The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

The 2 posts with odd (mocking?) punctuation about an issue you claim to be in favor of (gay rights and gay marriage) are duly noted, MBBF.

I'm sure it was just a typo or all in playful fun. And I'm sure you weren't picking up on the meme about how Obama is doing something other than watching the oil geyser 24/7 that even made the Daily Show last night. I'm probably just mistaken there.

SI

I've posted one of his memos before. It's a joke. Relax. I think the various 'group months' are pretty ridiculous to be honest. That doesn't diminish my support of gay rights and gay marriage. Although I am a bit peeved that there isn't a 'Goofy-looking Tall German Descendent Month'.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

This is starting to become a pattern. AP reports that another job offer was made to a candidate challenging an incumbent Democrat.

AP Sources: Admin talked jobs with Romanoff - Yahoo! News

[JPhillips]

Pattern as in both parties do this every election cycle.

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Pattern as in both parties do this every election cycle.

And people of both parties should be thrown in jail.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Pattern as in both parties do this every election cycle.

But people elected Obama because he was going to be different, right? If he was going to be more of the same with a liberal lean, then he shouldn't have promised otherwise. This points to one of the greatest disappointments with Obama, especially with swing voters who believed what he promised. I suppose it's easy to say it's just more of the same, but that's pretty disappointing if true.

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

And people of both parties should be thrown in jail.

Agreed. That's the other hangup in this situation. Depending on how it's interpreted, this could be termed illegal.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

And people of both parties should be thrown in jail.

Good luck with that. Are we going to convict Bush1, Clinton, Bush2 and Carter? What about a posthumous conviction for Reagan?

And of course the party out of power is also making these same deals just with different jobs being tossed about. And worse, it's happening all over the globe!!!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Good luck with that. Are we going to convict Bush1, Clinton, Bush2 and Carter? What about a posthumous conviction for Reagan?

No one is disagreeing with you here. It's extremely frustrating that this continues to be allowed to happen by people who make excuses for the behavior. It needs to stop.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

But people elected Obama because he was going to be different, right? If he was going to be more of the same with a liberal lean, then he shouldn't have promised otherwise. This points to one of the greatest disappointments with Obama, especially with swing voters who believed what he promised. I suppose it's easy to say it's just more of the same, but that's pretty disappointing if true.

Thanks for that insight into swing voters. I'm sure that there are people who voted for Obama that believed they were getting their pony, but at least around here the only people holding him to that standard are those that voted for someone else.

Politics happens. Unilateral disarmament won't win you any votes and I doubt there are more than a handful of real swing voters that are paying attention to this instead of the Gulf.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

No one is disagreeing with you here. It's extremely frustrating that this continues to be allowed to happen by people who make excuses for the behavior. It needs to stop.

There's no realistic way to make it stop. It's politics. Deals are made. Even outlawing parties won't help.

[cartman]

Aren't political parties supposed to support and run the folks they think will have the best chance of winning?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

There's no realistic way to make it stop. It's politics. Deals are made. Even outlawing parties won't help.

It's unfortunate to see even those who voted for Obama abandon the ideals and promises that his election run was based on. I stated this some time ago in this thread, but I'd love for Obama to succeed with true 'change'. When I see these actions and see comments like the above, I'm pretty sure that change that was promised isn't a priority of this president despite his words during the campaign to the contrary.

[Buccaneer]

So that's what it has come down to? Simply making excuses that everyone had done it? It seems to matter which side of the fence you are on whether it becomes an illegal matter or a just something to be excused away.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It's unfortunate to see even those who voted for Obama abandon the ideals and promises that his election run was based on. I stated this some time ago in this thread, but I'd love for Obama to succeed with true 'change'. When I see these actions and see comments like the above, I'm pretty sure that change that was promised isn't a priority of this president despite his words during the campaign to the contrary.

So you get to decide what is change? (We'll leave out the BS about you really wanting Obama to change) And anything you deem as "not change" suddenly invalidates everything that may be change?

As I said, around here at least, the people that voted for Obama understood he was a politician that would engage in politics. If anything I've been disappointed that he hasn't engaged enough on the political side.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

So that's what it has come down to? Simply making excuses that everyone had done it? It seems to matter which side of the fence you are on whether it becomes an illegal matter or a just something to be excused away.

Well, when even the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (who have been historically hyper critical of ethical issues) say this is much ado about nothing, I'd say that is more than just "making excuses that everyone had done it"

Even CREW Says Sestak's Claim Of Job Offer Is No Scandal | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

So that's what it has come down to? Simply making excuses that everyone had done it? It seems to matter which side of the fence you are on whether it becomes an illegal matter or a just something to be excused away.

I'm not excusing "my guy", I don't think it matters. This kind of petty horsetrading as been a part of politics since people first started ruling others.

Why is this more serious than trading a fundraising speech or a book blurb? The jobs being offered are political appointments and the party still can make it very difficult for a candidate that they want to sit out. Are we going to make it illegal for a party to support one primary candidate over another?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It's unfortunate to see even those who voted for Obama abandon the ideals and promises that his election run was based on. I stated this some time ago in this thread, but I'd love for Obama to succeed with true 'change'. When I see these actions and see comments like the above, I'm pretty sure that change that was promised isn't a priority of this president despite his words during the campaign to the contrary.

It doesn't matter what he does, you would say he abandoned this or that. That he did this or that wrong. It has nothing to do with his policies, it has to do with Barack Obama.

No one gives a shit about this psuedo-scandal because it fucking doesn't matter. It has zero impact on anyone in real life. There are actual real issues at stake, not the ones trumped up by whatever blog told you to believe something.

[Flasch186]

Slap at LGBT was a joke so that makes it ok. When you have lost all credibility anyways its easy to just crack jokes, or stand on principal....no one will be able to identify the difference anyways

----MBBF

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Slap at LGBT was a joke so that makes it ok. When you have lost all credibility anyways its easy to just crack jokes, or stand on principal....no one will be able to identify the difference anyways

----MBBF

You decided to come back into the discussion? Kid must be asleep.

[Swaggs]

Maybe I've read too many fiction novels, but I assumed that this kind of stuff happened all of the time and, in the realm of backroom politics, it doesn't seem to be that big of a deal to me.

[DaddyTorgo]

It's not a big deal - it happens all the time.

[panerd]

It's not a big deal at all, Obama is a politician playing a game we like to call politics. The Republicans are going to try and use this to...

A) Take on Obama and try to swindle tea party people back into the Republican party.
B) Win elections based on "Obama being a different kind of politician" not being "true".

And guess what? In 2012 a Repubican will run on "A new kind of politician" platform and win the White House, have a "scandal" like this come out in 2013, and have Democrats playing politics for votes by calling for an impeachment.

EDIT: (Standard panerd anti-government comment ) : Enjoy the sideshow folks! On the main stage we will continue spending you into an oblivion that kids will read about in their history books in 2110.

[Buccaneer]

Of course it's business as usual and not a big deal. What is a big deal is the appearances of the continued culture of corruption and deception, which is being excused away. Hard to claim any high ground or better principles, esp. among those that were skeptical in the first place. But keep it up and you'll find yourselves in the same position as the Reps in 2006.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Of course it's business as usual and not a big deal. What is a big deal is the appearances of the continued culture of corruption and deception, which is being excused away. Hard to claim any high ground or better principles, esp. among those that were skeptical in the first place. But keep it up and you'll find yourselves in the same position as the Reps in 2006.

But does it ever change? Incumbents win everywhere... the rest of the guys are crooks but our local guy is a pretty honest fellow! It seems like there is more outrage than usual at the government (not Republican at Democrat or vice versa but actually at the government) but maybe I am just getting older and more in tune to the message? I would love to see the entrance of a true third party that tells the Republicans to "fuck off" but my guess is they will be tricked into voting for the lesser of two evils in the fall.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

But does it ever change? Incumbents win everywhere... the rest of the guys are crooks but our local guy is a pretty honest fellow! It seems like there is more outrage than usual at the government (not Republican at Democrat or vice versa but actually at the government) but maybe I am just getting older and more in tune to the message? I would love to see the entrance of a true third party that tells the Republicans to "fuck off" but my guess is they will be tricked into voting for the lesser of two evils in the fall.

don't you mean "one of the two evils?"

or are you revealing a partisan affiliation in a Freudian slip here?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

don't you mean "one of the two evils?"

or are you revealing a partisan affiliation in a Freudian slip here?

No Freudian slip at all. I mean the Republicans will convince tea party or anti-big government people to vote for the "Lesser of two evils" strategy. I am hardly a Republican at heart. I really can't explain how much disdain I have with assualts on liberty (drug laws, gay rights, government phone taps), religion in my politics, and endless war. I hate the spending and handouts also but that is both parties. The Democrats are supposed to be fighting the first ones!

[molson]

I don't think Obama has been the leader he promised to be, and a lot of his supporters are still in denial about that, but I don't get at all what the problem is with offering republicans jobs to get them out of races. Republicans should be mad at their party's members that are willing to jump ship like that.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

No Freudian slip at all. I mean the Republicans will convince tea party or anti-big government people to vote for the "Lesser of two evils" strategy. I am hardly a Republican at heart. I really can't explain how much disdain I have with assualts on liberty (drug laws, gay rights, government phone taps), religion in my politics, and endless war. I hate the spending and handouts also but that is both parties. The Democrats are supposed to be fighting the first ones!

Aaaah okay...I get what you meant.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Of course it's business as usual and not a big deal. What is a big deal is the appearances of the continued culture of corruption and deception, which is being excused away. Hard to claim any high ground or better principles, esp. among those that were skeptical in the first place. But keep it up and you'll find yourselves in the same position as the Reps in 2006.

Again, when most ethics watchdog groups and non-partisan legal observers say there is nothing here that is evidence of corruption or deception, much Les illegal activity, what exactly is being excused away?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You decided to come back into the discussion? Kid must be asleep.

remember the short bus episode? You claim to be a supporter of gay marriage rights and then you take pot shots at them? awesome....like a big dirty diaper, awesome.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

remember the short bus episode? You claim to be a supporter of gay marriage rights and then you take pot shots at them? awesome....like a big dirty diaper, awesome.

That's not true, but I'm not going to convince you otherwise.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I've posted one of his memos before. It's a joke. Relax.

No it's not. Allow me to let another poster explain why:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

This is starting to become a pattern.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

No it's not. Allow me to let another poster explain why:

You're not helping. You're going to get Flasch all wound in a tizzy. He's going to forget to put a diaper on his kid and then wonder why he's getting a warm feeling on his leg while his kid is sitting on his lap.

Not that I've ever experienced that before..........

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Not that I've ever experienced that before..........

I'm a few months ahead of you on this and I hate to have to tell you this, but it's still possible to get that "warm feeling" even if you put the diaper on properly.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'm a few months ahead of you on this and I hate to have to tell you this, but it's still possible to get that "warm feeling" even if you put the diaper on properly.

Not that I've ever experienced that before either.........

[flere-imsaho]

While I'm at it....

Pro Tip: When diapering a baby while wearing a tie, stick the tie inside your shirt.

[SportsDino]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Let me guess. The great Michelle Malkin (who you obviously read more than me) posted this information, so therefore I must read her site.

While I fully understand that I posted a link from a right-leaning website, the data comes straight from the White House. Would it kill you to realize the guy is a flaming conservative and just view the information as it is? Go to Recovery.gov (which I also mentioned) and view it without the commentary if that's what you need to do to realize that your tax dollars were not used well in this situation.

I wasn't doubting Recovery.org statistics, I was actually supporting the point... the trend seen in this particular instance matches a trend I noticed across the country. In lying with statistics 101 the first thing you do is 'cherrypick', they could have just grabbed a state that proves their point while ignoring the 40 states that do not.

I'm actually saying that this sample is fairly representative, although they clearly chose a slam dunk data point among the mix.

[JediKooter]

Speaking of right or left leaning sites, are there ANY non partisan/ideological sites to review information or get statistics? Are the Pew studies non partisan? Just curious.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Speaking of right or left leaning sites, are there ANY non partisan/ideological sites to review information or get statistics? Are the Pew studies non partisan? Just curious.

Take the far right site and the far left site and average them together.

[JonInMiddleGA]

It's not Obama related, but it's WH related so I figure I can post it in this thread

FOXNews.com - Helen Thomas to Retire 'Effective Immediately'
Veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas announced her retirement Monday following an uproar over comments she made on camera last month about Jews in Israel.

Hearst Corporation, which employed Thomas as a columnist, put out a brief story by Hearst News Service announcing the retirement "effective immediately."

The announcement came after the White House Correspondents Association decried her remarks as "indefensible" and began to consider whether Thomas should continue to have the privilege of a front-row seat in the briefing room. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs called her remarks "offensive and reprehensible" on Monday, as other former White House spokesmen called for Thomas to be fired.

The controversy escalated quickly over the weekend after the video surfaced online showing Thomas last month saying that Jews should "get the hell out of Palestine," suggesting they go instead to Germany, Poland and the United States. The video, shot by New York Rabbi David Nesenoff, was posted on several prominent websites and prompted a swift apology from Thomas on Friday.

"I deeply regret my comments," she said in the statement, claiming they "do not reflect my heart-felt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance."

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Too bad to see Thomas leave under these circumstances. I'm not a huge fan of hers, but hate to see her booted in a scenario where her time as a reporter likely won't be acknowledged in a more formal manner.

[albionmoonlight]

http://www.slate.com/id/2256068/

The Only Politics Article You'll Ever Have To Read
What if political scientists covered the news?
By Christopher Beam
Posted Friday, June 4, 2010, at 6:11 PM ET
A new article in the Columbia Journalism Review discusses the differences between political journalism and political science. What if academics started writing the news?

A powerful thunderstorm forced President Obama to cancel his Memorial Day speech near Chicago on Monday—an arbitrary event that had no affect on the trajectory of American politics.

Obama now faces some of the most difficult challenges of his young presidency: the ongoing oil spill, the Gaza flotilla disaster, and revelations about possibly inappropriate conversations between the White House and candidates for federal office. But while these narratives may affect fleeting public perceptions, Americans will ultimately judge Obama on the crude economic fundamentals of jobs numbers and GDP.

Chief among the criticisms of Obama was his response to the spill. Pundits argued that he needed to show more emotion. Their analysis, however, should be viewed in light of the economic pressures on the journalism industry combined with a 24-hour news environment and a lack of new information about the spill itself.

Republicans, meanwhile, complained that the administration has not been sufficiently involved in the day-to-day cleanup. Their analysis, of course, is colored by their minority status in America's two-party system, which creates a strong structural incentive to criticize the party in power, whatever the merits.

At the same time, Obama's job approval rating fell to 48 percent. This isn't really news, though. Studies have shown that the biggest factor in a president's rating is economic performance. Connecting the minute blip in the polls with Obama's reluctance to emote or alleged failure to send enough boom to the Gulf is, frankly, absurd.

Democrats have also slipped in their standing among "independent voters." That phrase, by the way, is meaningless. Voters may self-identify as "independent" but in almost all cases they lean toward one party.

Poll numbers also confirmed that Americans are in an anti-incumbent mood. … Ha! Just kidding. The anti-Washington narrative was concocted by dominant media outlets based on the outcomes of a statistically insignificant handful of largely unrelated races. Sorry.

Still, Democrats hope that passing health care and financial regulatory reform will give them enough momentum to win in November. Unfortunately, there's little relationship between legislative victories and electoral victories. Also, what the hell is "momentum"?

Prospects for an energy bill, meanwhile, are looking grim, since Obama has spent all his political capital. He used to have a lot. Now it's gone. Why winning legislative battles builds momentum but saps political capital, I have no idea. Just go with it.

Possible "game changers" for Obama include plugging the oil leak, peace between the Palestinians and Israelis, and World War III, although these events would be almost entirely outside Obama's control.

Looking ahead to 2012, Republicans need a candidate who can shake up the electoral map, which currently consists of "red states" and "blue states," even though there's not much difference.

The GOP—a stupid acronym we use only so we don't have to keep repeating the word Republican—will have to decide between a moderate "establishment" pick and a more conservative Tea Party favorite. In reality, both candidates would embrace similar policies in the general election.

That candidate will then face off against Obama, whose charisma, compelling personal story, and professional political operation will prove formidable. Actually, Obama will probably win because he's the incumbent. And because voters always go with the guy who's taller.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by panerd

Take the far right site and the far left site and average them together.

That's what I was afraid of. Oh well, thanks!

[JPhillips]

A great look at how the Washington press is in bed with anybody in power:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/gl...ton/index.html

[JPhillips]

From TalkingPointsMemo, the very strange story of the Dem Senate primary winner in SC.

Okay, I'm not buying this.

As you may have heard, last night had a big surprise in the Democratic Senate primary in South Carolina. Probably no Democrat would have much of a chance against Sen. Jim DeMint (R) this year. But the main candidate was Vic Rawl, a judge who's also served four terms in the state legislature. He'd raised $186,000. Against him was Alvin Greene, a rather unorthodox candidate. And Greene won. (The best theory people have come up with is that no one in the state had really heard of either guy and Greene's name came first on the ballot; and that gave him an advantage.)

Greene's unemployed, recently out of the Army and living with his parents, and has an outstanding felony arrest from last year for showing obscene photos to a college student.

Back in March he walked into the state Democratic headquarters with a personal check for $10,400. That's the filing fee. The party people said they weren't allowed to take a personal check. It had to come from a campaign account. So a few hours later he came back with a check from a campaign account. And he signed up to run.

And that was it. He held no events. He never campaigned. He didn't go to the convention. He never filed any money filings. He never raised any money. He didn't even have a website. In other words, by every conceivable measure he never actually mounted a campaign. When Mother Jones called him shortly after his victory and asked him what was up, he seemed hard pressed to explain why he had run or really anything about what was going on other than to insist that the ten grand was his money.

Now, if Rawl, the other guy, had had much hope of beating DeMint there would be a much more logical argument about why someone would want to put Greene up to this as some sort of dirty trick. But that's not really true. Rawl seemed like a real, real longshot.

But still. I know people don't have to be professional politicians to run for office. They don't have to have conventional political ideas -- to put it mildly. But when an out-of-work guy with no political background at all and no stated reason why he chose to run puts up ten grand to run in an election I'd really expect him to have some reason for running -- some strong political beliefs, maybe some crankish political beliefs, the desire for exposure or self-promotion, something. But here, nothing. None of those seem to apply. That doesn't make sense to me.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

From TalkingPointsMemo, the very strange story of the Dem Senate primary winner in SC.

I'll agree that it's somewhat strange but then again, maybe not as strange as it might appear.

1) The roughly 60-40 win for Greene was pretty consistent across the state, he carried 42 of the 46 counties in the state. SC - Election Results

Rawl meanwhile barely managed to carry even his home county (with the 2nd largest total vote total for the D primary)

2) Rawl wasn't exactly the biggest name either, as one observer said "You had an absolute unknown [Greene] running against a virtual unknown [Rawl]," said Winthrop University political scientist Scott Huffmon. Greene's victory "says something about the depth of the Democratic bench in South Carolina, but not much more than that."

3) Ballot order matters, pretty much everyone seems to agree on that. How much it matters is more open to debate but with some quick Googling, it appears that the general consensus is somewhere around 2.5 percent, although others put it as high as 7% or as low as 0.7%.

3) It's quite likely that at least half the voters in the SC (D) primary were black. Obama's primary margin there was 78% of the black vote (which was 55% of the primary total in '08). Greene may not have needed to campaign much further than getting his picture next to Rawl's a couple of times in the news leading up to the election to get a significant number of votes.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Meanwhile the SC Democratic Party is asking Greene to withdraw from the race due to a previously undiscovered pending felony charge. Greene was arrested back in November and charged with showing obscene Internet photos to a University of South Carolina student.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Meanwhile the SC Democratic Party is asking Greene to withdraw from the race due to a previously undiscovered pending felony charge. Greene was arrested back in November and charged with showing obscene Internet photos to a University of South Carolina student.

If that truly is the only issue, he still doing better than a lot of the career politicians.

[Thomkal]

good lord this state is just a complete joke when it comes to politics.

[Swaggs]

He'll have to step it up if he wants to be the governor of S.C. someday.

[larrymcg421]

So the newest conservative meme that is flooding Facebook, in virtually word for word posts from people presenting it as original thought...

So where are all the "Save the Gulf" concerts, the T.V. Benefits with celebrities & musicians giving heart felt speeches on the poor fisherman, wildlife, beaches, loss of income & sabotaged gulf economy? I find it rather strange how these people (including our own ...Government) 'quickly' help Haiti & other countries..but sit on their... behinds for this disaster.