I don't know how this can be considered "the big issue". I just went to CNN.com and there's no reference to this on the front page. Sarah Palin's wardobe, on the other hand, was front page news/snl material (something that didn't even involve taxpayer money) Maybe the Dems just did a better job hyping that story as relevent.

Well, there's OH-11, NY-20, and IL-5 so far, but only NY-20 was realistically contested (and the Democrat won). There were also plenty of special elections between 2006 and 2008 that showed a trend towards the Democrats (including flipping seats). So if you look at all the elections, general and special, since 2006, there's at least some basis for a claim that the Republicans continue to lose elections.

As I've noted elsewhere, however (maybe in this thread, I can't remember), it's only 2 years so far, hardly a long-term trend of failure.

Hey, at least Obama probably got receipts for his date night. :D

The Western White House actually was equipped for the President and his staff to do work, much like Camp David. I don't think people are going to be annoyed with Obama for going to Camp David, or for attending his daughter's soccer games (with the associated Secret Service costs).

If Obama had the Hawaiian White House, I don't think that would be a big deal either. After all, FDR had his getaway, Kennedy had Hyannisport, LBJ had a ranch in Texas, Nixon and Reagan both had places in California. If Obama wants to buy a place to use to get away from Washington, more power to him. If he wants to go on a taxpayer funded date with his wife, I'd just like to know the cost.

This was another PR blunder for the administration, and just like it took several years for Republicans to realize they didn't have to defend every one of Bush's decisions, I'm sure it will take Democrats some time to reach the same conclusion about Obama.

As for the "structural expenses", I think it's great that you're complaining about the size of government, but it's not like stories about added staff costs at the White House aren't being filed every day for Americans to react to. If they were, I'm sure MBBF would be talking about them, and you'd be defending the need for the Assistant to the White House Associate Deputy Chief of Personnel (East Wing). :)

It ran constantly on most right-wing sites and still is today.

So he's allowed to go do date night in Chicago or Hawaii, the latter of which would cost a ton more?

Yes, I do, for reasons I explained on the last page. You and I may not like that this is part of politics, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a part of politics. How Obama acts over the next 3 years will have an impact on how people see him, and everything he does as president is open to scrutiny... just like it has been for every president since Gerald Ford (I think the D.C. media still did a great deal of not reporting "lifestyle" stories with Kennedy, LBJ, and Nixon).

MBBF stated "doing work", which to me is pretty much the opposite of "date night". Your marriage may be different, but for your sake I hope not. :)

Ultimately I think people vote based on how well they are doing and what direction they feel the country is going. I don't think there are many moderates who are going to go to the poll and say "well since 4 years ago I got a job, make more money, and have health insurance, but he did go on a date to New York so I'll go with the other guy". I think the people who decide elections vote in their own self interests. It's why people didn't give a shit about Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, or whatever other issue that had no role in his policies.

But I guess in 3 and a half years we'll see how many people had "Went on a date" as their reason for not voting for him in the exit polls.

There's a lot of wacky stuff on the left wing sites too. 9/11 conspiracy theories for one.

But when the Palin wardrobe was mainstream, front page news, I think its funny that you think that right wing blogs talking about this is stupid.

No, that wasn't what I said. There's a big difference between a flight over for a date night and a working vacation in Crawford, Chicago, Hawaii, etc. And let's be honest, any vacation that the President takes is a working vacation.

It may have an effect, but I think by concentrating on it, here, you're overstating the effect it will have. Surely the state of the economy will matter considerably more come the time of the next general election?

The Palin wardrobe issue was fucking stupid. Just as this issue is.

Rainmaker's phrase was "slaughtered". NY-20 did go for the Democrat, who won by 401 votes out of more than 150,000 cast. That's hardly a "slaughter".

I know it's still early, and I certainly expect things to tighten up considerably before November, but right now Jon Corzine is polling about 24 points behind Republican Chris Christie in the NJ Governor's race (if Steve Lonegan wins today's primary, I think Corzine will have an easier time of it). In Virginia, Bob McDonnell wins a head to head matchup with any of the three Democratic candidates. Democrats in VA, btw, have already spent nearly 3-million dollars campaigning against McDonnell. In New Jersey, Democrats have spent about 1.2-million campaigning against Christie, and he hasn't even gotten the nomination yet!

You really think there are going to be a lot of people who state this in 4 years?

1. There are going to be just as many people pissed about the time they spent searching for a job in the Obama administration.

2. Given that a recession will take up at least half of Obama's administration, I don't see any chance that people will have an increase in pay from 2008 to 2012. If anything, many people are settling for lesser pay just to have a job, myself included.

3. The Health proposals might as well be called the 'Rainbow and Unicorn Initiative". You're foolish if you think we're going to see any real increase in overall coverage without a heavy increase in cost. If we do, it's going to come at the expense of higher premiums and co-pays. So the people who do get health care will be happy, while those people and businesses who pay for their own coverage will be irritated. There's give and take with everything when it comes to voters.

So instead of staying in the location, he comes back so he can do work in the White House. As I posited above, and MBBF chose not to answer, what if doing these date nights means he can take less vacations and actually spend less taxpayer money overall?

I have no clue how things will turn out in 2012. I'm not an economist or highly educated in fiscal policies. It was just an example saying that people will vote in 2012 on how their life has gone and the direction they feel it's going. If in 2012 a moderate is still out of work, has no retirement, and is having his taxes raised to pay for a huge deficit, he'll probably vote for the other guy. The example wasn't a prediction on what will happen, just saying that people vote on real issues like their personal well being over some silly date to NY.

I'm guessing we saw the first and last date night of this adminstration. In fact, I think you can bank on that.

Are you trying to be obtuse, or are your critical thinking skills really this underdeveloped? Of course people won't go to the polls and vote one way or the other because Obama went on a date. Like I said, everything the President does between now and Election Day will shape people's opinions of him, and that will have an impact. The President knows that, his staff knows it, I'm damn sure David Axelrod knows it, but for some reason this is beyond your comprehension?

If someone wants to run the cost analysis, I'll read it, but it's going to be difficult since the White House won't release the cost of the trip to NYC.

And they also vote on resentment when an elected official chooses to go on date nights during the same period that people are trying to find a job. It's not the only reason they use to cast their vote, but there's no question it comes into play. You remember things like that when you're broke and unemployed.

I'm not talking Obama, I'm talking Democrat vs Republican which this is essentially about. Since 2006, the Republicans have been slaughtered. They went from huge majorities in both the Senate and House to huge minorities. They are going into 2010 with much more Senate seats in play than the Democrats.

Resentment, Bill Ayers, and grey poupon seem to never show up in the exit polls as to why a candidate lost. Maybe that trend breaks in 2012, but I have a feeling the biggest issue will be economy when those polls come out.

Issues should always matter more, but that doesn't mean that personality will never matter. I'm not trying to be partisan about this one fellas... I'm just pointing out a political truism. No matter what's going on in the world, personality has an impact. It did in 2004, it did in 2008, and I have no doubt it will have an impact in 2012 as well.

and youve been spot on on knowing what the masses think.

You said that focusing on things like Obama's date night are the reasons why Republicans are getting slaughtered. Now you're going back to 2006? I can give you plenty of reasons as to why the GOP lost seats in the House and Senate (including some politically savvy moves by the Democrats), but I fail to see how 2006 has much to do with how Republicans have been acting since Obama took office.

I do agree with Cam's last statement although it seems the RNC has no real leadership in the party right now and that is causing more problems for themselves than they would like.

If you'd like to state your opinion, feel free to do so. If you want to snipe at others without debating the topic, that's fine as well, but don't expect any responses. I don't expect people to agree with me, but a basic level of respect in the conversation would be nice.

But the Senate races look good for the Democrats.

I'd expect a small gain for the GOP in the House and a small gain for the Dems in the Senate. 2004 was a good year for the GOP and they aren't strong enough right now to hold on to all those Senate seats, especially given the number of retirees.

Things will swing back towards the GOP eventually, but it would be very surprising to see a major swing in 2010.

btw- I'm more than happy for whatever happens in VA if it denies Mcauliff the governorship.

You've misconstrued what I wrote.

I'm not defending RainMaker's claim of Republicans continuing to be slaughtered in elections. I'm taking issue with your claim that since there have been hardly any elections since Obama took office, any claim along these lines is nonsensical.

Which is wrong. If people talk about the Republicans being on a losing streak (which, with perhaps undue emphasis, is what RainMaker is saying) they're looking at the electoral record from 2006 to present, which includes special elections.

So it's not a completely nonsensical claim. Despite your recasting of the context of the statement.

ROFL, this coming from the poster that regularly uses terms to try and portray other opinions as inconsequential and meaningless.

Yes, but what kind of impact Cam? Because you've spent the last two pages and a good number of posts talking about it. I mean, you give the impression that you think it matters a fair bit, to be honest.

Yes and I mean it. Republicans have focused on tiny cultural issues over the last few years that I think have hurt them greatly in elections. In 2008 they chose to focus on Bill Ayers. For the last few weeks of the election, that was their platform. This all while the economy was going into a nosedive. Instead of putting out a real economic platform, perhaps comparing himself to Reagan on fiscal policy and that poor economic era and recovery to this, they chose Bill Ayers.

Now it's Obama going on a date to New York. A couple weeks ago it was him putting Grey Poupon on a cheeseburger. I honestly don't believe people care much about this stuff (sure partisians do but not the average moderate voter). So instead of whining about a personal trip that President's have been doing for centuries, why not pick an issue like health care and provide a real solution that would get the public on their side?

Two election cycles have now seen significant gains by Democrats over Republicans, including the transfer of power in both the House and Senate as well as the White House. Further, the trend has been to solidify Democratic gains, so far, and not to fall back.

Now certainly personality and "image" considerations (akin to the Obamas' date night) have been of importance in some of these races. However, when taken as a whole I expect most political "experts" (whatever that phrase means this day) would conclude that the country as a whole has simply begun to side more with Democrats on the issues.

And this makes sense, given the times in which we live, and the serious concerns the electorate has.

While it is certain that some high-profile elections, such as Presidential elections, are determined greatly on the "image" factors (2000 springs to mind), I'd argue that there are some elections where even our country will vote on the issues. They'll vote for whom they think will help them and the country more. 1980 springs to mind, of course, as well as 1992. I'd argue 2008 was similar, though it's harder to make this claim due to the nuclear-style explosion of "image issues" the McCain campaign had.

Given that we're in a recession and have numerous problems, I'd expect "image issues" to matter less in 2010 and 2012. That's the bottom line. Maybe Cam agrees, who knows?

I do, and I'm not the only one, otherwise campaigns wouldn't have image consultants and strategists who are tasked with creating the candidate's narrative. Yes, voters will go to polls and cast their votes on issues, but they're not voting for issues. They're voting for candidates, and how they feel about the candidates will have an impact on how they view the candidates and the issues.

Look at the 2008 election and how McCain's health care proposal was characterized by his opponents as "uncaring". This piece in the American Prospect is a pretty good example:

hxxp://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=why_john_mccain_wants_you_to_give_up_your_health_insurance

In 2012, I'm pretty sure (barring any unforseen national security nightmare) that the economy will be the #1 issue. Both candidates will want to be seen as the "candidate that cares about you", and both will use their own record and the record of their opponents to define themselves and each other. In this case, the taxpayer-funded jaunt to NYC, on top of record-setting deficits, rising unemployment, multi-billion dollar bailouts to failed companies, higher taxes, rising fuel costs, etc. could be used to ask the simple question, "What is Obama doing with your money?"

Will this trip be a big issue? Nope. I'd be shocked if was even brought up by whoever runs against Obama in 2012. But Obama's smart enough to understand that for a sitting president, every action they take is another brush stroke in the portrait of public opinion. I think the Obama's were hoping they'd get some glowing press (which they did) about where they ate, what they wore, what they saw, etc. My guess is that they anticipated the conservative reaction to the trip and are now waiting for the news cycle on the story to run its course before pressure builds to release the figures for the cost of the trip (which I'm guessing will also happen).

I've tried to make it clear that I'm not "outraged" by the trip, but I do hope I can convince you and others that, at least as far as the campaign consultants on both sides are concerned, everything Obama does between now and Election Day matters to one degree or another.

Appreciate the follow-up and clarifications, Cam. That's a post with which I can agree in its entirety.

Gah... one more response and then I REALLY need to step away from the computer.

1992 was my first election, and I voted for Clinton. Granted, I was 18 and fairly stupid, but I voted for the cool young guy over the stale old guy who raised taxes.

There were certainly serious issues on the table in 1980, but Carter was also sitting at about 31% approval on election day. Exit polling thought 71% of the country was "in deep and serious trouble". When asked what the biggest problem facing the country was, only 4% said "Carter", while 31% said "inflation or prices", yet I'm sure there were plenty of people who held Carter largely responsible for inflation.

I don't know if there's a good way to measure the effect of personality, image, or narrative on a candidate. I just know that the folks who run campaigns (and the candidates themselves) think it's pretty damn important.

I agree with you on how presidential elections work. The problem with the daily attacks on Obama is that they didn't work during the election and haven't dropped his favorability rating measurably after the election. The problem isn't that Republicans are trying to define Obama, the problem is that they keep using tactics that don't work.

I really believe they don't have a lot of say in the 2012 election. Re-election campaigns are referendums on the sitting president and the opposing candidate generally has a harder time breaking through. All of the attempts to define Obama as a reckless elitist aren't working and further won't have much if any bearing on the 2012 election.

Who, among policy makers in the Republican Party, has focused on Grey Poupon and the trip to NYC?

Rush Limbaugh. :p

Well the RNC thought it was important enough to issue a press release criticizing him for the date night.

I know the feeling....

I hear what you're saying, and I think what I'm trying to say is that there's a difference between high-profile elections where people vote more about the candidate himself/herself (i.e. "image") and those where they vote on the main issue and how they feel the candidate will address it (i.e. "issue"). Of course, as you point out, in the latter situation there's still a fair bit of intertwining of image and issue. There's no way away from that, of course.


Probably look at a graph of poll numbers with important PR dates noted (i.e. news of Palin's wardrobe comes out so look at favorables/unfavorables immediately following this). That's probably only a partial answer, of course.

He resigned his leadership of the Republican Party a few weeks ago on his show. :)

Someone should send the GOP a memo, then.

I thought the leader was Dick Cheney.

If they GOP doesn't know about it, it's because they don't listen to his show anymore. Guess that's why he stepped down. :D

I think people really need to get off his ass about the trip to NYC for the "date night."

I mean really - they flew a gulfstream to save money instead of air force one, and they paid for their own meal/tickets. The thing cost $24,000. That's what...1/10th of a cent out of my taxes (if that)? Really...aren't there more important things going on we should be focused on? Is the President of the United States not allowed to take his wife out on a date to the theater? He can't be that much of a normal guy? That's pretty sad.

Because they don't have any real solutions? Because the intellectual wing of the party is dried-up because they've driven away anyone who dares to think in anything except black or white, and by-and-large you can't craft a solution to a problem with black-or-white thinking.

The President is not a normal guy. The President cannot be a normal guy. That's pretty sad, but we're long past the days where the Presidency is anywhere close to the life that a "normal" American can live.

As for the cost, you're forgetting a few things:

- seperate Gulfstream for staff

- seperate Gulfstream for press

- Transportation of Marine One

- transportation of presidential vehicles (which most likely required the use of a C-130, though I suppose it's possible that the Secret Service drove the vehicles up to NYC).

- overtime costs for security personnel (remember, this was a weekend trip, and many of the officers called in to provide traffic management in D.C., Maryland, and NYC would not have been on duty, but called in to earn time and a half.)

As I understand it, the $24,000 was an estimate from the New York Post, but the Daily Mail in England estimated $75,000. I've estimated $250,000, based on Air Force One's trip to NYC a few months ago. It's hard to know what the real figure is because the White House won't release the numbers.

I know there are plenty of other things to focus on (which is amusing, since you comment about this rather than bring up one of the "more important things"), but people need to get off his ass? Realistically, if this were a Republican president we were talking about, don't you think you'd see Democrats complaining about the cost of the trip during a time of great economic uncertainty? You don't think Maureen Dowd or someone else would wonder how many unemployed people the President and the First Lady flew over on their way to their fancy dinner and Broadway show?

C'mon DT, you're smart... :D

I did see the U.S. News and World Report article that quoted the press release the RNC sent out on Saturday. Since then, I haven't been able to find any mention of the RNC harping on the incident. In fact, I can't even find Saturday's press release on the RNC website.

One press release on the day of the trip, in my opinion, isn't "focusing" on the trip or trying to make a bigger deal of it than it is. The GOP saw an opportunity to jab, they jabbed, and now they seem to have dropped it.

Frankly the only reason I'm still talking about it is because the reactions have been amusing to me. In some ways it's kind of fun having the shoe on the other foot. :P

Obama hit by Republicans for New York night on the town. - Lynn Sweet

Below, release from the Republican National Committee...

PUTTING ON A SHOW
Obamas Wing Into The City For An Evening Out

While Another Iconic American Company

Prepares For Bankruptcy

______________________________________________________________________

Obama Says He Understands Americans' Economic Troubles

Obama: "There Are Still Too Many Americans Out Of Work, And Too Many Who Still Worry That Their Job May Be Next. There Are Still Too Many Families Struggling To Pay The Bills, And Too Many Businesses Struggling To Keep Their Doors Open." (President Barack Obama, Remarks At Nellis Air Force Base, Las Vegas, NV, 5/27/09)

Obama Said He Carried Stories Of Struggling Workers With Him To The White House. "We're talking about people who've lost their livelihood and don't know what will take its place. We're talking about parents who've lost their health care and lie awake at night praying their kids don't get sick. We're talking about families who've lost the home that was the corner, their foundation for their American dream, young people who put that college acceptance letter back in the envelope because they just can't afford it. That's what those numbers and statistics mean. That is the true measure of this economic crisis. Those are the stories I heard when I came to Elkhart six months ago, and those are the stories that I carried with me to the White House." (President Barack Obama, Remarks On The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Elkhart, IN, 2/9/09)

But Wings Off To New York City For Night On The Town

President and Mrs. Obama Make "Personal Visit To New York" Tonight. "President Obama and his wife, Michelle, plan to visit New York City on Saturday and take in a Broadway show, the August Wilson play 'Joe Turner's Come and Gone' at the Belasco Theater on West 44th Street, according to three theater executives who have been informed of the First Family's plans. ... 'The president and the first lady will be making a personal visit to New York tomorrow,' said Bill Burton, a spokesman for the president, who declined to elaborate on the schedule." (Patrick Healy, "First Couple To Hit Broadway This Weekend," The New York Times' "The Caucus" Blog , 5/29/09)

While GM Prepares For Bankruptcy And Jobs Keep Disappearing

"General Motors Corp. (GM) Is Expected To File For Bankruptcy Protection Monday, The Government-Imposed Deadline For The 100-Year- Old Auto Maker To Restructure Itself Into A Viable Company." ("US Equities Week Ahead: GM Bankruptcy Filing; Jobs Report," CNNMoney.com , 5/29/09)

"Meanwhile, Economists Expect The U.S. Unemployment Rate To Climb To 9.2% For May; That Report Is Due Next Friday." ("US Equities Week Ahead: GM Bankruptcy Filing; Jobs Report," CNNMoney.com , 5/29/09)

Since President Obama Took Office, The U.S. Economy Has Lost Over 1 Million Jobs. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics Website, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm, Accessed: 5/30/09)

Obama May Joke About Air Force One Joyrides

Obama: "Now Sasha And Malia Aren't Here Tonight Because They're Grounded. You Can't Just Take Air Force One On A Joy Ride To Manhattan. (Laughter.) I Don't Care Whose Kids You Are. (Laughter.)" (President Barack Obama, Remarks To The White House Correspondents Association Dinner, Washington, DC, 5/9/09)

* Click Here To Watch

But Americans Have Seen This Show Before

President Bill Clinton Blocked Two Runways At One Of World's Busiest Airports To Get His Hair Cut. "President Clinton got a full-blown $200 haircut from Beverly Hills' Monsieur Cristophe at Los Angeles International Airport while Air Force One idled for nearly an hour, blocking ground traffic a nd closing two runways." (Frank J. Murray, "Clinton Stops Traffic With Pricey New Cut," The Washington Times, 5/21/93)

PDF Format

A Product Of The RNC Research Department

Unsubscribe

Paid for by the Republican National Committee.
310 First Street SE, Washington, D.C. 20003 -

meh. I'm less impressed with the press release now that I read it. It really needed to highlight the cost of the trip rather than the trip itself in my opinion. Still, my previous take still stands: one press release, on a Saturday, does not mean the RNC is "focusing" on the trip. If it were on the front page of the RNC's website right now, that to me would indicate more of a focus.

MBBF, I dont expect a response. You fail to respond EVEN to items in which you're proven to be wrong ie. poll results so I wouldnt expect a response to something in which you can find a gray area like the definition of "vast". Respect is earned and while I used to respect you, you have done nothing to gain back ANY of the credibility you set fire to over the last few months culminating in your inability to recognize that a lighter colored roof would help the environment over a darker colored roof when this is the most basic simpleton science there is.

but continue on the path youre blazing....seems fun.

didnt know where to put this so Ill dump it in here:

this is a Holy-Shit moment for me since I remember some of the direct quotes and such from back in the day that I would yell, "Liar" at the TV about:

Cheney: No 'evidence' of Iraq, 9/11 link - Yahoo! News

It was on their front page. It was also on every right wing site imagineable which meant it was worthy of being in their daily talking points.

The President isn't a normal person. He can't hop in a Honda Civic with the wife and head out on the town on his own. They are important figures with extra ordinary security.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting here either. That the President not be allowed to go on vacations or entertain themselves? Or are you suggesting they shouldn't have this high level of security and should just fly coach on Southwest Airlines like the rest of us? It costs tons of money for any President to go anywhere.

The costs are for security plain and simple. If you are against our President receiving security for their personal lives than fine. I would much rather our leaders be protected at all times, but I guess we all have different views.


Since I've been alive, I can't remember a time when anyone really complained about the cost of security for our Presidents on their down time. I don't remember outrage by the GOP when Clinton would go on his morning jogs. Nor do I remember Democrat's sending out press releases everytime President Bush played golf on the taxpayer dime.

Gas pain will soon sneak up on everyone. Since we can't blame Bush, I guess the market is just working. Or whatever. I'm dreading having to spend 35 bucks per night on fuel again.

Fuel prices have the potential to put the breaks on any recovery. Of course we also have a serious problem with Alt-A mortgage recasts over the next two years. WEEEEE!

Don't forget credit card companies trying to squeeze every dime out of people before they close out billions in credit as it's no longer as profitable when you can't rape consumers.

On NPR, they had a story last week about $1.2T in credit just disappearing over the next 2 years.

SI

It's a nightmare for me cause I can't do anything to sweeten my contract. I don't even get a surcharge til 3.20. My job is still better than anything I can find but when you start breaking down expenses it just pisses you off.

I know most people cry about gas when its like 20 bucks per week more than they want to pay. I feel the pain more than that.

i wouldn't be complaining. the guy deserves to be able to take his wife out to dinner and the theater, no matter his political orientation. I didn't complain about the costs associated with Bush's far more frequent jaunts, or the massive amounts of taxpayer-$$ spent making his Crawford-ranch into a "second White House".

I agree. I saw this and I was like :eek: . Wow...so now you're out of office and you accomplished what you wanted to accomplish originally you're not even going to try to hide it anymore that you were lying?

I also found it amusing that (i think it was that same speech, in the Q+A part or something?) that he apparently said that he is pro gay-marriage, but feels it should be a state-by-state issue and not a federal one. Interesting that we never got a whiff of that while he was in office. Shame too. If I was his daughter I'd pillory him for being a schmuck and not saying that 6 or 7 years ago.

The way I see it, if Obama's little date nights get him laid more often it is worth it. I'd truly hate to have a President that is sexually frustrated. Clouds his judgment.

Obviously Clinton wasn't, it just had to come from another source than his wife (and I don't blame him).

That article contradicts the quotes I've always seen attributed to Cheney, that he had affirmatively stated a connection in the past, it just says in 2003 he said:

"In a 2003 interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Cheney said that “the Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack.”

But Cheney added, “We’ve never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.”

So all he said was that the Czechs alleged this and we never confirmed it? Not exactly a "lie". Is there any other source where Cheney affirmatively said "yes, there's connections, we're sure of it", etc? As I've alleged her in the past, liberals can have a very, well, liberal definition of "lie" when it comes to politics. Though I'd be interested to see proof otherwise on Cheney.

And he's always been relatively gay-friendly, due to his daughter. That was well known I thought, back when he was in office. I don't know that "he never got a whiff of it" while he was in office, and I don't know what difference would that make anyway - what power would he have over state issues as VP? I guess he couldn't have had a bigger voice back then, but we all know that would never happen as long as he was actively involved in Republican party politics.

well quickly this was from the debates:

But saying Iraq had some kind of agreement with Abu Nidal (who wasn't implicated in 9/11, I don't think), is different than saying there's a "tie between Iraq and 9/11"

And I don't know anything aboutt Nidal beyond his wiki page, but it would appear that Iraq certainly gave him safe haven, when even Lybia would not (because it wanted to distance himself from terrorism).

oh I felt the established relationship with Al Qaeda was the big thing in that sentence.

FWIW this is on youtube which pretty much just puts video to what I said anyways:



and this is a link to a Cheney interview with Tim Russert where he insinuates all of the stuff....I guess you could parse words, like 'vast' to say he never actually used the sentence but I think it's pretty clearly stated:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/

Fair enough, but the only "revelation" from Cheney is that he didn't think there was a 9/11-Iraq link. Which people are using as proof that he lied about that in the past.

I think at best, the administration could be seen as being misleading, and exagerating any known connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. (I'm sure that there was SOME connection, as there probably is with every middle eastern country, but maybe not a hugely relevant one to American security interests)

Well we can agree on the latter paragraph but I think that that intention to mislead and exaggerate is on equal terms to lying when youre the admin.

This was just a period on some moments I had a long long time ago and so when I read the article today it was like a 'ah ha!' moment for me in the living room...that's all.

One can argue that they're on equal terms, but they're clearly not the same thing.

But it might be lying when people say that Cheney affirmed a known 9/11-Iraq link (or when they say he lied about it)

Or when people say the administration "lied" about the WMDs. That's a lie, unless we know that the administration knew that there was no weapons the whole time. One could have that opinion, of course, but it's a lie if it's not qualified as an opinion.

interesting view.

You might remember the huge big deal the main stream media made about George W. Bush going to Texas for working time off. However, when he was out of town, he was pictured hauling logs, clearing brush and working out. This President is more inclined to be photographed eating Wagyu steak and arugula, walking topless on beautiful Hawaiian beaches or joking with the main stream media (his base) about terrorism and economy. The celebrity President went out on the town while the country is suffering financial strain. He did it on the tax payer dime while asking the tax payers to pay more taxes and to cut back our spending. He’s deservedly getting some bad press for his bad timing. But, of course, he will always have his defenders, no matter what he does.

If he'd done his date night in DC...I think there's no problem...especially if he went back to the burger joint he and Biden went to. :)

Cool! Obama gets another chance to bow to the Saudi king!

Obama visits Saudi king on eve of key speech - Yahoo! News


:popcorn:

Barack Hussein Obama: US "one of the largest Muslim countries in the world"

Well, I guess I'd better start looking for a good Muslim name. I've always been partial to Yusef. Maybe I'll send the little lady out shopping for burkhas too!

Between this and the birth certificate I think you're really on to something.

On NPR, they mentioned that we're something like 37th in the world so he's not quite right there.

SI

Dude, isn't your local Klan meeting tonight? Seriously, we get it.

its a blog.

He did say it, tho. Again, NPR reported him as having said it so I think that's a pretty safe bet it's true

SI

I still would have voted for Obama had I known he was a communist Muslim that isn't even a citizen.

Yeah, you gonna be there?!!!!!!!

Doesn't say much for you. Ever considered moving to North Korea? Sounds like your kinda place!

I prefer the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Cool...you need to bone up on your geography, so you can bow toward Mecca during prayer time.

so he got the stat wrong?

Yeah, on NPR they were talking about how they were using the CIA World Factbook and it turns out we're something like 37th or 39th in the world. We're not exactly in the top... um... 30? Doesn't sound very impressive.

SI

Yeah, I heard that story as well. Of course it was part of a greater story about a number of things being done to try to improve relations with the Muslim world, but was worth a mention.

Come on, that's at least good enough for an 8 or 9 seed.

Yeah, it was a footnote in the story about the huge speech tomorrow.

SI

Shouldn't we keep the focus on the gays and Mexicans?

I have problems with the statement by Obama, but not for the xenophobic reasons SFL Cat does. I just don't like labeling the country things based on religion. Calling it one of the largest Muslim countries or one of the largest Christian countries bode equally negative to me. It poses a stereotype for what our country is.

Pointing out that the country has millions of Muslims is important and I think the speech and motives behind it are good. I just don't like when any President labels the country something.

Yeah, but that leads to a second round matchup with someone like India and Pakistan. Good luck winning that game

SI

Which one? :) Clearly you don't live in DC -- he has been to at least 4 or 5 of the popular burger joints in DC and there's a local media storm every time.

We Get It: Obama Likes Burgers - DCist: Washington DC News, Food, Arts & Events

Looking at the quote, I don't think Obama labeled the country based on religion.

"And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world. And so there's got to be a better dialogue and a better understanding between the two peoples."

Also in the article:

Obama said in Turkey that Americans "do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation".

I don't see what the problem is. How many countries are there, almost 200? High 30's might be a stretch, but doesn't seem like much to hang your hat on IMO. Might as well argue with the second part.

Also in the article:

John McCain was criticised in 2007 for saying the US was "a Christian nation", later amending this to "a Judeo-Christian valued nation".

Oh, I guess someone has already tried that.

Depends. Are we playing cricket?

The whole "date night" thing reminded me of an article I read a while ago in the NYT, about how much the Obamas have been out on the town in DC, so I thought I'd post it:

Wow, I hadn't realized how far Bill Richardson fell.

It's a shame that society has changed so much in recent years that the president can't be more outgoing if he chooses to do so. I had a grandfather who grew up in Independence, MO and eventually fought in WWII when his good friend, Harry Truman, was commander in chief. When Truman was in Independence, even during his presidency, he would take walks in town with friends and family and never consider that someone would come up and shoot him despite taking the same walking route each and every day. Grandfather would hang out with him on walks and on street corners chatting all the time. People would wander out and sit on a bench on the route just to say 'Hi!' as he walked by.

I'm glad to see Obama going out and trying to keep a normal routine in DC. I think the fact that he has young kids necessitates that to some extent if he wants to stay involved in their life. I really don't think he does those kinds of things for political capital as much as just finding relief from the wear and tear of the presidency. It's a rough gig.

:D

SI

:D

Overall I think the DC community is very happy with how President Obama has attempted to immerse himself in the city. How will that play nationally? I don't know. People love that he goes to Ben's (although I'm pissed that it has brought all the tourists and made the lines intolerable), plays basketball at local rec centers, etc. We are used to presidents like Bush that never go out on the town (I did not live here during any other presidencies). The city loved Obama before he arrived, and he has only furthered that by being as much a part of the community as a President can. The only thing he could have done to further his image is send his daughters to public school.