home

Monday Morning Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 08:11:23 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Hitting the reset button and figuring out what is on tap for the week.

Until then, Open Thread.

< Sunday Night TV and Open Thread | Running On Results, With an Explanation . . . >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Monday Morning Open Thread | 199 comments (199 topical)
    Not good (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 08:49:26 AM EST
    "With less than $1 billion currently available for federal disaster assistance, the Federal Emergency Management Agency is temporarily suspending payments to rebuild roads, schools and other structures destroyed during spring tornadoes in Joplin, Mo. and southern states in order to pay for damage caused by Hurricane Irene." link
    Wrong on every level (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 09:10:02 AM EST
    A. what makes the more recent disasters more aid-worthy? The 72 hr media coverage?

    B. These are exactly the kinds of jobs needed to help the economy in some areas. What more of an assist from mother nature do they need?

    Parent

    But good politics, because (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by Towanda on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 09:57:14 AM EST
    Missouri and much of the Heartland already is gone for Obama, and New York and the rest of the Northeast have all of those Electoral College votes.  

    Hey, give him credit for pandering to his base states for a change!

    Parent

    My sweet Claire may not think (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 10:10:21 AM EST
    abandoning Joplin is such a great idea. Hard sell that she is taking care of her constituents when the money gets moved to the east coast.

    Not much on giving credit for robbing Peter to pay Paul for domestic needs when so very much money is spent on wars, welfare for corporations and the rich and for increased abuses of civil liberties.  

    Parent

    I wil back off on my dismay a little (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 01:28:11 PM EST
    bit, after hearing someone on the radio explain the bookkeeping of it - funds from longer term projects are diverted to the shorter term ones for the time being. If that is true and the funding for the long term projects is not cut off altogether, I support it.

    Mighty big IF these days though.

    Parent

    Proof (3.67 / 3) (#10)
    by lentinel on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 09:52:58 AM EST
    if proof be needed, that Obama is trying to use Irene to whatever political advantage he can. Neglecting other victims who are less influential is another demonstration of his talent for rewarding the rich at the expense of everyone else.

    Seeing him read us the weather reports, in his obligatory-presidential-hard-at-work-ourdoorsy-shirtsleeves, gave me the willies.

    It doesn't seem as if he has an original thought in his head.

    He is the most programmed pres. I have ever seen. Except maybe for Reagan (Obama's idol).

    But, upon reflection, even Ronnie could express a spontaneous utterance upon occasion.

    Parent

    Yes, and I understand that Eric Cantor (5.00 / 7) (#22)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 10:48:04 AM EST
    has said that any additional spending for emergency relief will have to be offset by cuts in other areas.

    What is wrong with these people?  What happens if there's another hurricane - the people affected by Irene will just be told to get to the back of the line?

    And where the hell is President Obama?  Is he relaxed enough yet?  Admittedly, I've been off the grid since sometime Saturday night, so maybe Obama's been all over the area, rolled-up shirtsleeves and sweating brow and all, but starting with the earthquake on Tuesday, and then moving on to the Irene situation, all that came through for me was that he was on vacation, and nothing was going to get in the way of his golf game or beach time.  Yeah, yeah, I know the WH travels with him, and he's way behind Bush on time away from DC, and it's all so stressful and all that other stuff.

    Whatever.  Move along.  Next!

    What do I want him to do?  Care.  I want him to care.  And he doesn't.  I want him to come out and say, "we don't ask the American people to suffer the effects of natural disasters on their own; we don't abandon them, nor do we start cutting in ways that adversely affect other people in order to get the job done."

    Except, we do - we do ask them to suffer, we do ask others to pay.  I have a hard time with that - and I want Obama to have a hard time with it, too - but he doesn't.

    Does anything move this man?  And getting his back up when people dare to question him doesn't count.  

    I'm sorry; I'm extraordinarily crabby today.  I haven't slept well for a couple nights, I need a shower, I have no idea when we're getting the power back.  I have a lot to be thankful for - no damage to my house, no flooding, got to work okay - but others have no been so fortunate.  And how we are choosing to treat people now is how we can all expect to be treated in the future.  A future that I find extremely disturbing to contemplate.

    Grrrr.

    Parent

    Caring. (none / 0) (#29)
    by lentinel on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 11:13:16 AM EST
    It takes time to decide which outfit is the proper costume for each presidential appearance.

    It's just not that easy.

    Shirtsleeves? For a Hurricane?
    Of course. Goes without saying.
    An outdoors look.

    But to roll up the sleeves or not?
    I mean, the rolled-up look is OK for campaigning, but is it presidential?

    And do we get Khakis with that?

    Parent

    We should have a system of matching funds (none / 0) (#21)
    by Politalkix on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 10:29:49 AM EST
    -Federal and State to manage disaster relief.

    Parent
    So let me get this straight (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by cal1942 on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 11:30:18 AM EST
    The state that suffered the disaster should be required to pony up matching funds?  What if  principal economic assets in that state were destroyed or severely damaged?

    Parent
    I'm expecting to hear that (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 11:39:52 AM EST
    the government will establish a new protocol for disaster declarations that will call for relief to be limited to sending a generic "I'm So Sorry For Your Loss" e-card to the governors of affected states.

    I'd label this "snark," but I'm not so sure I can do that just yet.

    Parent

    A system of matching funds (none / 0) (#44)
    by Politalkix on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 12:17:27 PM EST
    will stop the demagoguery relating to taxes in states where people believe them the most (but these states also always seem to need disaster aid more than others). Over a period of time, a system of matching funds will lead to better disaster planning and economic policy for all states. If Florida, Texas, Mississippi, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa is more disaster prone, they should plan for it by taxing their rich more, or increasing the level of corporate tax or imposing state income taxes (in states where it is not imposed), etc. If Louisiana wants the state to benefit from offshore drilling they should be ready to pay matching funds for environmental disasters that affect their tourism, etc. People in states in the north east and the west coast seem to have a better understanding of the relationship between tax policies and economic development or the role of government in disaster management, it may be time for the rest of the country to understand that nothing comes free.

    Parent
    mmm (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by CST on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 12:36:25 PM EST
    I'm not willing to teach political lessons at the end of a natural disaster "gun barrel" so to speak.

    YMMV.

    As it is, they already pay for those things, and their policy, in lots of ways.  Just look at the school systems.

    But frankly the whole point of liberal government, is that you SHARE RESOURCES, so that those who cannot provide for themselves get provided for.  You are essentially making the libertarian argument to "teach people a lesson" about liberal government.  I for one am not willing to burn down the house to make that point.

    Parent

    CST (none / 0) (#84)
    by Politalkix on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 01:37:20 PM EST
    I agree with most things you normally say but I think that you have judged my posts too harshly in this case. People in this blog were making caustic and sarcastic remarks about transfer of disaster funds from Missouri to the east coast. There is no reason why missouri has a better claim to disaster aid than vermont, new jersey or maryland. It is not like states in the south or the midwest did not not receive any disaster funding since BHO became President. States in the south and the midwest were mostly the only ones receiving aid for a very long time. The sarcastic tone of many bloggers was therefore incomprehensible from my point of view.

    I do not think that people in a lot of states understand that they are "paying for those things, and their policy, in lots of ways". They are actually quite proud of their schools because they are not creating "elitists", they are also quite proud of their "job creation record" (ask Perry about the policies he is so proud of).

    In the long run, a system of matching funds for disaster relief will be beneficial for every state. I really believe that.

    Parent

    California would be in more trouble (none / 0) (#93)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 01:47:38 PM EST
    Since they have things like earthquakes, mudslides, forest fires, etc.

    Parent
    Californians pay a lot of taxes (none / 0) (#104)
    by Politalkix on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 01:54:47 PM EST
    they put more in than they get out of the system.

    Parent
    Here, here! (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by waldenpond on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 12:04:09 PM EST
    If the people in the state only prayed more they wouldn't be hit with these disasters.  If they share the cost, they will think better next time and spend more time on their knees.

    If people really wanted jobs, they would be building churches!!!

    snort.

    Parent

    The states should have moved. (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 12:19:55 PM EST
    Geez, doesn't anyone think about that?

    The US and disasters... fail.

    Parent

    People can move between states (none / 0) (#67)
    by Politalkix on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 01:03:11 PM EST
    Geez, why didn't anyone think about that! Actually, a lot of people already did.....

    Parent
    Oy (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by sj on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 12:23:28 PM EST
    So tell me.  What do you think a federal government is actually for, anyway?  What is its raison d'etre?  

    Parent
    Apparently making the world (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 12:27:31 PM EST
    a better place through arms sales and the use of weaponry, so we can then rebuild those countries instead of our own. And guarantee profits for KBR and others at the same time.

    Parent
    I have a better idea (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 12:35:47 PM EST
    We should have a system of matching funds, Federal and State, to pay for all wars and all military expenditures.

    Parent
    And (hu)man power (none / 0) (#56)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 12:36:45 PM EST


    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#64)
    by Politalkix on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 01:00:51 PM EST
    but the southern states (including texas) may not like it. I will support this choice wholeheartedly.

    Parent
    The federal government is not a pipe (none / 0) (#62)
    by Politalkix on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 12:58:47 PM EST
    to transfer money from states that believe in a role for government (and tax people accordingly) in economic development to those states that do not believe in a role for government (and therefore do not tax people accordingly).
    Neither is the federal government entrusted with the responsibility of imposing ideology on people.
    Let people in every state decide what they want and tax themselves accordingly and be responsible for their choices!


    Parent
    Okay, so you're talking about what it's NOT (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by sj on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 01:03:51 PM EST
    But, you see, that was, and is still, not the question.

    But this outburst of "states rights" rhetoric sure explains a lot of the stuff you've been spouting here.

    Parent

    instead (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 01:51:10 PM EST
    of all this talking around the subject why don't you just advocated ending revenue sharing? Now, I happen to think that disaster relief should largely be left out of the equation but there's plenty of red states that practice large amounts of corporate welfare like SC at the expense of blue states like NY and CA.

    Parent
    Southern states (none / 0) (#112)
    by Politalkix on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 02:03:05 PM EST
    like South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, etc practise plenty of corporate welfare. It is not clear to me why in a lefty blog, no one seems interested in calling out the politics of these states on economic issues.

    Parent
    Okay, I'm going to agree with you (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Towanda on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 03:30:46 PM EST
    to an extent.  I cannot see so punishing the poor with the requirement of matching state funds, not yet -- but I can see perhaps a 10 percent requirement for starters, with a schedule to ramp it up.  More to the point, I can see enforcement of existing requirements (unless these also have gone with deregulation) that states and municipal bodies seeking federal disaster funds have DONE what is possible to prevent future such drains on our federal taxes, which hit a lot of working poor across the country as well as thee and me.

    I say this from experience in my former locale, where parts of several towns along rivers, often from pre-zoning eras, were  subject to repeated floods -- so those towns and those residents repeatedly received disaster funds.  But they didn't move.  Finally, a few years ago, some program (and I think it was partly funded by the feds under the requirements) bought those homes and replaced them with a park.

    I well remember debate about giving those folks yet more money for homes to be torn down, but the math was persuasive.  It was much cheaper to buy the homes than to keep funding the stoopid.

    Parent

    because (none / 0) (#115)
    by CST on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 02:10:55 PM EST
    your method of "calling people out" looks a lot like Katrina.

    Sure Louisiana has some backwards policies.  But the people who end up paying the ultimate price are the ones who are already disenfranchised.  It's just the economic reality of the situation.

    Trust me, they already "pay" for these things.  If you don't spend money on infrastructure, it's more likely to fail.  If you don't spend money on schools, they are more likely to fail.  You can be "proud" of being anti-elitist until the Kingdom comes, but it's not gonna help you get a good job.

    Parent

    The people who are really paying (none / 0) (#122)
    by Politalkix on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 02:20:27 PM EST
    for the failed schools and infrastructure in those states are the ones who are already disenfranchised. It is not helping in "not calling out".

    Parent
    I would also like to add (none / 0) (#123)
    by Politalkix on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 02:26:11 PM EST
    that I would prefer a mass migration of the disenfranchised from states that do not think that there is a role for government to states that believe in the role of government on economic issues.

    Parent
    this topic (none / 0) (#137)
    by the capstan on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 03:12:31 PM EST
    begins to remind me a lot of 'bitter knitters' and appalling Appalachians.  Maybe the Yanks should just have said 'goodbye' to my forebears.  Obama surely earned my non-vote the last time--and, by golly, he's done it again (with a little help)!

    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#152)
    by Politalkix on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 03:48:25 PM EST
    It seems that someone really wants to relitigate the Civil War!! Jeezus!
    I am not interested!
     

    Parent
    Then why 'call out' the (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by the capstan on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 04:16:09 PM EST
    Southern states?  The politicians do not suffer the consequences of disasters--the people do.

    Parent
    me again--for the last time tonight (none / 0) (#188)
    by the capstan on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 08:31:30 PM EST
    My personal opinion: being a citizen of the United States of America trumps being a citizen of New York, or California, or South Carolina.  I believe our constitution makes all citizen equal--even if their officials are idiots.  Nothing wrong with having states ante up part of disaster relief monies, but American citizens should not suffer because their state doesn't come up to scratch. That sounds more like a confederation of states than it does like states that are united for the good of all citizens.

    Parent
    Challenging point (none / 0) (#72)
    by christinep on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 01:16:37 PM EST
    The issues that you raise, Politalkix--about $$ distribution & its realities--should be discussed. I'm not sure that I would go as far as you might suggest in distribution/ratio. Yet, what you present addresses an interesting aspect that some have noticed about disaster relief.

    This am, e.g., I listened a bit to the Ed Schultz radio program which precedes Tom Hartman. Only a few minutes...so did not get the name of whoever was substituting...but, I stayed with it long enough to hear quizzical commentary about how it "always seems that the states...with governors who speak against government aid (etc.) are the first to have their hands out" for govt. aid when something happens to their state(s).

    I'm wondering if there is a way to publish this fact (if it is a fact) loudly & often as an "isn't it interesting that..." without being unnecessarily punitive toward the people in that state???  In the radio example, the governors of Virginia & New Jersey were named as first in line for federal funds.  For myself, I would like to see that discrepancy repeatedly noted when & if the libertarian conservative guv sticks out the hand for those federal dollars when it means his/her own posterior on the line.

    Parent

    Last I heard, Joplin is in Missouri (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 01:40:49 PM EST
    Missouri has a Democratic governor while Virgina and New Jersey have Republican governors. Yet Joplin will have $$$ it desperately needs going to VA and NJ.

    IMO there should not be this type of decision making where we deprive our citizens of the help they need, take away from some and give to others, after a disaster. The choices this country makes on allocation of funds is horrible.

    The amount the U.S. military spends annually on air conditioning in Iraq and Afghanistan: $20.2 billion, according to a former Pentagon official. link

    My grandson came back from helping out in Joplin just recently and says the conditions are still very bad. The people there have had their entire lives work wiped out in one day. $20.2 billion would go a long way to providing disaster relief there and in the NE without having to rob Peter to pay Paul.
         

    Parent

    I agree...my emphasis here is (none / 0) (#94)
    by christinep on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 01:49:03 PM EST
    on the hypocrisy of the governors with the hands out when it is them, but not until.

    Parent
    Christinep (none / 0) (#99)
    by Politalkix on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 01:52:30 PM EST
    You are absolutely correct. I am tired of people like Perry, Jindal and others tripping everyone else in line so that they can be the first people in line to receive Federal dollars and then turn around and loudly shout their anti-tax rhetoric.
    We should be loudly publicizing this hypocrisy. Unfortunately, too many people on the left are only interested in going after the President on every matter.


    Parent
    I'm tired of it, too. Perhaps the (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 03:21:09 PM EST
    President should be tired of it as well...and speak out!

    No, I'm not 'after him on every subject,' but dammit there are so many targets to take him to task on...a new one almost every day.

    Back to the hypocrisy of anti-gov't Rs re taxes, etc.  I thought at the time of Katrina that it was a teachable moment.  I am one of those tough love liberals who think that when the feds didn't fix the levies, the state was guilty of one of those feasances, mis or mal, and should have been responsible for preventing the problems which developed. They should have raised taxes to pay for it.  Instead, they blamed the fed gov't.

    In my state, it's oil spillage from tankers and ships who lose steerage.  We got federal help, finally, but meanwhile paid ourselves for tugs to be stationed near the problem area.

    Parent

    Same tough-love here too (none / 0) (#145)
    by christinep on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 03:32:57 PM EST
    Can I ask then, oldpro, about some practical tips for publishing these convenient I'll-take-the-money-when-it-hits-home. Given some of your earlier recounting of effective actions, I'm guessing that you might have a few pointers on this.

    Yes, at a point after the floodwaters recede in the latest, I agree that a well-timed remark from Obama would help. Yet, I know too that the coordinated use of regional surrogates can spell it out in regional media quite effectively. The push-pull of the political point might best be left to the surrogates.

    Parent

    Too big a problem for my small (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 04:54:58 PM EST
    suggestions!  It's way bigger than this one issue and the problem is education of the public.  That used to be the job of the Democratic Party but now that it is as corrupt as the R Party, both in values and behavior, some new 'agency' to educate the public on all progressive fronts is needed.  One organization of truthtellers (beyond Politifact) who will be funded bigtime for TV ads, newspaper ads, bumperstickers, the works of a public education campaign based on reality.

    That's what Soros etc. should fund.  Counterpropaganda.

    ie.  Self reliance?  Does your state take care of its own problems before you ask my state (and the fed gov't) to bail you out?  Put your money where your mouth is!  Does your state (name it) have insurance against natural disasters or do you just wring your hands, whine and dial 911 White House when rivers flood, oil spills and the wind blows?  And do you let people rebuild in the same old vulnerable areas, time after time...calling for help from more sensible states who have tackled and paid for (with their taxes) these same issues?

    Life and politics are both an IQ test.  Time for everybody to study up...but clearly, lots of children of all ages have been left behind.  We need good tutors in the public realm with bullhorns and ink and on facebook and twitter...everywhere.

    As Joe Friday used to say, "Just the facts, ma'm!"

    Parent

    While I don't sign on to the (none / 0) (#168)
    by christinep on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 05:04:24 PM EST
    Dems today have all fallen into the corruption trap of politics, I find your comments helpful. The what-Soros-might-consider-for-funding $$ is very helpful. (Yep, we do have the moneybags these days too in the Dem party. While some have formed a SuperPac of billionaire types in the last year or so, targetting "educational" efforts at a deeper level makes sense rather than simply throwing it to the 30-second airwaves.)

    Parent
    No one should be surprised (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 01:03:01 PM EST
    He comes from Chicago and this is the Chicago way.

    Parent
    It's the Tea Party way (none / 0) (#80)
    by Yman on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 01:32:46 PM EST
    The cuts in the FEMA budget were part of the budget cuts demanded by the TP/Republicans.  Guess you should be careful what you wish for ...

    Parent
    Whatever happened to shared (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 01:36:31 PM EST
    sacrifice???????

    You know, the pot is smaller but we all get an equal share?

    Parent

    "Equal"? (none / 0) (#95)
    by Yman on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 01:50:46 PM EST
    Not how it works, Jim.  First of all, no one is saying the tornado-damaged, southern states will lose all funding.  Everyone will have to sacrifice.  You need to look at the scope of the respective problems (tornado damage, hurricane damage), look at the amount of resources that can be directed to the problem (smaller now, thanks to the TP/Repubs), see where the resources can be most effective, then allocate them ... not just split them "equally".

    Parent
    Joplin was wiped out as were towns in (none / 0) (#170)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 05:19:13 PM EST
    MS and AL.

    This is just pure politics.

    The Chicago way.

    Parent

    No kidding, Jim. (none / 0) (#176)
    by Yman on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 05:56:48 PM EST
    Joplin was wiped out as were towns in MS and AL.

    ... and Irene caused billions in damage.  What's your point?

    You TPers wanted the federal budget slashed ... now you're getting a tiny dose of your own medicine.  Too bad so many other innocent victims of natural disasters have to bear the consequences of your decisions.

    The Tea Party way.

    Parent

    You know Shadow (none / 0) (#178)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 06:05:21 PM EST
    I'm not gonna debate who's the most damaged with you. It just isn't worth it.

    Parent
    More importantly (none / 0) (#179)
    by Yman on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 06:11:41 PM EST
    With you, it's not much of a challenge.

    Even using the word "debate" is seriously overstating it ...

    Parent

    You've got people dead (none / 0) (#189)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 30, 2011 at 09:34:40 AM EST
    thousands of homes destroyed....

    And you want to argue politics.

    What a guy you are.

    Excuse me while I puke.

    Parent

    Excuse me?!? (none / 0) (#190)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 30, 2011 at 09:48:02 AM EST
    YOU were the one who brought politics into this, not me.  You accused Obama/FEMA of temporarily suspending tornado recovery payments for political reasons (i.e. "the Chicago way") without a single, bit of evidence to support your claim ... as usual.

    Yeah, Jim ... "people dead and thousands of homes destroyed", and a federal government that is unable/unwilling to provide the assistance needed because of the Tea Party crowd.  TP darlings like Eric Cantor threatening to hold disaster relief money hostage in order to gain a negotiating advantage and force more spending cuts.  Guess it's easy to rant about government spending and "welfare" until you want/need the government's help, then you TPers want to talk about "shared sacrifice".  Heh.

    Funny how that works.

    Parent

    Don't make things up. (none / 0) (#192)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 30, 2011 at 12:55:46 PM EST
    I accused no one.

    MO Blue quoted and provided a link.


    "With less than $1 billion currently available for federal disaster assistance, the Federal Emergency Management Agency is temporarily suspending payments to rebuild roads, schools and other structures destroyed during spring tornadoes in Joplin, Mo. and southern states in order to pay for damage caused by Hurricane Irene.
    "

    Goodbye Shadow!

    Parent

    Can you stop lying, ... (none / 0) (#193)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 30, 2011 at 01:17:55 PM EST
    ... or is it just a compulsion at this point?  Yes, MO posted a fact, that FEMA was temporarily suspending payments due to Hurrican Irene.  Then you accused Obama of suspending payments for political purposes (i.e. "the Chicago Way").  Of course, you're a bit more explicit on your own blog, where you claim Obama's punishing the Joplin tornado victims because they "didn't vote the right way".

    Either way, Jim, you were the one bringing politics into it, then accusing me of doing it.  guess it's a little harder to lie when the evidence is right there for all to see, right Jim?

    BTW - What happened to all the name sensitivity?  You used to insist on being called by your name (Jim or jimakaPPJ), but now you're calling me "Shadow".  I guess if you're going to keep that up, I'll just have to make up some pet names for you.  Fair enough, right?  OTOH. I could just use your method and go whining to the teacher, ...

    ... but that's not my style.

    Parent

    If you don't want me to refer to you (none / 0) (#194)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 30, 2011 at 02:55:55 PM EST
    as My Shadow, then quit being My Shadow.

    And the politics was already there... Did you read any of the others??

    No? Ok. That I believe.

    Parent

    OTHERS were discussing the politics ... (none / 0) (#195)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 30, 2011 at 03:14:06 PM EST
    ... JimBob, and I have no problem with that, but it was you that accused me of bringing up politics, when you were the one doing so in our conversation (stinks that the proof is right there, huh?).

    BTW - I'm fine with coming up with nicknames, JimmyJoe -  you're the one who seems to get your knickers in a twist.  But since you wanna go there ...

    Parent

    BTW - Funny how you ... (none / 0) (#196)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 30, 2011 at 03:17:13 PM EST
    ... suddenly dropped your lies ("Don't make things up.  I accused no one") when confronted with the proof.

    Wingers always scurry from their lies like cockroaches from the light.

    Parent

    I didn't accuse anyone (none / 0) (#197)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 30, 2011 at 03:48:10 PM EST
    The Chicago Way is a actual description of how Obama does business. Just check out who he has thrown under the bus.

    And, "My Shadow" describes you.

    You show up, call me a liar, rant a little bit and stalk off as if you have accomplished something.

    Well, you have. You have shown the world your nasty personality.

    Thanks. Keep on reminding us.

    Parent

    I'm not "stalking off" ... (none / 0) (#198)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 30, 2011 at 03:56:52 PM EST
    ... anywhere, LyingJim.  You did accuse Obama of playing politics with the Joplin tornado victims.  When you claimed Obama was acting in "the Chicago Way", you weren't just talking about "throwing people under the bus".  You accused him of withholding disaster relief funds from the Joplin victims because the "didn't vote the right way".

    From your own blog Tall Cotton:

       

    "With less than $1 billion currently available for federal disaster assistance, the Federal Emergency Management Agency is temporarily suspending payments to rebuild roads, schools and other structures destroyed during spring tornadoes in Joplin, Mo. and southern states in order to pay for damage caused by Hurricane Irene." (quote from article)

    Translation. Fogitaboudit. Youse guys didn't vote the right way.

    I would say, "Can you believe it?" But yes. Yes. It is very easy to believe that Obama and his mob will do this.

    Now that you've been called on it, you lie about it.

    Typical.

    Parent

    Are you ok??? (none / 0) (#199)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 30, 2011 at 04:42:13 PM EST
    I didn't accuse anyone. I made a statement of fact.

    No one should be surprised (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 12:03:01 PM CST
    He comes from Chicago and this is the Chicago way.

    Now, My Shadow, call me another name. Stamp your feet and hold your breath...

    What a joke you are. How's your BP??

    Parent

    You did more than that ... (none / 0) (#200)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 30, 2011 at 04:54:53 PM EST
    ... Lyingjim:

       

    Translation. Fogitaboudit. Youse guys didn't vote the right way.

        I would say, "Can you believe it?" But yes. Yes. It is very easy to believe that Obama and his mob will do this.

    Your words.

    Don't make things up.  I accused no one.

    Your lie.

    BTW - BP's just fine, JimmyLiar.

    LOL!

    Parent

    BTW, Jim ... (none / 0) (#191)
    by Yman on Tue Aug 30, 2011 at 10:30:15 AM EST
    If this the "the Chicago Way", was it "the Houston Way" when payments were similarly suspended under Bush in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006?

    Heh.

    Parent

    Today, a German lawyer asked (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 11:02:39 AM EST
    me about "how do you say it?  Tea Party?". I sd. they're nuts and want little or now government. But what to do when disaster strikes?  

    I was listening this morning (none / 0) (#74)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 01:26:19 PM EST
    to some of them b*tch about the over reaction and government waste concerning Irene.  I guess there just hasn't been enough dead people for them.

    Parent
    Back from Colombia. (5.00 / 8) (#52)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 12:33:30 PM EST
    Traveling while sick (urinary tract infection) and while on that cardio diet... well, I lost 15 pounds last week. However, I was dizzy and tired, confused even, for most of the week!

    But an excellent trip. I think... I hope, I'll be teaching at my son's school next year.

    And apologies, I was too sick to buy coffee.  I didn't want to stick anyone with the airport coffee... same brand, but almost $10/500 g, no guarantee of freshness, etc.

    Don't buy coffee in El Dorado Airport, whether from Juan Valdez (WAY overpriced) or other merchants. They like to rip people off!

    Heh... went to a cafeteria, ordered a cup, while in Manizales. 2,000 pesos, a little more than a dollar. someone else came in, 600 pesos. I asked why--"because you're a gringo!"

    Well! Afuera Yanqui!

    ;-)

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by sj on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 12:38:20 PM EST
    Good for you!  How wonderful to know that adventure isn't reserved for the young and foolish.  I find it very reassuring that the old and foolish can be just as adventurous :)

    I hope you're feeling better soon.

    Parent

    The saying (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 12:55:46 PM EST
    "God Loves drunks and fools..." I qualify on both counts, lol!

    Parent
    How AWESOME? (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 02:02:04 PM EST
    To teach at your son's school?  That is how you change life up, get from it what you want how you want it and travel too.  See the world, live and love with your child...have great coffee too, that is soooo excellent! I am jealous.  I read this little excerpt in Gourmet magazine about being in Ethiopia and camping, roasting your beans over a fire in a cast iron skillet, hand grinding them, and then making your morning coffee.  They said there is nothing to compare it too, it is sheer coffee heaven.

    Parent
    Welcome home. (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by caseyOR on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 03:36:44 PM EST
    How great is it that you could be teaching at the wee lad's school next year? So cool.

    And the coffee?  So what? It's not like you were supposed to return with life-saving and rare botanicals from the tropical rain forest. Well, not totally like. :-)  We can all still score our coffee here on the home front.

    About buying in the airport-- is there anything that it makes good sense to buy in an airport? A magazine, maybe?

    Parent

    Let us know... (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 05:04:50 PM EST
    when you're settled, so we can get crackin' on the anarcho-syndicalist pirate commune down there Teach!

    So glad your great escape is set, now just get well hombre.

    Parent

    For those who love polls (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 12:38:49 PM EST
    Even though polls out this far don't mean much for an election, this can't be welcome news for the administration.

    The AP has moved some cross-tabs on President Obama from its latest poll, and they signal some low points with his 2008 coalition as the GOP moves closer to picking a general election candidate.

    He's lost ground according to the AP-GfK data, with white voters, women, liberals and younger voters, in surveys taken just after the debt-ceiling debate.
    Wow, some serious drops there (none / 0) (#61)
    by Towanda on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 12:58:39 PM EST
    such as:

    * Liberals who say Obama is "very well" described as a "strong leader" went from 53 percent to 29 percent.

    * Women, who had fueled a gender gap for the president with 68 percent approving of his performance after his first three months in office, are also moving away from him. Now, 50 percent of women say he should be re-elected, and less than half of all women approve of how he's doing in office.




    Parent
    Obama would win (none / 0) (#107)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 01:57:10 PM EST
    222 electoral votes against a generic Republican opponent if the election were held tomorrow, & if Obama were having a good day:

    California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wsconsin, and the District of Columbia

    Parent

    From reading up on some of those states (none / 0) (#166)
    by Towanda on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 04:57:10 PM EST
    lately, I'd have to disagree that he will get all of the above.  The Dems are in trouble.

    Parent
    i gave him the benefit of the doubt (none / 0) (#175)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 05:44:09 PM EST
    on New Jersey and Oregon

    but Pete DeFazio is guarded about Obama's chances in Oregon

    & if Obama loses Oregon, he could also lose Washington, which is basically a red state west of the Cascades & is hard hit by the "recession" <cough>

    not so sure i would count on Maine, either, if things get any worse

    Parent

    I think you mean Washington is (none / 0) (#181)
    by caseyOR on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 06:17:58 PM EST
    a red state east of the Cascades. Western Washington is home to Seattle and environs.

    What will hurt Obama in Oregon will be if voters in Multnomah County (Portland area) and in Lane County (Eugene) either don't vote at all or leave the top of the ballot blank.  Remember, it's not that Oregon is a blue state; it's that select urban areas in the Willamette Valley tend to be blue.

    Lane County, as well as a big swath of rural Oregon, is in Peter DeFazio's district. I bow to Peter on the dynamics at play there. He always has a good handle on what's going on in the OR-4.

    Neither of our senators is up for reelection in 2012, nor are any of the other big statewide offices on the ballot. So, an enthusiasm gap could be bad for the president.

    Parent

    yes, thank you (none / 0) (#184)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 06:29:09 PM EST
    i did mean to say east of the Cascades, as i should know, having lived in Seattle for 17 years!

    DeFazio specifically said, around a week ago, that southern Oregon is not friendly to Obama at this point and that he sees the whole state as very much up for grabs

    Parent

    I did a bad bad thing (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 01:37:12 PM EST
    Waiting for Josh at the Ortho.  It was during the wait for Irene to hit the coast as well and in the waiting room Fox News was on as always around here. They did a pretty good work up on impending Irene though, and then next up was a clip from that National Geographic interview with George Bush that has me irked all to hell.  In the clip he says that the hardest thing he ever went through was watching people jump from the twin towers and not be able to do anything about it.

    Couldn't help myself, I said outloud for everyone in the room waiting to hear that he could have done something about people dying in Katrina though and he still did nothing.  One of these days around here someone is probably going to punch me in the mouth, but it hasn't happened yet.

    That's a bad, bad thing? (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by sj on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 01:40:27 PM EST
    I think it's a good, good thing.  Especially since you didn't get punched in the mouth. :)

    Parent
    I have this "thing" inside of me (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 01:52:50 PM EST
    that refuses to shut up when someone is being a dramatic rank pulling heart string pulling bull$hitter :)  It has plagued me my whole life, made my life with the vile wife beating sexist driver's ed teacher/track coach impossible and a thing that frightened other students :)  Got rid of about 80% of all of my dates in later life (but who wants to be stuck with THAT forever?).  It exacts a price, but then again...I would not have the husband I have if I was different or the relationship that I have with my kids....so....sigh....I will try to reconcile my life with this "thing".  But my daughter says that women in the South are afraid of me, and most men :)  Oh Well

    Parent
    Plus Henry Hill Said... (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 03:04:10 PM EST
    ... "everyone takes a beating sometime", so maybe a punch in the mouth is the same, and if you do get one, it just means you are normal.  At least that's what the guy who wrote Goodfellas thinks.
    -------------------------

    The Bush interview, puke, puke.  Then this morning Cheney pushing his book, puke, puke, again.

    It's as if they forgot that we were here to witness it and are trying to make their grip on the country into some Heath Ledger nobility film about courage, honor, and.... whatever.  

    I am with you on the Bush BS, I just wanna scream, and it reminds me the guy we got ain't so bad.  Obama should run the interview clips as campaign commercials, nothing would sell his brand more then making America remember the stumbling idiot.

    The funny part is the books contradict each other a lot from what I hear.  Bush about Iraq "I said lets do it".  Cheney on the same meeting about Bush, "He kicked everyone out and asked me what to do."

    That's the example the Today Show pointed out, but said there were plenty of completely different versions of the truth.  Which pretty much defined their tenure, competing truths.

    Parent

    Well, there's a tough question (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 03:49:25 PM EST
    Who do you believe, Cheney or Bush?

    Parent
    I'll Take 'My Lying Eyes'... (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 03:58:27 PM EST
    ... for 2000 Alex.

    Parent
    That wasn't bad at all, Tracy (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by Zorba on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 01:44:29 PM EST
    You go, girl!

    Parent
    MT, I recommend (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 01:45:48 PM EST
    you purchase an old-fashioned straight razor to carry in your...ahem...bosom. pull it out and tell the person threatening you that a gun can misfire, but a razor never mis-cuts!

    Quoting Robin Harris (RIP) here, tell the person you'll cut them four ways: "...long, deep, fast, and continuously."

    snark, folks, just a joke...(but you can order one online, Tracy... just sayin')

    Parent

    Thank God I finally have a bosom (4.00 / 3) (#105)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 01:54:51 PM EST
    to stash one in :)

    Parent
    Does this fall under the heading of (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 02:11:27 PM EST
    "All good things come to she who waits."

    Have you been practicing "Yo mama" with your husband? You have been coming up with some great one liners lately.

    Parent

    Michelle Bachman claims God ... (none / 0) (#3)
    by Yman on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 09:15:09 AM EST
    ... is using hurricanes and earthquakes to send a message in support of the Tea Partiers:

    "I don't know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians. We've had an earthquake; we've had a hurricane. He said, 'Are you going to start listening to me here?' Listen to the American people because the American people are roaring right now. They know government is on a morbid obesity diet and we've got to rein in the spending."
    I think God is telling (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by observed on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 09:17:23 AM EST
    Bachman that gay marriage is wrong---when you're a woman and your husband is a gay man.

    Parent
    Maybe Jon Stewart ... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Yman on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 09:29:46 AM EST
    ... was on to something re: Marcus.

    Parent
    There will be a long line claiming (none / 0) (#18)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 10:16:06 AM EST
    'first clue' on that one.

    Parent
    Is it (none / 0) (#24)
    by lentinel on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 11:00:43 AM EST
    OK with God for a hetero male to be hitched to a lesbian?

    There really should be an update to the Bible to include a clear presentation of current regulations.

    Maybe the "Book of Perry".

    Actually, the "Book of Bachmann" is more euphonious.

    "Book of Robertson"? Nope. A bad sound. Uh uh.

    Let's call a meeting with God to discuss this and make a positive determination.

    It's just getting out of hand.
    I'm calling God right now.
    OK. Got an answer.
    I'm holding for God right now.
    Still holding.
    Still holding....

    Parent

    Sorry, Donald...here we part ways. (5.00 / 3) (#167)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 05:04:11 PM EST
    You'll just have to put up with a little mockery and blasphemy as we (the unbelievers) have to put up with the tsunami of nonsense from the god squad.

    Freedom.  Free speech.  Even offensive speech.  Practice putting up with us for a while...or at least, not shutting us down.

    Instead, you could pray for us and put in a good word for tolerance which we are supposed to exhibit 24-7...the rest of you (the vast majority)... not so much.

    Parent

    I thought you were a... (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 05:20:49 PM EST
    Blazing Saddles fan...you're knocking mockery?

    Don, religion begs for it man, and those secure in their beliefs shouldn't mind one bit what a fellow knucklehead says to another about religous beliefs, political beliefs, pick your beliefs. Nobody knows d*ck, thats why we believe instead of know certain things.

    Besides, if taking yourself and your beliefs too seriously isn't a mortal sin, it should be!  

    Parent

    Donald... (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by lentinel on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 05:22:14 PM EST
    I am not mocking God.

    I am mocking those who think that they have a direct line to him or her or it.

    I am mocking those who think that they have a right to be his or her press secretary.

    I am also mocking the media who all too often treat these people with kid gloves - thus giving them some sort of credibility when they deserve none.

    Personally, I am completely sympathetic to Jesus's admonition:

    "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

    But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

    The people running for public office, including the present incumbent president, have not shown any indication that they are interested in this particular teaching from the person they claim to worship.

    Parent

    Absolutely ridiculous. If you REALY (none / 0) (#187)
    by observed on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 07:20:23 PM EST
    had faith, then the comments of mere mortals would not mean anything to you.
    We have a lot more problem with American Talibanistas insisting that religious beliefs be respected ---no matter how ludicrous---than with biting atheism.


    Parent
    Her god must be a real dunce (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 09:20:34 AM EST
    Preaching austerity while breaking things it costs money to fix.

    Parent
    Right On... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 10:21:08 AM EST
    ... why does the god that speaks to idiots always have their same IQ ?

    Parent
    funny how that works (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 11:04:19 AM EST


    Parent
    Turns Out.... (none / 0) (#69)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 01:08:55 PM EST
     ...it was in jest.  Her court jesters put out a press release stating she wasn't serious about god attacking the east coast.

    I don't know much about god, but I am pretty sure making jokes about god's wrath, especially when people die, is a no-no.

    It is pretty amusing when they crazy comes to surface, she can call it all back with a resounding, "I'm just kedding..."

    Parent

    God (none / 0) (#13)
    by lentinel on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 09:59:17 AM EST
    just don't seem too bright these days.

    Parent
    Don't blame God (none / 0) (#17)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 10:10:32 AM EST
    For idiot people who choose to speak for him/her.

    Parent
    Do (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by lentinel on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 10:52:42 AM EST
    you suppose that God is going to get fed up with these people?

    Then what?

    Will it be an indiscriminate wipeout as in the Noah's Ark scenario?

    Or will it be a more selective process, with the most egregious of these cretins being turned into goats or something.

    Parent

    Theory of evolution covers that (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Politalkix on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 11:30:04 AM EST


    Parent
    Well, (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 12:27:17 PM EST
    I do believe in God, even though I am a lapsed Catholic.

    I like to think that people like this get what they deserve in the end - we may not be around to see it, but it happens.  Maybe not all the time - life isn't fair, after all, but since everyone else speaks for God, I will chime in and say that I think He/She just shakes his/her head and thinks these people are nincompoops.

    Just like we do.

    But turning them into goats would be funny.

    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#71)
    by sj on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 01:11:22 PM EST
    I'm voting for the goat method.  

    Parent
    You are insulting the goats! (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by christinep on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 01:21:25 PM EST


    Parent
    Absolutely fair point (none / 0) (#92)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 01:46:15 PM EST


    Parent
    Bachmann is playing the wrong (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 09:34:23 AM EST
    "God card."

    She should be claiming that God doesn't want Rick Perry to be president or he would have answered his prayers to end the drought in Texas.

    In April, Gov. Perry Issues Proclamation for Days of Prayer for Rain in Texas

    Since January, the state of Texas, where the drought is anchored, has only had 40 percent of normal rain fall, NWS climate specialist Victor Murphy said.
    ...
    (Reuters) - The nation's triple digit heat wave -- which hit its 34th day on Friday -- could last until the end of August, while extensive drought in and around Texas may last into October, forecasters said. link

    Definitely a missed opportunity by Michelle to use God to promote her ambitions in the most effective way.

    Parent

    Well, Michele Bachman (none / 0) (#8)
    by KeysDan on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 09:41:50 AM EST
    is, after all, a deeply retro candidate.  She probably thinks her presidential competition is the good Reverend, Pat Robertson.

    Parent
    How funny (none / 0) (#9)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 09:47:17 AM EST
    And here I thought I had it all figured out.

    Parent
    Perry (none / 0) (#12)
    by lentinel on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 09:58:46 AM EST
    should call upon some Native American tribe to do a rain-dance for him.

    I believe there are some Apaches and Cherokees in Texas.

    Actually, they probably hate his guts and would do a dance for locusts instead. Who'd know?

    Parent

    God and the National Debt (none / 0) (#28)
    by cal1942 on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 11:06:37 AM EST
    There's a new twist.

    Parent
    AFL-CIO's Trumka gives up hope (none / 0) (#14)
    by Towanda on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 10:09:16 AM EST
    for Obama's jobs council -- and for Obama?  

    I recall attending a far different Trumka appearance for Obama on Labor Day, only a while ago -- but even then, seeing the unemployment all around me, I had to wonder whether Trumka was as isolated from reality as are so many pols.  

    So if Trumka finally is facing reality, that tells us how bad it is.

    Sorry; link didn't work, so (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Towanda on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 10:10:23 AM EST
    here it is, after I check via the preview button this time.

    Parent
    As (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by lentinel on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 11:25:12 AM EST
    a Union member, I'll believe he's serious when and if the AFL-CIO withdraws their attendance at the democratic convention and Trumka withholds support for Obama's reelection.

    I've seen seemingly endless statements laying out the awful record of this administration on various issues --- all followed by declarations of support.

    People keep raising the specter of the alternatives. And I admit that they ain't pretty.

    But going into the booth is pulling a lever FOR someone.

    At this point in time, pulling the lever for Obama amounts to pulling the lever FOR rendition, Gitmo, three wars, Bush's tax code, the Patriot Act, draconian enforcement of marijuana laws and indifference to the plight of Union workers and the Union movement in general.

    I can't and won't pull that lever.

    Parent

    It sounds (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by cal1942 on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 12:04:48 PM EST
    to me like they're approaching this on a 'movement' basis reaching beyond electoral politics.

    I shouldn't say this because I don't have a link, but, I read an article a few weeks ago in which Trumka told Obama not to expect union members to work on his re-election campaign.

    Maybe that's why Obama will be attending the Labor Day parade in Detroit.  

    He has to do a hell of a lot more than attend a friggin' parade.  He could start by withdrawing KORUS.  Why in hell anyone would put forward a trade agreement that will reduce US manufacturing employment at this (or any) time is proof we're living in an insane asylum.

    Parent

    Dem Presidential candidates (none / 0) (#78)
    by christinep on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 01:30:30 PM EST
    always/almost always attend a big labor day parade. (The step here may also call to mind the auto industry bailout...which had a demonstrable positive effect in the Midwestern region.)

    Parent
    Goolsbee on jobs (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 11:01:04 AM EST
    Appearing Monday on MSNBC, Goolsbee said that "we're still in a pretty tough spot" on the economy.
    ...
    Goolsbee said he doesn't think that bringing another stimulus program forward is necessarily a good idea, and maybe there should be some kind of tax incentives for companies to hire. link

    Tax breaks....tax breaks...tax breaks.

    No wonder labor has given up hope on job creation.  


    Parent

    I agree with Atrios (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 11:48:00 AM EST
    Results

    Monthly jobs report comes out Friday.   Absent a miracle or massive mismeasurement, it most likely won't be anything close to the very very good news we need to start turning the economy around with any speed. I understand the difficulties of getting things done, of Republican obstructionism, of Democrats who also, too, suck, but ultimately such excuses don't matter.  Results do.  If I were the one in charge of this pop stand, I'd direct my economics team to come up with the "If I were a prime minister instead of a president, this is what we would do" plan.   And if all they came up with was minor tax breaks for hiring, "patent reform," and "trade deals," I'd, you know, fire them.



    Parent
    Agree 100% (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by cal1942 on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 11:56:18 AM EST
    The whole administration is populated with weak minds, top to bottom.

    Weak tea is the limit of their thought process.

    Parent

    Let's put this in perspective (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 12:08:00 PM EST
    You, cal1942, are interviewing people to fill the position of the head the White House Council of Economic Advisers. You ask Krueger what qualifies him for the position. He answers: I was the top adviser to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner until third quarter 2010. What would your response be?

    Personally, if I was conducting the interview my response based on that information would be, "Next candidate, please."

    Parent

    Sure, that would be (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Zorba on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 12:31:24 PM EST
    your response (and mine, and a lot of us), but this is exactly what Obama wants.  He's shown it to be so time and time again.

    Parent
    Yup. Enough of the tailoring (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 11:58:13 AM EST
    around what can get passed. Let's hear what they think would actually work.

    Parent
    I rather think that (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by sj on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 12:18:51 PM EST
    they'd have to actually care in order to come up with something that will actually work.

    I mean, they care about corporations.  And the banks.  And Wall Street. You can tell because they get stuff done that will actually work for them.

    For the populace?  Shut up and vote.  For us.  Because the other guys are worse.

    Parent

    From the sounds of this, Obama plans (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 12:20:53 PM EST
    to use his jobs plan as another venue to promote his grand bargain.

    Obama has already called for an extension of a payroll tax cut that expires at the end of the year and he wants to continue jobless benefits. Aides are considering other measures, including tax incentives for businesses to hire and direct infusions of government money into construction projects. The president has said he intends to call for additional long-term deficit reduction to help pay for the short-term spending his proposals would require. link

    Long-term deficit reduction is Obama code for trade "entitlement program benefits" for more tax cuts to corporations and the mega rich.

    Parent

    Here's what he learned from Bush (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by sj on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 12:34:31 PM EST
    Never let evolving situations on the ground interfere with your goals.  Just adapt the rhetoric so that it supports your original intention.

    When Bush did it, it was authoritarianism gone mad.  Apparently when Obama does it, it's because he doesn't understand.

    If only the czar knew...

    Parent

    Alan Krueger is a labor economist (none / 0) (#30)
    by Politalkix on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 11:13:40 AM EST
    Good choice!

    Parent
    Krueger (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 11:30:27 AM EST
    Krueger spent the first two years of the Obama administration as an assistant Treasury secretary for economic policy. In 2010, he returned to Princeton University, where he has served on the faculty for more than 20 years.

    Krueger has served as the top adviser to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner since the administration took power last year. link


    Parent
    Krueger also top economist in Clinton's Labor Dep (none / 0) (#82)
    by christinep on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 01:36:48 PM EST


    Parent
    So what? (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 01:45:31 PM EST


    Parent
    So...the Clinton admin had a great employment (none / 0) (#97)
    by christinep on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 01:51:31 PM EST
    record in labor stats.

    Parent
    He was economist in (none / 0) (#120)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 02:19:24 PM EST
    Obama's administration and the top adviser to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. The Obama admin employment record in labor stats could by no stretch of the imagination be labeled as great.

    Parent
    Well...there's no pleasing (as they say) (none / 0) (#131)
    by christinep on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 02:43:53 PM EST


    Parent
    Well Obama has pleased 26% (none / 0) (#139)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 03:14:57 PM EST
    of the population so I guess that is something you and he can crow about.  

    New Low of 26% Approve of Obama on the Economy

    Parent

    MO Blue (none / 0) (#144)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 03:31:59 PM EST
    Cheap shots.

    But ones I'll take for now.

    Parent

    "Cheap shots" (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 03:42:24 PM EST
    This from someone who loves to cherry pick polls.

    Parent
    That doesn't come with (none / 0) (#85)
    by sj on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 01:39:05 PM EST
    an automatic "Get out of jail free" card when it comes to credibility.

    Parent
    Agree...but it is promising/positive (none / 0) (#98)
    by christinep on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 01:52:04 PM EST


    Parent
    This appointment, like any of Obama's (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by caseyOR on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 03:55:05 PM EST
    appointments, is only as good as the amount of influence Krueger has with Obama. Obama could appoint Rich Trumka to this position, but if the president doesn't listen to him what's the use? I mean, really, where is Hilda Solis in all these talks? In an undisclosed location? In protective custody? Witness protection? The nation is shackled with massive un/under employment and the Labor Secretary, supposedly the president's point person on labor, is MIA. Instead Obama trots out one of the premiere off-shorers of jobs, the CEO of General Electric.

    Given Obama's track record, for instance, choosing Larry Summers' weak and insufficient stimulus plan over the more robust and realistic plan of Christy Romer, I don't have a whole lot of hope for any meaningful change.

    Obama doesn't care about labor and the average American worker. And before someone starts screaming "Auto Industry Bailout," let me just say that IMO that had much more to do with saving bond holders from big loses than it did with saving factory workers' jobs.

    So, color me unimpressed until and unless, this guy turns out to actually have the president's ear and, as a result, we see real and meaningful improvement on decent wage jobs.

    Parent

    Here's Hilda! (none / 0) (#157)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 03:59:37 PM EST
    Link

    Not that this isn't important stuff -

    Labor Secretary Hilda L. Solis signs agreements with Dominican Republic, Costa Rica and El Salvador ambassadors protecting rights of migrant workers [08/29/2011]

    SNIP

    OPA News Release: Statement by Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis on Women's Equality Day - 11-1283-NAT - [08/25/2011]

    SNIP

    OPA News Release: Statement by Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis on fatal occupational injuries in 2010 - 11-1280-NAT - [08/25/2011]

    And she, like everyone else in politics in this town, is probably on vacation until next week.

    Parent

    Other than the main players (none / 0) (#163)
    by christinep on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 04:46:13 PM EST
    noone is really privy to the real issue of inside influence, because there are too many filters to actually influence how the rest of us might perceive it. For me, the real test is how the appointee Alan Krueger appears in his own right--in an interview, off-the-cuff at various meetings or conferences, on tv or radio, etc. Given the spotlight on that area, Krueger will be given lots of opportunity to impress or influence in general.

    The fact that an appointee seems to disappear into the crowd may not say all that much, tho. My expectation is that Krueger will "have the president's ear" in view of his history with him since Obama's Senate campaign. The continuation & the years do suggest a degree of trust.

    Parent

    12 years later it is at BEST neutral (none / 0) (#108)
    by sj on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 01:58:10 PM EST


    Parent
    A good move (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by cal1942 on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 11:22:36 AM EST
    support only labor friendly candidates.

    Wondered when this would happen.  About time.

    Link.

    Parent

    Finally (none / 0) (#76)
    by christinep on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 01:27:59 PM EST
    Looking as Alan Krueger's background & considering availability at large, his appointment is quite a positive step.  His work re: raising the minimum wage & stimulus approaches ... promising for a more aggressive push. Finally.  

    The personal labor creds are good. (I'm planning to check with some local labor groups further.)


    Parent

    Scott Turow's op ed on DMK (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 10:19:40 AM EST
    prosecution is in Mon. NYT. Worth a read.

    kdog: "talk to us." (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 11:21:01 AM EST
    Who knows. Might make you fell better.

    I'm here... (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 05:37:38 PM EST
    rough day back in the cube, I helped make my bosses a small fortune today!  Hurricane Irene = Pump Stimulus...my god it was brutal, sold the 1600 pump load we got in at 8am in a blink, and another 1600 coming tomorrow already sold.  Factory is cleaned out and can't make them fast enough.  Non-stop phone calls, emails, faxes, and of course p*ssin' and moanin' from customers, and (cold shudder) f8ckin' homeowners...the worst!  

    Irene f*cked me three ways to Tuesday, took my baby early and buried me in paper and bueracratic grief.

    I'll shut up now, I'm sounding like the 1000 whiners I talked to today...sh*t must be contagious!

    Parent

    kdog, open a beer and (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by caseyOR on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 06:24:11 PM EST
    roll a fat one. Relax. Trust me, there will be more of the nonsense tomorrow. :-)

    On the upside, people came through Irene with houses and businesses still standing and in need of those pumps, as opposed to destroyed and in need of shelter. Maybe a little pollyanna-ish, but there it is.

    Parent

    Way ahead a ya Cap'n... (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 06:54:37 PM EST
    I intuitively knew you'd give such orders.  Gonna make it a late one too...prolong the night before rockin' the cube again in the morn.

    Parent
    This is the part (none / 0) (#59)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 12:47:16 PM EST
    where I post very unhelpful polls and such and concede that things look bleakest for Obama, so that when things get better I can point to these comments.  Se here goes:

    1. I think the EU is going to tank the recovery regardless of what policies occur between now and the election.

    2. Obama's poll numbers are atrocious and the downturn is very real.  He needs to take crucial steps to fix it and he needs to do that now.

    3. The jobs agenda he rolls out had better be pretty good.

    4. Part of the issue is attitude and pessimism, and his first criteria has to be to provide a sense of hope and optimism that things will improve.

    5. For the first time, I think it is possible, but  not likely, that he could lose.

    6. This feels like his low point, which from a timing perspective could be a good thing if he starts improving.

    #ABGacknowledgeshisguyisntdoingwell

    Actually, (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by sj on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 01:00:24 PM EST
    can we just skip this part?  Because as bleak as it looks for Obama?  He'll come out of this just fine no matter which way it rolls.  

    If you want something that is really bleak:  look at ... well, everything else.

    Parent

    Should Be... (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 01:27:19 PM EST
    #ABG.acknowledges.reality

    Sorry dude, but unless Obama makes a miracle, he is going to seriously struggle and lose, right now his only hope is crazy floating to the top of the other side.

    Everything we are told to fear from the R's is happening with his full on support.  Now we find out, there's less than a billion in FEMA disaster funds, WTF is wrong with your guy ?

    I don't see him beating Perry.

    Parent

    FEMA Funds (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 03:37:30 PM EST
    Talk about people seeing a headline and running off and creating their own narratives...

    That's the way FEMA funding works.  The "disaster" season is late summer, so that's the way the funding cycle goes.  They don't keep a giant slush fund just in case it's an unusually heavy disaster season, and that's what we've had this year.

    On the FEMA funding front, if you want to go all apoplectic, aim at Eric Cantor who's insisting that no new disaster money for FEMA will be approved this cycle unless equal funding is cut from something else.


    Parent

    Have I mentioned lately... (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by sj on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 04:16:30 PM EST
    ... that I hate these people?

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#102)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 01:53:56 PM EST
    That your post started off with good shots but you blew all of your good points away by saying there is no way Obama beats Perry.  Now that is just crazy talk.

    On your other points there is plenty wrong with "my guy" but there is also plenty right with him.

    Doesn't mean he shouldn't be doing some things better though.  

    My grade of Obama at the three year mark is a solid "B".

    I simply don't take seriously criticisms that are based on the idea of giving zero value to a first three years that advanced an amazing number of progressive policies.

    Parent

    The Only Way Obama Get a 'B'... (none / 0) (#140)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 03:17:56 PM EST
     ...is on a generous curve with only him and GWB.

    And I didn't say no way he beats Perry, just that I don't see him doing it.  Which you seem to elude to in Point #5, or is there someone else you think will be harder to beat.

    Parent

    I'm (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by lentinel on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 05:27:56 PM EST
    not the least concerned with Obama's political fortunes.

    The people of this country are suffering.
    And he is either unwilling or incapable of doing anything about it.

    Parent

    Let me assuage your bereavement (none / 0) (#65)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 01:02:15 PM EST
    ABG (talk about a sentence I never expected to write!)... this early, polls are meaningless. Too much time between now and Nov. 2012. Also, look at the wack jobs in the republican field... seriously, Bachmann or Perry?

    Too early to put any credence in polls unless you're on afternoon cable television news. Then it's time, because instead of actually reporting anything, you can get some other beltway insiders together and spout on about how important these polls are and what they mean... when they really mean nothing!

    But since they've been paid for and are 'reputable,' and since virtually nobody in the media understands that the attitudes in these are written in disappearing ink, they'll be all atwitter about the results.

    Polls are polls (With apologies to BTD).

    By the way BTD, I met a lovely lady UF graduate who said she might-- might know you... her first name begins with M and she has a distinctive voice... she said if you're the Armando she knows, you'd recognize this description from her unique voice.

    Parent

    It is early (none / 0) (#70)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 01:10:30 PM EST
    But this is the time that that sort of thing begins to matter for purposes of the narrative.  The time for Obama to start a serious push to fight the GOP has to begin next month with his jobs agenda.

    I do think that now is the time to pivot away from bipartisanship.  He's proven that he's the adult in the room and taken the required amount of flack for it.  He doesn't have to pretend to be Nader but he does have to show that he will fight back.

    Before i suggested that such efforts were pointless given the situation, but now is the time for both political and economic reasons.

    Hopefully his team is good enough (and the poll numbers low enough) to force a pivot from this point on.

    It's time.

    If he doesn't, I'll be one of the folks calling him out on it.

    Parent

    Like most people (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by sj on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 01:31:41 PM EST
    I don't give a cr@p about the "narrative".  I don't care about "pivot[s]" and I definitely don't care about "bitpartisanship" or what O can "show" or "prove" or "pretend".

    I think that there are two types of people.  (Or attitudes, really: most people fall somewhere along a spectrum)  Those who care about themselves and those who care about all people.

    I care about the people.  That's it.  I care about citizens, and immigrants both documented and undocumented; and people who don't live in the US and yet are affected by the US.  I care about the fragile: the elderly, the young, the sick and the financially insecure.  And I mostly care about my own family.

    In short: I care about the things that O does not.  And no "narrative" is going to fool me into pretending that he does.

    "Narrative" my a$$.  Actions are what tell the story.

    Parent

    Who decides? (none / 0) (#90)
    by christinep on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 01:45:40 PM EST
    Or what is the litmus test to determine "who cares" about people? (Sorry, sj...could not resist the obvious pushback.)

    I can agree, in part, that there might be some obvious signs of "not caring." Take, e.g., Ron Paul & his most recent statement about certain disasters (specifically, hurricanes) wherein he noted that government should not step in at all because it "should be like...1900, 1930, & 1940....etc." as he waxed nostalgic, considering his residence along the Gulf Coast.

    Also: Maybe a candidate for honorable mention in the "not caring" dept. might be Gov. Rick Perry who repeated his claim that the Social Security system is a Ponzi scheme & a "big lie" for people.  Oh...also #2: Sen Rubio (R Fla), the upcoming Repub star, openly stated the same & added that Social Security is not needed in our society.

    Fascinating.

    Parent

    I decide, because I'm a voter (5.00 / 5) (#101)
    by Towanda on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 01:53:07 PM EST
    and my children still do not have jobs, and my pay is being cut 10 percent, and my retirement is farther away by the day.

    So not a cent, and not a vote, from me for any pol of any party unless and until I see serious ACTION.

    The rest?  Just words, as the number-one person who could have done something was heard to say.  And just words is all that he has done to this day to create jobs.  Instead, his actions have destroyed them and are destroying my children's lives.

    That's who.

    Parent

    digby once again on target (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by MO Blue on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 02:35:54 PM EST
    regarding Obama's falling approval.

    I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that if he goes out on the trail with more of this Grand Bargain bullsh!t, this state of affairs is going to get worse. Democrats aren't buying it --- and they aren't impressed with the excuse that the President of the United States has no power and must accede to whatever the looniest teabagger decides is his bottom line. It's just not the way Americans have experienced their government up until now and unless somebody is able to adequately explain what's happened, this framing of "not a strong leader" is the only way they have of understanding it. link


    Parent
    Towanda (1.00 / 1) (#124)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 02:31:23 PM EST
    I just can't let this Fox News-ish type simplification go.  Obama is not responsible for your kids not having jobs.  That's just not the way that this economy works.  

    The EU would be convulsing and housing prices would be off by 25% regardless of who is in office and right now that is the biggest obstacle to your kids getting jobs.

    I am not saying this because I am insensitive to your frustration.  I am instead suggesting that your assertions about the causes and possible remedies for your issues is not nearly as simple as "someone give me some action and make it all go away".

    I believe that our leaders need critics but that assumes that the criticisms are fair ones.

    You have a lot of anti-Obama ammo you can use that is fair.

    But claiming that the thousands of car manufacturing jobs and the likely millions of other jobs created through the stimulus and other mechanisms did not occur is just not accurate.

    Parent

    I don't think (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 02:41:11 PM EST
    Towanda is suggesting that Obama personally ensure that her kids get jobs.  She's smarter than that.  What I think she wants is someone there who at least pretends to give a d@mn and enunciates and pushes for policies that will create an environment where her kids would stand a better chance of getting jobs.

    So far, we haven't seen that from this president.  He's been too busy saving the jobs of high level banksters, so unless her kids are top hedge fund managers, I can see why they may have had some trouble.

    Parent

    jbindc (none / 0) (#133)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 02:58:59 PM EST
    OK.  Let's take her points (as you rephrase them) seriously and parse them:

    1. Obama pushes for policies that create jobs.  The stimulus bill (which people forget took a fair amount of pushing to get through) was exactly that kind of bill.  Was it big enough? Probably not.  But  it was still pretty darn big and a direct indication of a policy that people claim Obama has never advocated. If you think that this good policy would have been better if it was larger, then argue that. I would agree.  But let's not argue that it never happened and that it didn't save or create millions of jobs.

    2. Ditto auto bailout.

    I could go on, but I feel that it is disingenuous to argue that Obama's policy has not done a fair amount to address the needs of the people you are talking about.

    Again, if you want to say it hasn't been enough, I can understand.  The idea that Obama has done little to help those other than the rich is demonstrably false.

    But c'mon people. I cam ready to give my guy a little heat today. Stop going overboard and making the extremist arguments so I can join in.

    Parent

    Bailouts were to save jobs (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Towanda on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 03:36:39 PM EST
    not create jobs.  See the difference between the words I write and the words you change them to?

    Parent
    Oh, f**k off until you learn (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Towanda on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 03:35:34 PM EST
    reading comprehension, and until you stop seeing things like the word "Obama" that is not there.

    I do not watch Fox News.  But you ought to write for them, since you make up stuff so well, too.

    Parent

    oh man (none / 0) (#183)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 06:24:41 PM EST
    i am jealous

    i didn't get any "5" ratings when i told AngryGuy to eff off for calling me a r@cist when i linked to . . . Black Agenda Report

    Parent

    I think those who are affected decide (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by sj on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 01:54:29 PM EST
    And the people who are observing decide.  Who else?  And what kind of question is that?  Are you implying that someone "decides" and then the rest of us use that as the "go to" place to see what we're supposed to either champion or protest?

    Like I said (or implied): few people are on the extreme ends.  Most people fall somewhere along that spectrum.  How can there possibly be litmus test for that (and why are you so hung up on litmus tests, anyway)?

    Parent

    Of course, you are right, sj (none / 0) (#135)
    by christinep on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 03:01:33 PM EST
    My question, tho, is the "kind of question" that results when I read the old "there are two kinds of people in the world" (them that like horses & them that don't or people who care or people who don't.) It is a personal peeve for me: A statement that appears to convey a moralistic who-is-the-better human kind of quality. Admittedly, that is my own limited take...apologies, really, if I misread your intent.

    And, of course, as you indicate (& as Towanda clearly points out above) the voter decides.) As always, the individual formation as to "who cares" or not is based upon the eye of the beholder. For example: Ronald Reagan, with his acting background (& probably also with his outgoing personality) emoted "caring," but the conservative philosophy he initiated was a bit different than the caring face. Personally, based upon objective and quite subjective input, I believe that President Obama cares as much as modern Presidents can. That is my individual-as-decider take. That I arrive at that conclusion, obviously, is no different than how you arrive at your decision. (That was the point of my earlier jibe about "who decides." There is no moralistic imperative in the individual political decision.)

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#159)
    by sj on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 04:06:12 PM EST
    But I'm not sure what part of "spectrum" was unclear.  Re-reading my sentence,  it seems clunky to me, but not unclear.  But okay.

    Parent
    You think (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 02:13:37 PM EST
    that you've asked a good question, but your question isn't compelling at all.  

    The voters -- especially those who have been affected by Obama's poor policies and his utter careless disregard for the suffering of people -- decide.

    Obviously.  Doesn't even take a second to come up with that answer.

    Parent

    Well, here's the thing, Christine: (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 02:31:39 PM EST
    you seem to keep wanting to shift the focus to what a couple of Republicans have said, so that we don't look too carefully at what Obama has done; you do that a lot, actually.  

    I'm sure you do it in the spirit of the-other-guys-are-worse - which seems to be the only metric that has a chance of working for Obama - but, see, I think most of us recognize that you're just laying down Astro-Turf to convince people that the "grass" is greener right where we are, with Obama.  It's green, all right, but it's as fake as the day is long, and we know what's really under it.  

    I would be careful, too, about the whole issue of Social Security; Obama may be saying he wants to protect it, but there is nothing in his actions that support those words.

    Who decides who really cares?  I do.  We all do.  President I-Need-To-Finish-My-Vacation Obama is not helping his cause much in that area.


    Parent

    Anne (none / 0) (#128)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 02:39:10 PM EST
    The person who leads all of the other GOP candidates by double digits said the following to the delight of his crowds:

    "It is a Ponzi scheme for these young people," Perry said in Iowa, mimicking his pre-presidential campaign language on the subject of Social Security.

    "The idea that they're working and paying into Social Security today, that the current program is going to be there for them, is a lie," Perry added. "It is a monstrous lie on this generation, and we can't do that to them."

    I wish you would stop asserting that there is any universe in which those that value social security  should do anything that will help the GOP win, including withholding their vote out of whiny protest that they aren't getting every policy that they want.

    Yeah "whiny".  I said it.  Let the cries of hippie punching commence, but for the love of all that is right and good this idea that a liberal serves some greater good by not voting for the dem nominee is possibly the dumbest political position taken by otherwise rational progressives there is.

    I cannot emphasize this point enough.

    Parent

    Why would anyone who values (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 03:30:57 PM EST
    Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid vote for Obama?  I mean, he's not exactly a cheerleader for the social safety net, is he?  

    Here's a point I cannot emphasize enough: "dumb" is continuing to vote for candidates who do not have one's interests at heart; "dumb" is continuing to vote for mediocre-bordering-on-execrable and believing one is going to get quality governance.

    As far as I'm concerned, there is no one in the current crop of candidates - on either side of the aisle - that I would ever in a million years consider voting for.

    And no, that does not mean I am holding out for Hillary.

    Parent

    Answers (none / 0) (#147)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 03:35:49 PM EST
    Question:

    "Why would anyone who values Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid vote for Obama?  I mean, he's not exactly a cheerleader for the social safety net, is he?"

    Answer: Obama has been a vocal cheerleader for all three and has done a lot to actually save those initiatives in the face of opposition.

    Answer: Because the opposition party is REALLY out to destroy those programs.

    Answer: Because in an environment where some modification to the programs will be necessary to retain their viability, Obama is likely going to make such modifications in a way that does not destroy the fundamental purposes of the programs.

    Parent

    Reality is not a shift of focus, Anne (none / 0) (#138)
    by christinep on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 03:12:38 PM EST
    As time marches on...and we are entering the primary season...the alternatives, as stated, take on increasing importance. Some may not choose to acknowledge that; but, the "I don't want to hear that" does not obviate the reality that--within the year--we all will have that real choice.

    Whether the choice is a good one or not is not the ultimate point, because there will be a Democrat & there will be a Republican. Unless something not yet on the horizon (in terms of choice) happens, either a Democrat or a Republican will win.  In that sense, since we presume to know something of the Democrat's positions after two+ years in office, the positions of leading Republicans take on a certain amount of importance in terms of consequences. Granted that "choice" is still some months away...but, with each month passing, it looms larger. That is the basis for my brief comment about Rick Perry.

    Parent

    sj (none / 0) (#109)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 02:00:15 PM EST
    This is a very silly discussion to have.  I care about narrative because I care about electing the person with the best chance of helping people. My fundamental concern is people as well, so step down off the high horse please.

    And give the moralizing a rest.  I, and I am sure most Obama supporters and the man himself, care about immigrants and the elderly and the sick and what have you.

    The most idiotic arguments made by either side of the aisle are the ones which begin "WE care about people but THEY do not".

    That's not real life. That some make believe fantasy world where the bad guys wear all black and twist their greasy mustaches while trying to find a busy train track to tie a victim to.

    Back here in the real world, the policies and actions advocated by folks on either side are pushed because each side fundamentally believes that they have the key to making people's lives better.

    The real evil comes from those (Team Foxnews on one side and their equivalents on the left) who believe that strong good faith disagreement has to result from a good/evil dichotomy.

    I rant against Beck and Hannity and Palin when they try to make all liberals "evil" and I have to do the same to the numbskulls asserting that the GOP are Knight In Satans Service with a plan to bring the end times nigh.

    Parent

    A silly discussion to have? (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by sj on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 02:01:48 PM EST
    I agree.  A discussion about "narrative" has no substance whatsoever.  Back here in the real world.

    Parent
    Narrative (none / 0) (#114)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 02:05:00 PM EST
    completely matters. A narrative is what Obama's critics wanted him to create starting with the tax deal.  Narratives drive policy.

    You are trying to hard to make yourself appear to be above those talking about the way that policy and action actually occurs.

    Parent

    Oy (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by sj on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 02:12:59 PM EST
    You'll just say anything, won't you?  Now you're suddenly concerned about policy?  Some of us actually remember your "narrative"...

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 02:14:53 PM EST
    Yes he will.  His posts really don't deserve any response.  He is all about the hero worship.  Reality doesn't matter.

    Parent
    I knew that (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by sj on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 02:19:27 PM EST
    And I usually operate under that assumption, but today I forgot:
    His posts really don't deserve any response.  

    Thank you.  I've now come to my senses.

    Parent
    Your memory is selective then (none / 0) (#126)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 02:34:18 PM EST
    I specifically make it clear in almost all of my comments whether the topic is political or policy, and I comment regularly about both.

    My views on policy are pretty much "What Krugman Just Said" while my views on the politics/narratives are to the right of many here.

    That is not because of my views on policy but my views on what is politically possible.

    Parent

    NOW it's time for him to fight?!? (5.00 / 5) (#106)
    by Yman on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 01:56:10 PM EST
    No, ... really.  This time, I mean it.  No, ...

    ... seriously.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#113)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 02:03:40 PM EST
    Actually I do.  I believe that fighting in the way that you would have advocated under either the tax deal or the debt ceiling deal would have had catastrophic consequences for the economy and for democrats politically.

    Now is the time to make a strategic pivot.

    Now I know that you thought I was going to wither under the punishing light of your detailed response, but no.

    Anyway, Obama has a lot of work to do and I am conceding that he has to move now for a number of reasons.

    Can we bask in the common place of our agreement for once?

    Parent

    We could if we agreed (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by Yman on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 02:43:55 PM EST
    "Pivot"?  Apart from the fact that it's quickly becoming the most overused "meme" (heh) in his administration, he shouldn't need to "pivot" at all.  The time for him to start pushing a jobs programs was 2 1/2 years ago, instead of the POS health insurance reform bill he handed us.  The time for him to start standing up to the Republican/Tea Partiers was 2 1/2 years ago, before they learned that he will cave if you push him.  The reason you've developed a case of "the fierce urgency of now" is because we're heading into the 2012 election and despite your many prognostications to the contrary, the economy is not improving and Obama's poll numbers are so bad that even a weak GOP field is competitive - including certifiable nutjobs like Bachmann.

    BTW - The "level of detail" in my response was commensurate with the level of detail in your OP.

    Parent

    Oh, Obama will move, no question. (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 03:01:02 PM EST
    To the right - again.

    For reasons that ultimately have to do with where he is most comfortable, ideologically, he just cannot bring himself to move left.

    He's had so many opportunities to take those itty-bitty baby steps left, and time and time again, he pivots right.

    What was the narrative of the Deficit Commission, headed by two people known to be anti-entitlement?

    On issue after issue, there was always a more left-leaning approach.  On the social safety net, on economic policy, on privacy rights, drug laws, war, indefinite detention, and yes, even on health care.  Just putting single-payer on the table, allowing its proponents to make their case - these are actions that, even if they don't ultimately lead to 100% success, drive the narrative, and establish a direction.

    Here's a name for you: Dawn Johnsen.  A stellar nominee, an excellent choice, but then what?  Nothing.  No support, no fight, no interest.  What's the narrative there?  That he gets points just for the nomination?

    Given where this president has taken us, what he's shown he is willing to fight for - he sure loves him a Grand Bargain chock-full of austerity and sacrifice, doesn't he? - who could possibly trust in any rhetorical pivot he makes to the left?  


    Parent

    Stepping away from politics for a moment (none / 0) (#154)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 03:51:51 PM EST
    Just read this on an e-mag's advice column site.  Whoa!  And oddly, the commenters weighing in with their opinions, are all over the board.

    If this is actually true, I can't believe someone would do this or write an advice columnist about it!

    Confessing to an Ex-Boyfriend: About two years ago my then-boyfriend got a job offer at a large, global company for nearly a 40 percent pay raise. He was contractually obliged to give a month's notice at his old job and during that time I found out he cheated on me, amongst other things. To get back at him I logged into his email (he gave me his password previously) and wrote an email pretending to be him. The email detailed a drunken weekend out using recreational drugs, racist vents about my ex's then boss, and the last paragraph contained offensive remarks about the HR manager who recruited him. I sent it to the HR manager to make it look like he'd accidentally sent it to her instead of a friend, then deleted the email from his sent account. Naturally the company withdrew the job offer with the excuse that his position was no longer available. My ex was also not permitted to have his old job back, so he spent four months unemployed. To be honest, I feel no guilt over this event considering how much he lied to me, but something keeps nagging at me and I feel like I have to confess it to him. He probably has no idea what happened. Am I morally obliged to tell him, or should I keep it under wraps?
    suicide by confession? (none / 0) (#158)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 04:03:13 PM EST
    good thing for HIM that he's an ex!

    could this be a hoax?

    Parent

    I dunno (none / 0) (#160)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 04:06:48 PM EST
    But if true, he's a louse, but she's something much worse.

    Parent
    Let it be a lesson... (none / 0) (#177)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 06:04:57 PM EST
    to the fellas, always reference the hot crazy scale!

    Especially if you're fixin' to scorn a lady...foolish sucker.

    Parent

    your link (none / 0) (#180)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 06:17:25 PM EST
    requires authorization

    & i am not authorized

    i am written off, so to speak

    Parent

    For real? (none / 0) (#185)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 06:49:18 PM EST
    not meant to be exclusionary, for all genders and orientations to reference...a handy tool before getting mixed up with somebody.

    Parent
    According to Polls (none / 0) (#164)
    by Rashomon66 on Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 04:51:47 PM EST
    CNN asked Democrats if they'd like to see President Obama get renominated. 72 percent said yes while 27 percent said no. Those numbers are slightly better than earlier this month and are significantly better than President Clinton's numbers in the wake of the 1994 elections, when just 57 percent of Democrats wanted to see him renominated and 32 percent wanted him replaced.

    Who knew...?

    Monday Morning Open Thread | 199 comments (199 topical)