I wasn’t the first, but was pretty damn early in making the call. Oh, and I like knowing we were right all along -in my case based entirely on a gut check way back in late 2007. Go on then. Read this. It’s long, meaty, and all in one place. (Insert joke about your first dumb jock boyfriend here.)
Recent Comments
conner43 on Obama V. Obama JohnSmart on Bushbama Matt Cavanaugh on Bushbama Sweet Sue on Bushbama conner43 on Bushbama Thank You!
Buy This Movie!
On the radio!
“If anything seems too good to be true, it probably is.”
Yup, we knew this in 2008.
And now we know that not being fooled by Obama doesn’t mean one won’t be fooled by someone else. Maybe everyone has to learn the hard way.
That’s why many here said the Barry swooners obots HAD to be paid or drinking some kind unicorn kool-aid…Because there was never any there , there. Obama is upper crust created cotton candy….no substance whatsoever . That’s why they insisted on him
“ALL OF THEM WITCHES”
We tried and tried to tell them during the 2008 primary, but we were called delusional racist vagina voters.
Q: What’s the difference between a AT&T Park hotdog and a Dodger Stadium hotdog?
A: You can buy a AT&T hotdog in October.
Ha! Pretty good one.
I saw this yesterday and posted it to my facebook page with a challenge to the bots to read it and get back to me. No takers. Of course. Like children, they resist the knowledge that there is no Santa Claus.
I tweeted a link to an obot picking an argument with me and her response was
Don’t waste your time sweetheart! I have my #FACTS. Go spread your hatred some where else! #Obama2012
See – an article vetting Obama’s past is “hatred”.
I guess she’s part of the 47% Mitt said was unreachable.
Makes no difference what or who a true believer believes in, facts are irrelevant.
The American population has been devolving into this pit for years now. Politically, true believers have peeled off for Bush then for Obama and now for Romney. The tune changes but the song remains the same.
Members of cults are always warned to no read or listen to outside information.
Zal – nice try Obama supporter. None of us here voting for Romney voted for either Bush or Obama. (The only thing I do regret is taking a week’s worth of vacation to canvass for Kerry in OH since he turned out to be a goddamn idiot). Once again – you smear with no facts.
Run, you do understand that there are people who ‘support’ neither Romney nor Obama. right? Your constant repetition that Zal is an Obama supporter truly undermines your credibility since it’s so wildly false.
run_dmc and his chit comments brings to mind this question: Who’s worse, Obots or Rombots?
I’m not trying to bolster some mythical “credibility in here.” I’m concerned with the facts. And the fact is Zal is absolutely an Obama supporter. He is in no way shape or form about voting for a 3rd party – his comments are 99% anti-Romney/republican and 1% anti-Obama just to try to shore up his own street cred.
He almost NEVER talks about Jill Stein or makes any case for her whatsoever. He only spends time skewering (lamely) Romney. I’m very open about who I’ve supported in the past and who I’m supporting now, so I don’t feel the need to build “credibility.” My facts are either right or not. And, I will continue to call Zal out on his subterfuge.
Run, you’re fucking crazy.
to Lorna Doone:
I downloaded the latest Java and am now able to get the archived shows. That may be helpful to you as well.
OT, when I saw this graphic I thought it might be thought-provoking for the commenters here who hold on to the “Romney & Obama are just the same – puppets of Wall Street” pov.
photo/1/large
Obama and Romney are not the same.
They’re horrible in different ways.
And that graphic is as asinine as a graphic that might list things like this:
1. Saved the nation from economic ruin and reduced unemployment.
2. Invented an affordable car so everyone, rich and poor, could have equal access to transportation.
3. Invented the highway system.
4. Invented the “black box” for planes.
5. Best selling author.
6. Nominated for Nobel Peace Prize in 1939.
So, this graphic makes you think … about ways to defend the stance that Romney is just as bad as Obama in different ways? You’d rather go ad absurdum to end the argument?
Basically, nothing will convince you that voting for Romney is in any way a step better fro the country?
You know what makes me angriest about that graph? I would like to see more wind/solar energy projects. I truly believe that type of power generation is viable on a grand scale. After the Obama-crew has finished scamming the system re: money grab and payola, I fear green-energy has/will suffer a 20 year set-back. A lot of “seeeeeee it costs too much” or “we tried it and it wasn’t economically feasible” for the next poor schlepp with a “green-energy” idea.
Sad and angry.
Me too, Ann. He poisoned the well for alternative energy by using it to cover a scam to funnel money to his cronies.
I could be convinced if evidence were presented that indicated Romney’s policies would create jobs for the working and middle class, or that his tax policy or energy policy or education policy or health care policy would benefit the economy as a whole and, again, the middle class. I have nothing against the rich, on some people’s scale I’m rich, but the rich don’t need government policies skewed more in their favor right now, they’re doing better than fine. And my concern for the working and middle class isn’t merely out of altruism, it’s because the only way we can get our economy humming again is if the working and middle class have more opportunity to participate and prosper. We’ll never prosper as a nation if only the wealthy prosper.
Then there’s Romney’s itch to get us involved in more war, which not only is repellent from a humanitarian viewpoint but also from an economic one. Some people will be enriched by increased war and defense spending but it won’t be the working and middle class.
The reason that graphic is singularly unimpressive in this context is because, while businesses were dismantled and restructured (sometimes a good thing, sometimes not), Romney, et al, accomplishes this by giving all the perks and privileges and profits to the already wealthy and if anybody has to pay a price for the restructuring it’s always the workers. This is a thought process that will further damage the working/middle class’s opportunities and strength in our economy.
Ann, I couldn’t agree more.
First Bush and then Obama. We are so far behind now it’s heartbreaking, and no matter if it’s Obama or Romney the next four years we’ll fall even further behind. The one single reason I worked so hard for Gore was I believed he’d go whole-hog in green energy development, which would’ve killed three birds with one stone: end our dependence on fossil fuel, help the environment, and create a new industry and jobs.
There’s plenty to loathe about Barack Obama but his complete and utter failure on this alone earns him historical contempt.
…and Al Gore invented the internet..
Well, I don’t believe Sir Barksalot and Mittens are the same, and I know the former is a jerk. I would imagine the latter is a highly confident, fortunate man who benefitted from life a great deal, who probably has his own set of pathologies, as that seems to be a prerequisite for running for higher office. Left to his own devices, I can imagine Romney being a decent moderate like his dad was, but he has already acquiesced to those to the right of his likely natural leanings by accepting Ryan. I was not happy with that decision. I will not vote for obama. I haven’t yet decided what to do, but will likely vote for Romney because I think the economy may benefit from the optimism that he may engender. I don’t think obama is capable of engendering such optimism, as it isn’t in his make-up.
What state are you in? Have you considered Jill Stein or Gary Johnson?
I am in a state where I could likely consider any number of options, but in the off chance that it may be even sightly up for grabs, I’m hesitant to do so.
The polls are so awry it’s hard to tell what the real swing states are.
I understand the decision to vote for Romney to defeat obama in a swing state.
What I cannot accept is this idea that a political leader’s role is to “engender optimism”. Let the leader implement sound, tangible policy, and the optimism will follow as a side effect. obama was the king of substance-free, click-your-heels-three-times optimism. Look how that turned out.
Tamerlane-I wasn’t entirely referring to personality. I think the “change” (not a good word, either) that would occur simply from a symbolic changing of the guard may engender optimism, as opposed to the annoying status quo. I don’t think an obama second term will lead to a sudden burst of economic recovery. The engendering is mostly wishful thinking on my part, I must admit. There are no sound policies being articulated on either side as far as I can tell. And I am fully aware of the obama head fake- I saw through it from day one.
h/t Dan for posting this link yesterday.
Does anyone else find the obama face graphic reminiscent of Yul Brenner in WESTWORLD?
Does anyone else find obama reminiscent of Yul Brenner in WESTWORLD?
Hahaha I just saw this post. Westworld for me is one of those cheesy movies that doesnt get worse over time.
I wouldnt put it past Barry to start a theme park for his accomplishments as oppossed to a Presidential library.
Erma Bombeck, [RIP} had a great line once about her house being such a mess, she had to move, as it was the only way to really get rid of the clutter.
The upcoming election seems to represent that situation. A third party candidate has no chance in our current system of Presidential politics. It is a shame that this is so, but it is.
I’m all for self righteous puffery, I practice it frequently myself, while knowing it is nothing to brag about.
However, I do think this election is one of the more important of my lifetime, and if I have to put a clothespin on my nose and vote for Romney, it will not be the most distasteful act I have ever committed by a long shot. If it comes to that, I will vote R. for the first time in my life, and then hold his feet to the fire for the next 4 years, or the rest of my life, whichever comes first.
p.s. the most distasteful act involved burying a placenta in the back yard, after my friend gave birth in my bathroom and after fighting the dog for it……nuff said…however, voting R can’t possibly be That bad, can it ?
“The upcoming election seems to represent that situation. A third party candidate has no chance in our current system of Presidential politics. It is a shame that this is so, but it is.”
A self-fulfilling prophesy. Third parties will get respect when we start voting for them. Just breaching the 5% threshold opens up all sorts of access for a 3P. And 15% gets them in the debates.
For anyone not in a swing state, to vote for a candidate whose policies you do not agree with is to continue to prop up the Uni-Party’s oppressive reign.
Note: the obama-dominated Elections Committee is refusing to issue the Green Party the matching federal funds it has earned.
I have this faint hope that if the Dems are totally decimated in Nov, they will die away. Then the GOP will necessarily splinter and a there will be a different set of two parties.
That’s the ideal scenario. We need to start forming the replacement parties now.
One thing I wonder is how all these third party voters are going to feel come November 7th if Obama wins, especially by a thin margin. I mean really, what’s worse? Suffering through 4 years of Romney or four MORE of Obama?
The other thing I notice is that so many of these third party voters say they want Dems to learn a lesson, but a third party vote won’t teach them anything. Third parties are not the opposition; the Republicans are. If third partiers really wanted to teach a lesson they’d vote Republican for at least some races and show Dems they WILL exercise their power if they have to, even if it means they have to pay for it. They’d put their skin in the game, so to speak.
I don’t care about Dem or GOP learning a lesson because they’re not going to.
As long as Americans vote for one or the other, the corrupt parties remain in power and we have none. It’s kind of stunning that people vote for their own impotence.
Each of us is either part of a possible solution or part of the escalating problem. That’s it.
Third parties are not the opposition; the Republicans are.
Simply wrong.
Both Dem and GOP are hopelessly corrupt, because the only way for a politician to rise within them is to be corrupt. Neither of them follow through on their promises; their real agenda is to help the plutocracy that owns them.
There are reasons (detailed previously, & echoed by others here) why I feel a MR presidency would be less damaging than a second obama term, but it’s a matter of degrees. Both MR & BO would be unmitigated disasters.
One big problem with voting for Romney over a third party imight be how the Ds would construe a Romney win: As a mandate to move to the right.
Although, they move to the right EVERY goddamn election. Then if they win, four years later they say, “See, we moved to the right and we won,” so they move to the right.
But if they move to the right and LOSE, four years later they say, “See, we didn’t move far enough to the right,.” so they move to the right.
Almost as funny as a rubber crutch.
I’m not voting for Jill Stein to teach the Uni-Party a lesson. I’m done with the Uni-Party. I’m voting for the candidate who’s political ideology most closely reflects mine. It will be a first for me. And it feels great, like a huge weight has been lifted off me, such an incredible relief.
One can vote for Romney because you think he was a successful businessman and that business success will translate to a successful presidency, I’m not going to argue that.. it’s not any different than voting for a guy who you think is going to heal the world because he lived in Indonesia for a few years. That’s fine.. it’s your vote, do whatever you want with it, that’s your right and that’s your opinion.
Personally for me, I think the idea that Romney being successful at Bain means he will be successful in economy is the same kind of wish fullfillment fantasy that Obama because he is Black/Indonesian/Kenyan will heal the US and our reputation in the world fantasy. In 2008, the US collective consciousness was yearning for a change from the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan and the fallout from Sep 11 attacks… Obama was canny enough to BS his way to give the impression among voters that he was going to be the one to fill that need… in 2012, the same zeitgeist seems to be suggesting a yearning for an economic upturn. Both candidates are promising to fix it for us, but both candidates are really just doubling down on the failed Democratic/Republican economic ideas/policies that contribued to the weakening of the economy to begin with. I think that on some level, people might think that Romney is the guy to fix it due to his business pedigree, but at the same time that middle class voters have a hard time swallowing the standard Republican supply-side economic plan that he’s proposing… so this election will come down to who can lie more convincingly, as always.
Kunstler had a funny article a few weeks back, and I take Kunstler with a generously applied dash of salt to begin with, but he said that the new third party in American politics will be the “Reality” party… http://kunstler.com/blog/2012/09/join-up.html
“Meet the new third party in national politics: Reality. Reality is the only party with an agenda consistent with what is actually happening in the world. Reality doesn’t need to drum up dollar donations from anyone. Reality doesn’t have to pander to any interest group or subscribe to any inane belief system. Reality doesn’t even need your vote. Reality will be the winner of the 2012 election no matter what the ballot returns appear to say about the bids of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney to lead the executive branch of the government.”
We are entitled to our opinions just as we are entitled to vote for whoever we want… in my mind the only wasted vote is a vote that is either uninformed or not simply based on conscience.
Implying Romney’s only experience is as a CEO is like calling Palin a small-town mayor. After Bain, Romney headed, in fact literally rescued, the Winter Olympics. Then he ran as moderate GOPer in deep blue MA and was governor. He governed (or was forced to govern) as moderate. I’m fine with people voting as their conscience dictates, but I wish everyone would look at facts, look at the record, instead of holding on to old stereotypes.
“Implying Romney’s only experience is as a CEO is like calling Palin a small-town mayor.”
That’s not what Dan said. He said this:
” I think the idea that Romney being successful at Bain means he will be successful in economy is the same kind of wish fullfillment fantasy.”
And it is Mitt’s experience as a VC that is being touted as the reason he’ll be able to fix the economy.
Romney the silver bullet messiah to replace obama the false silver bullet messiah. There are no silver bullets. All messiahs are false.
I don’t think right sees Romney as a Messiah. He kept losing primaries precisely because they were skeptical about his establishment ties.
Ironically, it is establishment pundits like Noonan etc who are throwing Romney under the bus now while the base rallies around him. Which explains why he was smart to pick Ryan to win them over.
But that base will turn on him if he doesn’t repeal Obamacare in his first 100 days. The base has political goals and that’s why they are trying to stack the senate & house with Tea Party picks instead of establishment “rinos”. It’s a very populist uprising going on within the GOP that the left is ignoring.
Dan’s point is right on the money. Assuming Romney is going to be good for the economy based on his business experience is the same as assuming Obama would be good for race relations because he’s both black and white. These are both assumptions having no logical basis and we already saw how one of them turned out. It’s not just the right making the Romney/economy assumption–it is people on these formerly-PUMA blogs (who knew better with the 2008 assumption).
I personally would use “smart to pick” and “Ryan” in the same sentence.
I also wouldn’t call a “movement” funded by the Koch brothers a “populist uprising.” The only thing on the Tea Party agenda is to thwart anything Democratic. Frankly, the country could use some more RINOs and DINOs. We used to call them statesmen–the people who put country before party. The Tea Party puts their narrow interests ahead of both their party-of-origin and the country. I’m hard-pressed to come up with one thing the Tea Party has proposed or done that was in America’s best interests.
I meant to say wouldn’t. Amend above to:
I personally wouldn’t use “smart to pick” and “Ryan” in the same sentence.
Romney has a record of creating jobs. Obama does not have a record of healing race relations or restoring our reputation in the world. His record has been to enflame race relations and damage our reputation on the world stage There is no comparison between the two.
Yes, Anthony, Romney has created jobs. He has also destroyed jobs. He was not in business to create jobs (as we have been taught by many here that it is no one’s role to create jobs, not business, not the government). He was in business to make money. So, on any given day, if making money involved creating a job, he did. If it involved destroying a job, he did. What was the net result? Those figures would be nice to have. Do you count the jobs overseas as jobs he created? For the record, I don’t.
I think there is plenty to compare between the two, but I am not invested in either one.
Sophie, Bain Capital invested in companies that were about to go under. More than 80% of them were saved, and there are many (Staples, Kohls, Dominos Pizza just to name a few) that have gone on to flourish, all continuing to create jobs. So even though Bain Capital’s primary interest was to make a profit on their investment in already flagging companies, jobs were created in that process. I know you’re not invested in either candidate, but facts are facts.
My thought, which Tamerlane articulated in a much more succinct way, was that equating Romney’s business acumen with a successful presidential term and economic recovery is essentially the same as equating Obama’s time in Indonesia and mixed racial heritage as a barometer for his ability to be a better President than GW Bush, or any other Democratic candidate at the time. They’re just speculations. If nothing else, Obama’s performance in his first term should prove that those types of speculations are dangerous.
When Romney became the nominee I looked at his economic platform and realized that based on the proposals of his economic platform, its pretty much the same crap that Republicans have been peddling for the past 25 or 30 years. That’s just me though, others might look at it and say “that’s awesome I’m voting for Romney” which again, is fine with me… just look at first.
We can talk about Romey’s record and performance as a governer of Massachusetts and speculate on how that might apply to his record and performance as President of the United States, which is slightly more apples to apples…but doing that is a little complicated and less of a compelling story for Romney than “stellar businessman who created a crapload of jobs at places like Staples and AMC theaters”… and again, we can take apart the facts of Romney’s Governorship and speculate on what he’d do as President…I think that would be enlightening and I would encourage that conversation.
But saying Romney was great Bain Capital and therefore will be great at fixing the economy is like saying Michael Jordan was great at basketball and therefore will be great at baseball.
Like I said, I have no problem with anyone believing that…but there are no FACTS about Romney’s presidential performance because he isn’t president yet.
“That was my point. You said the tea party was against the bailout. There was no tea party then.
Re OFA–we weren’t talking about OFA and I don’t know why you keep bringing them up in a conversation about the tea party.”
Should have been the only thing in block quotes. The rest should have been in plain type. Chalk it up to WP craziness, but I’m sure you get my drift
Dan – Thanks for ‘getting’ it. We shall have a kiki soon
Tea Party came out of opposition to bailouts & stimulus. Events proved them right – the bailouts were massive cronyism. The opposed their “own” GOP pols who supported it. I call that putting country before party.
That was supposed to go under Sophie’s comment.
The bailout was on Bush’s watch. We never heard of the Tea Party back then. In fact, most of the now-Tea Party folks who were around then voted FOR the bank bailouts. And the were opposed to Dodd-Frank–for the wrong reasons. What they are is a manufactured movement in response to the manufactured Obama movement.
When the TEA party began, it stood for Taxed Enough Already and was eventually co-opted by Dick Army’s Army of Dicks, just as the Progressive Dems were co-opted by OFA
I know what the TEA in Tea Party stands for. I am saying they were silent on TARP until it was over and Bush was gone. They may have been legit as a populist movement for a couple of weeks regarding the stimulus bill (though I disagreed with their opinion), but they were very quickly co-opted and not they serve no other purpose than to obstruct everything.
I don’t see the point of the OFA tie-in.
Although i hate Wikipedia, I’m too disinterested to look further than the top of a search page.
TEA PARTY: The Tea Party movement is an American political movement that advocates strict adherence to the United States Constitution,[1] reducing U.S. government spending and taxes,[2][3][3] and reduction of the U.S. national debt and federal budget deficit.[2] The movement is generally considered to be partly conservative,[4][5] partly libertarian,[6][7] and partly populist.[8][9][10] The movement has sponsored protests and supported political candidates since 2009.[11][12][13]
In an August 2010 article for Foreign Policy magazine, Ron Paul outlined foreign policy views the Tea Party movement should emphasize: “[W]e cannot stand against big government at home while supporting it abroad. We cannot talk about fiscal responsibility while spending trillions on occupying and bullying the rest of the world … I see tremendous opportunities for movements like the Tea Party to prosper by capitalizing on the Democrats’ broken promises to overturn the George W. Bush administration’s civil liberties abuses and end the disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A return to the traditional U.S. foreign policy of active private engagement but government noninterventionism is the only alternative that can restore our moral and fiscal health.”[30]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement
OFA: The formation of Organizing for America was announced by then-President-Elect Obama on January 17, 2009.[4]
The group officially began operations on the third day of the Obama administration, January 23, 2009. On the same day, it was announced that Mitch Stewart would serve as the first Director. Jeremy Bird, a former Obama for America field operative, was named Deputy Director.[5]
To date, the organization’s activities have centered around political activism in favor of Obama’s early legislative goals including the 2009 stimulus package and Democratic Party plans to reform the healthcare system. Another stated goal of OFA is alleviating perceived political apathy and increasing support for the Democratic Party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizing_for_America
I’m not emotionally invested in either group. but if these references are factual, the TEA Party didn’t exist during Bush’s presidency. To my recollection, they were in protest of Obama’s “Stimulus Maximus” which made Bush’s stimulus look like chump change.
Nor am I emotionally invested enough in ANY candidate running for POTUS. Truth is, I don’t give a damn who is an R, who is a D, who has a vagina, who believes in god – what I am interested in is who is best equipped to manage the economy, and I’ve made my choice clear. That said, I will vote for my choice and hope he wins.
Until credible evidence proves me wrong, or someone emerges who garners my support more than my current choice, I fully intend to Lock the doors, lower the blinds, fire up the smoke machine, and….. well, here:
Sophie, I think you’re mis-remembering history, Not a single Republican in the House would vote for the bailout originally, so the DEM majority Senate fudged the Constitution, dumped all the language from a bill they’d already passed, inserted bail out bill language, and sent it to the House, where a VERY limited number of Republicans voted for it.
At the same time, Obama came off the campaign trail to go to Washington to personally broker this deal. Most reports at the time reported that Obama basically ran the meetings with a compliant Bush. Then Obama went on to hand out fully half the bail out money once he was sworn in. Both parties own that bailout, but the Democrats had way more to do with it than Republicans actually did. That’s a fact.
I’m not emotionally invested in either group. but if these references are factual, the TEA Party didn’t exist during Bush’s presidency.
That was my point. You said the tea party was against the bailout. There was no tea party then.
Re OFA–we weren’t talking about OFA and I don’t know why you keep bringing them up in a conversation about the tea party.
Lola: I guess I am mis-remembering because it seemed like a plurality of congressmen on both sides of the aisle were ignoring the bazillions of phone calls and e-mails from their constituents, who in record numbers opposed this. A link would help.
“Let’s have a kiki” has to be hands down one of the funniest responses on this blog ever. My fav part is when she picks her teeth with a metrocard and tosses it… Metrocards make awesome emergency toothpicks!!
Although we may not always agree its good to laugh together too!
OBAMA’S BAILOUT, not Bush’s.
Jesus…
A – gain:
The TEA Party and OFA are similar groups under the GOP and Dems, respectively. That’s why I brought them up. To draw the comparison.
Dan – Thanks for ‘getting’ it. We shall have a kiki soon
I want in on the Kiki too!
NES – then come on! The more the merrier!
Of course, its all our fault now:
How’d you add that image Anthony?
Just added the link to the tweet. Its like adding a YouTube video.
I know, Anthony! The gall of Obama — he’s really a piece of work.
SophieCT, you are wrong about the tea party not starting until the end of the Bush era – here is the first recorded tea party of recent times – http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/12/ron_pauls_tea_p.html
Shhhh! You’re making sense!
Yes, clearly, the Tea Party we know today is Ron Paul’s Tea Party. I stand corrected. The Tea Party opposed George Bush right from the start. /s
Ron Paul’s Tea Party is not the Tea Party that grew. I was watching CNBC the day Rick Santelli said Americans shouldn’t take it – we needed a new tea party. Spontaneous small tea parties started up which grew. Much later, Dick Armey co-opted but that was a good time later.
Original tea party folks opposed the bailouts of both Bush and Obama – the idea that Bush was excused is completely wrong. Much of the problem was that the right had become so protective of Bush during his term in response to the constant derision of press and the anti-war left. I say this not to excuse the response on the right but most did not realize what was happening just as many blind Obama supporters don’t see what is happening now.
I know that I voiced my own problems with Bush about too many executive orders and too much deficit spending but my objections were over things like passing Medicare D and giving out 2 rounds of stimulus money as well as the Fed keeping the interest rate artificially so low, and not the wars, which I support. I do not support all the invasion into privacy or the compassionate conservatism Bush espoused. I do respect that after 9-11 he kept us safe and that no ambassadors were killed under his watch.
In any event, the original tea partiers were the ones who usually espoused the “you’ve awakened a sleeping giant philosophy”. Most of those on the right realize we were asleep at the wheel and not paying attention. Many of us regret that and are trying to make amends pursuant to our own beliefs. Understandably, those beliefs are not often shared by those on the left because the views of how to fix things, like the economy, are so completely different.
What I believe at this point is that Romney knows something about creating jobs, about fixing things — like broken companies and corrupt Olympics. I also believe that after almost 4 years as President, Obama still doesn’t understand a damn thing about economics of any kind except campaign finance and he does not want to know. He just wants to keep repeating the same thing over and over because it is what he believes in whether it works or not.
I also believe that Americans are still resilient. Our economy has gotten a little better IN SPITE OF and not because of anything Obama has done — mainly because those in our country still believe and strive to become better.
I also believe that if Romney is elected, the companies who are currently sitting on money because they are uncertain will start hiring and unleashing the power of that money but that we still are probably facing tremendous inflation and stark times ahead.
In other words, with Obama there is no hope except that we will continue limping along. At least with Romney, there is some reason to believe based on his ability to make things work in a state where most of the legislature was of the opposite party and due to his success in turning around the Olympics, that there might be a chance to recover more quickly.
Not sure I agree with comparisons between O and R but Ill try the boring guy with that record of success. That guy who as Governor of MA never took a salary and who worked 80 plus hr weeks for Olympics without pay. Americans voting for Oblamer would be a vote for failure.
I’ll have one of those too, s’il vous plait.
the washington examiner? is that owned by the same people who publish the bumfuck times?
Wait… there is a Bumfuck Times?
subscription info please
We have become a culture that rewards mediocrity, even failure. O’s Nobel is the zenith of that reward system, someone from the committee said they chose to award it to him for what they felt
he would accomplish in the future. It doesn’t get nuttier than that, or does it ? Next up, he’ll get the Medal of Honor for ‘most improved golf score for a duffer’.
As long as there are single issue, emotional voters, there will be room for more Obama-like pols,
the Elmer Gantrys’ of their times.
oh my, sophie/conner above.
It really doesn’t matter who is gets in , nothing will change, the same policies we have had for years will prevale. Tax cuts will be given to the wealthy, and the rest of us will be told to tighten our greedy, slothful belts to make way for the tax cuts . Rinse and repeat
Yep, pretty much the same either way.
Romney would be more pro-active, he likes to work and wants to get something done, so there are things that’ll likely get worse with him. He’ll work with Wall Street lobbyists to give Wall Street even more latitude for corruption, likely hastening the destruction of our dollar. He’ll work to target spending increases and decreases, and tax structure, that benefit the crony fascist state he loves, and undermines the rest of us, including the social safety net. And this generation has no concept of how bad it gets without that safety net, not only for the down-and-out but for regular Joes and Janes with their chins barely above water. It’s one thing to say people should take personal responsibility, but the reality of a growing population of homeless hungry unemployed would be dangerous, expensive, and, like increasing joblessness, harder to fix the longer it gets entrenched. Obama would let problems continue to fester, Romney would do that and create new ones as well. Obama will play golf and let shit happen if Congress is so inclined, which isn’t good but might be less bad.
Aside from his being a severe sociopath and you never know the fires they might start, the only part about Obama being President that I worry could be worse than Romney concerns foreign policy. Domestically, Romney’s vision of America is so detrimental to most of us, Obama’s disinterest and incompetence could actually work in our favor, but with Hillary out as SoS and all hell trying to break loose around the globe, Obama at the helm is a worrisome thing to consider. We don’t know who Romney will choose, so Obama might not be worse there, either, but Romney is a man who likes control and order, so although our young adults might not be safe from Draft, and our defense budget is likely to increase substantively, a President Romney would probably be more competent at keeping us safe from foreign fires and putting final touches on the domestic police state Bush and Obama started.
Zal, I’d be interested to know how a President Stein will deal with the economy, job creation and foreign policy and why she would be a better choice than Romney or Obama. You’ve indicated she’s won your support, and I’m guessing you’ve familiarized yourself with her positions on those issues
So Anthony, is that sarcasm?
I’m happy to discuss Jill Stein, and of course I’m familiar with her positions. Question is, can you resist being an asshole if I’m nice enough to answer your question? LOL. That was sarcasm.
First, regarding foreign policy, Stein’s policy would be to stop emphasizing war and bullying as foreign policy, stop being the world’s cop, downsize our military by at least half, and use diplomacy, international law and other government tools, agencies and relationships to forge better alliances we can work with to resolve conflict.
On the economy, Stein’s thrust is centered on what she calls a Green New Deal. This is an approach I’ve been talking about since 2000 and have touched on in comments here many times. Seeing my thought process about this is simpatico with hers was the piece that convinced me to vote for her. Some of her specifics are different from mine –of course, no two plans are exactly alike– but I think her approach is right to the point, would put the brakes on this train wreck that both Obama and Romney will only continue to accelerate, and at the same time would fuel new industry growth and bottom-up opportunity for jobs and prosperity. The idea behind her Green New Deal is pouring massive resources into developing and producing ways to collect, store and distribute green energy. This wide ranging effort would deal with issues of fossil fuel (environment, foreign policy and wars, to name a few), jobs, transportation, agriculture, manufacturing, etc. Here’s a link to a bullet-point detail of her ideas. But believe me I’m fully familiar with the concept and I’m happy to discuss it. http://www.jillstein.org/issues
There’s no question that for the needs of the vast majority of Americans and our economic health, Stein is a far better choice than Obama or Romney. It isn’t just those two men, who are bad enough, it’s all the interests that back them and will remain in control of our government. It’s been destructive and will continue to be.
From Zal’s link to Jill Stein’s website on the so-called Green New Deal:
“JOBS
Enact the Full Employment Program which will directly provide 25 million green jobs in sustainable energy, mass transit, sustainable organic agriculture, and clean manufacturing, as well as social work, teaching, and and other service jobs.
Provide grants and low-interest loans to green businesses and cooperatives, with an emphasis on small, locally-based companies that keep the wealth created by local labor circulating in the community, rather than being drained off to enrich absentee investors.”
Where’s the money for this heavy subsidizing of so-called green jobs? Sounds like so much faculty lounge mumbo jumbo.
Where’s the money coming for Romney’s 12 million jobs?
Where’d the money come for obama’s minus 475,000?
Where did FDR get the money for his WPA?
Stein proposes cutting the military budget in half. The savings from ending the war in Afghanistan alone should cover it. A 1% tax on derivatives trades would cover it.
NES, what I hear you saying is: ‘we can’t afford to create jobs.’ I say we can’t afford to have 1/5th of the workforce sitting idle.
Zal, I think you know by now that I’m a straight shooter, and if I wanted to be sarcastic, you would’ve known. I would like to know why you think a President Jill Stein would be someone who would inspire confidence in the American people regarding the economy and foreign affairs.
I assume you’ll answer promptly because I was nice enough to respond to you without using the words “douche” or “bag” in my reply.
“NES, what I hear you saying is: ‘we can’t afford to create jobs.’ I say we can’t afford to have 1/5th of the workforce sitting idle.”
Tamer, I agree we can’t afford that rate of unemployment. I question whether we can afford to have the gov’t create jobs with the huge debt and level of deficit spending we already have. Also, being cut from a different political cloth from you, I also question the ability of the gov’t to creat jobs (although I don’t rule it out as an option during depressions). On ending wars and cutting back on military expenses, you’ll have no argument from me.
Anthony: I responded five hours before your douchebag comment.
And there’s nothing straight about you; you’re a stoner who can’t afford to be monkeying around with brain cell loss.
Tam answered exactly as I would’ve, NES. And I’ll just reiterate: Romney or Obama will add at least as much to the deficit building war machines as Stein would to create jobs.
Whether or not government can be a party to job creation depends on the plan. Stein doesn’t seem to envision doing it in partnership with Wall Street and the private sector, but that’s how I’d do it. I tend more to a Hillary Clinton approach (as demonstrated in her 2008 version of health care reform): provide opportunity to as many sectors as possible and that’ll mean more perspectives invested in achieving success. Get tree huggers involved, brainiacs involved, Wall Street investors involved, corporations involved, small and start up businesses involved, taxpayers and homeowners and students involved; create a plan that outlines something everybody can do and incentivize them to do it. The government, per se, may or may not be able to create jobs directly but it can lead.
Zal, despite rampant douchebaggery, you still haven’t answered my question. What you posted 5 hours before I asked you another question was info from her website. That’s something anyone could read and believe if they trusted her to be true to her promises.
What I would like to know is what is it about her that inspires your confidence and belief that she can actually do what she’s proposing to do?
Accusations that disparage the character of the questioner is classic troll behavior, and since you (and others) protest so loudly that you are indeed not a troll, I will give you the benefit of that doubt. Rather than tell me exactly what it is about Jill Stein that inspires your trust, you instead decided to malign me personally (even though you’re not a troll). Considering you don’t know me or have ever been in my company, that accusation is as preposterous as, say, someone insisting you’re really going to vote for Obama and are just lying your ass off about supporting Stein.
So again: just what is it about Ms. Stein that has you so fired up and ready to go to the polls and vote for her?
Well I was right you can’t engage without being an asshole, Anthony.
I answered your original question, in my own words and my own way, then I linked to Stein’s site for more detail. And of course you behaved like an asshole about it.
As to your most recent question, Jill Stein graduated from Harvard and Harvard Medical School (not easy successes), has run and lost elections and not let that deter her (tenacity in the face of adversity and defeat), and is running for President against titans of politics and money (Dem and GOP, sitting President and multi-millionaire). She is smart, courageous, hard working, tenacious and honorable. If she says she’ll fight I believe she’ll fight.
OK, so now you’ve answered. You choose to believe her because “If she says she’ll fight I believe she’ll fight.”
Actually, that’s no different than anyone else’s choice to believe in the candidate they’ve decided to support. See how easy this works? We all get to believe in whom we choose to believe in, and nobody is more “right” than anyone else.
But I will give you this – I was wrong about something, and when I’m wrong I will admit it. I now trust my initial instincts about the troll and douchebag thingy. Thanks for helping me see things so clearly.
The difference is in what the candidates stand for, work and fight for.
Romney will fight for Wall Street and war spending; Stein will fight for jobs and energy policies that benefit us and our future.
Are all people with investments rich? The tax cuts that you hate benefited millions of people who live on fixed income from investments. Many of those are senior citizens who do not have to pay tax on qualified dividends.
If Obama is re-elected, taxes are going to go up astronomically and not just on the rich. Most of these are already baked in the cake of Obamacare (like tax on selling your house) that no one will realize until they kick in. He will not revamp the tax code with all of its problems, he will just add new fees, taxes, and penalties (that I guess Supreme Court will say are more taxes). The wimpy Republicans are already signalling that if Obama wins they’ll have no choice but to go along with more taxes.
Meanwhile, we will continue to give our tax dollars away for oil development in Brazil and Saudi Arabia and for the Chinese to drill on lands in the US we leased to Canada.
Which is your opinion, Zal. You claim to have a reason to believe that, which I again will give you benefit of my doubt. But there are others with different opinions who believe as sincerely as you claim to. I’ve seen nothing in Stein’s record that would indicate she would fight for those things except campaign promises. I see no concrete evidence that she ever did fight for those things. All she gives us is her word, which means nothing during a campaign season. Once someone throws their hat into the ring, I stop listening to them and start researching their accomplishments. Politicians lie – each and every one of them. She is no different than any of the others.
If Obama is reinstalled , when it comes to taxes ( or anything really) he’ll do as the GOP tells him to , like he has for the last 4 years. His “bargaining ” kabuki theater style is to simply give in to GOP demands. He does this so fast , the ever ready to give in Dems can’t get in on it and do a day or two pretending to fight grandstanding…. So plenty of blame for both ” teams” …I wish there was at least two parties in the US … but there isn’t
Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, Jill Stein, you, me, everyone: after human beings have lived several decades, an objective observer can figure out who they are and what they’re likely to do in given circumstances.
That’s what I mean when I say believe people when they show you who they are. But in order to do that, one has to have the inclination and the tools to see what people show.
All opinions are not equal. Observers collecting detail and analyzing it in context are more likely to come to smart conclusions than those who skip that process.
Jill Stein has her flaws where potential Presidential strength is concerned. For instance she’s too concerned with being nice. In terms of what she’d work and fight for, though, there’s no question it’d be the radical departure from the Dem and GOP agenda many of us have discussed this country needs. It’s equally clear what Obama and Romney will work for. If you like the direction our nation is headed, Obama or Romney are good bets; if not, and voting for them makes you feel good, I suggest that deserves closer examination.
I’m with ClintE: if someone isn’t doing his job, ya gotta let him go. Seems like everyone here’s voting anti-incumbent, which is a testament to our collective sanity.
The pro- and anti-Mitt testaments that periodically break out here are curious. Is anyone changing anyone’s mind on how to vote? I doubt it. For one thing, most of the combatants here vote in non-swing-states, so it doesn’t really matter what they do. The only vote I’m interested in watching the evolution of is that of sophie/connor and the perhaps 3-5 others who may also be voting in the swing states. Sophie’s state of FL is the prize, as far as I’m concerned…if Romney loses that, it’s over and we’re stuck with the showboat for another 4 years of misery.
I’m in Virginia NES – though in the red west. There actually were Obama supporters out here last time but not seeing much in way of signs this year. One of my husband’s best buddies is still O supporter but we keep plugging away. No, probably it does no good — the three people Jim the O-man hangs with the most are Republicans and one is even an evangelical Christian who believes the earth was created in 6 days. But he still thinks O is ok.
Hubby went to the Gun Expo in Salem today. There were booths from Republicans and Libertarians but no O booth anywhere. Guess they have competely given up on the gun-toters which is stupid out here. Jim the O-man is a gun-toter.
I participated in a poll about 10 days ago (first time I’ve been polled in about 20 years). I saw the results when they came out and it put Romney up several percent over O in VA (Gravis Consulting or something like that I believe). It was automated and the questions were pretty straight-forward. I’m fairly well convinced that most pollsters are weighting for the 2008 turnout and Democratic Party advantage. I just don’t see how that is realistic this year.
In Virginia, it will come down to (1) the defense layoffs that will come with sequestration; (2) the suppression of the military vote under the new rules devised since last election — both of these will affect Northern Virginia and Tidewater Virginia voters. (3) Turnout from the black population around DC and Tidewater areas — if they are not as enthused to turn out this year, that could easily change the few percentage points O won by in VA.
Greyledge Gal, I’m just outside the beltway in Loudoun and my husband commented that he’s seeing way more Romney stickers/signs than Obama. I drive through Great Falls every day and it’s, as usual, all Romney. The big surprise for me was driving through Alexandria neighborhoods last week and there were as many Romney signs as Obama signs. That’s a big deal. It’s not something I’ve ever seen (and I grew up in Alexandria).
It will be interesting to see what Virginia does in November. You are absolutely right that it all depends on who turns out. Purely anecdotal, my co-worker who voted for Obama in 2008 says he’ll either stay home or vote for 3P. (My husband, daughter and I will be voting for Jill Stein.) Gone is the Obama fervor coupled with the fear of a woman holding the (second) highest office of 2008. The obot army, much diminished with only a few remaining diehards, mindlessly chatters the talking points and looks like the deranged cultists they are. Romney just isn’t scary enough and, with a ticket sans the scary lady parts to send America’s simmering misogyny into roiling boil, the hate/fear/smear tactics Obama has always relied on can’t find anything to fully exploit. IMO, most people know they were had and they aren’t having any of it this time around.
Honestly, the only point about Romney that can be exploited is Zal’s point: his competence. The problem is that ObamaNation can’t really run a campaign on the message that the other guy will probably get more done.
On the Tea Party, I agree with what JWS has previously stated: the spirit that underlies that movement is fundamentally American; it has manifested itself in various forms from the inception of the Republic and it will continue to do so for the forseeable future. The notion that it’s an astro-turfed GOP creation is a fantasy of Nancy Pelosi and Proglodytes.
There are many auto workers who are greatful for the bailout money, believing that it saved their jobs and their industry.
That’s why Obama will win Ohio and game over.
I’m just reporting how it looks, here, I fully intend to vote third party.
And, oh dear, I just split an infinitive.
And that’s why Obama will not sell GM stock as Unions want him to do before the election. If people found out how far we are in the hole on that GM stock the Gov’t took back, he would not be re-elected. GM may be alive as Biden likes to say, but it is on life-support.
The housing bust has hit Fl. particularly hard. Not just the foreclosures, which are everywhere, but the loss of construction jobs. One can only wonder what Fl. would look like without all those pension checks that flow in every month.
I think the Tea Party kind of peaked in 2010 and since then has been losing momentum.
I wouldn’t be in such a hurry to write its obituary. If Obama is re-elected, and everything seems to indicate he will be, the Tea Party (really a movement more than a party) will come roaring back.
I don’t think so. They blew a lot of the goodwill people had for them.
In my view they aren’t about public “good will” and popularity contests at all. At their core, they’re about revulsion at Big Government spending and cororate-statism; deserved or not, Obama is the poster-child of those phenomena for them.
In any event, we won’t have to wait too long to find out. Coming in 2013, to a theater close to you.
The TP was formed around an inchoate distrust of govt, and a smoldering resentment of welfare queens. There’s also a lot of global warming denial, and an obsession with gun ownerships rights.
The TP was never able to condense these sentiments into a clear platform, manifesto, or agenda. It’s sat idly by as every civil liberty except the 2nd amendment has been taken away.
Until it moves beyond a purely contrarian, luddite resentment and promulgates a pro-active vision and plan for America, the TP will remain little more than a group-bitch circle.
If Barry is reinstalled, the tea party will roar back indeed ..as convenient place to put all anti-barry sentiments allowed ..one of its functions
I don’t doubt that they’ll be roaring. I just don’t think people will pay any attention to them this time.
Tamerlane “The TP was never able to condense these sentiments into a clear platform, manifesto, or agenda. It’s sat idly by as every civil liberty except the 2nd amendment has been taken away.”
So, the tea party had nothing to do with winning 60+ seats away from the Democratic party in 2010? With no message and no vision they were able to get that done?
Sorry, the message was for people to start paying attention to what was going on in the government and media. The message was that all politicians need to have feet held to fire and to search out diverse sources of information — not just the party line from the left or right. The “tea party” as any organization doesn’t have to come back. The latest Pew Poll on media trust (or distrust) is proof that the message has infiltrated into mainstream thinking. When less than 35% of independents trust the MSM, it’s a good day for our country.
And again, there was no tea party until the revolts against bailout and stimulus. They simply did not exist during the time when you think they should have been protesting. Much like there are not people on the left, or not any seen on tv, protesting the Afghan war or Obama’s lying to the country about Libya/terrorism/a movie trailer. It doesn’t fit the O/media agenda.
How many of those 60 new reps could be defined as TP? (I don’t know; I’d be interested in the figure, and in the methodology of defining someone as TP.)
Have the TP congressmen formed a caucus? Why haven’t they voted against the unfunded expansion of govt that keeps rolling on? No, they vote lock-step with the GOP. They’re just the same old extreme wing of the GOP under a new name.
Yes, there was a Tea Party Caucus formed. As of the middle of 2011 here were the members:
Sandy Adams (FL-24)
Robert Aderholt (AL-04)
Todd Akin (MO-02)
Rodney Alexander (LA-05)
Michele Bachmann (MN-06)
Roscoe Bartlett (MD-06)
Joe Barton (TX-06)
Rob Bishop (UT-01)
Gus Bilirakis (FL-09)
Diane Black (TN-06)
Paul Broun (GA-10)
Michael Burgess (TX-26)
Dan Burton (IN-05)
John Carter (TX-31)
Bill Cassidy (LA-06)
Howard Coble (NC-06)
Mike Coffman (CO-06)
Ander Crenshaw (FL-04)
John Culberson (TX-07)
Jeff Duncan (SC-03)
Blake Farenthold (TX-27)
Stephen Lee Fincher (TN-08)
John Fleming (LA-04)
Trent Franks (AZ-02)
Phil Gingrey (GA-11)
Louie Gohmert (TX-01)
Vicky Hartzler (MO-04)
Wally Herger (CA-02)
Tim Huelskamp (KS-01)
Lynn Jenkins (KS-02)
Steve King (IA-05)
Doug Lamborn (CO-05)
Jeff Landry (LA-03)
Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-09)
Kenny Marchant (TX-24)
Tom McClintock (CA-04)
David McKinley (WV-01)
Gary Miller (CA-42)
Mick Mulvaney (SC-05)
Randy Neugebauer (TX-19)
Rich Nugent (FL-05)
Steven Palazzo (MS-04)
Steve Pearce (NM-02)
Mike Pence (IN-06)
Ted Poe (TX-02)
Tom Price (GA-06)
Denny Rehberg (MT-At large)
David Roe (TN-01)
Dennis Ross (FL-12)
Edward Royce (CA-40)
Steve Scalise (LA-01)
Pete Sessions (TX-32)
Adrian Smith (NE-03)
Lamar Smith (TX-21)
Cliff Stearns (FL-06)
Tim Walberg (MI-07)
Joe Walsh (IL-08)
Allen West (FL-22)
Lynn Westmoreland (GA-03)
Joe Wilson (SC-02)
It is important to note that others who I feel are stronger supporters of the aims of the original tea partiers (not a political party but a movement), like Jason Chaffetz from Utah, and Senators Pat Toomey from PA, Ron Johnson from WI, and Marco Rubio from FL did not join because they wanted to bring the ideas to the entire Republican party and/or were distrustful of the caucus being a way to co-opt the movement’s aims by GOP establishment.
Republicans currently hold 242 seats in the House and you need 218 for majority. Not all Rs who won in 2010 were “tea party” and some of the inexperienced were easily co-opted by the establishment. These are just hard truths of politics.
I hope the backlash against the TP/extreme wing of GOP doesn’t cost Romney the election. I’d really like to see BO go.
Unforgiveable:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/09/21/bill_clinton_obamas_other_running_mate_115531.html
And here’s why he’s doing it — vanity:
“Since he left office, Clinton’s value as a surrogate campaigner has been difficult to document. But one thing is certain, he’s never been more popular. A USA Today/Gallup poll conducted before his convention speech clocked Clinton’s favorability rating at 69 percent, marking a personal high that has made him even more popular than the widely admired current first lady, Michelle Obama.
The former president’s approval rating even tops his wife’s almost equally impressive 66 percent favorability, according to Gallup’s most recent snapshot of how the nation views the secretary of state.”
so sad and so true, NES…Bill is a world class teacher…he has already established himself successfully on the world stage with his CGI…and where he was so proud of being out of ‘politics’ and working with people from all sides…I was so proud…I wish he would have just stayed at that level…out of the partisan politics…maybe give the speech at DNC…and then back to CGI and above it all…but no…
he has helped O…no doubt about it…he has given him cover and credibility and calmed some nerves…it sickens me…I still believe Bill is a force of nature for good…but he has gone way too far and overboard with his O support….a certain dishonesty seeps through…the politician in him comes back
the irony being he will have both Mitt and O speaking at CGI very soon…and then there is that little clip of Bill and Paul Ryan where Bill contradicts the Dems…hypocrisy showing…and remaining objective would be so much more helpful and productive…
both Clintons are going to be tarnished by O…
Yes S-Angel, it’s very sad.
What’s also hard to stomach is the ‘battered wife’ aspect of this conduct. A person who damaged me and my spouse in the way Obama and his henchmen did would win my punches, not my full-throated support. Speaking at the Convention, in a turn as a loyal Dem is one thing, this active and energetic campaigning for Obama is entirely another.
While I’d probably twist myself into a pretzel to try and justify anything Hillary did or said, that distortion doesn’t extend to Bill.
Erratum: “….in the way Obama and his henchmen did to Bill….”
Interesting it doesn’t seem to people the Clinton’s have a gun to thier heads. That’s how it looks to me. Bill is paying for Hill’s escape from the 2nd term ( really the 4th term of Bushbarry Inc ) Hill’s tired. She’s tired of flirting with being a war criminal, which the position increasingly calls for and will absolutely demand in the 4th term .
If the Clintons were free agents, Hillary would be at 1600 PA Ave. She’s not . Even the Clintons ultimately do as they are told. I trust the reasons were made plain to them and are very good
I think you may have overshot, conner. Voting for O wouldn’t be THAT bad either.
Hahahaha. I see sophie/connor’s statement about burying placentas and voting Republican is quoted in the masthead (upper-right). Excellent!
I think the race will end in a tie with the middle being unable to determine which of these two guys is the 2 percent less evil.
I immediately regretted posting my ‘placenta adventure’ as being much too personal and ghoulish, but there you have it.. Remembering it gives me Dutch courage when I have to do something I Really don’t want to do, like ride on Space Mountain with the grands..voting for Romney feels like that.. Sorry for coarseness.
It was an epic comment – really put things into perspective.
I always chicken out about Space Mtn, btw.
Join!
” it gives me Dutch courage”
That’s racist.
Not sure why this seems appropriate here, but it does, at least to me..It was, for many Americans, the day America as we knew it, died.
“IN THE DAYS AFTER THE TOWERS FELL, in the ash that covered the Brooklyn street where I lived at that time, in the smoke that rose for months from that spot across the river, when rising up in the skyscraper I worked in, or riding deep beneath the river in the subway, or passing the thousand small shrines of puddled candle wax below the walls with the hundreds of photographs of “The Missing,” it was not too much to say that you could feel the doors of history open all about you”.
Before those days, history happened elsewhere, elsewhen, to others. History did not happen to you. In your world, until that day, you lived in the time after history. There were no more doors in front of you, all history lay behind you. It was a given.
I think we lost most of our innocence then, and maybe even our Liberalism, in a way. What good are lofty ideals against such evil ? Maybe a President who can show resolve, and doesn’t throw Israel under the bus, Is the BFD of our times, even more than the economy, in the long term.
This is beautiful sentiment.
I think though loss of innocence happens every generation. For instance, lost some when Pearl Harbor was attacked. Lost more when JFK was assassinated. Lost more at 9-11. When you think it’s all lost, unfortunately, something new will come along to hurt some more. Also, unfortunately, Obama will be a 2nd loss of innocence in one generation, whether he wins or loses this time.
Many of us lost our innocence long before 9/11/01. I can count mine back at least to the 1980s and AIDS. And I know that with loss of innocence some still are able to hold on to principles and convictions. Even liberalism. Some of the most committed liberals, most steadfastly principled people, I’ve ever known were Holocaust survivors. In fact the process of transition from innocence tests, among other things, our principles. Do we seek understanding or revenge, healing or retribution, growth or deeper destruction? It could be argued that those who emerge from that transition with a loss of their principles never really had conviction to begin with.
I’m glad you raised this, sophie, because whether it’s the Great Depression, Holocaust, McCarthy era, JFK assassination, 1968, AIDS or 9/11 or the Obama/Clinton battle of 2008, innocence has been lost and each individual’s response, maintaining one’s principles or letting them slip away, contributes to the state of our nation today.
I lost my innocence about politicians as saviors back in my early twenties, when I was a paid staffer on a US senate campaign. Near the end of the race, at a campaign party, the candidate came up to me & my dad. He knew my first name, and that I worked for him in some capacity. He knew my dad’s first name, and that he was an important figure in our city’s Dem party. I saw the look of confusion on his face as he listened to me & my dad make some intimate conversation. The candidate asked if we’d met before at an earlier campaign function, & began to introduce us to each other. I’m the spitting image of my dad.
I realized then that all one required to be a successful politician was a good smile and the ability to match names to faces. Rainman for Senate.
” Rainman for Senate.”
Rofl
I was never innocent. What a relief that’s turned out to be.
been switching out quotes on the masthead as it amuses me…the quote from conner was placed purely because I found it so damn funny…
I think the idea that the govt doesn’t create jobs is wrong. The govt can stop laying off public workers. It can provide more stimulus to help local communities struggling with lost revenues to keep local workers in jobs. That will reduce need for public assistance and put more money into local economies to stimulate small business and consumption. Austerity has been a huge mistake. Both Obama & Romney will prolong hard times. Only Stein wants to address the jobs problem by helping people work not helping business increase profit. So I am voting for Stein.
If this has become a pro-Romney blog where bashing the poor will be a regular event please let me know. “There but for fortune…” means something to me, and no, John it isn’t because I live in a fancy neighborhood. Blaming people for their misfortunes is rationalization for denying help and a way to hang on to your own resources. People do that in hard times but helping others is a better strategy for survival as a people. John your neighbors are clearly Others to you. I’d bet they would be more generous to you than you are to them. Your stance depends on the assumption you won’t ever need their help but life has a nasty way of confounding illusions of self-sufficiency. To the extent that your neighbors are poorer than you they probably have a better understanding of that.
People who cannot support themselves need more work not fewer kids.
What Sally said.
“People who cannot support themselves need more work not fewer kids.”
The planet completely disagrees with this comment, and I agree with the planet.
poor bashing is often whistling the graveyard .I believe people realise they are closer to the huddled masses than they would like…so a sense of separation is sought .
American Airlines is canning 11,000 and Bank of America is firing 16,000 ..I wonder if that’s just an early start to the right before the holidays mass firings that has become a treasured tradition for our captains of industry…or is something up?
Something is up. The economy is continuing to contract. Business expenses such as airline travel are being cut to the bone. Remote training and meetings are now obligatory. Sales staff is traveling less because no one is buying anything except what is mandatory to stay functioning. Consumer spending is way, way down. Pockets of conspicuous consumption like DC are surrounded by enormous areas of angry misery. The press is not covering it, the miserable are not talking, and an election is fast approaching.
You bet something’s up. Our boat’s sinking.
If the American people had the smarts or the balls to kick both Parties to the curb in six weeks, we could save ourselves. But this is it, kids. The last midnight. Anybody who thinks we’ll survive four more years of this intact is not seeing what’s happening.
Winter is Coming.
Zal, you saw INTO THE WOODS in previews, too?
Somebody noticed!
You warm my heart, Jay.
Where I saw the loss of innocence is in the belief that no matter what, America can ‘fix it’.. With our shared ideals, can do attitude, and work ethic, together we could get through anything..or so some of us thought.
We have become so fragmented and angry, it feels as if the great majority has broken into a thousand unmendable pieces. OWS proved that. We now Do ask ‘what our country can do for us’…
The Obama constituency is living proof that when we reach the point where the majority who contribute the Least to the general welfare, have the Most votes, all hell will break loose. That is why promoting prosperity for all must take precedence over giveaways.
We can’t simply rely on Americans’ inherent patriotism and sense of duty anymore.