The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[JPhillips]

A sampling of some headlines.

Biden's F-Bomb: A Blunder That Sullied A Historic Moment

Joe Biden Congratulates Barack Obama with F-Word

Levin Repeatedly References "Sh**ty Deal" at Goldman Hearing

'Shitty Deal': Goldman Exec Daniel Sparks Hammered Over Term Used To Describe Deal Made For Clients

Joe Biden's Life: One Big F--king Deal After Another

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The British press is so ideologically diverse it's impossible to lump them all together.

Isn't a rather big portion owned by Murdoch?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

{thinks} Let's see, I'm gonna guess that IN was early in the year, then you relocated & registered just in time to be eligible in TX (maybe even just for the runoff but not for the first vote). Right?

Or is there some other way that's possible & I'm just blank?

Yeah- that's what happened. I was living in Indy until about 2 months ago and now am back in Houston.

SI

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

9% of Obama stories are positive? I must read exclusively liberal blogs.

Edit: and where are these positive sarah palin articles? yesterday she was all over the news because cheney said mccain screwed up by picking her, which i think is pretty typical kind of coverage over the last few years. I'm guessing there's a lot of small town/rural papers counted the same as the ny times.

Check the dates - that was from 2011.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The British press is so ideologically diverse it's impossible to lump them all together.

Yeah, this. Panerd is just flat out wrong here. And of course even if there is a giant liberal media conspiracy that extends to the right and center right papers in the UK as well, how about the right wing conservative mayor of London who has blasted Romney for his time in the UK

You don't want negative media coverage don't fuck up at every turn. Seems pretty simple to me

[bhlloy]

As an aside this is exactly what is wrong with politics in the US (or some of it) Our candidate can't possibly have anything he needs to work on or any other viewpoint we should consider. It's all part of a giant liberal/conservative media bias. And this applies to both sides before I get accused of the exact same bias

[panerd]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

As an aside this is exactly what is wrong with politics in the US (or some of it) Our candidate can't possibly have anything he needs to work on or any other viewpoint we should consider. It's all part of a giant liberal/conservative media bias. And this applies to both sides before I get accused of the exact same bias

I thought I brought a pretty clear viewpoint that I don't buy into either side of the paradigm and actually would prefer Obama over Romney. Perhaps that makes it easier for me to see what somehow others do not? The mass media was all over Obama's jock during 2008 and his tour of Europe. I can remember sitting at a golf resort about this exact same time of year and seeing him portrayed as a rock star and the coming of the "change" that is so badly needed. Now 4 years later I see the presidential challenger of the other party getting shit on for every single thing he says during a similar tour. I guess this is just made up in my mind though since a huge Obama supporter (Jphillips) showed a graph that says it isn't so. By the way your argument works better if I actually cared even a little bit about Romney.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by panerd

I thought I brought a pretty clear viewpoint that I don't buy into either side of the paradigm and actually would prefer Obama over Romney. Perhaps that makes it easier for me to see what somehow others do not? The mass media was all over Obama's jock during 2008 and his tour of Europe. I can remember sitting at a golf resort about this exact same time of year and seeing him portrayed as a rock star and the coming of the "change" that is so badly needed. Now 4 years later I see the presidential challenger of the other party getting shit on for every single thing he says during a similar tour. I guess this is just made up in my mind though since a huge Obama supporter (Jphillips) showed a graph that says it isn't so. By the way your argument works better if I actually cared even a little bit about Romney.

Maybe the difference is actually that great though - Obama didn't say anything stupid to piss off foreigners and Romney did. Occam's Razor.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Maybe the difference is actually that great though - Obama didn't say anything stupid to piss off foreigners and Romney did. Occam's Razor.

This is probably the best answer. I still feel like Romney seems to have a very short leash while Obama got a lot more leeway in '08. But you are right that Obama seems to be a much more polished politician and not prone to stupid gaffes. You see I like this answer (I think IJ made a similar point) and will concede that is a huge factor.

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by panerd

I thought I brought a pretty clear viewpoint that I don't buy into either side of the paradigm and actually would prefer Obama over Romney. Perhaps that makes it easier for me to see what somehow others do not? The mass media was all over Obama's jock during 2008 and his tour of Europe. I can remember sitting at a golf resort about this exact same time of year and seeing him portrayed as a rock star and the coming of the "change" that is so badly needed. Now 4 years later I see the presidential challenger of the other party getting shit on for every single thing he says during a similar tour. I guess this is just made up in my mind though since a huge Obama supporter (Jphillips) showed a graph that says it isn't so. By the way your argument works better if I actually cared even a little bit about Romney.

I think the big difference here is the performance of the two canidates, which what the media are reporting on. Are you saying that Romney in 2012 performed about the same as Obama in 2008?

Edit: I type to slow

[panerd]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

I think the big difference here is the performance of the two canidates, which what the media are reporting on. Are you saying that Romney in 2012 performed about the same as Obama in 2008?

I think both 08 Obama and 12 Romney brought/bring about as much real solutions to the table. (i.e. basically zero) So yes I feel like the press gave Obama a pass because he was "cool" and could bring big crowds and are grilling Romney for the shitty candidate he is. I maybe should have been clearer initially that I just don't think Obama was taken to task for offering nothing (well change that never occured) while Romney seems ot be getting called on it. So yes I feel the media just loves gaffes instead of real substance.

[bhlloy]

If you think my argument was applying to you only, sure.

As for the other part, so because Obama got ridiculous coverage in 08 the media should sweep any Romney slip ups under the rug in 12? You think we shouldn't hear about him shitting all over himself while visiting a key ally just because in the past his opponent got some decent coverage?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

If you think my argument was applying to you only, sure.

As for the other part, so because Obama got ridiculous coverage in 08 the media should sweep any Romney slip ups under the rug in 12? You think we shouldn't hear about him shitting all over himself while visiting a key ally just because in the past his opponent got some decent coverage?

Well I appeared to be the only one discussing that Obama wasn't taken to task by the meida at all so yes I thought the quote was most likely for me. And I think my initial post's intention was showing how ridiculous '08 was and how Obama was not called out for anything.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

Well I appeared to be the only one discussing that Obama wasn't taken to task by the meida at all so yes I thought the quote was most likely for me. And I think my initial post's intention was showing how ridiculous '08 was and how Obama was not called out for anything.

Yeah, I remember how there wasn't a single story about Jeremiah Wright.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by panerd

I think both 08 Obama and 12 Romney brought/bring about as much real solutions to the table. (i.e. basically zero) So yes I feel like the press gave Obama a pass because he was "cool" and could bring big crowds and are grilling Romney for the shitty candidate he is. I maybe should have been clearer initially that I just don't think Obama was taken to task for offering nothing (well change that never occured) while Romney seems ot be getting called on it. So yes I feel the media just loves gaffes instead of real substance.

You're arguing two different points:

1) What do they bring to the table? May bring the same amount of hope in one hand and crap in the other of empty promises that most politicians bring. But that's not the point of media coverage. We've known for a long time it's style over substance, for the most part. So, yes, you can be correct about this point. But it matters nothing when your original complaint was about...

2) Coverage and performance overseas. Obama may have been "cool" and bring big crowds but he also didn't go off and say stupid crap every time he opened his mouth. Just talking in high rhetoric is a good way to not get many positive points for content (point 1) but it also doesn't give you negative points. Saying good content > saying empty content > saying bad content.

Saying "hope and change" over and over may not get many substance points. But it's far less offensive than "your country sucks at putting on the Olympics", "This is their country" and "you're lazy", and "Kiss my ass". Oddly enough, people respond better to soaring (albeit empty) rhetoric than you coming into their country and crapping on who they are.

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

A few potentially interesting but extremely anecdotal notes from my tiny little corner of the world tonight

-- Congressman Paul Broun cruises to an easy 2-1 win over a retired military officer who ran on a platform of increased "bridge building" with Dems. He wins, but with roughly the same number of votes he got running unopposed 2 yrs ago.

-- Local state rep loses in the GOP primary by 64 votes (of 7,000). He switched parties last year just days after being elected the head of the Democratic (state) House Caucus citing a recent religious conversion. Furious Dems, who were unable to find a single person willing to run against him on their ticket, poured their energies into beating him in the primary (two local county parties openly encouraged crossover voting since they had zero contested D races). The irony is that their inability to find a candidate led to the incumbent's defeat.

-- Next state house district over (downtown Athens basically) Dem primary sees a black 20 yr veteran incumbent unseated by an extreme left (and lily white) challenger who is the head of the local Habitat for Humanity chapter.

Possibly interpretation of the results in the area? Depressed turnout (vs 4 yrs ago) among both black D's and all R's, with only white D's showing similarly high interest at the moment. Foreshadowing of November perhaps?

[miked]

A July 31st state election doesn't really foreshadow much. At least the transportation referendum failed. If it actually did anything to alleviate traffic, it would have been awesome. But I have a hard time paying more so that the 285/20 and 285/400 junctions could be improved. Idiots working outside the city have had plenty of opportunities to improve their commute and they'd rather sit in SUVs paying $3.75/gallon and taking an hour to go 20 miles. I don't care about the traffic on 285 but once every few months. I care about congestion in the city...namely between Emory and GT.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by molson

Controversially, spending and withholding money are expressions of free speech. At least we know now that the federal government can't force you to buy chick fil a.

I still tend to think most older corporate CEOs aren't bastions of liberal thinking, either in terms of their beliefs, or in terms of where their company donates money. Most of them are just smart enough to keep it to themselves a little more. I do wonder if in 10 years we'll just have "red stores" and "blue stores" and everyone shops accordingly.

I think most older people aren't bastions of liberal thinking...

We do already have red stores and blue stores - they're called Target and Walmart.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by miked

A July 31st state election doesn't really foreshadow much.

Well, I was thinking in terms of this area and perhaps parts of Georgia. I didn't mean to extend it any further than that.

At least the transportation referendum failed.

Except in the three districts where it passed (Savannah & 2 others down south). That's mostly interesting perhaps because the area that got virtually all of the pro-tax ad money failed miserably while 3 that got little funding for support passed it.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by miked

A July 31st state election doesn't really foreshadow much. At least the transportation referendum failed. If it actually did anything to alleviate traffic, it would have been awesome. But I have a hard time paying more so that the 285/20 and 285/400 junctions could be improved. Idiots working outside the city have had plenty of opportunities to improve their commute and they'd rather sit in SUVs paying $3.75/gallon and taking an hour to go 20 miles. I don't care about the traffic on 285 but once every few months. I care about congestion in the city...namely between Emory and GT.

If you cared about the congestion between Emory and GT wouldn't you have wanted a rail line to go from Lindbergh to Emory (ie, part of the TSPLOST)?

[miked]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

If you cared about the congestion between Emory and GT wouldn't you have wanted a rail line to go from Lindbergh to Emory (ie, part of the TSPLOST)?

Absolutely not. There are already several MARTA buses that make that route (the 6 and 245, both run frequently in that area). I also would rather see Emory extend their shuttle service to Lindbergh (they already do North/South Dekalb park-ride) and they have service to Decatur MARTA station. I don't think enough people make that commute to have it matter. Also, nobody who commutes from Sandy Springs or somewhere out there is say to themselves, if only there were a rail transfer from Lindbergh to Emory...

The biggest thing they could do to alleviate traffic is have a rail system that brought people in from places in Gwinnett, Cobb, and thereabouts to convenient places in Atlanta. Those counties have had ample opportunity to fund better alternatives and have turned it down. If they want to drive one person in their SUVs from Gwinnett and take an hour, to go 7 exits, that's fine by me. You can't teach stupid.

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Check the dates - that was from 2011.

Palin was already a laughing stock by then, I don't think I've seen a positive "news" article on her since 2008. That chart's saying she has TRIPLE the amount of positive articles Obama does. Either I have some bizarre news reading habits, or there's a ton of small, rural, conservative publications of some type that they're counting as "newspapers" that are flooding the data.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Yeah, I remember how there wasn't a single story about Jeremiah Wright.

So do you think there's just no liberal-leaning media outlets? I think it's pretty clear that some lean liberal, some lean conservative, and a few don't have a clear lean either way.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by miked

The biggest thing they could do to alleviate traffic is have a rail system that brought people in from places in Gwinnett, Cobb, and thereabouts to convenient places in Atlanta.

It'd largely sit there unused, at least by those who can afford the aforementioned SUV's. You could build it tomorrow, courtesy of a magic wand, and the impact on traffic would be virtually nil.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

We do already have red stores and blue stores - they're called Target and Walmart.

I assume you are saying Target is a blue store? You should come visit around here sometime.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Surprised there hasn't been at least some mention of the Texas GOP Senate primary, where a political newcomer rolled over the established former Lt. Gov. by 13 points.

My Way News - Texas' Cruz goes from longshot to easy victory

The part I actually like about this - aside from the utter rejection of the candidate more inclined to compromise - is in the lead "when he began his run for U.S. Senate, he was at 2 percent in the polls".

That's pretty impressive no matter what party or angle you're running from. There was no major scandal that hit the frontrunner, he simply got caught from behind & then beaten like a dog.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

So do you think there's just no liberal-leaning media outlets? I think it's pretty clear that some lean liberal, some lean conservative, and a few don't have a clear lean either way.

Sure there are, but there isn't a pervasive leftward tilt to the media in total.

[RainMaker]

So we won't be seeing Senator Craig James.

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Surprised there hasn't been at least some mention of the Texas GOP Senate primary, where a political newcomer rolled over the established former Lt. Gov. by 13 points.

My Way News - Texas' Cruz goes from longshot to easy victory

The part I actually like about this - aside from the utter rejection of the candidate more inclined to compromise - is in the lead "when he began his run for U.S. Senate, he was at 2 percent in the polls".

That's pretty impressive no matter what party or angle you're running from. There was no major scandal that hit the frontrunner, he simply got caught from behind & then beaten like a dog.

I was going to post something about it, but frankly I have no idea what happened or what it means.
I just really don’t get the current GOP movement; Dewhurst’s track record should be everything the voters could possibly want, except he just wasn’t angry enough. Presiding over the most conservative session of the Texas legislature ever takes a back seat to screaming about the constitution.
So is the GOP just a protest party now? (Not asking you specifically, just rhetorically)

[JPhillips]

Agenda 21 must be stopped!

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

I was going to post something about it, but frankly I have no idea what happened or what it means.
I just really don’t get the current GOP movement; Dewhurst’s track record should be everything the voters could possibly want, except he just wasn’t angry enough. Presiding over the most conservative session of the Texas legislature ever takes a back seat to screaming about the constitution.
So is the GOP just a protest party now? (Not asking you specifically, just rhetorically)

I think that your quote of Jon answered the question. The rejection of the candidate "more inclined to compromise."

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I think that your quote of Jon answered the question. The rejection of the candidate "more inclined to compromise."

So to quote an old Republican, "there's no there there?" I just can't believe that one of the two parties has become nothing more then a primal scream of anger, there's too many smart people involved for it to be only that. I just don't know what they expect they will be able to accomplish with the yahoo's they are getting elected.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by miked

Absolutely not. There are already several MARTA buses that make that route (the 6 and 245, both run frequently in that area). I also would rather see Emory extend their shuttle service to Lindbergh (they already do North/South Dekalb park-ride) and they have service to Decatur MARTA station. I don't think enough people make that commute to have it matter. Also, nobody who commutes from Sandy Springs or somewhere out there is say to themselves, if only there were a rail transfer from Lindbergh to Emory...

You don't think people who live in Sandy Springs would rather have a rail spurt out from Lindbergh to Emory rather than having to drive? A little discussed thing - affluent white people don't want to take buses. They'll take a train.

Furthermore being able to get to Emory from the airport without having to take a bus would be a huge boon to a number of people.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Furthermore being able to get to Emory from the airport without having to take a bus would be a huge boon to a number of people.

I went there from 94-98. It seemed in-fucking-sane that you had to either bum a ride or take the bus.

[albionmoonlight]

dola:

On re-reading, that might be a bit of hyperbole. Let's just say it was deuced inconvenient to not have Marta train stop within walking distance of the campus.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

So to quote an old Republican, "there's no there there?" I just can't believe that one of the two parties has become nothing more then a primal scream of anger, there's too many smart people involved for it to be only that. I just don't know what they expect they will be able to accomplish with the yahoo's they are getting elected.

That primal scream of anger is the only thing standing between you and sharia law.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

Dewhurst’s track record should be everything the voters could possibly want

You mean other than his support of a payroll tax and his past remarks about supporting a guest worker program "for those here today illegally"?

Those are a couple of pretty good chinks in the armor that Cruz used effectively.

In the end though, honestly, this bit from the Houston Chronicle endorsement is really what it seems to boil down to:

His is a record of fairness and willingness to reach across party lines

That's not really something a large number of voters are looking for in a candidate. We don't want the other side of the aisle "reached out to" ... we want them to be extinct (or as near as possible).

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So we won't be seeing Senator Craig James.

He probably shouldn't have killed those hookers

SI

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You mean other than his support of a payroll tax and his past remarks about supporting a guest worker program "for those here today illegally"?

Well, he also pushed through a draconian abortion law and a voter ID law that got the state sued by the Feds. It looks like winning some of these primaries is kind of like getting through the nomination process for the Supreme Court, if you have a track record you’ll probably lose.

As to the bigger picture I think my confusion is mostly my own, I’m still stuck in transition of how I see the parties. For me Republicans were the adults in the room with some odd ideas every now and then while the Dems were the wild eyed utopians. Crazy has a new address I guess.

[JediKooter]

There seriously needs to be a term for this, just like 'Godwin' is, when someone brings up hitler or the nazis during an argument. Comparing things that you don't agree with or object to to a tragic/shocking event deserves ridicule and mockery. Especially when they aren't even close to being on the same level or trying to equate two completely different things as the same thing.

Republican likens contraceptive mandate to Pearl Harbor, 9/11 - First Read

[Swaggs]

Interesting article (especially for the third party enthusiasts:Virginia’s Virgil Goode: Could this Man Cost Mitt Romney the Presidency? | Swampland | TIME.com

This guy apparently polled at 9% in a recent PPP survey of Virginia voters, with a huge chunk of potential voters apparently peeling away from Romney. It is tough to envision Romney winning without Ohio, Virginia and Florida.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

There seriously needs to be a term for this, just like 'Godwin' is, when someone brings up hitler or the nazis during an argument. Comparing things that you don't agree with or object to to a tragic/shocking event deserves ridicule and mockery. Especially when they aren't even close to being on the same level or trying to equate two completely different things as the same thing.

Republican likens contraceptive mandate to Pearl Harbor, 9/11 - First Read

That's my douche

[stevew]

Problem is that the chick running against him is a (probably non-tenured) college professor at a branch campus of PSU that only hands out one 4 year degree. Not exactly a intellectual heavyweight or someone I feel has any kind of standing to serve in congress. Kelly is a thug but he should easily survive this.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by panerd

I assume you are saying Target is a blue store? You should come visit around here sometime.

Psst. Look at the corporate colors, not the politics of its customers. He was making a joke.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by panerd

I assume you are saying Target is a blue store? You should come visit around here sometime.

I've been around there. You should come around here.

[JPhillips]

This will cause Romney a lot of damage.

Our major conclusion is that a revenue-neutral individual income tax change that incorporates the features Governor Romney has proposed - including reducing marginal tax rates substantially, eliminating the individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) and maintaining all tax breaks for saving and investment - would provide large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle- and/or lower-income taxpayers. This is true even when we bias our assumptions about which and whose tax expenditures are reduced to make the resulting tax system as progressive as possible. For instance, even when we assume that tax breaks - like the charitable deduction, mortgage interest deduction, and the exclusion for health insurance - are completely eliminated for higher-income households first, and only then reduced as necessary for other households to achieve overall revenue-neutrality- the net effect of the plan would be a tax cut for high-income households coupled with a tax increase for middle-income households.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

This will cause Romney a lot of damage.

One would think so, but the (R) hue-and-cry has already started about how the Brookings institute is a "liberal think tank" with a "clear bias," and how the analysis doesn't include the effect of his corporate tax policy on revenue.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by stevew

That's my douche

Haha! I like it. Needs to be whittled down to one word. Something like, 'He just douched it' or something like that.

[JPhillips]

They were overwhelmingly favorable in their assessment. From Jon Chait:

It’s worth noting that the study embraces implausibly friendly assumptions as to how Romney would go about this. It assumes he would ruthlessly purge the tax code of breaks for the rich, even highly popular ones like the charitable deduction. It further assumes that, in order to wring every last penny out of the rich, Romney would cut off all deductions immediately for every dollar in income over $200,000 a year. (In reality, nobody would create a tax code that meant going from $200,000 a year to $200,001 would jack up your taxes by thousands of dollars — you would ramp up the tax deduction phase-in, which would reduce taxes for the rich even more. But the paper bends over backwards to grant Romney this implausible assumption.)

What’s more, the paper assumes that Romney’s plan would increase economic growth, meaning it wouldn’t have to find dollar-for-dollar replacements for all its lost income. To measure this cheerful scenario, the paper adopts a model created by Greg Mankiw — who is, of course, a Bush administration veteran and one of Romney’s main economic advisers.

They complain, but Romney will need a better answer. "That's liberal" won't cut it in a debate.

edit: He's also cited the co-authors of the study in the GOP debates.

[Edward64]

I like this. I noticed the lack of US involvement.

Obama authorized covert support for Syrian rebels, sources say – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs

President Barack Obama has signed a covert directive authorizing U.S. support for Syrian rebels battling President Bashar al-Assad's forces, U.S. officials told CNN on Wednesday.

The secret order, referred to as an intelligence "finding," allows for clandestine support by the CIA and other agencies.

It was unclear when the president signed the authorization for Syria, but the sources said it was within the past several months.

The Obama administration has said it will step up its assistance to the opposition in the wake of last month's failure by the U.N. Security Council to agree on tougher sanctions against al-Assad's regime.