Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditEven without George W. Bush's debut in Fort Worth as a motivational speaker (see Stephen Colbert swoon over the speech here), this past week has been full of reminders of 43. On Wednesday, President Obama walked out onto the North Lawn of the White House to plant a tree where, one year earlier, Bush had tried to plant a Scarlet Oak. Bush's tree "didn't take," so Obama shoveled a few symbolic spadefuls of dirt over the roots of a Linden tree, asked assembled reporters whether it looked nice, and walked back into the Oval Office.
Sometime after midnight, 44 caught a quick helicopter ride out to the Dover Air Base to stand, wind-whipped and slender, as the bodies of 18 Americans killed in Afghanistan were off-loaded from a C-17 in their flag-draped coffins. It was the first time in eight years of war that a President has greeted our returning dead. Obama flashed a neat, palm-down right-hand salute, which cameras recorded matter-of-factly, as if images of respect for the returning dead were an everyday affair.
When Glenn Beck says the Obama presidency is all about "reparations," he's insinuating that the President wants to lavish government goodies on blacks while stealing from whites. But this is how the Obama camp perceives reparations: Obama is indeed going about repairing things his predecessor bungled, it is truly an appalling mess to clean up, and they don't want to hear criticism of how he "holds the mop." Obama is doing his level best, they say, to restore the national honor, and if we give him enough time he will bring the bloom back to American policy.
But Thursday morning was not the first time flag-draped coffins have returned from Afghanistan since Obama took over. How the deaths of these Americans, killed over two days earlier this week, affects his upcoming decision on sending more troops to Afghanistan is what makes his emotional midnight run so significant.
Most speculation in the media suggests that Obama will agree to an increase, though perhaps not as large as the generals want. Obama's appearance on the tarmac--something his predecessor avoided, apparently for fear of damaging domestic "morale"--may well be a way of underlining that he does not take this decision lightly. Still, it would seem to suggest that he is going to escalate one of Bush's wars by sending even more troops (Obama has already committed 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan, approving that increase last February).
Lord yes, Obama is better at just about every act of presidenting than Bush was, more graceful, more self-aware. But progressives don't want him to just make Bush policies succeed--we want new policies. Some things Bush did, like drain the Treasury for two ridiculous occupations halfway around the globe, are now completely unsalvageable. Polls show that most Americans already get this truth. It's time to plant new seeds in different ground.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Obama is indeed going about repairing things his predecessor bungled, it is truly an appalling mess to clean up, and they don't want to hear criticism of how he "holds the mop."
You racist insinuating that the Obamanation is a janitor!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/29/2009 @ 11:47pm
Was this picture "photo shopped" adding the Obamanation????
Posted by BigPasture at 10/30/2009 @ 12:30am
"Lord yes, Obama is better at just about every act of presidenting than Bush was, more graceful, more self-aware."
Because Presidenting is more about what it takes to be America's next top model than substantive leadership abilities.
No foreign country, either enemy or ally, seems to respect this guy. They all sense there is nothing underneath that graceful, self-aware presence. A list of countries, both enemy and ally, that have simply responded with "No" when he's asked them to do something is frankly embarassing.
And he doesn't bargain worth a shit. We make concessions, but we don't get anything. We canceld missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic, signaling to those two countries they would increasingly come under the influence of authoritarian Russia.
But there was no reciprocity. We got nothing from Russia for doing that. When we asked Russia to support sanctions against Iran for an obvious weapons program, they laughed in our face.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/30/2009 @ 05:04am
Barack Obama is a figure head, as was George W. Bush. Bush is psychotic and suffers from pre-senile dementia, and Obama has to obey his Zionist puppet masters, or they might expose the truth about his birth. And do not fall for the two easily forged birth announcements in Honolulu newspapers.
Read "Senator Hillary Clinton's Remarks to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee" (AIPAC), February 1, 2007
http://www.radioislam.org/islam/english/jewishp/u
sa/hillaryclinton_aipac.htm
It is so embarrassing, it was scrubbed from the AIPAC website, but it can still be found on the Radio Islam website.
Listen to Sen. Biden on Shalom TV. He concludes by saying, "When I was a young Senator, I'd say, if I were a Jew I would be a Zionist. I am a Zionist. You don't have to be a Jew to be a Zionist." http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2130127/sen_joe
_biden_on_shalom_tv/
Finally, read about Rahm "Rahmbo" Emanuel: "The Enforcer."
The Enforcer, Rolling Stone, JOSHUA GREEN, Posted Oct 20, 2005 2:44 PM
I quote:
And there's the story of how, the night after Clinton was elected, Emanuel was so angry at the president's enemies that he stood up at a celebratory dinner with colleagues from the campaign, grabbed a steak knife and began rattling off a list of betrayers, shouting "Dead! . . . Dead! . . . Dead!" and plunging the knife into the table after every name. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/809198
6/the_enforcer
Posted by MarkOller at 10/30/2009 @ 07:01am
Pissy little bunch of right-wingers, huh?
Possibly because Obama did what the "Support the Troops' Dubya NEVER did....pay respects to the arriving dead at Dover AFB.
In fact, didn't Bush and Cheney and Rove try to keep those images OUT of the public eye, because it would have been damaging politically?
BTW, old timers....any chance that Mark Oller is our old friend "Mark Canyon"?
Posted by Mask at 10/30/2009 @ 07:20am
Bush made several routine visits to hospitals to visit wounded soldiers. The difference is, Bush didn't take camera crews or reporters with him.
And Bush's policy on filming caskets was a continuation of Bill Clinton's policy. They were identical.
And it is worth noting that the left and the media continually carped about filming those caskets when Bush was President. Now that Obama is President and images of caskets would reflect on HIM, the media just doesn't seem to be as interested in filming those caskets.
Much in the same manner the media clammed up about disappearing Brazilian rain forests and the plight of the homeless once Clinton was elected. Lexus-Nexus searches have shown this to be true.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/30/2009 @ 07:33am
'BTW, old timers....any chance that Mark Oller is our old friend "Mark Canyon"?'
The worn-on-the-sleeve anti-Semitism, at least, is a match, "Mask."
I think I'll let "MarkOller" join "Mark Canyon" in my "ignore" list.
'No foreign country, either enemy or ally, seems to respect this guy [President Obama].'
At first, "Citizen_Carrier," I thought this statement was a typical piece of right-wing lunacy direct from the Moon. Then, it dawned on me: You are simply confusing respect with fear. Barack Obama is a man that the rest of the world respects enough to trust. As for his predecessor, the world (the entire world, apart from G. W. Bush's own loyal ideological base) cringed and braced for a crapstorm every time he stepped up onto a podium.
Whatever the Nobel Peace Prize may mean, it certainly does not mean that Obama gets respect from "no foreign country, either enemy or ally."
Posted by JakobFabian at 10/30/2009 @ 07:35am
"Bush made several routine visits to hospitals to visit wounded soldiers."
"the media just doesn't seem to be as interested in filming those caskets. "----Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/30/2009 @ 07:33am
1. Did I say hospitals or wounded, CC?
2. Sorry? The Media didn't film caskets coming off that plane???? You didn't even watch that video above, did you?
3. Only one reason why Dubya and Karl Rove didn't want shots of dead returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.....and we both know it. 2004 and 2006 elections.
Posted by Mask at 10/30/2009 @ 07:56am
Posted by JakobFabian at 10/30/2009 @ 07:35am
Naturally, they DO conflate "fear" with "respect"...it's part of the authoritarian mind-set to do that.
The dying dregs (even among Republicans) of those who still belong to the Bush "cult of personality" and are also abject nationalists like CitizCarr follow the precepts that other countries are "weaklings" who must be dominated or cowed. Combine that with other elements (corporatism, militarism, dreams of a one-party state ((Tom Delay's "permanent majority")))....what do you get?
Why do you think they like to fling around "fascism" at Obama and the Dems?....it's psychological projection.
Posted by Mask at 10/30/2009 @ 08:01am
I have no idea who Mark Canyon is, and I always use my real name. I have nothing to hide. Try downloading MarkOller or "Mark Oller." My email address is markscottoller@yahoo.com. Feel free to write.
Militant Khazar Judaism is a murderous totalitarian ideology, and I do not understand anyone who is not opposed to it. Among it victims are non-Zionist European Jews and Arab Jews. Download:
http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/holocaust-zionism.htm
http://www.themodernreligion.com/jihad/freedman.html
http://www.nkusa.org/Historical_Documents/NaeimGiladi.cfm
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p183_Weckert.html
http://www.historiography-project.com/misc/graf_jewishlosses.html
http://www.rense.com/general46/germ.htm
Posted by MarkOller at 10/30/2009 @ 08:23am
Was this picture "photo shopped" adding the Obamanation???? Posted by BigPasture at 10/30/2009 @ 12:30am |
We have moving pictures and talkies now, Rio.
Posted by snowball777 at 10/30/2009 @ 09:14am
But there was no reciprocity. We got nothing from Russia for doing that. When we asked Russia to support sanctions against Iran for an obvious weapons program, they laughed in our face. Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/30/2009 @ 05:04am |
So the use of their airspace for our quagmiring isn't valuable?
How about the cessation of cries for SDRs as a replacement for the dollar as reserve currency?
<When asked whether Russia would support further sanctions against Iran, Prikhodko quoted an answer given by Kremlin chief Dmitry Medvedev last month after talks with US President Barack Obama.
"Sanctions seldom lead to the required result but in some cases the use of sanctions is inevitable," Prikhodko said. "This formulation remains in force.">
Where's the laughter again?
Posted by snowball777 at 10/30/2009 @ 09:18am
1. Did I say hospitals or wounded, CC?
Posted by Mask.
No, you didn't. But the idea that Bush was deficient in paying his respects because he didn't (are you sure he didn't?) visit the airplanes as they arrived with caskets is ridiculous. I'd say visiting wounded soldiers at hospitals more than fulfills that requirement. The dead wouldn't know he was there. Those wounded soldiers did.
"2. Sorry? The Media didn't film caskets coming off that plane???? You didn't even watch that video above, did you?"
Now you're being willfully obtuse. I was clearly pointing out that during the Bush years the media made a big stink about Bush's (Clinton's) policy of not allowing those caskets to become a media agenda tool. Now that they have permission to do it, they've done it what? Twice now that we know about? Once after it was lifted and now this time? Had Bush lifted the ban those images wouldn've been on television every day. Under Obama, it's chirping crickets.
"3. Only one reason why Dubya and Karl Rove didn't want shots of dead returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.....and we both know it. 2004 and 2006 elections."
So why was it Bil Clinton's policy too?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/30/2009 @ 09:41am
So why was it Bil Clinton's policy too? Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/30/2009 @ 09:41am |
Because Clinton was a Republican.
Posted by snowball777 at 10/30/2009 @ 09:47am
Obama is demonstrating that he is a charismatic man with the typical "populist" mentality of knowing what makes good PR. Little real action, but great PR.
Each week I become more convinced that this is Jimmy Carter II, but with a better personality, family, and of course, the politically correct skin color for the 21st century (that's not racism against Obama, but a criticism of the left and the media)
Like Carter, Obama is:
1. leading us into a financial morass that will be difficult to recover from
2. Shows the same indecision on Military decisions
3. Attempts to conflate the emotionalism of "caring" vs sound decision making.
4. ignores real economic decisions on energy policy for feel good, but unrealistic agendas
5. Anti-CIA
6. Headed towards a one term presidency unless he completely changes his current path
Posted by antisocialist at 10/30/2009 @ 10:07am
Each week I become more convinced that this is Jimmy Carter II, but with a better personality,....
Posted by antisocialist at 10/30/2009 @ 10:07am
I think you're over-rating Carter II.....
He's worse! I was in Atlanta, Georgia when Cartermania took hold.......
At no time during his presidency, did I question his love of America.....for a peanut farmer from the south of Georgia. Carter I never associated w/shady, anti-America scumbags and was a Naval Academy graduate who served.
Not so for Magic!
Posted by Happy at 10/30/2009 @ 11:08am
Posted by antisocialist at 10/30/2009 @ 10:07am |
"1. leading us into a financial morass that will be difficult to recover from"
Try Reagan, Clinton, and Bush II.
Do you honestly believe that McCain (and Sec of Treas Gramm, as Frosty likes to say) would be doing any better with this inherited CF?!
"2. Shows the same indecision on Military decisions"
Also known as thought; sorely lacking in the past administration of "liberators".
"3. Attempts to conflate the emotionalism of 'caring' vs sound decision making."
Caring about your countrymen is bad policy by default, in your eyes?
"4. ignores real economic decisions on energy policy for feel good, but unrealistic agendas"
And your suggestion for energy policy would be what? Insert head in sand?
"5. Anti-CIA"
Anti-torture and anti-lying to Congress.
"6. Headed towards a one term presidency unless he completely changes his current path"
Time will tell.
Got your cyano-acrylic ready to patch up the rift in your party (as evidenced by the campaign in NY of late)?
Posted by snowball777 at 10/30/2009 @ 11:30am
Posted by MarkOller at 10/30/2009 @ 08:23am
Sorry, we had another guy like you nicked "MarkCanyon"...so thought it was a possibility.
Sadly, it's true...there is probably more than one in this country who shares your views.
Posted by Mask at 10/30/2009 @ 11:31am
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/30/2009 @ 09:41am
I agree, it was political for Clinton as well.
Of course he had an order of magnitude LESS caskets coming in from Bosnia, than Dubya had coming in from Iraq and Afghanistan.
But is it naivete or merely idol worship to tell us that the same guy who LOVED the photo op of himself landing on an aircraft carrier in a jumpsuit with "Mission Accomplished" flying in the background....
did NOT want the image of dozens of dead GIs coming back in the country as well?
Posted by Mask at 10/30/2009 @ 11:34am
I want to make a clarifying remark about something. I am not anti-Zionist. I recognize Zionism in the context of NGO ethics such as HRW and Amnesty International.
Posted by billrominej at 10/30/2009 @ 11:34am
billrominej = William O. Romine Jr.
Posted by billrominej at 10/30/2009 @ 11:35am
But is it naivete or merely idol worship to tell us that the same guy who LOVED the photo op of himself landing on an aircraft carrier in a jumpsuit with "Mission Accomplished" flying in the background.... Posted by Mask at 10/30/2009 @ 11:34am |
...off the San Diego coast, at great taxpayer expense, no less.
Posted by snowball777 at 10/30/2009 @ 11:47am
Posted by snowball777 at 10/30/2009 @ 11:47am
Yes, but I'm sure CitiCarrier will tell us that it was some kind of "coincidence" that Bush WANTED good images...like "Mission Accomplished" fully disseminated in the Media...
but was "hamstrung by Clinton policies" on not showing BAD images like dozens of caskets coming back from the Middle East!
Posted by Mask at 10/30/2009 @ 11:50am
Oh, and don't mention Pat Tillman (and the later cover-up) or Jessica Lynch's rescue.
Posted by Mask at 10/30/2009 @ 11:52am
Posted by snowball777 at 10/30/2009 @ 11:30am
1.McCain
Slightly better, but then I didn't vote for McCain either.
2.Also known as thought; sorely lacking in the past administration
That's your polite way of saying he's indecisive
3. Caring about your countrymen is bad policy by default, in your eyes?
Emotionalism is no substitute for good management. I've fired many "caring" managers because they were incapable or unwilling to make decisions
4. energy policy- Insert head in sand?
a) Stop interfering with the ability of companies to increase production to meet our energy needs
b)remove the destructive legislation in the 2009 stimulus bill that will create energy boards throughout the country and penalize companies for not meeting artificial renewables requirements
c)drill in ANWR, off the coasts, remove restrictions for development of natural gas alternatives
d)tax credits for selling and purchases of natural gas equipped vehicles
e)negotiate lower oil pricing from Iraq as part of repayment to US for liberating Iraq from Saddam
f)Use bully pulpit to push marxist state govts like CA that ban the sale of new technology Diesel vehicles (the energy savings from increasing diesel and natural gas vehicles would seriously reduce oil dependency
g)Stop enviro groups from halting solar and wind projects. Saving desert mice and insects over the savings and improvements from renewables seems suicidal to me.
5. Anti-torture and anti-lying
It's views like yours that allowed Al Qaeda and others to attack the US
6. Republicans
I'm not a republican, I'm a Libertarian who sometimes votes republican. I applaud the NY efforts because I support conservativism, not the Republican party; I don't put political victory over principle
Posted by antisocialist at 10/30/2009 @ 12:03pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/30/2009 @ 12:03pm |
"Slightly better, but then I didn't vote for McCain either."
Interesting...I figured you were a shoe-in for Palin-mania.
"That's your polite way of saying he's indecisive"
That's your impolite way of attempting to put words in my mouth, again.
"Emotionalism is no substitute for good management..."
Managers can lose good employees by acting like a-holes too, no? Ask Colin Powell.
"4. energy policy- Insert head in sand?"
Oil is a dead end...we need to move to something more sustainable eventually...why dither?
"g)Stop enviro groups from halting solar and wind projects. Saving desert mice and insects over the savings and improvements from renewables seems suicidal to me."
Agreed...so much sun shining on this blue-green sphere that we're not using.
"It's views like yours that allowed Al Qaeda and others to attack the US"
Bull...I support the CIA doing actual intelligence work (like the MI-6 before Cheney screwed them up), not the sideshow they were put to by Dubya's admin.
"I'm not a republican, I'm a Libertarian..."
When was the last time someone who shares your principles (some of which I commend) passed legislation?
Posted by snowball777 at 10/30/2009 @ 12:24pm
When was the last time someone who shares your principles (some of which I commend) passed legislation?
Posted by snowball777 at 10/30/2009 @ 12:24pm
I grant that very little has been accomplished because both parties merely live to feed off of taxpayers.
However, there is a growing movement of folks that are more like Ron Paul. And Paul has recently gotten bi-partisan support for his bill to audit the Federal Reserve.
http://tinyurl.com/m9vux5
And the Republican Liberty Caucus which was formed to bring a marriage of libertarian beliefs with Republican conservativism.
http://www.rlc.org/about/accomplishments/
Posted by antisocialist at 10/30/2009 @ 12:36pm
Posted by snowball777 at 10/30/2009 @ 12:24pm
Larry has a cheap way out of maintaining his "libertarian principles" and it is this...
HIS candidates for US Senate or President...will never win in his home-state of California.
And in his own district, Reddest of Red Modesto, he gets guys like Radanovich who are Hard Right.
So he's never actually CALLED on having to step up and be "principled" in his voting.
GOP candidate too liberal...he can "safely" vote Libertarian and the Dem Senator or Presidential candidate will win regardless in California.
Move Larry to Ohio or Pennsylvania or even Virginia?....he'd vote a straight Republican ticket, even for a "RINO" and pull the usual "voting for the lesser evil" routine that conservatives in those states do.
Posted by Mask at 10/30/2009 @ 1:19pm
I'd like to give Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt on this one but I do need to make a couple of points. So far, everything that Obama has done has had a political calculation to it. He is a Chicago politician after all. I don't want to think that the timing of this photo op has anything to do with the upcoming elections because the fallen heroes were do to arrive home in any event.
Also, I seem to recall that George W. Bush stated that he would not greet fallen troops or attend funerals because he didn't want to slight one over the other, what with the frequency of KIA's in Iraq during the war's worst years. The stature of the President as C.I.C does not lend itself to picking and choosing whom to welcome home.
Obama chose to greet these particular troops. But what about next weeks? And the week after? Does this appearance have anything to do with his political waffeling on McChrystal's requisition? A good question, right? Is he worried that people will not think that he has the well being of our troops in mind because he can't make up his mind?
To me, the troops deserve all the respect that this grateful nation can muster. However, I do feel a little uneasy about the President taking it upon himself to be the ultimate welcoming committee. I don't think that that falls into the duties of the C.I.C., maybe as a politician but not as C.I.C. The war is not over and it certainly has not been won yet.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/30/2009 @ 3:09pm
"Because Clinton was a Republican. Posted by snowball777
'Tis true, alas. Ditto Hillary.
Posted by sloper at 10/30/2009 @ 3:59pm
Typical left wing tripe. We just work up one morning in early September 2001 and said "gee, it's a sunny day, lets go to war for the hell of it".
Posted by pyeatte at 10/30/2009 @ 4:07pm
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/30/2009 @ 3:09pm
I don't put much stock into Bush's stated reasons, but I share your unease about Obama's appearance. I am also uncomfortable with his saluting the coffin instead of putting his hand over his heart, like the other civilians in the video did, or wheeling and marching with the soldiers in the line after the coffin passed instead of standing still with the rest of the civilians.
I've read that it was Reagan who started the practice of Presidents saluting as they passed by military personnel while getting into or out of the presidential helicopter. I'm not sure if G.H.W. Bush and Clinton did it, but G.W. Bush certainly did, and Obama has continued the practice.
Acting like a soldier instead of a civilian plays up the President's role as "Commander-in-Chief," a psudo-military position, and helps make people forget the very idea, let alone the Consitutional requirement, of civilian control of the military. It sets a precedent, a small precedent to be sure, for the further militarization of the presidency, the federal government and the life of the country in general. See, for instance, the militarization of the police over the last 40 years and the recent violation(s) of the Posse Comitatus Act by the use of the regular army within the nation.
Symbols really do matter, sometimes.
Posted by cka2nd at 10/30/2009 @ 4:22pm
>>>But progressives don't want him to just make Bush policies succeed--we want new policies.<<<
New policies?
Like healthcare reform, including children?
National electric grid?
Funding electric car development?
Green jobs development?
Allowing medical marijuana?
Restoring Community Block Grants to fight poverty?
International consensus before action?
Extending hate crime protection for minorities?
Ending missile defense in Eastern Europe?
Scrapping F-22 funding?
AND ALL OF THIS IN THE FIRST 9 MONTHS!
LESLIE SAVAN has bought into the "reflexive" presidential skepticism that affects most post-Watergate journalists rather than getting behind the president to make sure Obama's progressive reform agenda succeeds.
Blogging has introduced "some" new voices, but traditional journalists still dominate the scene. Watergate was terrible, but why should Obama be paying the "skepticism" price for what Nixon did?
Posted by Metteyya at 10/30/2009 @ 4:57pm
Posted by Metteyya
I admire how you "stay the course", Budd Lite. Is it safe to assume that you'll be among those who'll go down with the ship?
Naw, I expect that when the tragedy is fully recognized you'll be executing your exit strategy and managing to swipe a seat on the lifeboat from a mother or her child. Believe me, we've seen this movie before.
Tell Rahm I said, "Fcuk You!".
Peace out, ~B
:D
And another thing....
It never ceases to amaze me that a guy who so vociferously attacked AIPAC at nearly every turn --before Obama became their new sugar daddy-- now utters nary a peep in protest. Well done, Budd. Well done.
Integrity, I never knew thee.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/30/2009 @ 5:56pm
Lastly, scraping the F-22, aka "Tiffany's on Wings", was not exactly heroic. We'll still end up with nearly 200 of these $300 million plus mega-boon doggles that eat up 30 hours of maintainance per hour of flight, and whose radar evading paint can't tolerate the rain.
I don't entirely blame The "O" for the BS we're now subject to, of course. But, Jezuz-god, if the guy actually had any audacity it was in the titling of his book.
Audacity?! The "O" is practically the epitomy of the lack thereof. I despair of Obama's lack of audacity.
I'm outta here. Good night and good luck.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/30/2009 @ 6:08pm
>>>It never ceases to amaze me that a guy who so vociferously attacked AIPAC at nearly every turn --before Obama became their new sugar daddy-- now utters nary a peep in protest. Well done, Budd. Well done.
Integrity, I never knew thee.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 10/30/2009 @ 5:56pm<<<
B_KOOL,
By objection to AIPAC is the same objection I have for ANY group that "buys" influence at the expense of the voter. I have ALWAYS been a huge fan of small (d) democracy, and undue influence of special interest groups undermines this democracy.
Maybe YOU thought I was anti-Jew, but that has NEVER been true.
Posted by Metteyya at 10/30/2009 @ 6:21pm
Up above, antisocialist compared Obama to Carter and in the items explaining how included the following:
".......6. Headed towards a one term presidency unless he completely changes his current path......"
That is a correct prediction, you betcha! On the afternoon of January 20, 2013 many people in the country (including Mask) will be watching television and saying "Lookie here, the country has a new president".
(my prediction now....shortly Mask will be posting in asking how much I am willing to bet on this, unless Mask changes course and asks whether and how much I am willing to bet that she (next-President Palin) will mention global warming (or is it Climate change now?) in her campaign, unless Mask brings up some other question from the past such as the percentage of Islamic people who are terrorists, etc)
Posted by sjchermak at 10/30/2009 @ 7:31pm
But is it naivete or merely idol worship to tell us that the same guy who LOVED the photo op of himself landing on an aircraft carrier in a jumpsuit with "Mission Accomplished" flying in the background.... Posted by Mask at 10/30/2009 @ 11:34am |
...off the San Diego coast, at great taxpayer expense, no less.
Posted by snowball777 at 10/30/2009 @ 11:47am
{sigh}
The unfortunate intersection of an aging frat-boy dry drunk with Karl "Butterball" Rove's insatiable man-crush.
An unforgettable scene.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/30/2009 @ 8:07pm
Posted by sjchermak at 10/30/2009 @ 7:31pm |
Here's a bet for you, Cherm:
- Palin wins the presidency: I'll move to Amsterdam
- Palin wins the nomination: I'll buy her book..and read it (shudder)
- Palin wins neither: you move to Detroit
Posted by snowball777 at 10/30/2009 @ 9:23pm
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/30/2009 @ 8:07pm |
And only two BOHICAs before he got it onto the boat!
We're lucky he didn't decide to start flathatting and lose the bubble or we'd have had to get used to saying President Cheney.
Posted by snowball777 at 10/30/2009 @ 9:39pm
We are in the first phase of a new approach to government, war, diplomacy and just plain running things. Obama is not an out of control wonk like Clinton or a posturing dry drunk like Bush. He is an adult, competent human being with what seems like common sense. I think we ought to appreciate the symbolism of things the President ought to do (like welcoming caskets at Dover) and the amazing turnabout this country has made -- appreciate them and let them take hold. He's not as progressive as you want him to be, sure, but he's some kind of real progress and that's kind of wonderful.
Posted by misskaren at 10/30/2009 @ 9:41pm
The unfortunate intersection of an aging frat-boy dry drunk with Karl "Butterball" Rove's insatiable man-crush.
An unforgettable scene.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/30/2009 @ 8:07pm
Only to you leftist haters. To most Americans, that was a moment of pride. It certainly was to the many Marines that I know.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/30/2009 @ 10:10pm
We are in the first phase of a new approach to government, war, diplomacy and just plain running things. Obama is not an out of control wonk like Clinton or a posturing dry drunk like Bush. He is an adult, competent human being with what seems like common sense. I think we ought to appreciate the symbolism of things the President ought to do (like welcoming caskets at Dover) and the amazing turnabout this country has made -- appreciate them and let them take hold. He's not as progressive as you want him to be, sure, but he's some kind of real progress and that's kind of wonderful.
Posted by misskaren at 10/30/2009 @ 9:41pm
Obama is nothing but a smooth talking, narcissistic Chicago politician. He can't make the hard decisions and he loves stealing the taxpayer's money. Thankfully, we will only have to endure one term. Unfortunately, we will already be bankrupt.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/30/2009 @ 10:12pm
.....he's some kind of real progress and that's kind of wonderful.
Posted by misskaren at 10/30/2009 @ 9:41pm
OMG, one of the original Obama Girls!!
Posted by Happy at 10/30/2009 @ 10:47pm
Typical left wing tripe. We just work up one morning in early September 2001 and said "gee, it's a sunny day, lets go to war for the hell of it".
Posted by pyeatte at 10/30/2009 @ 4:07pm
Anyone who thinks al Qaeda was to blame for the biggest terrorist act in history needs to open his eyes and take the fingers out of his ears. To quote Alexander Sozhenitsyn, "You should have made it your business to know!"
Osama bin Laden was a fall guy dying of kidney failure. We might as well have started a war to hunt for Lee Harvey Oswald. Don't ask why a fat man was chosen to impersonate the pencil thin, sickly, emaciated Osama. They might as well have picked a midget.
Posted by MarkOller at 10/30/2009 @ 10:58pm
- Palin wins neither: you move to Detroit
Posted by snowball777 at 10/30/2009 @ 9:23pm
detroit has enough problems.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/30/2009 @ 11:16pm
Obama is nothing but a smooth talking, narcissistic Chicago politician. He can't make the hard decisions and he loves stealing the taxpayer's money. Thankfully, we will only have to endure one term. Unfortunately, we will already be bankrupt.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/30/2009 @ 10:12pm
thanks to reagan.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/30/2009 @ 11:17pm
thanks to reagan.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/30/2009 @ 11:17pm
anything good since 1980 was thanks to Reagan;
Posted by antisocialist at 10/31/2009 @ 12:26am
Some of you on here really make me ill. Why do you keep defending President Bush, and his horrible Administration? Just like Bush. It appears some of you folks just cannot admit you made a huge mistake not once, but twice. How embarassing for you. Here in Texas we have a Bush clone, and his name is Perry.
I just hope that many have wised up to these greedy for power warmongers. Hey, did any of you know that President Obama missed the World Series to honor our Troops? Nah, didn't think so. I'd be willing to bet that Bush wouldn't have missed that game especially since he would probably throw out the first pitch.
Try being good Americans, and support President Obama, and the efforts he is making in cleaning up this huge mess left by Bush, and his Republican ilk. He has alot on his plate inheriting two wars he never voted for.
Posted by sheila60 at 10/31/2009 @ 07:33am
No foreign country, either enemy or ally, seems to respect this guy.-CITIZEN CARRIER (of plague?)
That is right, CIT, they gave him a Nobel for being black.
Seen anybody throw a shoe at O yet?
Posted by crabwalk at 10/31/2009 @ 07:57am
Posted by antisocialist at 10/30/2009 @ 10:12pm
Maybe you should look closer at who is stealing your money, clownfish.
Start with:
KBR
Northrup Grummond
Maliki
then move on to:
VP's at Wall Street investment firms (given by YOUR man, one of the top ten greatest presidents EVER, now referred by you as a "dry drunk, so much for your core beliefs, eh?)
CEO's at same firms.
Then take a gander at those that kept money with UBS, and did not pay their share of taxes, so you have to.
Now, you may begin to whine about your Commander in Chief, which, if I recall correctly from your and other (DARIN< JOMAMAM, etc) musings, helps our enemies.
What happened to your ideology on this front, cons? Why the sudden change of "core belief" that protesting the CIC in times of war helps the enemies of America? For years you told us that, then BOOM! over night you became what you claimed to hate.
Is that right along with cvlaiming Bush was top ten material, now he is chopped liver, worse, chopped liberal!
Just like Family Values, till Bristol showed up on stage.
flip, flop
flip de fop
flippety floppety
core values.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/31/2009 @ 08:06am
No foreign country, either enemy or ally, seems to respect this guy.-CITIZEN CARRIER (of plague?)
That is right, CIT, they gave him a Nobel for being black.
Seen anybody throw a shoe at O yet?
Posted by crabwalk at 10/31/2009 @ 07:57am
No, they gave him a Nobel for not being Bush. Just like they gave one to Carter.
And I doubt anybody would hit Obama with a shoe. Bowing to Saudi princes and the like enables him to present a smaller, harder to hit target.
The Presidency is NOT a worldwide popularity contest to placate countries that should be antagonized. Obama's history so far has been a litany of abandoning or shorting traditional allies like Britain, Poland, Israel, and the Czechs while making unreciprocated concessions to authoritarian regimes.
For example, Obama is preparing to give $400,000 of our dollars to a "charity" run by the daughter of Qaddafi. A daughter that greeted the recently rleased murderer of 190 Americans on the tarmac with a hug.
That's. Just. Stupid.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/31/2009 @ 08:28am
anything good since 1980 was thanks to Reagan; Posted by antisocialist at 10/31/2009 @ 12:26am |
That's a null set.
Posted by snowball777 at 10/31/2009 @ 09:37am
Many thanks to the editor & her husband for the interview with Gorbachev. Anti & his ilk, with their belief that Reagan is interchangeable with the Christ will be outraged.
What a disappointment that Russia hasn't concentrated on the production of Faberge egg copies and nesting dolls after Reagan singlehandedly toppled the Soviet Union. A nation of ingrates, for sure.
Posted by Sorelish at 10/31/2009 @ 10:57am
>>>But progressives don't want him to just make Bush policies succeed--we want new policies.<<<
New policies?
Like healthcare reform, including children?
National electric grid?
Funding electric car development?
Green jobs development?
Allowing medical marijuana?
Restoring Community Block Grants to fight poverty?
International consensus before action?
Extending hate crime protection for minorities?
Ending missile defense in Eastern Europe?
Scrapping F-22 funding?
AND ALL OF THIS IN THE FIRST 9 MONTHS!
LESLIE SAVAN has bought into the "reflexive" presidential skepticism that affects most post-Watergate journalists rather than getting behind the president to make sure Obama's progressive reform agenda succeeds.
Blogging has introduced "some" new voices, but post-Watergate traditional journalism still dominates the scene. Watergate was terrible, but why should Obama be paying the "skepticism" price for what Nixon did?
Posted by Metteyya at 10/31/2009 @ 11:53am
"Each week I become more convinced that this is Jimmy Carter II, but with a better personality, family, and of course, the politically correct skin color for the 21st century (that's not racism against Obama, but a criticism of the left and the media)" Posted by antisocialist at 10/30/2009 @ 10:07am
Putting the antisemitic comments aside, because the poster is clearly so indoctrinated in hate that he is beyond the reach of reason, I found this to be the most insensitive, ignorant, uncalled for, and shamefully racist comments I've ever read on this website. "Politically correct skin color"? Is that a serious comment? Do you really mean to say that the first black man elected president in our 233 year history was elected BECAUSE OF and not IN SPITE OF his skin color??? I can understand taking a reactionary step back from political correctness, but to say the first minority ever even nominated by a major political party for the office of President, or VP for that matter, is there because of the left and the media's obsession with political correctness is so backwards and illogical it boggles my mind. How can you possibly hold that position without holding the identical position that for 233 years our Presidents were elected because of their skin color? We've all criticized political correctness in our day (to say left wingers don't do it is preposterous) but if there is any benefit to its firm grasp on our society it is that opinions like these are kept off our airwaves and absent from the mouths and minds of our public figures. You've got your freedom of speech alright, but society as a whole has decided that such hateful, ignorant words have no place being uttered where our children might hear them or anyone else might confuse them. You should be ashamed.
Posted by dericrod at 10/31/2009 @ 1:15pm
If Obamabush agrees to send more troops into Afghanistan. Especially after his photo op with the dead, he is much worse than George W. ever was. At least Georgie Boy made it clear that he didn't give a damn about the troops who died to fight his immoral war.
At least that is consistent with the elite fascist neo-con philosophy. Bush and Cheney should be commended for their consistency in their inhuman disdain for their fellows.
But for a president who promised to extract this nation from these past mistakes and crimes against humanity to continue the policies of the Bush Crime family and then "pretend" to care, is an assualt on the consciousness of this country.
The somber looks and reflection, the salute to the fallen becomes and even more hideous example to the depths of depravity that this country has sunk.
I now not only hate this country for what is has become, I find it abhorrent..
Posted by chaoszen at 10/31/2009 @ 2:04pm
If Obamabush agrees to send more troops into Afghanistan. Especially after his photo op with the dead, he is much worse than George W. ever was. At least Georgie Boy made it clear that he didn't give a damn about the troops who died to fight his immoral war. Posted by chaoszen at 10/31/2009 @ 2:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Definately a LIE. Bush was present many times when the war dead arrived home, he allowed NO coverage of that out of respect for their families, but instead focused on the families grief and comforting them openly. You can continue to ignore that if you wish to focus more hate but the truth is easily found.
Posted by BigPasture at 10/31/2009 @ 2:15pm
Makes me want to take up the needle again. The warm reassuring glow. The ability to not "feel", and the damnable assurance that life sucks, but I can no longer feel it...
Posted by chaoszen at 10/31/2009 @ 2:15pm
WORD dericrod, Word!
Posted by Denise29 at 10/31/2009 @ 2:16pm
Bush was present many times when the war dead arrived home, he allowed NO coverage of that out of respect for their families. Posted by BigPasture at 10/31/2009 @ 2:15pm
Bullshit. Show me the proof. Show me...
Posted by chaoszen at 10/31/2009 @ 2:21pm
Posted by BigPasture at 10/31/2009 @ 2:15pm
This crap that Bush visited Dover is a Limbaugh fantasy.
Bush visited the families of hundreds of fallen soldiers but never attended any military funerals or go to Dover to receive coffins..
Why do you lie Rio?
Posted by chaoszen at 10/31/2009 @ 2:28pm
Posted by chaoszen at 10/31/2009 @ 2:04pm
Obama is committed to keeping America safe, and does not take this commitment lightly. It is an EXTREMELY tough call to have to order drone attacks to take out those who are part of Al Qaeda leadership when you know there may be civilian casualties. I watched Clinton in Pakistan who was under fire for these attacks because 700 civilians have been killed in Pakistan because of collateral damage from the drones.
Are 700 innocent lives worth the lives of 20 Al Qaeda leaders who are actively plotting to kill "thousands" of innocent people? It clearly is a VERY tough call, and without all of the specific intelligence, a difficult thing to judge. I DO think drone technology needs to be dramatically improved to minimize civilian casualties.
There is also a legitimate due process issue in taking out "suspected" terrorists without a finding by an impartial body that there is sufficient evidence that the person is engaging in terrorism. But where is this impartial body? Should we be using the world court for this authority?
Like I have always said on these threads, it is preferable to get the US out of the world cop role as soon as possible to avoid these sovereignty issues expressed by the Pakistan journalists on Clinton's visit there. But we have to continue to play this role until the "world" decides to develop some "international" force capable of policing the world.
There are REAL terrorist threats and plots against America, Americans, Europeans and others that emerge almost daily. Who is going to thwart these plots and disable those responsible for them if it is not the US?
Posted by Metteyya at 10/31/2009 @ 2:37pm
Taking military pressure off gihadists in their home regions is not a good idea. Neither is a Vietnam-style escalation to prop up a corrupt regime. The only answer left is for NATO to be the harasser of the Taliban element, not the occupier of Afghanistan -- saw a cool site; Balkingpoints ; awesome satellite view of earth
Posted by reg373 at 10/31/2009 @ 3:04pm
anything good since 1980 was thanks to Reagan;
Posted by antisocialist at 10/31/2009 @ 12:26am
man, you are lost.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/31/2009 @ 3:37pm
Which is worse (or better)?
If Bush went to any funeral for a fallen soldier, he would overshadow what the event is supposed to be about. That's why he didn't go to any. That is a time for family, not an opportunity for a photo op.
Traditionally, Presidents pay their respects to ALL soldiers by placing a wreath at the Tomb of the Unkown Soldier.
Obama went to greet some incoming caskets. That's neither here nor there. It doesn't make him more compassionate about soldiers than Bush, who went to Baghdad unannounced to spend Thanksgiving with soldiers while within range of insurgency mortar and rocket attacks.
Frankly, I'm disappointed that Obama took camera crews with him and did not chose to keep this a matter between him and those fallen soldiers. That made it a political calculation, and to my mind less sincere than it could've seemed.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/31/2009 @ 4:36pm
If Bush went to any funeral for a fallen soldier, he would overshadow what the event is supposed to be about. That's why he didn't go to any. Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/31/2009 @ 4:36pm
Bush didn't go to any because he is a coward. Just like he never showed up for the Air National Guard. Just like he never showed up for anything except to appear on an air craft carrier in a flight suit with cod-piece in place to declare "Mission Accomplished".
Are we both on the same planet?
Posted by chaoszen at 10/31/2009 @ 5:07pm
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/31/2009 @ 4:36pm |
"It doesn't make him more compassionate about soldiers than Bush, who went to Baghdad unannounced to spend Thanksgiving with soldiers while within range of insurgency mortar and rocket attacks."
...posed with a PLASTIC turkey while giving 'loyal Bushie' troops a TV dinner...while any soldier not signing a the loyalty oath wasn't invited and got his usual MRE.
What a guy!
That's TWO times this dipshit put himself in danger unnecessarily...for a lame photo-op.
Posted by snowball777 at 10/31/2009 @ 6:22pm
Posted by snowball777 at 10/31/2009 @ 6:22pm
As imperfect as Bush was as a president, I'm thankful that he was not someone with your beliefs.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/31/2009 @ 7:20pm
citizencarrier, bush was a coward, Obama actually feels something when one of our own is fallen, and shows it. You on the right are too much, how easily you forget, I'm glad Obama went, it was nice to see a prez doing what is right.
Posted by Denise29 at 10/31/2009 @ 7:49pm
As imperfect as Bush was as a president, I'm thankful that he was not someone with your beliefs.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/31/2009 @ 7:20pm
you'd chose bush over snowy?
man, you ARE lost.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/31/2009 @ 8:25pm
citizencarrier, bush was a coward, Obama actually feels something when one of our own is fallen, and shows it. Posted by Denise29 at 10/31/2009 @ 7:49pm
I just can't tow the hopefully progressive boat.
If "Ibama" truly cared he would have pulled our young men and women out of that quagmire the minute he became president. If "Ibama" really cared he would have demanded a single payer healthcare system. If "Ibama" truly cared he would have reinstated the Glass-Steagall Act to prevent the banking industry from gambling with our money.
If only.. If only..
The "president we got" is not the president we elected. And the sooner the "left" wises up, the better.
It becomes apparent that the only thing that can save our country is armed revolution. And that would be a bloodbath that only the right could imagine.
Unless we go that far we are toast. And at this point the best action for us and all sane people is to get the fuck out. And plot to fight another day.
Quite depressing...
Posted by chaoszen at 10/31/2009 @ 8:50pm
Don't just look at polls from the 80's and think Regan was a good president. Regan is taxing you from beyond the grave for all his spending. We should all despise him.
Thanks to Regan... we went from the largest creditor nation in the history of the world to the largest debtor nation in the history of the world.
Regan not only crippled our country with his spending and top heavy Reganomics tax cuts but he set the precedent that our government could tax our future generations with billions of dollars of debt and have no plans to pay it off.
Sure, war debts are one thing - one generation may make enormous sacrifices in the battlefield and the homefront in order to defend our freedoms and and in the process leave some economic burden on future generations. That is understandable, its happened before and we have recovered before and came back stronger than ever.
But during the Regan years our soldiers weren't fighting overseas and our public wasn't making sacrifices at home and yet we had the largest peace time defense budget in history and at the same time were cutting taxes left and right. We were struggling through an extensive recession and, you guessed it, were still cutting taxes! Regan spent, spent, spent while cutting taxes and he was popular for it. Well guess what, most of America may have liked him while he was in office but now that the next generation has gotten the bill we're not so happy. Screw Regan. We've got huge problems of our own and I'm tired of my tax dollars going over to Japan and China and wherever else he borrowed from.
Needless to say Bush's huge tax cuts while we were fighting TWO wars abroad don't sit so well with me either. If Ike were alive today I bet he would slug Bush in the face. And if Ike found out about Blackwater...yikes.
Posted by dericrod at 10/31/2009 @ 9:14pm
citizencarrier, bush was a coward, Obama actually feels something when one of our own is fallen, and shows it. You on the right are too much, how easily you forget, I'm glad Obama went, it was nice to see a prez doing what is right.
Posted by Denise29 at 10/31/2009 @ 7:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Yea, he FEELS glad he was to young for Nam and FEELS glad he spent his time with anti-Americans and black supremist in college which made him way too busy for Desert Storm or any attempt to serve our country when he could SERVE himself so much better!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/31/2009 @ 10:06pm
Posted by Denise29 at 10/31/2009 @ 7:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person
The Obamanation is a coward and full of fear who would never place himself in danger much less military service! He isn't fit to salute our dead servicemen!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/31/2009 @ 10:12pm
There has been a "Ban" on showing the dignified transfer of our honorable war dead for Eighteen Years, but now just for a Political Photo Op the Obamanation is making a SideShow out of our valiant dead servicemen for his own selfserving reasons! This blatant opportunism should sicken every American and is outrageous for most of our servicemen!
Posted by BigPasture at 11/01/2009 @ 12:31am
citizencarrier, bush was a coward, Obama actually feels something when one of our own is fallen, and shows it. You on the right are too much, how easily you forget, I'm glad Obama went, it was nice to see a prez doing what is right.
Posted by Denise29 at 10/31/2009 @ 7:
Again, other liberals here have admitted that Bush visited families of fallen soldiers. Remember, he even met with Cindy Sheehan once. Before she became radicalized and wanted to turn a second meeting into a media event.
You've probably never been in the military, so you've probably never taken part in a military funeral. Once the flag on the coffin is folded, it is taken by the OIC/NCOIC and given to the spouse or surviving child.
I can tell you, that is an emotionally difficult act to perform. For you have to also get out the words, "This is given on behalf of a grateful nation."
I've been in almost 18 years, and it's a rare man who can perform that act without getting choked up.
Bush was performing a similar function when he visited surviving families. Does anybody honestly think doing that is easier than meeting some caskets on the tarmac? Or that it takes less emotional courage?
More importantly, do any of you who ascribe this coldness to Bush personally realize just how deep your own hatred has penetrated into your character? And what a poisonous thing this is to any soul? I do not agree with Obama's policies, but I am not going to strip away his humanity because of that.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/01/2009 @ 06:08am
And you guys want an example of why Obama's photo op here was an act of political calculation?
Out of the 15 families with dead soldiers present on that flight, only ONE family gave Obama permission to do what he did with cameras rolling.
One would think that the majority would rule in a situation like this, don't you think? Heck, I would think that you'd need the permission of all 15 families. Even one family objecting should be the deal-breaker.
But no. Not when the President's approval ratings are on the decline and he's getting hammered for spending time at fundraisers and golf courses when he's had GEN McChrystal's request for more troops on his desk since September 5th.
No, in that situation all bets are off. The politically calculated photo-op trumps the need to honor one's own words that families would have to give their permission for camera crews to record the event.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/01/2009 @ 06:18am
But I suppose we should be grateful for that one family who gave Obama the "lawyerly" excuse to tread on his committment to keep this moment private unless families approve.
For like the Bard said, the play's the thing wherein we'll learn the conscience of the king.
Political theater.
I half suspect that he will "cite" these "emotional" moments as having a great impact on his pending [look down at watch, shake head] decision on Afghanistan.
At this point, I'd be somewhat indifferent if he decided to withdraw from Afghanistan altogther. Better that than this wishful "we'll just fight al Qaeda" plan that somehow believes the Taliban will stop it's attacks if we publicly announce we're just there for the terrorists.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/01/2009 @ 06:28am
citizencarrier, my dad was a major in the airforce, lead bombardier and navigator during world war II, did 33 missions overseas, he got that burial your talking about, and I still stand by what I said about Obama, I liked seeing him at Dover paying his respect.
Posted by Denise29 at 11/01/2009 @ 10:17am
citizencarrier, I don't hate bush, but I do believe he will go down as one of the worst, and I was against just about everything he stood for.
Posted by Denise29 at 11/01/2009 @ 10:20am
Posted by Denise29 at 11/01/2009 @ 10:20am
You don't "hate" Bush, but in an earlier post you called Bush a coward and then wrote that at least Obama actually feels something when a soldier is fallen.
The implication being that Bush did not feel anything. How do you know this? Because it fits the construct of Bush your side has made? A cold, corporate, profit-driven entity?
Let's look at this another way. Obama has been President since January 20th.
We'll say, roughly 8 months ago and some change. During that time, soldiers have been coming home in caskets from Afghanistan. Obama, "who actually feels something when a soldier is fallen" (because your window into the soul of a man who went to Rev. Wright's church for 2 decades and counts members of the Weather Underground as his friends allows you to "know" this), is just now getting around to paying his respects.
So why now and not earlier? Why now that he's facing tough criticism over delaying a decision on a request that has been on his desk since September 5th? From a general he met with all of one time since he'd been President? A decision NATO already agrees with? Why now that stories are appearing that he's played more golf in 7 months than the heartless Bush did in 3 years?
And why take cameras along? Especially when 14 of the 15 families there DID NOT want their soldier's arrival home to be used as a photo op for a President obviously trying to shore up his military image? Do you really think this is all that different from Bush in his flight suit?
Again, this was a political calculation. How do we know?
Because of the timing. Why now and not earlier?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/01/2009 @ 10:42am
Commentators have compared Pres. Obama with Pres. Hoover and Johnson. The comparison is apt but is unfair to the two previous presidents.
Herbert Hoover, though he failed in ameliorating the 1929 crash and subsequent depression, was an outstanding success in everything he did before. He was loved for his humanitarian work after WWI in Europe and before that in his charitable work in the U.S. He was a very effective Secretary of Commerce, having done much to establish standards for industry.
Lyndon B. Johnson was courageous in protecting, at long last, the voting rights of black Americans as well as other civil rights. He made poverty a federal issue and began many programs to combat it. Unfortunately, he undercut them in order to fight an imperial war in southeast Asia. His courage did not extend to fighting the rabid, right-wing of the Congress.
If Barack Obama emulated the internationalism and humanity of Herbert Hoover and the guardianship of civil rights of Lyndon B Johnson, Obama could have been a great president. Instead, he has the incompetency of Herbert Hoover in financial and economic policies and the imperialism and militarism of Lyndon B. Johnson in foreign affairs. Combining the worst qualities of both predessors, Obama has emerged as a close-clone to George W. Bush.
Posted by goedel at 11/01/2009 @ 11:02am
citizencarrier, I don't hate bush, but I do believe he will go down as one of the worst, and I was against just about everything he stood for.
Posted by Denise29 at 11/01/2009 @ 10:20am
Really?
So you were against cutting the tax rates of lower Income Americans by 33%?
You were against Bush's proclamation that all people in the world deserve to live in freedom?
You were against Bush's statement that homosexuals should be allowed to have civil unions in every state?
George Bush is a very decent man who like all of us, has strengths and weaknesses, accomplishes good, and has failures.
Why do you think that liberal Democrats Kennedy's and the Clinton's are friends with the Bush's? It's because they understand tradition in this country. That while people can have significant differences on how to better America, you can find common ground and still be social friends while maintaining political opposition.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/01/2009 @ 12:08pm
coke!
pepsi!
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/01/2009 @ 12:16pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/01/2009 @ 12:16pm |
No hamburger...chee-burger!
Posted by snowball777 at 11/01/2009 @ 12:58pm
Wow!
Posted by Denise29 at 11/01/2009 @ 2:18pm
Uh, I never saw bush at dover, I didn't like that bush sent us to war in irak for a lie, I never said he didn't have feelings for the fallen, I said I didn't like him as our prez, and I didn't, still don't, just about everything he and cheney did was wrong, some things more than wrong.
Posted by Denise29 at 11/01/2009 @ 2:27pm
Posted by antisocialist at 11/01/2009 @ 12:08pm |
"So you were against cutting the tax rates of lower Income Americans by 33%?"
Yes. If you want to start wars, you damn well better be able to pay for them.
<The income tax cuts are heavily weighted to the very rich, with 43 percent going to the richest 1 percent of the country, amounting to about $45,000 each. This 1 percent would receive more than the bottom 80 percent of taxpayers combined.>
Stop pretending you're doing people who don't pay much in taxes anyway a favor.
"You were against Bush's proclamation that all people in the world deserve to live in freedom?"
I'm not against the easter bunny or santa claus either.
"You were against Bush's statement that homosexuals should be allowed to have civil unions in every state?"
Instead of marriages? Yes.
"George Bush is a very decent man who like all of us, has strengths and weaknesses, accomplishes good, and has failures."
Can you say the same about any Democrat?
"Why do you think that liberal Democrats Kennedy's and the Clinton's are friends with the Bush's?"
Same Country Club?
"It's because they understand tradition in this country. That while people can have significant differences on how to better America, you can find common ground and still be social friends while maintaining political opposition."
...while consistently attempting to pigeon-hole "typical leftists" and attacking poorly constructed strawmen all day long.
Right....
Posted by snowball777 at 11/01/2009 @ 2:28pm
Posted by snowball777 at 11/01/2009 @ 2:28pm
Snowball, you're beliefs are a threat to all people who love liberty and people of faith.
Good Democrats. I'm sure many are good and decent people. But liberalism is a threat to the destruction of our constitutional republic.
<Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.>
C.S. Lewis
<Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.>
Daniel Webster
Posted by antisocialist at 11/01/2009 @ 2:45pm
Posted by antisocialist at 11/01/2009 @ 2:45pm |
"Omnipotent moral busybodies..."
Sounds like you, not me...and no, robber barons' cupidity is rarely, if ever, satiated because they seldom have anything resembling a conscience.
"Good intentions..."
Sounds like Dubya's justification for the provisions of the Patriot Act and his reckless use of force projection.
Posted by snowball777 at 11/01/2009 @ 4:23pm
"Omnipotent moral busybodies..."
Sounds like you, not me...and no, robber barons' cupidity is rarely, if ever, satiated because they seldom have anything resembling a conscience.
"Good intentions..."
Sounds like Dubya's justification for the provisions of the Patriot Act and his reckless use of force projection.
Posted by snowball777 at 11/01/2009 @ 4:23pm
Both were speaking of the danger of expanding govt with good intentions (ie welfare state, social security, medicare, federal education funding, healthcare).
All those programs reduce liberty
Posted by antisocialist at 11/01/2009 @ 4:38pm
All those programs reduce liberty Posted by antisocialist at 11/01/2009 @ 4:38pm |
Which liberties are curtailed by each?
Despite your endless false accusations, I am quite skeptical of the government, regardless of what party is holding the reigns, but I've used some of those programs during my life and don't feel my liberty has been curtailed in the least.
You can go off on a misguided diatribe about taxation, but the simple truth is that the help I received from the government allowed me to a) survive to adulthood and b) achieve class mobility such that I've paid more taxes than I consumed by an order of magnitude.
Posted by snowball777 at 11/01/2009 @ 4:48pm
Geez louise, what is so wrong with some taxes? If taxes mean HC and helping the least among us? And who would be angry to have their taxes going to help same? Sometimes those who would be against those kind of taxes speaks louder than the words themselves.
Posted by Denise29 at 11/01/2009 @ 8:01pm
Nice way to use the dead for a photo op.
Posted by abell12ct at 11/02/2009 @ 06:59am
Not really the main point here, but since Leslie mentioned it, her description of Beck's insinuation is exactly what reparations are, Government goodies to Blacks who don't deserve them taken from Whites who are not obligated to give them, coupled with an unhealthy, misplaced and manipulative application of guilt.
Sorry,not this man.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/02/2009 @ 09:11am
abell12ct
piffle.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/02/2009 @ 11:23am