Open Thread.
Make a new account
I think I want one.
Do they really think he will not have an answer to questions like that?
Me, my. My administration did more and better and made whites whiter without using bleach.
Shut up, Mr. President. You are not eloquent, and you are not particularly good at speaking in a press conference. Your "ME, MY, MY ADMIN" pathetic statements do not serve.
Better to say nothing and let folks think you're an idiot than to open your mouth in a press conference and demonstrate you are.
What a waste of oxygen.
Quit telling me how good you are. Do something.
Chuckle. Parent
Otherwise this place loses some cred, and becomes just a predictable, depressing Johnny One Note board with the same 20 or so regular posters endlessly bashing O and conveniently ignoring the positives. Parent
Almost as irrational as the wingers calling him a Kenyan Socialist.
It does harm credibility. About 70% of the country personally likes Obama. Not many here do.
Rather than give Obama his due on the good things, it is constant animus against him personally.
The Press Conference was fine. Gone was the anger at the professional left.
Parent
In other words, he needs to work on not being a whiner. More decent policy, less petulance. Parent
When one is predisposed against Obama, then even giving him credit on the good things must necessarly carry with it a take-back or a jab here or there.....because Obama can never be given real credit for anything....
I heard him lay down the foundation for dealing with Republicans next year. Not petulant but pretty matter of fact. His statement of priorities. That is what was new....not much else was.....
He was most animated about the loss of the Dream Act.....which I thought was interesting....His comments there were pretty good....not too theoretical but very concrete--showing the empathty that many here say he lacks.... Parent
I thought his comments on the Dream Act were exceptional. Parent
It worked to perfection. Not only did he win, he looked Presidential and centrist.....
I will grant you that this approach did not work on health care, taxes or to a certain extent on the Stimulus.....
The difference is not better execution in one instance over another. No, it was the nature of what was being fought over. With START and DADT there was no middle ground. It was black or white. Pass or No Pass. All or nothing. So, there was no opportunity to pre-negotiate away favorable items and still "win." To win on START and DADT, Obama had to win the on the whole thing. So, he could play footsies with the Republicans, wear them out, and win the whole enchilada.
Not so on taxes and spending and health care. No all or nothing bright line (for most people.) So, the giveaways could proceeed.
Next year, there are few black or white issues. And, liberals would do well to try and cast as many issues in that light as possible....so that the Obama way does not compromise them--so that they are taken off the table as soon as possible. Parent
The "dawdling" on DADT made it possible....There was a need to have a "study" to win over Republicans. That took time....
Obama was not on the sidelines on DADT. He had his Chariman of the Joint Chiefs and Secretary of Defense out front and center. There are numerous accounts of his working the phones, etc.
You have a template and are trying too hard to fit everything into it. Parent
Sometimes calling it like it is just sounds the wrong note. Parent
The study wasn't to give cover to Obama--he was already on record for repeal--but to give cover to the Republicans..... Parent
I'm to the point where Obama should just go over to the GOP since he loves them so much. Parent
Sometimes, it seems he is energized by the fear that he might get the blame for something more than he is by taking up the fight for the policies that are right.
And, as Marcy Wheeler said in one of her posts yesterday:
As we celebrate President Obama signing into law the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, I'd like to congratulate the activists who made it happen. This is the progressive high point of Obama's presidency so far, and it came because of the hard work of a lot of people who relentlessly fought to win civil rights. May this civil rights victory lead to full equality for gay men and women. But I wanted to also note what this moment says about Obama's system of governance: that the only thing he responds to is hostage-taking. FDL has written a lot about Obama's serial capitulation to those -- whether the Republican caucus or people like Joe Lieberman and Max Baucus -- who hold legislation hostage. But this victory, the biggest progressive victory under Obama, is largely due to the fact that a number of men and women chained themselves -- took themselves hostages, effectively -- to the gates of the White House. And while I doubt the optics of environmentalists or housing activists chaining themselves to the White House (with their consequent arrest) will be so toxic to the White House, the lesson does seem to be that the only thing Obama (who bills himself a pragmatist and loves to claim he listens to all sides) listens to is hostage-taking.
May this civil rights victory lead to full equality for gay men and women.
But I wanted to also note what this moment says about Obama's system of governance: that the only thing he responds to is hostage-taking.
FDL has written a lot about Obama's serial capitulation to those -- whether the Republican caucus or people like Joe Lieberman and Max Baucus -- who hold legislation hostage.
But this victory, the biggest progressive victory under Obama, is largely due to the fact that a number of men and women chained themselves -- took themselves hostages, effectively -- to the gates of the White House.
And while I doubt the optics of environmentalists or housing activists chaining themselves to the White House (with their consequent arrest) will be so toxic to the White House, the lesson does seem to be that the only thing Obama (who bills himself a pragmatist and loves to claim he listens to all sides) listens to is hostage-taking.
It's a feature, not a bug! Parent
On the 9/11 health fund- well, the credit for that should go to Jon Stewart for his merciless skewering of the Republicans for obstructing it. Also, having Guiliani and Fox News supporting it didn't hurt.
As for DADT, well, props when due, this win goes to Joe Lieberman. Now it is up to Obama and his defense secretary to get this implemented. The devil, as always, is in the details.
While Obama, who never misses a chance to claim credit, toots his own horn, let's remember, given the above, the big story would have been if he had failed to get these things passed. Parent
....and the favorable study was very important in getting votes....That was Obama's doing....
Obama set the strategy on this and executed it.....
Obama made a lot of calls....and apparently sent political operatives to Maine to raise a ruckus about DADT publicly to put pressure on the Maine sisters.....
Give the man his due. Parent
I believe he "sent operatives" to Maine. The idea that overwhelming pressure from the Maine voters would rise up on this issue and persuade the Maine ladies to vote for it is, however, absolutely ludicrous.
Do you know anything about Maine's history on these issues? Parent
The battle will now be to get Lieberman lined up to protect Social Security and Medicare. If you get Lieberman and the other Dems, you win on those issues.....
I don't trust him on SS or Medicare or deficit reduction or anything. He is hardly the only danger zone for SS and Medicare, though. Dick Durbin of all people signed onto the Catfood Commission report. And our fearless president seems bound and determined to "reform" SS into the ground.
Since "reform" will be an Obama priority this time around it will be interesting to see how Josh Marshall approaches things. One hopes he will be just as ferocious in defending SS this time as he was with Bush. Time will tell. Parent
Presidents don't whine. Parent
He's got his own style of referring to the admin, and technically it is his admin, he's responsible for most of the players being there and for their actions, no one else. Doesn't matter much to me if he says My or This admin, what does matter is the outcome, where I've had my share of problems with O and this/his admin.
Except for the last few days, where he's finally put the ball in the end zone on a few matters, it's been a disappointing series of 30-yd field goals where he never really seemed to try hard for the touchdown. I'll credit him today for the scores and skip the carping about lack of style points. Tomorrow, it appears, there will be an opportunity to properly castigate for what he seems poised to do about SS and Medicare. I think I'll hold my fire on this guy for the big items. Parent
The real LBJ was happening behind the scenes outside of the carefully choreographed public appearances and stage-managed set pieces like his pressers, and much of it, as of 1965, was not a pretty picture. Parent
He had the Marines carve out the base at Khe Sanh in the middle of nowhere--for a reason no one can figure out even today--defend it at great cost just because, and then abandon it after the Tet offensive. MSOC's dad was KIA at Khe Sanh. Max Cleland lost his arm and both legs there.
LBJ was thoroughly hated by the Left....even more than many here hate Obama.
LBJ never seemed to have confidence that he was doing the right thing in Vietnam....Totally different than Shrub in that regard.
Today, the Left is quite happy to praise LBJ for the Great Society--but that overlooks just how hated he was back in the day....Hey, hey, LBJ, how many babies have you killed today....
Of course, the LBJ nostalgia really got a big boost with Hillary holding him up on Civil Rights.....during the Primaries.... Parent
Oppose Obama on his tax policy. But recognize the good he does....
On the LBJ chant, I guess I misremembered it....but do remember the killing of babies being an issue....(This was before Roe)....as part of the argument that VC put grenades in babies' diapers and that that was why civilians were often killed in self defense in Vietnam. Part of the Right's disgusting support of Lt. Calley and Capt. Medina.
And the napalming of Vietnamese kids--the iconic photo of the little girl running naked in horror....
The point being discussed here was how LBJ was being held up as not being a whiner--in contrast with Obama the great whiner....how LBJ was so much better than Obama.... Parent
Re his hatred by the left back then, check and double check as to the comparison with O today, who however disappointed some of us libs are with him often, still he isn't sending back hundreds of American boys dead -- each week! -- in order to fight some crazy war in a tiny unimportant country half a world away.
(btw, I wasn't aware of the siting controversy re Khe Sahn ... interesting. The VN War sure did handsomely repay some of Lyndon's political benefactors, like TX contractors Brown & Root ...) Parent
Found stuff on a Bill Moyers website....that includes video of the July 1965 Press Conference with LBJ announcing a major troop escalation....
Remember the body counts? At the end of the week Walter Cronkite would announce how many U.S. troops had been killed. One particularly bad week I recall was more than 360 of our guys. And always the absurdly high number of NVA and VC killed--5,000 or more.....So we were winning, right? Right?
Everyone trying to avoid the draft.... Parent
And the weekly body counts -- what a tragic joke of a way to evaluate winning/losing a war. Sen Mike Mansfield (majority leader for Dems) tried to warn LBJ early on about how the war would proceed if escalated, and noted that comparisons of combat deaths were useless-- the other side would always be able to adequately replenish personnel, well into the millions, for many years. LBJ hated it when Mansfield would try to talk him down from his growing war, and so stopped seeking his advice, and instead listened to one-track thinkers like the attritionist advocate Gen Westmoreland and hawkish loyalists like Rusk and Rostow. Parent
And it was trusted Walter Cronkite bringing news of all that mayhem and death into our livingrooms....
I sense you blame the nomination of Obama on that Vietnam mindset. And I thought it was the younger, creative class who was to blame....
It is interesting how LBJ has become such a revered figure among the anti-Obama left. Parent
LBJ had some good things but Viet Nam was certainly not a good thing. It's also a long time ago so a lot of people don't consider it a defining factor for them. I was 14 when Viet Nam ended so really too young for it to have an effect on me but some of the things that LBJ did like Medicare and civil rights have had a long lasting positive effect on the country. Parent
It is not just a distant memory for the families of the more than 50,000 U.S. troops killed there. Or for those and the families of those who did come back. Just bupkis now.
For all those here who are up in arms about Obama on everything on Iraq or Afghanistan, why the dismissal of Vietnam? Just a huge double standard.
You know, the LBJ nostalgia here stems from two sources: Liberals opposition to the Iraq war in the Primaries hurt Hillary, so Vietnam must be diminished here; and Hillary praised LBJ in the Primaries (in comparison to MLK, no less), so LBJ must be elevated.
So, in order to bash Obama--and that is always the pre-ordained goal here--you have to completely diminish any positive role he had in DADT repeal and ratification of START; and LBJ is airbrushed so Hillary's elevation of LBJ as the ideal can stand in contrast to Obama.
Talk about a jaundiced, tendentious, Orwellian re-writing of history.... Parent
I'm not up in arms at Obama over Afghanistan. I was indifferent to what he was doing there but when he starts talking "austerity" for everybody else that's when Iraq/Afghanistan really, really become a problem for me and I say this as a mother who has a son who will probably be joining the military next year and a nephew who is currently going to Afghanistan and another nephew who served in Iraq. So save your condescending lectures for someone else.
People admire LBJ because he was tough even though he was very flawed. Obama is weak and has made NO good policy decisions except maybe DADT. People don't respect wimps. For 8 years we had Bush taking hostages and getting what he wanted and now the GOP has come back to take YET more hostages and Obama completely caves. Now he's doing even more preemptive caving with social security. He's been even worse than I ever expected which is pretty amazing even to me. Parent
Have you ever listened to some of the LBJ tapes? They're absolutely fascinating. Parent
If Obama has turned into a 'closer,' instead of a pedant, let me know. We see a completely different president, brodie. Parent
As for the substance, go back and re-read my last para in the post above, where I note my general strong disappointment, tempered by some recent achievements. I don't recall concluding that he's now in the Closer category -- just that in the closing minutes of the 2d qtr, he and his team finally went for the end zone and it paid off.
We'll see how he comes out for the 2d half -- willing to be bold on behalf of the people in the area of budget cuts and drawing the line in the sand against chipping away at SS or Medicare, or reverting to previous form where he paid too much deferential attention to the oppo and the big corps, permitting them to largely set the agenda, as he settled for one safe field goal after another. Parent
ht/sideshow
From over at Hullabaloo:
Continuing resolution....
EK: The Senate passed the Continuing Resolution 79-16 this afternoon. Another way of saying that: The Senate voted to defund the implementation of both health-care reform and financial-regulation reform....
Republicans had been talking about attacking the health-reform law by defunding it, but few thought they'd succeed without a fight. The assumption was that Democrats would shut down the government before they let Republicans take that money. But as it happened, there was no fight at all. The omnibus spending bill collapsed, and the continuing resolution compromise was reached within a few days. Most senators probably don't even know the implications their vote had for the implementation of bills passed over the past year
Jennifer Rubin: I don't see how Democrats could have missed the implications of the defeat of the omnibus for ObamaCare. The aide, with obvious relish, dismissed the idea that Democrats in effect missed this one. He told me, "I think senators knew there was funding in the omni. That makes it all the sweeter: [Senate Democrats] would have had to force a fight to spend more and fund a bill that half the country not only hates, but wants to defund."
If this was all a secret, it was a poorly kept one. Republican leadership offices blasted out e-mails and press releases to activists and members of Congress warning that the omnibus included a billion dollars to fund ObamaCare. Republicans talked about it on the floor. I don't see how anyone voting, on either side of the aisle, could have missed this. Liberals might not have wanted to highlight it, but that's different than being unaware.
How did Democrats wind up in this fix? A GOP operative and former Senate staffer e-mails me that "after the omnibus collapsed, [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid didn't have an alternative. If conservatives are feeling bad about START, they should be really happy about this. With the new Congress in January, the GOP will be in a strong position on fighting ObamaCare."
So the score keeping doesn't involve whether the middle class lost, it's merely a matter of how much. Hoping for gridlock in the new year.
[W]hen it comes to politics -- no, I don't cry. I would never think of crying about any loss of an office, because that's always a possibility, and if you're professional, then you deal with it professionally. If I were to cry for anything, I would cry for [the American people] and the policies that they're about to face.
If I were to cry for anything, I would cry for [the American people] and the policies that they're about to face.
the year Kenny Loggins ruined Christmas Parent
Sinuses will be full during this season, and my ADHD will present. Worse than usual, I should say. Oh, a flock of geese flying by... Parent
Take it easy. Parent
It took a few tries to master the whole "pour into one nostril and let it drain out the other" technique. Once I had that down, though, it was smooth sailing.
My sinuses have never been better. Parent
then i found the work of dr. john sarno of nyu medical center regarding psychosomatic medicine (mind-body medicine, for those who find psychsomatic too associated with the idea of faking it or imaginary ailments). when i read his work and came to understand the nature of my very real and very physical pain (the subconscious brain also controls EVERY vital physical system in the body, after all), my symptoms receded very quickly. my back stopped hurting, my legs stopped burning, allergies went away, all of it, for the most part gone. yes, i get flareups, but when they happen i sort of meditate, talk to my brain, and the symptoms recede. sounds hokey to most people, but if you really think about how powerful the sub-cortex is -- that caveman part of our brains that controls our vital systems AND is the repository, almost assuredly, of subconscious emotion and memory (the source of dreams, for example) -- then it really does make sense. And it works. Dr. Sarno isn't some new age kook, he's an elderly M.D. with a track record of treating chronic pain and other conditions that is really unmatched. He is like the nurse at Johns Hopkins who for decades kept alive the Ketogenic Diet as a treatment for epileptic children, after big pharma essentially killed it in favor of pills, pills, pills.
As far as my allergies these days, please, I used to pop pills like crazy, now, it's very rare I have any issue, and those are almost always related to hot dry, Santa Ana days here in SoCal. But nothing like I faced before.
Anyway, check out the good doctor.
Dr. John Sarno, THE DIVIDED MIND (his latest and most up to date book, really an important read)
Dr. John Sarno, HEALING BACK PAIN (now a quarter of a century old, but still insightful, it was the book that really saved me.)
Peace. Parent
The nomination of Ms. Seitz, a lawyer with Sidley Austin LLP in Washington, could provide one of the first tests of how Mr. Obama and Republicans get along in the next Congress. Partisan battles have prevented many of Mr. Obama's nominees from being confirmed, including the Justice Department's No. 2 official and several nominees to the federal appeals court bench. The Sidley Austin firm is regarded as Republican-leaning, though Ms. Seitz has liberal credentials, having written a legal brief that proved influential in a 2003 Supreme Court ruling that upheld some affirmative-action policies in university admissions.
The Sidley Austin firm is regarded as Republican-leaning, though Ms. Seitz has liberal credentials, having written a legal brief that proved influential in a 2003 Supreme Court ruling that upheld some affirmative-action policies in university admissions.
SNIP
Ms. Seitz, 54 years old, was a Rhodes Scholar and clerked for Supreme Court Justice William Brennan. Carter Phillips, a managing partner at Sidley Austin, cited Ms. Seitz's work in the 2003 case that upheld the University of Michigan's law school affirmative-action policy. She wrote the brief on behalf of 29 high-ranking former military officials, arguing that military academies employed similar affirmative-action procedures that helped military cohesiveness. While some affirmative-action foes could object to Ms. Seitz's work, Mr. Phillips, a conservative, noted: "We were representing retired military officers, not the long-haired radicals."
Carter Phillips, a managing partner at Sidley Austin, cited Ms. Seitz's work in the 2003 case that upheld the University of Michigan's law school affirmative-action policy. She wrote the brief on behalf of 29 high-ranking former military officials, arguing that military academies employed similar affirmative-action procedures that helped military cohesiveness.
While some affirmative-action foes could object to Ms. Seitz's work, Mr. Phillips, a conservative, noted: "We were representing retired military officers, not the long-haired radicals."
[Of course, Sidley Austin is also the law firm where Barack worked as a summer associate, and where he met Michelle, who was an associate.
And another fun fact, Mary Todd Lincoln was one of the firm's first clients.]
Interesting alumni (wiki) includes not only Barack O., but Newton Minow (liberal guy, FCC Chair under JFK, famously said tv was becoming a "vast wasteland"), and Bernardine Dohrn, ex leader of the Weathermen radical 70s group. Parent
Not sure what the state bar character board people have in mind, if anything specific, for past deeds which absolutely disqualify someone from practicing law, but just from a layperson's perspective, I would think a conviction for crimes in the distant past that didn't involve murder or rape or treason and which resulted in no jail time at all once she turned herself in shouldn't have barred her from bar entry. Almost certain, imo, that politics was at play here with the bar board.
(note: I don't condone violent actions she or her org were involved in -- even if only intended against property and not people. But as to her views of today for instance, she seems not much more "radical" than, say, Dr MLK of 1967 ...) Parent
This society does have a pretty good tendency to give people a second chance
Only some people get a second chance. From the Wiki page:
She was hired by Howard Trienens, the head of the firm at that time, who knew Thomas G. Ayers, the father of Dohrn's husband. "We often hire friends," Trienens told a reporter for the Chicago Tribune.
It's all about who you know, rather than what you can bring to the table. Parent
And the who-you-know way of doing things generally goes back to which lawyer can bring in clients and business. And, bringing in business will often trump who can write the best brief. Parent
You have at least one of everything there..... Parent
The US Central Intelligence Agency has launched a panel dubbed the WikiLeaks Task Force, or "WTF", to investigate the impact of diplomatic cables and military documents released by secrets outlet WikiLeaks.The task force, which is being led by the CIA's Counterintelligence Center, will examine how the release of these classified documents could affect diplomatic relationships, according to the Washington Post."The director asked the task force to examine whether the latest release of WikiLeaks documents might affect the agency's foreign relationships or operations," CIA spokesman George Little told the paper.
The US Central Intelligence Agency has launched a panel dubbed the WikiLeaks Task Force, or "WTF", to investigate the impact of diplomatic cables and military documents released by secrets outlet WikiLeaks.
The task force, which is being led by the CIA's Counterintelligence Center, will examine how the release of these classified documents could affect diplomatic relationships, according to the Washington Post.
"The director asked the task force to examine whether the latest release of WikiLeaks documents might affect the agency's foreign relationships or operations," CIA spokesman George Little told the paper.
heh.
So this is a good thing possibly...? Parent
That's always a signal that he wants the next thing you hear to be the only position you think he's had on the subject.
In all seriousness, I am happy for people to evolve away from repressive and discriminatory positions; we'll see how much Obama waffles about on this one before I can trust that he's evolving as opposed to equivocating. Parent
I would think any change of position in favor of gay marriage would be welcome by liberals, whether you believe it is sincere or not.
If you are a devotee of BTD's theory of pols will be pols, then politicians are not very often sincere, and sincerity does not matter.
And, Anne, I assume you will also note Romney's greater proclivity for flip-flopping as we get closer to the Iowa and New Hampshire, or does your fire only go in one direction? Parent
The true believers scare me even more....
I read a Republican critique of Romney on Hugh Hewitt's site--when he used to allow comments--that I thought was very insightful. He said that Romney appeared to be 100% faithful and dedicated to his church and wife and family--everything else was negotiable.
This time around the crazies will have the most influence on Republicans, so Mitt will bow to them.... Parent
I am happy for people to evolve away from repressive and discriminatory positions;
suggests that I would NOT welcome Obama's support of same-sex marriage?
I think it's absolutely the right position, and it pains me that in 2010, Obama is still "struggling" with what I see as a basic civil rights issue.
And, for what it's worth, I didn't start this thread, just chimed in in response to andgarden, who seems less than enthused about Obama's latest remarks.
As a human being, I feel like I certainly have an interest in the expansion of rights to all people, but as a heterosexual whose choices in life have never been limited (well, there's the gender thing, but one issue at a time), I have to cede ground to those who have faced years of being treated as if their choices were immoral or unworthy of recognition.
And, I'm sorry, but Obama has a history of saying things that his actions do not support.
For what it's worth, I won't be making electoral decisions based on who has flip-flopped more or less, but on whether the candidate has demonstrated a commitment to the positions I believe are the right ones. Here's a news flash: I won't be voting Republican in any event, and unless Obama becomes someone he has demonstrated no interest in being, I will probably be sitting out the 2012 presidential election just as I sat out 2010. I'm simply not voting for someone who doesn't deserve my vote.
Period. Parent
This makes no sense to me. Parent
And I absolutely did vote in 2010 - we had a gubernatorial election in MD in which I felt the incumbent Democrat deserved to be re-elected.
Hope that makes more sense now. Parent
I mean, really, pardon me if I don't take his public musings on this particularly seriously. At this point, I honestly don't give a &&&& what he says he's going to do or wants to do or thinks should be done, only what he actually does. Parent
Quaint, or a bit of a dodge, as pols will do.
That said, does his prior pro-gay marriage stance as a young state legislator actually count much in the current political calculation? I tend to give him only partial discredit for reversing that early stance, given the low-level, backburner office involved. Not quite in the flip-flop category of a pol sitting as gov or senator who's flipping and flopping his stance on an issue w/n the span of a few years, in order to position himself better to win a party nomination for president. That's when you see the real flip-floppery. Mitt Romney on abortion rights; John McCain on DADT. Parent
/s Parent