At this point it seems to me that regardless of who is elected president, much of the blood drawn in this election will be that of Big Media-based “fact-checking” columns or adjuncts. The latest fact check making news is a check by Politifact.com of former President Bill Clinton’s remark in his speech last night that more jobs were created during the terms of Democratic presidents than during those of Republican presidents. Clearly, as a matter of historical fact that’s true.
I could make all sorts of analyses of the analysis in the fact-check but I’ll limit my observations to just three. First, I don’t think that anything previous to 1979 matters at all. Not even a little. In 1979 China renounced its official policy of autarky. That’s not just a once a decade or once a century development. That was a once in a millennium development. The entire economic game has changed and whatever went before is just nostalgia.
Additionally, I think that policies matter and, indeed, matter much more than party labels. I think that Nixon was more like Kennedy and Clinton like Reagan than Bush 43 was like Reagan or Obama like Kennedy. Presumably, that’s an observation which will make almost no one happy.
However, what struck me most about the analysis was the bare net job creation during the Obama presidency to date that the fact check presented: 332,000 jobs in four years. That’s fewer than any president of any party with any term length over the period of the last 50 years other than Bush 43. And Democratic presidents are supposed to create more jobs than Republican ones. This is good news?
That’s fewer than any president of any party with any term length over the period of the last 50 years.
Well, except one.
Though if anything, that strengthens the point in your prior paragraph.
“Additionally, I think that policies matter and, indeed, matter much more than party labels. I think that Nixon was more like Kennedy and Clinton like Reagan than Bush 43 was like Reagan or Obama like Kennedy. Presumably, that’s an observation which will make almost no one happy.”
To the contrary, I think from an economic perspective this is honest and good commentary. . It’s a shame we just , generally, have “hooray for our side” as political discourse.
I know that few here share my assumptions and advocacy for Romney. And of course you just don’t know until someone is in office. After all, has Obama matched his 2008 campaign rhetoric? But every fiber in my body tells me Romney is the guy for the times. And the one thing we can all observe empirically, Obama has not been the right guy. Not by a country mile. Unless the man has a brain transplant, nothing will change.
I haven’t heard about too many brain transplants……
I’m depressed. Local and national events.
So my stereo system takes about 20 minutes to warm up (tubes and crossovers etc) to optimal performance.
In is going to go Kind of Blue. Despite its title, it uplifts me like nothing but Led Zeppelins “Rock and Roll.” The Stones “Hey, Hey, You Got Me Rockin Now” (live version) etc.
It’s just filthy good jazz. By the master. So What. Freddie Freeloader. Blue in Green (really just an excuse for Miles to solo) and All Blues. And then you get to tone down to Flamenco Sketches.
It just doesn’t get any better.
See ya.
Darn it. When I drafted that passage mentally I’d meant to write that. I’ve updated the post accordingly. Thanks.
At this point it seems to me that regardless of who is elected president, much of the blood drawn in this election will be that of Big Media-based “fact-checking†columns or adjuncts.
I don’t think it will be just fact-checkers, but main stream news media across the board. They’ve been so in-the-tank for the Dems it has been impossible to not notice. They’ve been trying to re-establish some credibility the last couple of weeks but it isn’t working. Episodes like Chris Matthews discussing that Bill Clinton is so sexy he’d be able not only to fuck every Martian on Mars but would also get them all pregnant doesn’t really look so good. The anchors and reporters haven’t been much better.
…
It’s a shame we just , generally, have “hooray for our side†as political discourse.
I know that few here share my assumptions and advocacy for Romney.
[ Shakes head and thinks of a story he once heard about an old First Sergeant ]
“In negotiations when one party re-opens a subject that the other party believes already to have been settled and then, when called on it, reacts angrily, it is reasonable to conclude that the party that re-opened the previously settled subject was negotiating in bad faith, i.e. had no intention of arriving at an equitable settlement. At that point withdrawal from negotiations is the only viable alternative.”
Is there some reason to selectively believe Boehner’s version and not Obama’s? I read the whole piece. There is disagreement on what happened, though all seem to agree that Boehner delayed calling back. Since that was the main focus of Boehner’s time, it suggests he was doing something else related to the deal. What was he doing? I think we are missing a lot of detail, and will probably never know exactly what happened.
Steve
As reported the facts appear to be
– the president upped the ante
– the Speaker delayed returning the president’s call
– when he did call back he ended negotiations
Woodward’s is not the only report that the president asked for more tax increases at the last minute. I read other reports of that at the time. I think it’s quite clear from that the president was bargaining in bad faith. It’s been speculated that so was Boehner. But it’s speculation. That’s not what has actually been reported. If you’ve got something besides putative motive, then I’d agree that both sides were negotiating in bad faith. I might add that in the last day or so I’ve read a lot of mistaken reports about the powers of the modern speakership. The Speaker has a lot of power in the House, particularly a Republican Speaker. Essentially, he can compel his partisans to vote however he cares to have them vote. That’s the power of the post-Gingrich speakership. A lot of (retired) Congressmen complain about it.
There’s an additional factor that I think you should take into account. The Congress and the executive are co-equal branches of government. The president may have gotten his tail tied in a knot but he was wrong to react that way. Just plain wrong. Boehner’s his equal not his subordinate.
I agree with your three listed facts. In your post, you seem to imply a fourth settled fact, that the two had a finalized agreement. Woodward just says tantalizingly close. Meh. I think James has it right.
“The Congress and the executive are co-equal branches of government. The president may have gotten his tail tied in a knot but he was wrong to react that way. Just plain wrong. Boehner’s his equal not his subordinate.”
I agree. What do we make of Boehner not returning calls? Shouldnt he talk to his co-equal, not ignore him? Ignoring three calls? So help me out since, as Drew likes to point out, docs suck at business. If I keep calling someone with whom I am trying to make a deal, and they wont return my calls, what should I do? What does HArvard Business school recommend?
(Apologies for wrong thread post. Too much call, too little sleep.)
Steve
Follow up. Outside of Netanyahu, who doesnt return a call from POTUS?
Steve
steve, if the POTUS is calling to change the terms of a deal, then the other party gets time to consider the new terms. Twenty-four hours is not unreasonable given that the Speaker needs to make certain he can get 218 votes from his side.
And the President calling back repeatedly? That just gets back to no one having respect or fear of him. Pelosi putting him on hold? The fact that this version of the story is getting out there (whether true or not) tells us that this President is considered a junior partner by leadership in both parties. This is just pathetic no matter how you cut it.
Outside of Netanyahu, who doesnt return a call from POTUS?
Well, there’s Boehner*, presumably McConnell, and Pelosi puts him on hold without telling him she’s doing it. My God, this is so ridiculous that it is making me want to vote for Romney just because of the pathetic weakness of the current POTUS. Don’t worry, I won’t. I’ve settled on writing in Attila the Hun’s reconstituted zombie corpse instead. Party line votes for the Scourge Party, babies! (Yes, we’ll mention God in out Party platform.)
* Reportedly the Obama White House did not even have Boehner’s number when the Repulsicons retook the House. This from a WaPo story: The book points out that the administration seemed unprepared for the road ahead, as demonstrated on election night in 2010. “Protocol dictated that the president make a congratulatory call to Boehner,†Woodward writes. “The trouble was, nobody in the White House had thought to get a phone number.â€
Seriously? They’re not keeping in contact with the opposition leadership at all times in case of some sort of disaster?
This anecdote follows another with Reid throwing Obama out of a meeting with bi-partisan Congressional leadership in the White House. That’s right, Obama is even getting bullied on his own turf by his own guys.
The two men engaged in secret talks for several weeks in July 2011 as they attempted to resolve the stalemate over raising the federal debt ceiling, then set at $14.3 trillion. Boehner was seeking large spending cuts as part of an overall deal. Obama wanted the Republican to agree to new revenue. Without the authority for new borrowing beyond the $14.3 trillion limit, the government would immediately run out of cash to pay its bills and debt.
Another bit from the WaPo article. The national debt has gone up $1.7 TRILLION in a year. This number is as disturbing as the number of people looking for work.
Good lord, if half this article is true….
If this Presidency were on The Gong Show it wouldn’t make it to the time limit….
The comment police would like to point out that this discussion is in the wrong thread.
@ steve, its not that Boehner didn’t return a call from the POTUS, he didn’t return the call promptly. Boehner’s office contacted the POTUS’ office to say Boehner would call in two hours, the POTUS said he wanted to talk now, and Boehner called in two hours.
Thanks for the laughs…
But every fiber in my body tells me Romney is the guy for the times. And the one thing we can all observe empirically, Obama has not been the right guy. Not by a country mile. Unless the man has a brain transplant, nothing will change.
It’s validating to read someone else’s gut feeling that coinsides with my own.
Through all the back and forths that go on in other blogs, Romney’s fiscal plan and ideas are dissected and then dissed as if they already have had some kind of presidential application — it’s as if Romney were the encumbent and Obama the challenger. And, this is simply not the case.
Romney has laid out a framework, constructed mainly on the kind of direction he wants to go. Numbers quoted have dealt with across-the-board percentage cuts to income tax. But, revenue from these cannot be properly analyzed without the second part to his plan which deals with ‘closing loopholes,’ and most probably raising fees. Essentially, though, what Romney/Ryan are pushing is a more business friendly climate, less obsessive regulation of business, opening up more options to our own energy development, and not taxing the bejesus out of people’s dividents, capital gains or when a family member dies.
I think it will like be giving oxygen to an oxgen-starved people, hence making them more energetic and consequently productive. When I even type these redundent remarks I feel more optimistic then when I read about the same old, same old garbage that Obama puts out.
So, yes, without any evidence on hand, only that releasing the potential to do more usually accomplishes more, I do feel that Romney/Ryan are the people for the times, as well. And, if this proves to be wrong, as it has been for what Obama has done, then you’re have to “let them go,” just like I hope the voting public will be able to let Obama/Biden go, come November.
“And the President calling back repeatedly? That just gets back to no one having respect or fear of him. ”
Suggests he really wanted the deal more than Boehner did.
@PD- Then it appears that what was said at Boehner’s meeting was going to determine his position. It sounds as though he was not interested in making a counter offer or hearing anything new from the POTUS. If you assume they had reached a real deal, then maybe this makes sense, I just dont think there is conclusive evidence that is the case.
Steve
PD Shaw and Icepick,
Obama’s ego is such that he requires immediate action to his requests. He wants to not only set the agenda, but also the pace of said agenda, not working well with the concerns of others, either on the other side or even in his own party. I also, found it telling, that he was “stunned’ by the 2010 elections, and didn’t even have Boehner’s number to call him to, I suppose, give the obligatory “congratulations.”
It has long been leaked into articles how dismissive and disengaged Obama is unless he wants to be otherwise. Again, just look at his Jobs Council record, with no meetings this year, while at the same time touting how important job creation is, as he goes from fund raiser to fund raiser.
Sigh……
Jan
You continue to amaze.
I don’t comment at OTB much anymore. But I watch you going 1 and 7. 1 and 15. 1 and 20. Perhaps I’m the only “1” in the thumbs war.
You are far more willing to try to be reasonable with those folks before you unload the howitzer. I wish I had the patience. I saw a couple threads where I just wanted to reach through and strangle them. However, I have noted you have absolutely no problem holding your own.
Givem hell, Harry, er, Jan.
“Obama’s ego is such that he requires immediate action to his requests. He wants to not only set the agenda, but also the pace of said agenda, not working well with the concerns of others, either on the other side or even in his own party.”
You know this because you have met him? I discount personality narratives, positive and negative. They are constructed images. (Ok, I know I am in a minority here. It takes away most of the fun of being snarky.)
Query- It took 13 months to pass the ACA. Did Obama set the pace?
Steve
The comment police would like to point out that this discussion is in the wrong thread.
You’ll never take me alive, copper!
It’s funny you should mention “comment police”. There’s been a spirited discussion going on among the OTB editorial staff for the last week or so on the subject of the deteriorating state of the OTB comments section. That would be James, Steven Taylor, Doug Mataconis, Chris Lawrence, Robert Prather, Dowd, and me. Steve V. hasn’t weighed in.
I suggested more active policing of the comments for non sequiturs and ad hominems. The consensus was more laissez-faire. We were basically in agreement on leaving the comments open as having value to the blog but were discouraged at the repetitiveness, content, and tone.
I also volunteered to seek out more center-right folks to balance out the present tilt of the comments section. “Center-right” is getting kind of hard to find.
Suggests he really wanted the deal more than Boehner did.
No, it suggests weakness. Especially if Boehner’s office told him that he would call him back at a certain point in time, as mentioned above.
But the President of the United States of America should not call some one again and again and again with no response like a love-sick junior high student. He calls once. If necessary his Chief of Staff starts rattling other cages. This is just weakness.
Take it with the story about Pelosi putting him on mute. I’ve been in meetings and conference calls when that has been done. There are ways in which that can be done for reasons other than rudeness. On a large conference call you might hit the mute button so as to not cause any distractions from shuffled paper or whatnot. I’ve been in meetings when we’ve hit the mute button to hurriedly try to figure out if we had something to fix. The only times I’ve seen the mute button get hit so as to ignore the person speaking, it was always a sign of disrespect.
Add to this Harry Reid throwing Obama out of the room in the White House. A Senator should not tell the President the Congressional leadership wants to talk, so the President should leave. Reid should have said something along the line of this: “Mister President, I would like to confer privately with my colleagues to clear up a couple of points. Can you direct us to a room where we can discuss these matters privately?” The President can then either direct them to such a room, or politely offer to step out of the room playing the part of a gracious host. Bossing him around in his own house? Disrespect. The President should have given Reid an icy stare and told him to go meet in a broom closet.
We should send George Zimmerman to Washington to give Obama a lesson in Stand Your Ground 101.
“Center-right†is getting kind of hard to find.
If you need the Attila the Hun vote, contact me. You’ve got my email address!
…
And now I’m thinking of Harry Reid walking into the Oval Office and being offered some tea and a bag of Skittles. “What’s this for?”
Steve V., I’ll be here all week. Don’t forget to tip your waitress!
Schuler, if you’ve got to moderate then you need to go Full Frontal Rhazib Khan. Anything less won’t get it done, but that would be a helluva lot of work for a site with OTB’s traffic, and might well be impossible with multiple contributors. I’ve been stuck with moderator duties on boards before (Yeah, I know, it’s funny, and also just desserts – damn karma anyway!), and the fights between the moderators were worse than anything else that was going on. (In one case, one moderator started deleting all the posts by the other moderators – on the private moderation board!)
re comment police: I respect James and Doug (the primary writers) for their spirit of open discourse and engagement with contrary views, but I think they often tend to feed the pests by engaging with people they should ignore, which ends up encouraging pests.
The example I would pose was from a few weeks ago when Doug condemned in no uncertain terms the Mccarthyite witch hunt against Muslims by Michelle Bachmann. One of the more or less frequent commentors complained that Doug and James were playing the role of Joe Paterno, as pedophile enablers in their underlying support of the Republican Party. Doug engaged this commentor more than once in the thread. I would have banned him almost immediately. And he keeps coming back raising the question of whether or not it’s reasonable to believe James is a descent person because of his support for the Republican Party.
And what do you do about one of OTB’s most beloved commentors, and famous persons, who says there are only six or seven non-racist Republicans?
And Prather has gone to the dark side, which is unfortunate.
“I don’t comment at OTB much anymore. But I watch you going 1 and 7. 1 and 15. 1 and 20. Perhaps I’m the only “1″ in the thumbs war. “
Yeah, aren’t those thumbs down/thumbs up something else! I think the thumbs down is oftentimes automatically clicked, in just seeing my name linked to a post.
It is a war zone over there, that’s for sure. Actually more like a flock of vultures, where they all swoop down as soon as any red meat of opposition to their POVs happen to appear on a thread. I have to admit, though, it used to bother me, especially the ‘liar’ insults. If you know me at all, even social lies are difficult for me execute. However, I have developed a thicker skin, and sometimes even see the massive thumb down signs as a symbol of some effectiveness in rebelling against the statist thinking saturating that site.
I see your name too. And, when I do it’s like an oasis, giving some relief from the redundancy of like-minded commentary. As I’ve stated in the past, I enjoy and learn tidbits of your trade from your comments. I also take heart in how you view the components of this election. Generally, though, I do believe most people want similar outcomes for this country — many of the differences presiding in the ways we are invested in achieving such an outcome.
“You know this because you have met him? I discount personality narratives, positive and negative. They are constructed images. (Ok, I know I am in a minority here. It takes away most of the fun of being snarky.)
Query- It took 13 months to pass the ACA. Did Obama set the pace?”
Steve, first off, out of most of the people commenting here and other places, I am oftentimes taken aback by some of your opinions. You appear like a smart, informed poster, a doctor, which is a profession I hold in high regards. But, nevertheless, your comments seem more convoluted than most I run across.
Having said that, regarding your above comments: Of course I haven’t met President Obama. But, I do read a lot about him, and am especially interested in the human interest side of him — how he interacts with his peers, on both sides of the aisle. And, in many of the publications perused, there seems to be a pattern of disengagement, except with a close group of advisors around him — Valerie Jarrett, Axelrod, Plouffe, to name only three. Even in the democratic Congress he seems aloof, and as recently stated, going it alone in this election season by not helping people down the ballot from him with funds, such as Romney is doing with his cohorts. Isolation from your party does not seem like a healthy state of mind to me. Staying in touch with your own, and reaching across to the opposing sides is what greases the skids of compromise, isn’t it? Didn’t Reagan drink with Tip O’Neil, during some private meetings. Such friendly, outside the beltway engagement does help, IMO.
As for the the lengthy ACA battles, most of that was for show. Supposedly there was little real outreach to republicans from the dems in reaching some kind of healthcare compromise that would have added some republicans to the passage of the bill. In any life-altering legislation, such as medicare, social security, the civil rights act, there has always been a joint effect shown in the votes achieved in the passage of the bill. None was seeen in the ACA, which is why at least 50% of the people, years after the fact, still want it repealed.
I just saw this piece, which coincidentally kind of parrots what I was saying to Steve, in an above post.
Woodwards devastating account of Obama’s failed leadership
At OTB, what is up with the thumbs up/down? Is this a Mean Girls thing? Do you have to check each comment to see what is the score?
“As for the the lengthy ACA battles, most of that was for show. Supposedly there was little real outreach to republicans from the dems in reaching some kind of healthcare compromise that would have added some republicans to the passage of the bill. ”
I read health policy pretty closely. I followed the ACa passage. From my POV, it looked as though there was a significant attempt to reach across from the very start. The ACA was based upon a GOP plan. They included a number of lines from GOP legislators, including the one that lead to the death panels accusations. Finally, the whole thing ground to a halt for months while we waited for the Gang of Six, half of which were Republicans. What more would you have them do?
On the other side, what happened in primaries to any Republican who worked with Democrats? (To be fair, the same thing happened with some Dems.)
Steve
“I read health policy pretty closely. I followed the ACa passage. From my POV, it looked as though there was a significant attempt to reach across from the very start. The ACA was based upon a GOP plan. “
You do seem like you’ve followed health policy closely, and appear comfortable with what was passed. I also followed the ACA passage closely, including that big bipartisan, televised meeting at Blair house, which was more a staged Obama event, IMO. What I observed was the dems constructing appearances of including the republicans, but in reality it was a sham.
Tell me what did the R’s contribute, that was included in the final bill?
As for the ACA being based on a GOP plan, do you mean the mandate part, which was put out there in the 90’s by a conservative think tank, and then withdrawn. Or, do you mean Romney’s MA health care legislation, which was devised for that state alone (versus a nationalized one), with no additional taxes being incorporated in the plan — again, may I remind you of the page count difference as well ( 170 to over 2700 pages).
“At OTB, what is up with the thumbs up/down? Is this a Mean Girls thing? Do you have to check each comment to see what is the score?”
It’s a way to communicate to another that they think you are full of BS.
I think a lot of center-right commenters probably still read but in the current environment, why should they bother commenting? I don’t think recruiting will work as long as the existing problems remain.
Personally, I think the first thing you guys should do is get rid of the stupid voting system. People don’t vote for comments that are “helpful.” I don’t see how it adds value at all. Another problem is that OTB doesn’t have a button to report offending comments. I’m not sure how any comment-heavy blog can hope to police a comments section without this feature.
I’ve mentioned it a bunch of times and I know James is against it, but I think you guys should move to a platform like disqus. The nice thing about disqus (and similar systems) is that it has reputation tools built in and those tools work on any disqus site. So you can see a user’s commenting history everywhere, not just disqus.
Finally, there’s a middle ground between full-on moderation and free-for-all and that is to moderate the people who cause problems. It works like this: If someone breaks the rules you guys can put them on moderation for a few days. Their comments can still get published but they have to wait for one of you to approve them. That’s a system that I think works since it incentivizes good behavior without resorting to the ban-hammer. The trolls will eventually move to greener pastures. Plus, it should be a lot less time-consuming than moderating every post.
that should be “everywhere, not just OTB.”
@jan- You need to know the history. In short readable form, here i s a comparison of the Clinton plan and the one designed by Chafee, who was the Chair of the Senate Health care task force for the GOP.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/graphics/2010/022310-bill-comparison.aspx
What you see is a lot of overlap with the ACA, and Chafee’s plan. With Clinton’s plan for that matter. (Note the Boehner non-plan plan.) The ACA draws upon the principles in the Chafee plan. It also embraces high deductible insurance options and exchanges (the Senate version , which are in Ryan’s plan for Medicare reform in case you missed that. If you are really interested, the following from Paul Starr (he wrote the best book on the history of medicine in the US, but it is very dense and a slow read so be warned) goes over the 90s efforts in a bit more detail. The CLinton strategy, at one point, was the “onion” strategy. Offering a plan with extravagant parts that were designed to be peeled away. It failed. The ACA was offered without those extravagant options, but incorporated many GOP principles.
http://www.princeton.edu/~starr/20starr.html
On death panels, from Wikipedia which has the names correct.
“A bill to provide for reimbursement every five years for office visit discussions with Medicare patients on advance directives, living wills, and other end of life care issues was proposed by Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) in April 2009—with Republican cosponsors Charles Boustany (R-LA), a cardiovascular surgeon, Patrick Tiberi (R-OH), and Geoff Davis (R-KY).”
On Romneycare, from Romneycentral.
“3 – The overall costs of the program to the state have not exceeded expectations. At the time of passage, Romney predicted that the new law would add just 1 to 1.5% to the state budget. Last year the additional cost to the state was only 1.2% – precisely where Romney predicted it would be even though the costs to the state would be much lower if the Massachusetts legislature and Governor Patrick (Romney’s successor) hadn’t added significant costs to the healthcare law. (This is covered more thoroughly in Section 6 – What changes would Romney make to RomneyCare?)”
http://mittromneycentral.com/resources/romneycare/
I dont think anyone serious about health care policy thinks you can cover millions more people w/o it costing more. However, that is kind of irrelevant. It is the curve which matters.
Steve
@steve
Death panels was about medical boards/government bureaucrats deciding which procedures would be allowed and which patients would be allowed to receive them. Individuals were not the target, but some people may have envisioned grandma going before a board to decide if she could have a heart/lung transplant.
Death panels was over the top, but it was a way to tweak liberals. It was never about end of life care.
Dave and Jan
Yeah, it’s a mess over there. Look, if anyone understands anything about my worldview it’s the primacy of ownership. It ain’t my blog. I believe it’s James, solely. I have a lot of time for James, it’s a really good blog site. I don’t care for the current commentariat.
But he gets to run it the way he wants. Period, full stop. It’s his place. Not mine. Same with Dave.
That said, Im happy to hear that discussions are occurring. I’m sure some think I’m a wild eyed conservative. That is not true. But from my perspective, the place has almost become the old NYTimes sewer. It’s become pointless and boring.
Love James and Dodd. I’m stunned at Doug’s prolific writing. Sometimes I agree, other times…. I need to set him strait ;). Taylor….uh…. Sure wish Knapp and Finel were still around. Some are probably surprised at that.
It’s an interesting business.
@TastyBits- The initial outcry, this is well documented, was over docs being paid to talk with patients about end of life care. The idea was based on the success in the Wisconsin program. It was very much about end of life care, and it got that provision pulled from the ACA. I am biased because I am in medicine, and I am affected a lot by end of life care, but I regard it as the sleaziest thing I have seen in politics. Making more people suffer needlessly at the end of their lives is intolerable.
Steve
“However, I have developed a thicker skin, and sometimes even see the massive thumb down signs as a symbol of some effectiveness in rebelling against the statist thinking saturating that site.”
I actually missed this. Yeah, I know I’m doing my job in rattling the monkeys cages when I get the overwhelming thumbs down.
Truly, what I would like is considered and reasoned opposition points of view. It would give me something to think about. My whole commenting style is based on trying to be a provacateur and really draw people out and get them engaged in heated, and hopefully therefore honest, debate and not just superficial platitudes. People become honest when they are pissed off. It’s just an observation.
It gets me in trouble sometimes. People suggest what body parts should be put down my throat. Heh.
But it’s all good.
@Drew- I comment much less often also. I dont find accusations of racism interesting. Ad hominems are unappealing. I dont think Republicans are evil, well maybe Cheney LOL. I still enjoy James very much. He helped to alter and cement my thinking about Bush. After voting pretty much straight GOP for years, Bush pushed me over the top with his foreign policy, though I had always been unhappy with the GOP stance on social policy. In retrospect, once Bush really ran his own foreign policy, ignoring Cheney, booting Rumsfeld, things went much better. As I think he was, and is, basically a decent man, I have to wonder if he would have approved of torture and adventurous wars w/o the influence of the neocons in his admin. While his domestic policy mostly sucked, he stepped up and helped stop the bleeding during the worst of 2008.
Steve
RE: OTB Comments
My objection to OTB comments have become deranged, and I tend to stay away of political topics. @PD Shaw’s link to Prather is an example. On conservative discussion boards, there is a similar mindset. On tech discussion boards, the Apple vs. Microsoft and open vs closed source have a similar effect.
The logic is: My opponents are evil. Evil must be eliminated. Eliminating evil has no limits. I am good, and anything I support is good. I must eliminate evil, and eliminating evil has no end.
The ad hominems are amusing, and I like following them. The thumbs up/down is silly, but you should be able to tell who is voting. I would like to know who I am pissing-off. I do not think a reputation system is needed. I can tell who should be disregarded.
Newsgroup readers had a kill-filter which allowed the user to hide posts from a certain poster. “Do not feed the trolls” is a good policy, but a troll is often defined as anyone who disagrees with me.
I would recommend leaving it as is.
@steve
Sarah Palin was one of the first to bring it up, and she was referring to medical boards making decisions about what and who would receive certain treatment. She was including her son Trig as being subject to these “boards”. There is some language in the bill about medical boards, and the “death panel” was derived from this.
The end of life provisions got dragged into the discussion because it was the only death related language.
The logic is: My opponents are evil. Evil must be eliminated. Eliminating evil has no limits. I am good, and anything I support is good. I must eliminate evil, and eliminating evil has no end.
That’s why I’m voting for Attila the Hun’s reconstituted zombie corpse in November. If you’re going to be a Scourge, go for the real deal!
(I’d go with Genghis Khan instead, but I have this vague and uneasy feeling that John Milius and Oliver Stone may hold copyright on his image and name somehow. I really don’t want to fuck around with those two loons.)