They’ve been made fools of once too often:
It’s not just that Obama lied, it’s the obviousness of the mendacity. There’s no wriggle room on this one; anyone who’s been paying any attention for the last two years knows it’s a bald-faced lie. And in addition, there’s been no explanation for it, and no excuses. The administration is simply ignoring the lie as though it doesn’t matter, and insulting the press in the bargain. This makes pundits who liked and supported Obama look foolish, and they don’t like to look that way. Thus, the anger—it’s personal now.
Maybe they’ll attack him in his sleep with a golf club. Good thing he has Secret Service.
The press is kinda late though. I spoke with a centrist friend recently who gets the news from the MSM. The “ACORN” tapes and subsequent de-funding/refunding was news to this person, who asked if it was on “60 minutes”.
Um, Rand.
I was visiting my “elder right-wing” friend, who now resides in assisted living on account of his health. I apologized for not seeing him in a long time, but that I was seeing him so that as a “young hot head” I would get the right advice from someone with more life experience in this challenging political times.
He reminded me of the obvious “Mr. Obama is still President, and we should all afford him that respect.” I told him that I agreed: for example, I would be happier if the economy would somehow get getter, even if it meant helping the Democrats keep Congress, rather than see people suffer if that was the only way to get Republicans back in Congress.
As such, golf clubs belong on the fairway, not in political discourse.
With regard to being beaten about the head with a golf club, yeah, I watch Jay Leno and laugh at the Tiger Woods jokes, and we all snicker at girl-on-guy domestic battery because generally speaking men are strong enough to defend themselves.
On the other hand, guy-on-girl domestic battery is no laughing matter, no matter one’s politics, and if we are serious about guy-on-girl violence, we don’t want a guy even raising a hand in self defense.
In the case of Mr. Earl Woods, Jr., the man may be a cad for having this stable of sleezy girlfriends, but the man is a gentleman for fleeing instead of defending himself from his wife’s wrath.
For his trouble of “doing the right thing as a man” in a domestic battery situation, the Florida State Patrol was thinking about charging Mr. Woods with an OWI, but instead, they dragged two female officers out to a press conference to announce that Mr. Woods was “only” getting a ticket for inattentive driving for smashing his car. Way to go Florida State Patrol and your women officers-at-the-press-conference, you just erased about 20 years worth of gains in domestic violence, largely on the front of getting men not to defend themselves in the face of provocation.
we all snicker at girl-on-guy domestic battery
Do we? I sure don’t. I don’t find it funny at all.
because generally speaking men are strong enough to defend themselves
Uh huh. I’m sorry, but this is macho horseshit. Who wins when two men fight? Always the bigger? You know better than that. And if you don’t, hunt up some old video of Sugar Ray boxing. And this is even leaving aside several important points:
(1) Luck. Suppose she swings first and a sharp nail catches an eye? Game over. He’s blind in one eye. I’m supposed to laugh at this possibility?
(2) Age. So maybe when you’re a strapping 20-year-old you’re not afraid of your GF (but of course you’re not afraid of anything, which is why you drive without a seatbelt; you’re kind a loony that way, actually, which is why we put you on the front lines in wartime). And maybe that’s still so when you’re 45. But when you’re 65? 70? In what sense to do you have an advantage over a woman, perhaps a much younger one?
(3) Weapons. Women are not fools. If they’re going to attack a man in any way seriously, it’s not going to be with their hands — it’s going to be with a gun, knife, bat, golf club. And now what good does your increased power in the biceps do you?
I find the fact that Tiger had to flee his own house rather than defend himself against an assault from his wife (assuming that’s what happened) to be a travesty of justice. It’s his call whether to go back, but if he chooses not to, by me she should lose custody of their kids and be stripped, turned out penniless in the streets.
That’s not the way it works, of course. Probably he’d be worse in the divorce, because his philandering — causing at worst mere psychological distress — makes him a “bad guy” where her deadly assault, in which she actually injured the guy, and, by helping him drive into a tree, put him in serious jeopardy of his life, just makes her all the more pitiable, the sad long-suffering wife. Blech.
I would be happier if the economy would somehow get getter, even if it meant helping the Democrats keep Congress, rather than see people suffer if that was the only way to get Republicans back in Congress.
This is the kind of thinking that has got us to where we are at, and, if continued, will only make things worse. That the Dems are proposing policies that are bad in the long term (and often in the short term) isn’t taken into account, but making ourselves feel better is. Because the most important thing is that we don’t want to see people “suffer”. Or be told that people are “suffering”. (Told by who? The same people who further their political aims by having it appear that people are “suffering”, and only they have the cure.)
That’s why for decades the GOP has repeatedly positioned themselves as the more efficient implementers of Dem policies, because they are afraid to look like they are being cruel and heartless. So are choices have been a decade of “compassionate conservatism”, designed to prove the negative that the GOP isn’t mean and nasty and continues the soft slide downward, and a year of Hard Leftism designed to make as many problems as possible, all of which need Big Government fixing in the coming years.
Dem policies (and their blocking possible reforms during the last decades) are what has made people “suffer” in the first place. Again, you seem to want to reward them because there’s an outside chance that policies that would actually help would also have the collateral effect of helping the GOP.
As for the golf clubs remark, are you really that PC humorless?
I find the fact that Tiger had to flee his own house rather than defend himself against an assault from his wife (assuming that’s what happened) to be a travesty of justice. It’s his call whether to go back, but if he chooses not to, by me she should lose custody of their kids and be stripped, turned out penniless in the streets.
My view is that there should be some leniency for crimes of passion, especially if no one got seriously injured, the other side is unwilling to press charges, and there isn’t a record of domestic violence. We’d like people to stay calm and reasonable in breakups, but they usually don’t. Now if she had considerable time to cool down, yet planned on putting some sand wedge shaped divots in Tiger’s skull, then that’s a go-to-jail moment not a turn-her-out-on-the-streets moment.
“don’t worry baby, not in your mouth, I will tell you before hand.”
Carl, if it’s the future of the country at stake… refusing to use any tool available out of concerns for comity is nothing short of foolishness. The enemy will not afford you the same benefit, and gentlemanly behavior will afford you little warmth when you’re standing in a bread line.
Besides, comity and ‘respect for the office’ died in 2000. The Democrats killed it. I see no reason to reward them – by handing them elections, and control of the government!- for having done so.
if it’s the future of the country at stake… refusing to use any tool available out of concerns for comity is nothing short of foolishness.
One of the reasons for comity is that people find it too easy to convince themselves that “the future of the country” is at stake — whether it is or not. Being sure that you are right, that those who disagree with you are evil, and that the normal rules must be suspended in order to avert catastrophe — these are typical symptoms of self-delusion.
Besides, comity and ‘respect for the office’ died in 2000. The Democrats killed it.
That’s an interesting choice of date. What did the Democrats do in 2000 that indicated lack of respect for the office of the President (which was then held by a Democrat)?
Playing dumb Jim? You’re better at it when you’re not trying.
Actually, Cecil, I think it started in 1987 during th eBork Hearings.
Jim, what happened to our conversation in this thread? Your sweet sample dropped out of the average and you just stopped talking up your blip! Again, the trend line is re-asserting itself as I predicted.
http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=24019
You are correct Mike, a case could probably be made for Oval Office respect dying even earlier, say 1980. It’s pretty disrespectful of the office (and for the country as a whole) when a sitting US Senator proposes to a foreign, unfriendly government (USSR) cooperation in undermining the President of the United States! Which is what Ted Kennedy did, for those who don’t know.
But as for Jim and the 2000 quip, he knows full well that the reference was to the disputed election of 2000 and the cries of “stolen elections” that began in 2000, and continue to this day. There was a large minority composed of far left loon democrats that orchestrated a smear campaign against George W. Bush from DAY ONE over the claim of his presidency being illegitimate.
So, uh, could somebody tell me what Tiger Woods has to do with Barack Obama? I don’t get the golf club reference.
A few weeks back some Chinese news station simulated (yes, with computer graphics) Tiger Woods fleeing his home while chased by his wife with a golf club and driving into a tree. That has set the standard for contemporary assault and battery and the reporting thereof.
Uh…this thread is bewildering me, and I think I contributed by wandering far off topic. Sorry.
Karl has a point, BTW. I have no idea if the rumors of what happened in Maison Woods are accurate or not. Mine was a rant on a hypothetical.
I actually agree with Jim here, up to a point of definition. I think “comity” in a way I’ll define momentarily is essential if a republic is not to degenerate over time into an endless series of civil wars. That’s how the Roman Republic ended; ours can, too.
Where Jim and I may part ways (or not — he can say for himself) is what we mean by “comity.” I don’t mean being nice, or charitable about the other’s guys screw-ups. I will give one example: Glenn Reynolds linked to a few odd bits recently about Democrats saying about Obama things that, if Republicans said them, would be widely considered evidence of bigotry. Glenn says, oh, well, let’s not leap to conclusions, the way the other side does. Prolly it’s all harmless.
Up to a point, fair enough. But the right generally carries this a bit too far. It’s like they expect to get “good sportsmanship” points from a referee somewhere. It gets to the point where they actually refuse to make obvious judgments. Like, in this case, when you have a party that has, as one of its core principles, that minority folks can’t make it without help, and someone from that party is caught saying something contemptuous of minority abilities — maybe it’s not unreasonable to start connecting those dots. Maybe what Clinton called “the soft bigotry of low expectations” is backed up by actual bigotry, and maybe it’s time to start wondering that out loud.
Where I think comity matters, however, is in being straight with your opponents, and taking reasonable consideration of their core needs and wants. Fact is, I think the graduated income tax is a miserable immoral evil. But if I were magically elected President, I would not push for its replacement with a flat tax or something. Why? Because 30% of the country would absolutely go ballistic. They would freak. They would feel, if it came close to happening, that it was time to take down the rifle and form up a militia.
That’s where I think everyone in power has to draw the line: you have to take sufficient care of your opponents core principals that you do not make their lives seem intolerable. You have to live with them, and you have to make it possible for them to live with you.
It helps when our connections are personal as well as political, of course. If I saw Jim (or Barack Obama) in a car wreck at the side of the road, I’d stop and do all I could. I’d bust my ass getting him to the hospital. I’d donate my own blood if it would help. Who wouldn’t? Such things, our common humanity, transcend our ideological dust-ups. But it’s not always easy to keep that in mind when we meet each other in verbal metaphorical combat.
The Left media’s new-found concern for transparency over monstrously expensive, Democrat-initiated legislation is amusing. Where were they on the “stimulus” bill?
Not evil, just suffering a serious lack of understanding of history, and being motivated by how something “feels”, rather than thinking objectively and applying lessons learned from the past. With a dash of “man is perfectable you idiot!” thrown in.
We haven’t been doing that ad-nauseum for decades? I don’t think we are any more in need of “a pubic dialog on race” than we are of a Tuesday-night version of Survivor:Sri-Lanka.
And the trend further re-assertst itself. Just as I called it Jim.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
That the Democrats lied, regardless of which one, is not news at all. Likewise, that a lie was told on the campaign trail, is not news. The big news would be,
.
.
“Voters WITH LONG MEMORIES show up at polls nationwide!!!”
.
“Incumbents OUT, New Faces IN!!”
.
.
“Reid, Pelosi, Obama…OUT, OUT, OUT!!!”
.
.
I’m not holding my breath mind you, but I’d love to see those headlines on the NY Times, PMSNBC, CNN and my local fish wrap. Add in a few dozen local tax and spend, do nothing but hand wringers, where I live and I’d be a happy camper. OK, happier camper, just removing them isn’t the total answer, but it’s a heck of a start.
Carl, that kind of quid pro quo dies along with the Boomers. For cynical Gen-Xers like Obama, “we won, you lost!” is the zeitgeist going forward.
Obama is a Boomer, he was born before 1965.
Ugh, a pointless screed against both the Boomer and X “generations”. I don’t see the problems with either generation being significantly different much less worse than the so-called “Greatest generation”.
Really? Does you stock portfolio feel the same way? You think the timing is random? Believe what you will.
“Fact is, I think the graduated income tax is a miserable immoral evil. But if I were magically elected President, I would not push for its replacement with a flat tax or something. Why? Because 30% of the country would absolutely go ballistic. They would freak.”
I got “called out” for suggesting I would like to economy to recover even if it meant that people would feel good about Democrats and keep them in office.
What I meant is that, in my opinion, what a lot of Mr. Obama is doing is disasterous, and that disaster could swing things back to the Republicans (or the Tea Party or whoever). Supposing Mr. Obama “got religion” and decided to change course, gosh forbid, maybe even abandon Health Care. I would like to see that outcome, even if it meant majorities by Democrats, rather than see the country run into the ground, which would bring back people I would favor.
The remark by Carl on the graduated income tax is something which resonates with me. Ms. Noonan recently suggested that if Mr. Obama had proposed some manner of incremental health care insurance reform that this would be law by now, but no, he had to try to “belt that one out of the park” and we ended up with the mess we are getting. No to some Libertarian stalwarts, Ms. Noonan is a RINO and incremental health reform is incremental socialism, but that makes me a moderate, in contrast with Someone Else who is a blatant everything-left-liberal-right-or-wrong apologist.
It is kind of why I couldn’t take Mike Huckabee seriously. I actually turned out to a campaign rally to here him talk. I was with him most of the way until the “Fair Tax” business. Yeah, yeah, it sounds great on paper, replace the entire tax system with a national sales tax. It sounds great until you ask “how do you get there, from heah?” How to you push back against the mass of entrenched interests who rather like whatever favor or break they are getting from the present system?
OK, maybe I am a “Fabian Libertarian” in that I believe in incrementalism, and the Libertarianism is not so much an endpoint within our lifetime, but a vector direction of improving the state of things. If we cannot have truly “free” health care in the sense that a person is free to spend their money on healthcare as they see fit instead of being directed into health care, I would like to see more market-driven approaches. The affordability of Lasic eye surgery is such an example.
“Obama is a Boomer, he was born before 1965.”
Obama is technically part of the Baby Boom – but culturally he is not a Boomer. He is the 13th Generation/GenX.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generations_(book)#Types_of_Generations
“Nomad/Reactive. A Nomad (or Reactive) generation is born during an Awakening, spends its rising adult years during an Unraveling, spends midlife during a Crisis, and spends old age in a new High. Nomadic leaders have been cunning, hard-to-fool realists, taciturn warriors who prefer to meet problems and adversaries one-on-one.”
This is the generation of live-for-the-moment hyperindividualists that produces Pattons and Capones and people who write novels that get schoolgirls oohing and aahing over vampires. Boomers are Idealists, who are obsessed with remaking society. The two may work together, but the Reactives (hence the name) more than the Boomers are more heavily influenced by the revenge factor.
Alan, the Generations book is junk. Even if we accept your criteria, it’s pretty obvious that a lot of boomers were both idealistic and reactive. The alleged life story of the “reactive” part fits late boomers pretty well, especially those who go the “community organizer” career route and Obama happens to be one.
Really? Does you stock portfolio feel the same way? You think the timing is random? Believe what you will.
Timing with what? We’ve had numerous similar messes since these sorts of markets were created in the late Middle Ages. It’s not random, far from it. I just don’t think it has anything to do with so-called generational dynamics.
However, if we’re going to start blaming generations for what they did, let us keep in mind that the “Greatest generation” (supposedly the best of last century) lost US competitivity in a variety of industries (autos, TVs, ship construction, etc) in the 60’s and 70’s, bears greatest responsibility for the growth of entitlements in the US budget, growth of the State, and brought up the babyboomers. If the Boomers turned out poorly (which I don’t think is the case, but let’s go with the assumption), maybe it’s because they were raised poorly.
Similarly, if Gen-X turns out bad (again, I don’t think this is the case, but suppose it is so), then their parents bear considerable responsibility.
Ultimately, I think this game of generational blame is a waste of time. It’s a new variation of the eternal, ineffectual whining about the callowness of youth.
Mike:
I never claimed that the trend was otherwise, simply that polling immediately after Christmas did not support the hypothesis that Obama is “vulnerable on the war.”
Ms. Noonan recently suggested that if Mr. Obama had proposed some manner of incremental health care insurance reform that this would be law by now, but no, he had to try to “belt that one out of the park” and we ended up with the mess we are getting.
It was not only Obama’s choice; if a dozen Republicans had indicated a willingness to support a milder reform effort the Dems would have leapt at the chance to have bipartisan cover. Instead the unified GOP opposition left Dems with an all or nothing proposition.
The result may be politically bad for the Dems (we’ll see in 2010), but it will be better for the country.
Jim, If the Democrats had been honest about wanting Republican participation in crafting a bipartisan bill, it would’ve happened. Instead, they shut out Republicans from the legislative process (and continue to do so) and then complain because Republicans wouldn’t vote for the crap sandwich being forced down their throats.
Those “dozen Republicans” would only have been relevant in the absence of fewer than a dozen Democrat defections, led by Howard Dean and his ilk. It was Obama’s choice to reject that approach from the start. It was his choice to start with single-payer and move right until he had the votes. And if they end up passing something that becomes an instant disaster it WILL end up better for the country, since it will be easier for future admin’s and congresses to unwind.
Instead, they shut out Republicans from the legislative process
Where have you been? Baucus spent the first 9 months of last year bending over backwards to get GOP members of his committee to offer any hint of movement. Meanwhile, the GOP leadership made it clear that if Sen. Grassley, for example, went along with a health reform bill he would lose his prized seats on the Finance, Agricultural, and Judiciary committees.
Those “dozen Republicans” would only have been relevant in the absence of fewer than a dozen Democrat defections, led by Howard Dean and his ilk.
Dean is not a Senator, and there aren’t any Senators who take marching orders from him. They would have lost a few votes, but the rest of the Dems would not have shot down their only chance at health reform in over a decade. There are plenty of liberal Dems unhappy with the bills we have now (e.g. they want single payer, or increased Medicare eligibility, or bigger subsidies) but they are holding their noses and voting for it. Enough would have done so even with a weaker bill.
it will be easier for future admin’s and congresses to unwind.
The bills are very similar to the Romney plan in Massachusetts, where 70+% of voters oppose repeal. The health care reform law is going to stick. That will help the GOP in that it will deprive the Dems of something that has been a winning issue for them (that’s the downside of actually solving problems — you can’t keep running on promises to solve them).
Baucus spent the first 9 months of last year bending over backwards to get GOP members of his committee to offer any hint of movement.
The first rule of negotiation is figure out what isn’t negotiable and stay away from that. Universal health care is nonnegotiable with the Republicans. If he wanted their cooperation, all he had to do was stay away from changes like that.
(that’s the downside of actually solving problems — you can’t keep running on promises to solve them).
LOL. The current legislation will create more problems that need solving than problems that are solved. There’ll be plenty of repeat business.
Universal health care is nonnegotiable with the Republicans. If he wanted their cooperation, all he had to do was stay away from changes like that.
If Grassley had offered Baucus a dozen GOP votes for a bill that covered half as many uninsured as the current one, Baucus would have been thrilled, and Obama would have gone along. Obama would have been pilloried by liberals, since he did promise to insist on a universal plan, but there’s no way to get a bill without Baucus, so he would have been forced to accept half a loaf.
For more info.
For more info.
Info on what? It’s a stirring tale of derring do and betrayal by the implacable foe, but I’m unclear what it has to do with the current Congress.
Here’s my take on the tale. Health care “reform” sat on the backburner while other things like the Stimulus, the car company takeovers and other business occupied Congress for the first few months of 2009. It was already clear that they would get little to no cooperation from the Republicans on most legislative issues aside from the Iraq/Afghanistan funding.
Around June, leadership of both branches of Congress started the machinery for the health care bills that defined the 2009 legislative session. My guess is that they expected another quick sausage making session like for the Stimulus. Unfortunately, the polls indicated that voters were greatly disturbed by the proposed changes. Cap and trade had also been introduced, but it was unpopular too. So they decided to pass health care change first.
I doubt they were expecting to take so long. The usual offense again the Republicans happened, namely, the typical accusations of partisanship and shutting them out of the legislative process. As before, the Republicans didn’t break ranks. Instead, the Democrats found significant defection among their own members, particularly the “Blue Dog” Democrats from southern states who were vulnerable to defeat.
They also probably thought some health care propaganda would soften up voter opposition to the health care changes. That never materialized. No doubt they attempted to lure some Republican votes in Congress with various compromises, but none were sufficient to get Republicans to break rank. Finally, due to all the delays both House and Senate bills grew in complexity and size, slowing down the legislative process even more.
What they thought would be another short piece of legislation ended up taking the rest of the year and they still need to reconcile the two bills.
My view is that the Democrat leadership made a bad bet on health care and it cost them most of 2009. They decided on yet another monolithic monster of a bill, but they couldn’t get either the voters to support it or the full cooperation of their most vulnerable congresspeople. But of course, let’s blame the Republicans rather than the people who drank the kool aid and who screwed up.
Finally, I had a good laugh at this last part from your linked article.
There’s one problem with this statement. No such policy has yet been passed. Those two bills still need to be reconciled. Even after they have been, the Democrats need to come up with the votes in both houses. The Senate bill, for example, barely got past a filibuster and it has ridiculous amounts of bribes in it that probably won’t be upheld by the House version or the reconciliation.
While I imagine a bill will get past both branches either in February or March, it remains that unless the legislation is massively sterilized, it’ll be a huge negative issue for the Democrats in both the 2010 and 2012 elections. There’ll be plenty of time for the negative effects of this legislation to come out.
That quote also ignores that the people making the all or nothing gamble are the Democrats not the Republicans. I am staggered by the idea that the Democrats of Congress should bet all their political capital on some of the worst law ever threatening to become reality and that somehow this will generate support for them among US voters.