  They are whoopie pies...sort of.  Instead of marshmallow they are made with butter cream. Good aren't they?

    Somehow Eastern Pa whoopie pies turned into "gobs"
    in Western, Pa.

    The Amish in E.Pa make them with marshmallow and icing. Evidently Maine was upset as they state they are the original Whoopie bakers. The Amish yelled back: "You have blueberry pie!" Maine yelled back: Don't matter. Whoopie is ours! So Maine passed a resolution that the Whoopie Pie is now their their state's official "treat".  

    In Western Pa just gobs. They claim they brought football to the world.  Who cares about who first made gobs.


    Parent

    Rumor has it there is Crisco in the (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 10:03:57 PM EST
    center filling.  We all liked the Hagen ice cream lots.  

    Parent
    Is that like (none / 0) (#108)
    by CoralGables on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 10:13:20 PM EST
    a Mobile Moon Pie?

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#114)
    by Madeline on Sat Sep 10, 2011 at 01:09:55 AM EST
    Moon pies are made with cookies while gobs are made with cake.

    Parent
    So much junk food for me to learn (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by CoralGables on Sat Sep 10, 2011 at 01:33:53 AM EST
    and so little time to taste it all.

    Thank you for the goblicious education. I visited my good friend google to further shore up
    My Knowledge of Gob

    Parent

    frankly, after last night's (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by cpinva on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 04:44:14 PM EST
    "jobs proposal" speech, it won't just be seniors tossing him under a bus, it will also be the millions of un & underemployed helping throw him there.

    i was less than whelmed.

    Obviously some are happy (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by CoralGables on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 05:18:01 PM EST
    Partial quotes...

    From NOW:

    "The National Organization for Women urges Congress to take up President Obama's American Jobs Act immediately. While not everything we could have wished for, the president's bill is a substantial step toward rebuilding our country's shaky economy".

    From the National Women's Law Center:

    "The plan outlined by the President will help create jobs, grow the economy, and alleviate hardship for millions of families".

    Parent

    "Grow the economy"? Such abuse of (none / 0) (#60)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 05:23:20 PM EST
    the English language.  Which is, of course, "transitioning."  

    Parent
    Almost like the universal use of (none / 0) (#79)
    by christinep on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 06:07:37 PM EST
    "transparency" these days. (I'm a bit of a word-nut.) Everytime I hear it, saran wrap comes to mind. "Open" would be nice, uh.

    Parent
    Allmost forgot (none / 0) (#87)
    by christinep on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 06:56:02 PM EST
    One usage of recent vintage: "primary" as a verb.

    Parent
    Or... (none / 0) (#106)
    by NYShooter on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 10:06:18 PM EST
    "we have to grow the economy?"

    Parent
    Riddle me this: Front of refrig. door (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 05:25:19 PM EST
    has a button to push to get ice cubes.  Hasn't worked forever.  But today, after the 12-hr. power outage:  it works!  

    It was (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by CoralGables on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 05:37:09 PM EST
    transitioning.

    Parent
    Needed a reset? (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by sj on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 05:38:20 PM EST
    But, its not on my "radar screen" (none / 0) (#80)
    by christinep on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 06:08:54 PM EST
    goes back to the standard (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by CST on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 05:39:59 PM EST
    IT crowd response:

    "Have you tried turning it off and on again?"

    Parent

    ATT store guy: did you take the battery (none / 0) (#76)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 05:42:03 PM EST
    out?  

    Parent
    it rebooted... (none / 0) (#84)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 06:47:49 PM EST
    because (none / 0) (#85)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 06:48:17 PM EST
    it needed a boot

    Parent
    Probably it had an ice block (none / 0) (#123)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 10, 2011 at 10:27:42 AM EST
    that melted with the power off.

    Parent
    Oh. (none / 0) (#136)
    by sj on Mon Sep 12, 2011 at 10:02:00 AM EST
    Well. That makes the most sense.  :)

    Parent
    It should be fascinating... (none / 0) (#2)
    by sweetthings on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 01:54:16 PM EST
    Watching seniors try to decide between Obama and Perry. And I'm not being sardonic, here. That really is going to be a tough choice.

    Do you go with the centrist Democrat, who at least doesn't call it a Ponzi scheme but who obviously thinks entitlement programs in the US are out of control and presumably has the clout with Democrats in the legislature to make it happen, or do you go with the guy who wants to scrap the whole thing on the hope that Democrats in the Congress with finally develop a spine and block something?

    Yuck.

    I vote for the best shot at gridlock (none / 0) (#4)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:01:43 PM EST
    Obama + Boehner/Cantor. The GOP is not going to let Obama get the credit for dismantling the entitlements they have been trying to get rid of forever.

    I don't trust the Dems to stand up to Perry + Boehner/Cantor.

    Parent

    The best shot (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by CST on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:12:51 PM EST
    has got to be winning the house back.

    I don't trust Obama.  I do trust Pelosi on this.

    And yea, anyone who expects a democratic minority to stop a perry/boehner/cantor nightmare scenario is smoking something good and I want some.

    Parent

    Yes indeed... I guess I am beyond hope for (none / 0) (#7)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:15:19 PM EST
    that. Could happen though - there is so much 'throw them all out' attitude these days that there could be another upheaval next year.

    Parent
    I think it's a toss up (none / 0) (#12)
    by CST on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:19:43 PM EST
    Honestly, it's probably a package deal with Obama.

    I think we have a better shot of taking the house back than we do of keeping the senate.

    Parent

    I would rather take the House than keep the Senate (none / 0) (#13)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:23:18 PM EST
    at this point. The Senate is controlled by the GOP filibuster anyway - they may as well be the majority.

    I agree that if Obama is popular enough next yer to win then it may help get the House back. I don't see getting the house back if the country thinks Perry is a good idea.

    Parent

    agreed (none / 0) (#15)
    by CST on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:27:12 PM EST
    the senate has proven themselves to be rather useless either way.  But without the house you can't even get out of the gate.

    If we get Perry, it's pretty clear to me that Dems are toast.  House, senate, all of it is gone.

    Parent

    Yup, that's how I feel (none / 0) (#20)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:37:58 PM EST
    Perry signifies national nervous breakdown to me.

    Parent
    This (none / 0) (#11)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:19:16 PM EST
    a perry/boehner/cantor nightmare scenario

    is the best and only inspiration.

    Parent

    Perry plus Pelosi et al (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:15:48 PM EST
    would be preferrable because austerity, whether it be Obama's or Perry's will be disastrous and reult in another transfer of power in 2016, and because I think Pelosi and Reid will find it easier to oppose Perry's entitlment cut proposals than Obama's.

    Obama can and will harm your retirement.  Perry will just want to.  And maybe, maybe a real Democrat will emerge in 2016 to deal with what is almost certainly going to be a decade of econmic misery.

    A less than optimal choice, but that's what we face.

    Parent

    I think Perry + Pelosi/Reid is a highly (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:19:11 PM EST
    unlikely outcome. I'm not gaming that one out.

    Parent
    To: BobTinKY (none / 0) (#88)
    by christinep on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 07:02:26 PM EST
    Opting for a Repub like Perry w/Pelosi reminds me of a supplemental that Repubs seem to be using: To their "We must hang together or surely we'll hang separately" (as seen in the "no" to everything since spring 2009)...add their attempt to divide Dems. When ole' Cheney recently suggested that Hillary Clinton should enter a primary against the President, e.g., that became too obvious.  Nonetheless, it does seem that divisive efforts can be presumed to ramp up.

    Nice try.

    Parent

    You forgot (none / 0) (#37)
    by jbindc on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 03:52:40 PM EST
    Romney (won't be Perry) / Boehner /Cantor /MCConnell

    Parent
    question about Romney (none / 0) (#38)
    by CST on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 04:08:37 PM EST
    if the whole plan is to kick Dems out to teach them a lesson, and then have republicans proove how bad they are so we get real Dems back - where does Romney fit into that picture?

    He is a Republican who can stay in power longer.  And he is not beholden to any Dem "base" groups the way Obama is.  While Obama may forget that a lot of times, sometimes he remembers and we get DADT repealed, or a more sensible approach to deporting people.  That stuff isn't going to happen with a president Romney.

    Here's one thing that will happen with a president Romney - more tax cuts, worse economic imbalance, and less regulation.  And all that could quite possibly be for a very long period of time.  And I certainly wouldn't trust him with any kind of social safety net.

    How is Romney in any way the answer to this?

    Parent

    i remember that Democrats in Congress, (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 04:38:25 PM EST
    who were in the minority in 2005, beat back a Republican president's attempt to partially privatize Social Security

    i also remember that the same A-list bloggers who are craven Obama apologists today were the ones who led the charge against SS privatization back then

    for me, those memories - that actual experience, in addition to the actual experience of seeing Democrats in Congress & A-list bloggers endorse a Democratic president's efforts to weaken the social safety net - are more persuasive than any hypothetical argument that a Republican president would necessarily be worse on the social safety net

    Obama will win or lose without my one little vote in my deep-blue state, & right now i think we're at least as likely to have President Romney as we are to have a second-term President Obama because i believe that liberals and progressives are quickly tiring of Obama's fecklessness or double-dealing (according to how they see his actions in office) & that the rest of the country is tiring of his fecklessness, whining & condescension

    i'm glad i have the luxury of voting Green or writing in Bernie Sanders for president, as a matter or principle, while voting for every Democratic and/or progressive candidate downticket

    Parent

    you know what I don't remember (none / 0) (#45)
    by CST on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 04:43:30 PM EST
    Democrats in congress caving to pressure from a president Obama to eliminate the social safety net.

    Parent
    to refresh your memory (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 05:04:06 PM EST
    this:

    Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) said Tuesday that "revenue, tax reform, spending and entitlements" must all be on the table when considering ways to trim the deficit, as Congress heads for a showdown over the budget.

    "The American people deserve a serious dialogue about our fiscal situation, discretionary spending, entitlements, and revenues," Kerry said on the Senate floor while discussing budget negotiations. "We need a long-term solution to reduce both our current budget deficit and our staggering debt."

    "To do this, we'll need to reduce federal spending and make appropriate changes to our entitlement programs. To do it right, everything - revenue, tax reform, spending and entitlements - must be on the table. We must find a way to share the sacrifices necessary to balance our budget while making the kind of investments that will create new industries and jobs."

    and this:

    [T]he real problem for our country is not the short-term debt. We can deal with that. It's the long-term debt. It's the structural debt of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid measured against the demographics of our nation.

    of course, you could always say that John Kerry doesn't really believe these things, & that he's just playing along because he really wants that SoS job - but caving to pressure, whatever his motive?

    yeah, i think so

    now run along & do your own homework


    Parent

    oh, & by the way (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 05:10:19 PM EST
    you seriously misrepresented what i said

    i said "seeing Democrats in Congress & A-list bloggers endorse a Democratic president's efforts to weaken the social safety net"

    i said nothing about "Democrats in congress caving to pressure from a president Obama to eliminate the social safety net"

    as it happens, i do believe that the interests whose water Obama is carrying are intent on eliminating the social safety net

    but that's not what i said in the comment you misquoted

    nevertheless, your misrepresentation of my words does betray your own insight into the long-term impact of Obama's actions

    Parent

    yes (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by CST on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 05:17:18 PM EST
    I believe actual policy matters more than what people say about that policy.

    Especially in an era where people tend to get the news they want rather than get the news they need.

    Parent

    as i said earlier (none / 0) (#63)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 05:26:02 PM EST
    i'm glad i have the luxury of voting Green or writing in Bernie Sanders for president, as a matter or principle, while voting for every Democratic and/or progressive candidate downticket

    that's my plan, & it's based on the experience i cited upthread

    & again, my vote doesn't matter in deep-blue CA

    Parent

    You're right (none / 0) (#71)
    by sj on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 05:36:51 PM EST
    Actual policy is more important.  That's indisputable.

    But here is the dilemma.  If one waits until the policy is actually adopted or ready to be acted on, it is already too late.  Like I said earlier:  by the time the voter gets to the ballot box the heavy lifting is already done.  

    This is just as true when discussing a legislative body.  It is the rare measure that has an uncertain outcome by the time it is brought to the legislative body.  I'm asking you to please believe that.  

    Trial balloons need to be burst and comment pushback needs to happen immediately. Rattle those cages long and hard before they have a chance to get comfortable in them, I say.

    Parent

    To: Addams family (none / 0) (#89)
    by christinep on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 07:11:20 PM EST
    Know that I respect you...because you respect others.

    I will pledge this: Should President Obama ever attempt to privatize Social Security or do anything to destroy/harm/minimize Social security, I will leave him and seriously consider leaving the Democratic Party. This is not just a pledge to you; it is a pledge to myself & my forebears. (Heck, my Dad would roll over in his grave if I did anything else.)

    My message: I hear your concern, and it is important to push back even on rumors of harm to Social Security. So...push.  Yet, let us also hold some reserve that a lot of rumors extist, a lot of positioning is going on, and --since Obama is clearly a pragmatist--the idea that a Democrat would go anywhere near that is questionable. (Sometimes, the other party displays its real cards with a bit of titillation, btw.)

    Parent

    thanks for the compliment, christine (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 10:27:24 PM EST
    all the more appreciated for being so often undeserved

    with respect to the social safety net, i hope that Obama & the Democrats will not act in ways that would harm early Boomers like myself, or future seniors of younger generations, particularly people in so-called Generation X, many of whom have had a pretty raw deal all their adult lives

    i hope that Obama & the Democrats will not act in ways that would nullify the political philsophy underlying the social safety net, or in ways that would nullify the work & sacrifices of your dad & all our forebears

    i wish i could be as sanguine as you are, but in fact i think that for Democrats even to talk of putting "entitlements" "on the table" crushes the hopes i've just expressed

    i will say this: raising the age of Medicare to 67 doesn't sound so unreasonable if the plan is to do it on a very protracted basis over, say, 20 years, & i could accept a delay of a few months for myself (even though i have not had a real job since 2003 & find myself all but unemployable at 62 & am now living on savings that were meant for much later in life while i attempt in this climate to get a small business off the ground)

    i agree that we need to know more about what is being or may be proposed, though i also have to say that Obama's style of negotiating (if that's what he's actually doing) does not inspire confidence

    i believe & sense that ours is a nation in steep decline, that our so-called leaders are feckless & clueless when they're not venal & corrupt, & that future generations on the whole may not be as healthy even at 62 as i (luckily) am now

    & if that turns out to be the case, age 70 will not be in the future what it is for some people today, & it will not be reasonable for Medicare to be withheld until age 70

    Parent

    Guess BobTinKY was right and I was wrong (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by MO Blue on Sat Sep 10, 2011 at 09:09:03 AM EST
    He claimed that the "well I got mine" people wouldn't care if the age got changed and I disagreed.

    My fear is the raising eligibility to 67 yo specter is going uncorrected so that once the gradual phase in is announced people over 60 will say, "Oh, that's not as bad as I feared."

    Well, over 60s, it is as bad as you feared just not for you.  And so I hope your outrage is not diminished when the actual, cynical phase-in is proposed. BobTinKY

    Raising the Medicare age is an extremely bad idea whether it happens tomorrow or gradually over a 20 year period. The reasons why raising the Medicare age is an extremely bad idea do not change if you are not personally harmed by them or not harmed very much.

    Parent

    Well, Blue, they're already getting us (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Anne on Sat Sep 10, 2011 at 09:47:36 AM EST
    conditioned to accept high unemployment, so why shouldn't they expect to condition us to changes in safety net programs?  We'll go from "I'm just grateful I have a job - even if I'm working more and making less, have had my benefits reduced, am afraid to complain about anything because there are so many people who would be happy to have my job," to "well, at least we still have Medicare and SS, even if the benefits are lower, and I have to wait longer, and even if the changes they made aren't really saving money like they said they would, or made the programs stronger."

    We never thought we'd willingly pay so much for gas - and yet here we are, doing just that - and being happy when it's "only" $3.60 a gallon!

    We've seemingly accepted that the government will intrude on our privacy when it deems appropriate, regardless of what the law says, a lot of people accepted torture, have barely batted an eye at assassination orders against American citizens.  Crowds cheered Rick Perry's unabashed admisssion that he never thinks any of the hundreds of  people whose death orders he's signed might be innocent - he sleeps just fine, thank you very much.

    People can get used to anything - even craptastic representation - and be happy that their guy isn't as bad as the other guy.  Jesus, someone on one of these threads said that the "fighting" tone of Obama's speech made him/her want to enthusiastically support him in 2012; all I could think was, "Really?  After two-plus years of conservative policy, riding roughshod over the American people, failing to do what Democrats expected of him, he raises his voice, shows some passion, and now you're running back with open arms?  Man, are you a cheap date."  

    Of course, the powers that be expect us to get used to whatever over-the-top policy they come up with, because we just keep taking it, because we don't think we have any choice, and we believe we don't have any real power.

    Do we have a line in the sand, something that will happen that will make us rise up?  Or are we broken, are they happy to have us all blog-venting because we can get it out of our systems without ever actually doing anything about it?

    I'm kind of reaching shut-down point, where I am so tired of my own anger and feeling it swamp the joys in my life - and so aware that nothing I do changes anything that's being pushed on us - that I am feeling the need to let go of it.

    Yeah, it feels like this might be what they want me to do, but I'm reaching the point where I have to find other ways to feel in control, to make order out of my own little world.  

    I have to look out for me - and I deserve to be happy.  We all do.

    Parent

    Yes, it is definitely beginning to (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by MO Blue on Sat Sep 10, 2011 at 10:38:31 AM EST
    feel that that war was already fought and lost. Agree with what you are saying on all fronts and am completely lost about what to do about it. Just to highlight one of the things that your mentioned:

    A friend in her fifties, a very talented lady, had her entire department eliminated. She is currently working as a temp making a fraction of what she made in her previous job. Of course, temp positions are without any benefits. The company expects her to work through her lunch hour. She knows that this is illegal but as she says, "What can I do? I need the job."

    People on the web rail against the politicians for caving yet time and time again they are more than willing to move the goal posts on what is acceptable. We expect the politicians to have a line in the sand when we do not. {sad}

     

    Parent

    You want it all! (none / 0) (#125)
    by Politalkix on Sat Sep 10, 2011 at 11:36:55 AM EST
    Anne wrote:"We never thought we'd willingly pay so much for gas - and yet here we are, doing just that - and being happy when it's "only" $3.60 a gallon!"

    Anne, Even $3.60 a gallon is pretty low compared to what people in the rest of the world pay. Please see link gas prices in Europe and other countries.
    We pay such low prices for gas only because we are a military superpower that engages in every corner of the globe. The high standard of living in our country that you feel we are losing (I feel that we are going through a downturn but will recover) has always been possible because of our military superpower status. However, you and MO Blue have also advocated closing bases around the world and reducing our military expenditure. In other words you want it all. You want the government to provide you cheap gas, drastically cut our defense expenditure as well as work towards passing the most environmentally stringent laws in the country. That is not possible. The delusion or hypocrisy in wanting it all shines through your and MO Blue's posts.

    Parent

    Gas Prices around the World (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Politalkix on Sat Sep 10, 2011 at 01:24:41 PM EST
    The gas prices that I provided in my previous post was from 2005. Please see gas prices around the world in 2011.

    I support transitioning to more stringent environmental regulations (and development of non fossil fuel energy resources and reducing energy consumption per capita) and a smarter foreign policy that will focus less on militaristic solutions. However, I am also willing to pay what people in other industrialized nations in Europe pay for gas. Will people in our country be ready to pay high gas prices even in the short term? (when I can see that even a low gas price of $3.60 per gallon upset Anne who considers herself to be a liberal).

    Parent

    Anne "considers herself to be a liberal" (none / 0) (#137)
    by sj on Mon Sep 12, 2011 at 10:04:05 AM EST
    because she is one.  

    What a condescending statement.  And good job on avoiding the primary point of her comment.

    Parent

    Just pure B.S (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 12, 2011 at 10:38:58 AM EST
    Never once have I advocated for cheap gas.

    The delusion or hypocrisy in distorting everyone's comments shines through each and every one of your posts. You attack others but when people call you on your attacks or your complete hypocrisy and distortion of facts you whine to Jeralyn that people are stalking you. Please Jeralyn make people quit picking on poor, poor little Politalkix.

    Not too long ago you requested me not comment on your posts because I could prove that your comments were distorting the facts. I guess that now gives you permission to attack me at your pleasure and if I respond, you will whine to Jeralyn that I am stalking you. Well whine away. No one is stalking you but many are calling you out for your hypocrisy and distortion of facts as well they should.  

    Parent

    Except (none / 0) (#135)
    by jbindc on Mon Sep 12, 2011 at 08:44:02 AM EST
    Who cares what people around the world are paying for gas?  How does that affect me and people here when it comes to being able to make ends meet?

    And how does that compare to say Europe, where you can drive 50 miles and be in 2 other countries?

    This is THE strawman of strawmen arguments.

    Parent

    except for my saying "70" instead of (none / 0) (#126)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Sep 10, 2011 at 12:27:44 PM EST
    "67" at the end of my comment (a mistake), i think the rest of what i said is clear enough

    i even made a particular point of mentioning my concern about generations younger than mine

    i expressly stated why raising the Medicare eligibility age is not likely to be a good idea, now or in the future

    & as i said, even in my severely reduced circumstances, i personally can accept the possibility of waiting a few more months for coverage IF that brief delay will do anything at all to preserve Medicare for future generations - see that big IF, and the hypothetical proposition that follows it?

    i strongly disagree with your characterization of my comment as putting me among the " 'well i got mine' people," & not just because i clearly haven't "got mine"

    Parent

    This seemed pretty clear to me (none / 0) (#128)
    by MO Blue on Sat Sep 10, 2011 at 01:20:11 PM EST
    i will say this: raising the age of Medicare to 67 doesn't sound so unreasonable if the plan is to do it on a very protracted basis over, say, 20 years, & i could accept a delay of a few months for myself (even though i have not had a real job since 2003 & find myself all but unemployable at 62 & am now living on savings that were meant for much later in life while i attempt in this climate to get a small business off the ground)

    I take it that your heart is in the right place but please reconsider why you now think maybe it isn't so unreasonable to raise the age to 67. The people who are pushing this extremely bad idea are counting on you and others in your age group and mine to accept this since it APPEARS it will not effect us too much. The people who are pushing "Obama is saving the safety net programs by cutting them" are counting on you and others in your age group and mine to accept that this is not an unreasonable thing to do even when it is.  

    Please consider: Why does spreading it out over 20 years made it a reasonable proposal? Maybe you can accept a delay of a few months. O.K. but like BobTinKY said others will have to wait years. The reasons why this proposal will not do anything but shift costs from the federal government to employers, individuals and state governments does not change because you can accept a delay of a few months so that others will be forced to accept a delay of two years. The fact that this shift will cost all age groups more money does not change because you delay of a few months so that others behind you will be forced to accept a delay of two years. Those cost shifts will begin to occur the minute you start moving older people from Medicare into the private insurance market.

    Parent

    i do understand all that (none / 0) (#130)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Sep 10, 2011 at 01:46:24 PM EST
    maybe in my original comment i should have bolded the word "sound" - my thought was that it doesn't sound so unreasonable (even though it's a bad idea), & if it doesn't "sound" unreasonable, then, yes, many people around my age might accept a delay of a few months (but with the consequences you describe)

    i am against raising the Medicare eligibility age, for all the reasons you've given here & for the reasons stated in my original comment

    i understand the need to push back, right now, against these terrible proposals, & i take your previous comment to me as doing that

    but thanks for this more tempered response to what i wrote

    Parent

    Sorry if I came on too strongly (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by MO Blue on Sat Sep 10, 2011 at 02:06:29 PM EST
    in my initial response and misinterpreted what you wrote.

    I guess I just think that there is an ongoing effort to make what use to be unthinkable seem reasonable. We are getting bombarded from every front with misinformation. Recently I have encountered too many people around me of all age groups start to move from knowing that these are really bad ideas to thinking that they might be acceptable or reasonable after all. They are willing to sacrifice a "little" so that others may get something. The sound bite of "strengthening the programs" is just a lie to promote this agenda. IMO those behind us won't get more due to our sacrifice because the funds are going to be used for more corporate welfare,  to further reduce taxes for those who already have more than they will ever need and to fund our never ending wars.  

    Parent

    Did you read this? I saw it via (none / 0) (#132)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 10, 2011 at 02:10:39 PM EST
    Another good post on (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by MO Blue on Sat Sep 10, 2011 at 02:49:15 PM EST
    how the Sensible People use the "purity troll" to manipulate people.

    Recently, in a Twitter discussion with a normally-sensible person, the topic of Obama vs. the Progs came up, and the first thing Normally-Sensible Person did was to start yammering about the alleged progressive obsession with "purity", when in fact the discussion wasn't about purity (whatever that is nowadays) at all.

    It occurs to me that in fact the self-styled sensible types are not arguing against "purity" but the progressives' right to exist, much less speak out. When somebody condemns Obama's jones to rob Medicare and Social Security so he can please the rich corporate interests whose 2012 cash he craves, the Sensible Ones immediately start singing the Purity Troll Chorus. When somebody (a somebody who likely spent much of 2007 and 2008 phonebanking for Obama) asks why people like Dan Choi are put on trial for allegedly desecrating the White House grounds with their presence yet drunken frat boys are allowed to puke on, pee on, and swing from White House trees, the Sensible Ones retort with "So are you voting for Perry or Bachmann?"  



    Parent
    Yes, I read that on Hullabaloo (none / 0) (#133)
    by MO Blue on Sat Sep 10, 2011 at 02:42:31 PM EST
    Sad state of affairs that we are bombarded with propaganda and misinformation from the majority of our politicians and the media. Those speaking the truth are either ignored, ridiculed or arrested.  

    Parent
    Beautifully said, Addams Family (none / 0) (#127)
    by christinep on Sat Sep 10, 2011 at 12:27:47 PM EST
    At some point, when we have negotiated these waters, I'd be curious to learn more of the business that you are now initiating. Best wishes on that endeavor...you do have guts.

    BTW, the negotiating style in the WH causes me to lose the fingernails. My own approach to negotiation tends to be more direct; but, the style we seem to be seeing from the WH reminds me of an earlier manager in my Agency. He was my boss way back when...could be a blue-ribbon winner for holding his cards & wanted everyone else to go first...drove me nuts. Sometimes, tho, he did pull out the biggies in terms of strategic wins.  The meshing of styles, IMO, can be one of lifes more perplexing challenges.

    And, there are middle-of-the-night times that I feel that sense you express in your second to last paragraph. Maybe because of this particular commemorative weekend...but, we did lose so much of ourselves in some ways. A long US winter for ten years.  Then, its the old hope thing, and faith in ourselves that it will get better and that humanity progresses on this earth.

    Parent

    What about Medicare? (none / 0) (#90)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 07:28:25 PM EST
    What if he touches that?

    Parent
    Historically, things have been "touched" (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by christinep on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 08:15:28 PM EST
    Look, if a Democrat openly seeks--not whispers, rumors, nor rumors of war or this--to destroy/harm/minimize Medicare, the same applies.

    Recognize, tho, that my position as to shoring up a program like Medicare, a program that does have some overall monetary issues down the road (unlike the funded Social Security program), does not mirror the same concern as Jeralyn's. While I am very, very skeptical about raising the age to 67, my ears & mind are not closed to adjustments that are not harming the program overall. As Social Security matured, for example, adjustments were made to applicability in terms of age. Again, the Medicare situation--whether there is any actual proposed age change or not--needs to be explained. Until there is evidence indicating that such an adjustment is needed (really needed) to ensure the full furtherance of Medicare, we need to be skeptical. (Not a black & white answer; but, that is my honest opinion.)

    Parent

    Medicare and Medicaid was touched in 1997 (none / 0) (#97)
    by Politalkix on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 08:37:35 PM EST
    by another Democratic President when he signed the Balanced Budget Amendment Act. It is therefore important to keep an open mind.

    Parent
    NY Times article from Medicare cuts (none / 0) (#100)
    by Politalkix on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 08:49:40 PM EST
    during Clinton Presidency. link

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 09:22:53 PM EST
    but the funding was completely restored in the next budget.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#102)
    by Politalkix on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 09:48:48 PM EST
    It was not "completely restored". You will also have to develop consistent standards regarding criticism, otherwise it looks very politically motivated.

    Parent
    You don't (none / 0) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 10:10:07 PM EST
    have consistent political beliefs or you would be all over Obama. Was the funding increased or not?
    Instead, Clinton released his own set of recommendation on June 29, 1999. The central feature in Clinton's plan was a transfer of $794 billion in surplus general tax revenues to the Medicare program from 2000 through 2014, extending the program's insolvency date. Clinton's plan would have also created a new prescription drug benefit and eliminated copayments and deductibles for preventive care.

    Following this impasse, and facing increased political pressure from health care providers, Congress began to reverse some of the spending cuts in the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. In late 1999, Congress enacted legislation restoring $35 billion in Medicare and Medicaid funding to hospitals, nursing homes and health plans over five years. In 2000 Congress restored another $16 billion in Medicare funding to various providers. Significant structural reforms, however, were put off until the coming session of Congress.




    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#111)
    by Politalkix on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 11:53:28 PM EST
    Some (not all) funding was increased later (after hospitals and pharma started insisting on it) which mainly padded the bottom lines of big pharma but a significant amount of Medicare cuts were made in 1997 and not restored.
    Listen, I have no interest in arguing with you. I brought up Pres. Clinton's record only after some of you repeatedly said that no Democratic President before BHO had put Medicare on the table to balance budgets. If some of you did not write such falsehoods, I would not have bothered to post anything about Pres. Clinton's record.  There is no issue of inconsistency with me. I have also never said that Pres. Clinton should not have been Prez (unlike what you say about BHO everyday). I am also more accepting of the fact that different people can have different preferences based on issues or other things unlike a lot of people in this blog (including you). Anyways...

    Parent
    That's not an "inconsistency" (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Yman on Sat Sep 10, 2011 at 09:57:49 AM EST
    There is no issue of inconsistency with me. I have also never said that Pres. Clinton should not have been Prez (unlike what you say about BHO everyday).

    Just an opinion ... a logical one.

    Parent

    NO (none / 0) (#117)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Sep 10, 2011 at 07:41:01 AM EST
    Democratic president has ever offered to start dismantling the program like Obama has. No Democratic president has offered up cuts in social security like Obama has. He's been a disaster seven ways to Sunday that's why it's really hard to argue that he needs to win next year. He really is doing the things that his hero Reagan wanted to do but couldn't.

    Parent
    Heh - from a CDSer (none / 0) (#120)
    by Yman on Sat Sep 10, 2011 at 09:54:46 AM EST
    It was not "completely restored". You will also have to develop consistent standards regarding criticism, otherwise it looks very politically motivated.

    That's funny.

    Parent

    EVERY President signs bills ... (none / 0) (#122)
    by Yman on Sat Sep 10, 2011 at 10:08:03 AM EST
    ... which "touch" Medicare.

    Adjusting the formula for Medicare providers is not even close to the same thing as raising the eligibility age for recipients or cutting benefits.  The SGR introduced by the Republican Congress in 1997 was a flawed formula, which even they realized very quickly.

    Parent

    It won't be (none / 0) (#42)
    by jbindc on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 04:27:43 PM EST
    But we aren't going to win the House back and the Senate looks to be in trouble.  Electing a real Republican or a fake one after that (Obama) - what's the difference?

    Parent
    I dunno (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by CST on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 04:38:40 PM EST
    Why don't you ask a gay person who serves in the military.

    Or someone who's spouse just didn't get deported.

    Or someone who works for GM for that matter.  Remember Romney's lovely Wall Street Journal op-ed telling the government to let Detroit take it on the chin?

    I'm sorry but these things do not add up to "irrelevant" to me.

    Not to mention his current economic plan is to eliminate capital gains tax and lower the corporate tax rate.  That's certainly... different.

    Parent

    All good things (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by jbindc on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 05:08:34 PM EST
    But then I look at things like:

    Unemployment getting progressively worse since he took office (yes, I know, it has nothing to do with him or his policies <snark>)

    not standing up for the weakening of labor in this country and using  those people like teachers when it's convenient

    calling Social Security an "entitlement"

    waffling on environmental issues and offshore drilling

    expanding secrecy and the loss of civil liberties

    not trying to fill judicial vacancies in a timely manner

    appointing Republicans to high posts, including as US Attorneys

    holding secret meetings with Big Pharma and health insurance companies to help write one of the worst pieces of  major legislation in a generation - one in which insurance premiums are already skyrocketing

    ....

    But I forgot that he did have time for a beer summit!

    Parent

    In fairness, though.... (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by sweetthings on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 05:18:23 PM EST
    Which of the categories you listed do you expect the Republican nominee to be better in?

    I guess they'll try to scrap Obamacare. But as for the rest...well, I'm not optimistic. The Republican 'plan' to solve unemployment will only result in returning us to an era Charles Dickens would feel at home in...it's not actually going to produce jobs. (And no, the Democrats don't have an answer to this problem either. Nobody, in any country, has a clue about what do about the fact that automation is rapidly rendering large segments of the population unprofitable.) Obama did at least attempt to save Detroit...I promise you won't get even that much out of a Republican. The won't call SS an 'entitlement...' they'll call it something much, much worse. And if you're looking to Republicans to save the environment or roll back the police state....well, I want some of your stash, because it must be awesome stuff.

    Don't get me wrong, I see exactly why you're disappointed in Obama, and it's warranted. I just don't see how Romney, or god forbid Perry, is going to be any better.

    Parent

    In fairness (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by jbindc on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 05:36:32 PM EST
    Do you think Obama suddenly gets more progressive when he becomes a lame duck and doesn't have to answer to voters anymore, but only has to answer to corporate overlords so as to ensure book deals and high priced speaking engagements after he leaves office?

    He doesn't get better in a second term. That's the reality.  So all we're left with is "he doesn't suck as bad as the other guy."

    Catch me.  I'm so overwhelmed.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#96)
    by christinep on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 08:30:12 PM EST
    it is at least as likely, if not more so, that one who had to navigate in a sharply-divided country with an opposition branding him as everything from socialist, to alien, to the he-is-the-other, amid the inherited disaster of two unpaid for wars together with the economic disaster that brought (added to the tax reductions for the wealthy)...it is every bit as likely that--after averting the classic Repub trap of being portrayed as an angry black man on top of it all--that the promise of 2008 might be realized in the second term.

    Really. One can legitimately view & argue this either way. (On a personal note: The reason for this comment is that position of the circumscribed President in the first term has been my deduction since the early give & take in the health care debate, when the degree of Repub opposition first became so apparent.)

    Parent

    Your (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 05:28:50 PM EST
    last sentence kind of says it all. Obama has been a disaster but we're going to get a bigger disaster with Romney or whoever. Pick your poison: die slowly or die quickly and that's a horrible choice nobody in this country should have to make.

    Parent
    Speaking for myself (none / 0) (#73)
    by sj on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 05:37:36 PM EST
    I don't expect things to get any better with a Republican.  In fact I don't expect things to get better for quite some time.

    In my crystal ball, the earliest opportunity for anything to get better depends on who the democratic challenger is to the republican incumbent in either 2016 or 2020.

    That's the earliest.  A Republican will follow Obama.  Either now or in 2016.  When that Republican runs for re-election the country has a prayer.

    OTOH there might be a revolution.

    Parent

    and all of that gets worse (none / 0) (#54)
    by CST on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 05:15:18 PM EST
    under President Romney.

    Parent
    You know (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 05:26:28 PM EST
    what? That's very possibly true and you're likely to see some lowest common denominator voters on that account but there's comes a point where you're so far under the bus and have been backed over and double dealed and lied to so much you just don't care anymore.

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 05:24:18 PM EST
    Obama's record on deportations tops Bush. He's actually bragged how many people he's deported. He apparently relishes doing it.

    Parent
    What result re his uncle? (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 05:27:27 PM EST
    I don't know. (none / 0) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 05:29:22 PM EST
    Google might be your friend there.

    Parent
    Hey. I've been in SW PA. Give me (none / 0) (#109)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 10:18:29 PM EST
    a break.  

    Parent
    he is out of jail (none / 0) (#69)
    by CST on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 05:33:22 PM EST
    but the media doesn't know where he is now.  Link

    And re- immigration, they just changed the policy, because of pressure from hispanic groups.  In other words, he caved to pressure from an effective part of the Dem base.

    Parent

    Perry (none / 0) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:44:23 PM EST
    isn't going to be the nominee. It was obvious after the debate. The guy made a fool of himself. That being said, it might be someone else who is just as bad on SS.

    Parent
    He has Presidential hair. He'll get (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:45:37 PM EST
    the nomination.

    Parent
    I don't necessarily agree (none / 0) (#28)
    by CST on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:54:23 PM EST
    I just liked this comment.

    Although articles like this make me think you're not too far off.  

    "In first big battle for the GOP's soul, Rick Perry comes out strong"

    Really?  That was not the TL version of that debate...

    Parent

    wow - that is one twisted soul (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 03:02:38 PM EST
    But I guess they may be just crazy enough to nominate George W. Bush all over again. Just listening to Perry's voice and accent gives me horrible flashbacks.

    Parent
    A "solid" performance (none / 0) (#32)
    by easilydistracted on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 03:34:40 PM EST
    according to several political science professors interviewed by the DFW PBS affiliate.
    I found these remarks quite interesting - particularly those of Evangelical in Iowa:
    Jillson thinks Perry also sounded less than Presidential when he suggested President Obama is a liar because Obama, during a visit to El Paso, said our border with Mexico has become safer.
    Perry: Either he has some the poorest intel of a President in the history of this country or he was an abject liar to the American people.
    Jillson: That's just language that's a bit over the top.
    But those rough moments didn't seem to bother a key Evangelical in Iowa with influence among conservative voters. Bob Vander Plaats, chief executive of the Family Leader, has been waiting to see Perry in combat and says the Governor showed voters some "Texas grit".
    Vander Plaats: He seemed relaxed. He seemed comfortable in his own skin. He didn't back down when he got pushed by others.



    Parent
    Link Here (none / 0) (#33)
    by easilydistracted on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 03:37:56 PM EST
    Right... (none / 0) (#35)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 03:41:49 PM EST
    ... because republicans would never nominate a buffoon, oh wait...

    Pretty sure that may be a requirement if the teabags have anything to say about it.

    Parent

    The only way Obama will win ... (none / 0) (#40)
    by lambert on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 04:14:04 PM EST
    ... is by becoming a wartime President.

    So, I guess we'll get (another) war. August 2012? [L|M]IHOP?

    Saw a headline stating my gal (none / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 04:27:31 PM EST
    Hillary says we shouldn't fear war.  

    Parent
    Here's what she said today on terrorism (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 06:54:21 PM EST
    Nothing about not fearing war. This is a good and positive statement.

    Hillary on not living in fear.

    Parent

    What she really said (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 08:07:33 PM EST
    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton commemorated the 10-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks by saying that the United States still has a lot to do to fight global extremism, but the country must not to repeat the mistakes of President George W. Bush's administration and sacrifice American values in the process.

    "The United States has thrived as an open society, a principled nation, and a global leader. We cannot afford to live in fear, sacrifice our values, or pull back from the world," Clinton said in a Friday morning speech at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.

     

    Link

    Maybe a HP headline?  It's amazing how "creative" they can get ... particularly when it comes to HC.

    Parent

    That (none / 0) (#98)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 08:38:33 PM EST
    statement really speaks to me. I am so d***d tired of the fear card no matter who is using it.

    Parent
    Hillary (none / 0) (#77)
    by lentinel on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 05:43:11 PM EST
    is still the person I couldn't vote for.

    Parent
    If that's what she said... (none / 0) (#81)
    by Dadler on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 06:31:52 PM EST
    ...she is truly a fetid piece of human waste.  I will hope that is not a direct quote.  Being in the world's most co-dependent marriage doesn't exactly qualify as combat experience.  Boy do I hope you are wrong on this one.

    Parent
    Google is your friend (none / 0) (#93)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 08:09:22 PM EST
    BTW - "World's most co-dependent marriage"?

    Please.

    Parent

    I couldn't retrieve the headline, which (none / 0) (#105)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 10:04:54 PM EST
    I think I saw on Roadrunner news page.  

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#82)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 06:43:08 PM EST
    googling it didn't come up with anything.

    Parent
    I still think (none / 0) (#78)
    by lentinel on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 05:52:33 PM EST
    that the ideal ticket would be Obama and Senator Tom Coburn.

    As we all remember from that prayer breakfast, a noble institution if ever there wuz, Obama referred to Senator Tom as his, "brother in Christ".

    Every since then, I have dreamed of the Christ Brothers running together as a team - jumping over party differences to join in a sublime epiphany of constitution shredding.

    I'm voting early and often.

    I think (none / 0) (#99)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 08:44:04 PM EST
    you might be onto something. He has praised Coburn numerous times.

    Parent
    Site Violator (none / 0) (#113)
    by CoralGables on Sat Sep 10, 2011 at 12:43:41 AM EST
    in all probability