Ramona's picture

    Hey, Liberals: Now is the Time to Panic

    By Ramona on Mon, 10/15/2012 - 4:02pm | Politics

    WARNING:  Cheers for Obama here, at least until Tuesday, November 6.  Don't come looking for relief from Obama luv.  You won't find it on these pages. I'm getting ready to panic and, if past history is any indication, it's not going to be pretty.

    Romney/Ryan have a chance to win this thing.  That revelation is so shocking we should be calling for a congressional investigation into how right wing billionaires and clueless teapartiers were able to pull that off. (Right. . .that'll happen)

    There's no way someone like Mitt Romney (businessman to the core, anti-government advocate today but not yesterday, job destroyer and giddy out-sourcer, liar, liar, liar) could actually be considered American presidential material.

    There's no way someone like Paul Ryan (Old Testament advocate of female-body ownership by non-females, mathematics-deficient "policy wonk", fair-to-middlin' mountain-climber and marathon-runner, liar, liar, liar) can be taken seriously for that all-important second slot.

    There are many who want to blame one person--Barack Obama--for what's been happening, but you won't find them here.  I don't want them here.  I want people who know a right wing ambush when they see one and are willing to work their asses off to defeat the real enemy--the Republicans.

    There are no saints among politicians but there are plenty of sinners.  If Academy Awards were given for vicious, humanity-chewing, dishonest performances, the Republicans would win, hands down.  They're out to destroy us and half the country thinks it's nothing more than a stinkin' horror movie. (Nothing to fear, it's only pretend. Get your popcorn here.)

    But some of us don't, thank God:

    • My Michigan pal Flowerchild has had enough, too.  She brings some badasses to dagblog to help us understand.
    •  
    • Reagan's money guy, David Stockman, slices and dices Romney's claim as job creator.
    •  

    I'll remind us once again that Mitt Romney wants to be president of the United States and there's a strong chance he could become one.  He has no use for us.  He admits he has no use for us. We don't want a president who has no use for  us.  We've fallen pretty low but not so low we would give away our vote to a man who has made it that clear that we are not worthy of his attention.

    There is no reason on earth that a man like Mitt Romney should be considered for the highest job in the land. We can stop it.  We can work to get out the vote, we can continue pulling up facts that prove Romney, Ryan, and the Republicans don't deserve this chance, and we can declare a moratorium on bashing Democrats, other liberals, and Obama (especially Obama) until after November 6.

    We have seen the enemy and it isn't us.

    (Cross-posted at Ramona's Voices)

     

    Topics: 
    Politics

    Comments

    You are sooooooooo very right Ramona.

    We have seen the enemy; we have seen the enemy especially from 2001-2009; and he aint US!

    I swear that if the repubs get in again we will be in at least three more wars; Medicare will be disabled and SS will be crippled forever.

    Voting rights will be further curtailed; racists will run the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ; fearless billionaires will run the SEC; corporate food processors will run the Department of Agriculture; management will run the Department of Labor...

    We will be back in 2001 and have nightmares every damn nite.

    ha!


    by Richard Day on Mon, 10/15/2012 - 5:35pm

    Richard, I can't believe this is happening again.  What does it take for lessons to be learned? 

    The Republicans are already gloating.  They don't even have to pretend to be moderate any more.  The far left anger is a formidable weapon against us, and they know it.

    They could win, and what would the far left have gained?  I don't know.  They don't know.  They apparently haven't thought that far ahead.


    by Ramona on Mon, 10/15/2012 - 6:33pm

    Ramona, why are you asking for unity, and then immediately commenting attacking "the far left?" What makes you think that's the problem? Is there a single poll saying, "Obama is bleeding support from the left?" Rather, he's losing "Independents," isn't he? And why is that? Why not focus on that, and on getting out Democrats to vote? 

    I mean, you even have people like Dan and myself and Peracles saying vote for Obama. And if anything, those on the left have been arguing to NOT leave the GOP any chances to argue that the Dems will be the ones who will cut Medicare or gut SS.  

    As I've said before, why do people write these "we must have unity" pieces that then take shots at others on the Center-Left. Focus on Romney and bring the bastard down. 

    Otherwise, thanks for the Stockman piece, I hadn't seen it, and loved it. 


    by quinn esq on Mon, 10/15/2012 - 8:37pm

    I thought my entire post was about focusing on Romney to bring him down.  I don't know where you've been but I'm seeing post after post after website after website from "our side" caterwauling about how terrible Obama is, outlining all of his failings, denouncing his corruption, whining about how, if there was someone else to vote for, they'd do it and do it happily.  Oh, if only we could get The Green Party out there instead.  The ending is always the same:  Okay, okay! I'm going to vote for him but I'm going to hold my nose and I'm going to let everybody within earshot know that I'm doing it under protest, and I think I'll eat some worms.

    So what does that tell the undecideds?  It tells them they have much to be undecided about, and if Obama is that bad it's probably not going to matter, anyway.

    We're down to the wire, and we get it.  Whole factions think Obama is shit but he's all they've got.  My call is to just shut up about it until after the election.  So the undecideds will lean our way.  So  Democratic fence-sitters can feel good about their choice.  So all energies are focused on making sure Romney and Ryan lose.  So they take a whole bunch of Republican incumbents with them.

    I'm all for unity.  I'm begging for it.  I don't know how you missed that.


    by Ramona on Mon, 10/15/2012 - 9:16pm

    Just a few constructive suggestions:

    1. The only part of either convention I watched was Obama's speech.  It seems to me that Obama spent a lot of time in that speech talking about what he believes, but not much time talking about what he's going to do.  People aren't electing the Archbishop of the Church of America.  They are electing a President, with all the not-inconsiderable powers that office possesses.  He needs to say something about what he is going to accomplish.

    2. Failure is not an option.  He needs to say what he is going to to do - not what he wishes he could do, not what he would like to do, not what he would do if only it weren't from those damn Republicans blocking everything.  It doesn't matter if he is facing strong political headwinds and obstacles: America expects its Presidents to be leaders and winners, so if there is a political war to be fought, he's supposed to say how he is going to fight it and win it.

    3. It's fine to be reminded that Mitt Romney doesn't care about 47% of America.  But in the end, I don't want my President to care about me.  I want him to do something for me.  Some people might be thinking Romney is a ball-busting SOB who hates their guts but is nevertheless going to do something for them, while Obama is a nice guy who cares about people but isn't going to accomplish anything.  Obama has to convince such people people they are dead wrong.

    4. When a country is in the economic doldrums, it is customary for Presidential candidates to say something about how they are going to "get this country moving again".  What, in one sentence the Obama plan for getting this this country moving again?  I don't think people know.

    5. It seems to me that the one single thing every candidate wants to get voters to understand is why they absolutely must elect him President.  This pitch has to be simple, gripping and compelling.  What's needed is not a lawyerly treatise with 100 pros versus cons, but a concise statement.  Why exactly does Barack Obama think the country needs him as its President for the next four years?  Why does he think it is imperative that he is re-elected?  Again, I don't think people know.

    You can get mad at me for being critical for this absence of force and definition in the Obama campaign, but the fact is that I have been reading this blog forever, and most of you have been talking non-stop about various Republicans since the middle of last year.   To me that reflects the fact that there is a big, blank hole where the Democratic candidate and his campaign and cause are supposed to be.


    by Dan Kervick on Mon, 10/15/2012 - 10:06pm

    Boy, do I hate it when a comment starts with, "Just a few constructive suggestions."  Know what my first thought is when that happens?  "Why don't you write your own damn post?"

    So let me say this as clearly as I can.  All of your constructive suggestions are too late.  The election is in a few weeks and all of the arguments are effectively over.  Now it's time to put up or shut up. 

    If we're going to get Obama elected, we have to work on the undecideds and the young people who need to be energized and the ones who are sometime voters.  It does no good to keep griping about how it should be Obama doing the energizing.  How, if he had only won that first debate, our work would be done.  How he doesn't deserve us.

    The focus needs to be on making him the winner and Romney the loser.  That's it. 

    If you're running into people who think Romney might do something for them, do me a favor and ask them what that would be? 

    If you're running into people who think Obama hasn't done enough for them, maybe you should steer them to the old JFK line, "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."

    Right now what we can do for our country is to get Obama and the Democrats elected so that we at least have a chance.  That should be our focus, and all the other crap is nothing but maddening clutter.

     


    by Ramona on Mon, 10/15/2012 - 11:09pm

    I'm not running into anybody.  I can't recall having a single live conversation about the election with anybody since a brief one in early August.  I keep my politics to myself and don't engage people in political discussion.

    Have no idea what the big deal is about whether something is a standalone post or a comment on another post.


    by Dan Kervick on Mon, 10/15/2012 - 11:57pm

    If you don't talk to people about politics and, as you have mentioned in the past,  you don't watch television, never pay any attention to what Republicans are saying, and proudly boycott horse race coverage and things like debates, why should anyone listen to your advice on this? The electorate and the people who participate in the MMT blog bubble are not one and the same thing. If you remove yourself from the general public discourse as much as possible because you dislike it, that's fine, but then it's really hard to believe a claim that you know what the general electorate wants to hear.

    Personally, looking at the presidential elections of my lifetime, I think a pretty large portion of the voters who end up deciding the election are less interested in specific solutions the candidate promises during the campaign, and more on whether the candidate comes across as caring about the problems of people like themselves. Like you, I have at times in the past wished that the situation was different, that they paid more attention to actual policy and specific solutions. But then I have also seen the results of elections where the president has had to switch to dealing with totally different problems than those that were addressed during the campaign. And I have thought again: maybe judgments about whether the candidate cares, and how the candidate thinks, and about his/her character, is all there is, that maybe it's not so dumb to vote that way.


    by artappraiser on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 8:33am

    1. I probably keep up fairly closely with about 20 different blogs, and only three of them are MMT blogs.  Nobody cares what I think?  Fine.  Nobody cares what I write about?  Fine.  Stick to your world of middle aged boomers and magical thinking.

    by Dan Kervick on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 9:43am

    We've been hearing these same get-in-line comments for over a year, back when it might have been possible to primary Obama.

    And in that year, no one's figured out how to "energize" undecideds and young people and sometimes voters - instead they're focused on swing states and GOTV efforts.

    There is no energy this election. It's been "our team vs. their team" from the get-go, and fill in the policy gaps on your own. Oh, somewhere in 2 years time the war's supposed to end, and the economy will slowly get better - are you on the edge of your seat yet?


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 2:27am

    What puts me on the edge of my seat is the fact that powermongers like the Koch Brothers, ALEC, Grover Norquist, and whatever right wing religious zealot happens to have to pulpit at the moment will be running our country.

    We will be under the control of people who despise big government and all that might mean.  We will have lost whatever gains we've made since the Bush years and it will only get worse.

    Long after we've forgotten this election the repercussions will be felt and it will be terrible.


    by Ramona on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 7:37am

    What have we gained since Bush? A bit of a Pyrrhic victory with healthcare, and a few gains re: DOMA, Don't Ask Don't Tell, gay marriage, and HOPE act for immigrants. And Wikileaks/anonymous.

    We've lost big time on home ownership (esp minority), endless Mideast wars against terrorism, surveillance state, abortion rights, unfilled judicial seats, federal attacks on medical marijuana, targeted assassinations, safety of Social Security & Medicare, limited drilling, government services, whistleblower protection, Congressional oversight & legislative ability, jobs, news reporting, retirement.... Even on economics, we're all non-Keynesians now believing in the confidence fairy and austerity as far as the eye can see. Look at my debate news post and what isn't debated any longer in elections.


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 8:03am

    I'm not going to rehash the gains/no gains argument again. Where you see none I see some--but not nearly enough.

    If the Republicans were fully in charge, where would we be?  If you can make an argument that we would have been better off with McCain/Palin, I'm listening.  Seems pretty myopic to look around and not see anything that's just a little better now.

    When Obama took office in 2009 we were losing 500,000 jobs a month.  Wages are ridiculous compared to where they were before GWB, and they're only getting lower, thanks to full time jobs becoming part time and workers having to make Draconian concessions simply to keep a job.  We need to fix that, but if the Republicans win you can kiss that effort goodbye.

    Everything else you've listed above needs work, but we'll have a better chance at getting something done if the Dems are in power.  I don't think there's any argument about that.  Is there?

     


    by Ramona on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 8:25am

    I am willing to vote for Obama because of the Supreme Court and related social issues.  But I have no reason to think that economic performance will be markedly different under Obama vs. Romney.


    by Dan Kervick on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 9:29am

    But I have no reason to think that economic performance will be markedly different under Obama vs. Romney.

    Depends in part on what happens with the Congressional elections but...really? 

    With Romney we'd re-explode the debt, and right-wing Keynesianism (tax cuts, tax cuts and more tax cuts, skewed to the upper brackets--of course they don't call it Keynesianism--just as Obama didn't call his late 2010 tax deal "stimulus" even though that's exactly what he was trying to do with it) and economic policy in toto creates nowhere near as many jobs or as much economic growth as progressive Keynesianism and economic policy.  

    Not remarked upon much in these parts from what I have seen is that if Romney wins and if the Republicans control both houses of Congress we are likely to see efforts to do to labor unions on a national level what Scott Walker and the Right did to the unions in Wisconsin.  The consequences of what remains of labor potentially being finished off should be alarming to independents who consider themselves moderates and/or centrists, who have no love for unions but will be voting for Obama in this election for whatever reasons, who fear the right-wing social agenda, and who want people like Obama to have any chance of winning elections in the future.  Because while unions have not even come up as a public subject in this campaign, and Obama has been tepid on this topic (so there is no legit argument that publicly embracing labor is hurting Obama in this campaign, because quite simply he hasn't), unions are working their asses off for Obama and the Dems in this election, as they consistently do.  I submit that Obama would stand zero, nada chance of winning this election without those efforts.  Finishing off the unions is right up there with putting SS and Medicare on a fatal path for people like the Koch brothers and Norquist as a strategic priority. 

    Progressives know we are going to have to fight like hell after the election to keep SS, Medicare and Medicaid, and other important federal programs, from being sacrificed in what could very possibly be during the lame duck session a deeply damaging austerity tilt.  

    What there is at this point is a chance--and that's all it is with this President--to fight for some positive policy versus playing pure defense and damage control for the next 2 years, at least.  I know what I'd rather be doing.  I think the consequences, both nearer and longer-term, of this election for both the economy and for economic policy in this country are considerably greater than you seem to think they are. 


    by AmericanDreamer on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 10:47am

    I'm not at all concerned about the debt AD.  I'm more concerned about austerity - the prosperity killing wave that has swept Europe with Merkel, Cameron, the ECB and their periphery country vassals, and that Obama, Bowles and like minded budget hawks in the Democratic Party are promoting here as well.  Obama has no growth plan.  He has a bean-counting budget balancing plan.  He's looking at our challenges from the wrong end of the stick.


    by Dan Kervick on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 11:11am

    You may not be concerned about the debt.  I am.  (Even Krugman is.)  It will have to be reduced over time.  Agreed our president needs to be won over--and it's going to be a very tough fight--to a consistent view that the route to reducing the deficit while also reducing inequality, generating more jobs and getting better economic growth is through---job and growth-generating policies, rather than austerity now, which will just make the situation worse, we have ample reason to believe. 

    He has said and done many things suggesting that, in his own mind, he embraces this view (but without key pieces that generate much more short-term impact, such as the American Jobs Act and mortgage relief that does not create moral hazard), such as, in his 2011 SOTU address stating that to win the future, we must "out-innovate, out-educate and out-build the rest of the world."  

    He also appears to believe things on this subject that make you scratch your head, to say the least--such as, in the wake of the 2010 midterm debacle, that reducing deficits is not just a political issue because it is a big issue for significant numbers of voters, but a real economic policy issue because the markets seemed concerned about the large deficits and growing national debt. (on David Corn's account, p. 134 of his book Showdown).   

    Krugman has written about what he sees as a need for intellectual clarity on economic policy and I think he's right about that.  You have to have a working theory of how you're going to get there if you're the president and you have to be prepared to run on your economic record at the time elections are actually scheduled to take place, not 2 or 3 years after that.  If you're not clear in your own mind about why the direction you're pushing is the very best one we can take, why it is going to work, and how you are going to explain what you're doing to the public, it's harder to project conviction and confidence to voters on that point. 


    by AmericanDreamer on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 11:32am

    I'm more interested in economic progress than budgets.  Obama has turned the Democratic Party into a conservative party dedicated only to a boring concept of pay-as-you-go steadiness, and soothing the anxieties of boomers concerned about their entitlement plans.  He's not speaking to the next generation; he's not laying out an aggressive vision of national progress or social transformation; he's not telling people where the next decades growth is going to come from; he's not extolling the power of the federal government; he's not showing people how to bring full employment to our savagely unemployed workforce to energize the next great stage in national development.  He's an apostle of stability amid graceful decline.


    by Dan Kervick on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 11:50am

    I understand what you're saying.  It's just that to win this election--to leave open a possibility of positive policy moves going forward--it would seem as though attention must be paid not only to the groups and dynamics you reference, but to the significant number of voters for whom the deficit and/or spending is important.  I don't think it is correct, necessary, or helpful to treat this as an either/or situation where the argument is:

    "It's about jobs."

    "It's about the deficit and out of control federal spending."

    "It's about jobs."

    "It's about the deficit and out of control federal spending."

    "Is too."

    "Is not."

    That's a dead end and I think also reflects in part a false choice.  It's just not the case that out of control domestic spending is what ails us now.  That part is just wrong.  But the deficit really is a problem and it needs to be addressed.  If we address it through austerity now we will actually make the deficit problem worse and the jobs and growth problem worse.  If we vote in Republicans who will do right-wing Keynesianism we will make the deficit worse and we will see less, if any, job growth. 

    So rather than try to tell people concerned about the deficit that they are wrong to be concerned about the deficit, it makes more sense to me to make the case that there are better and worse ways of dealing with the deficit, and that Obama's way is better because more likely to work (caveat, with more).  That last statement reinforces a point I am trying to make about offering more than what has been offered so far to give more reasons for people to believe there will be aggressive action on jobs, that it's not only a "hope and pray" assertion that the current course, which has, it must be said, seen declines in the unemployment rate which are also not nearly where we need to get to, will suffice.

    Now of course we are left with what path Obama will take after the election if he does win.  I agree that is well worth worrying about and going flat out to try to influence after the election is over.  But it's also the case that one does not try to build the case for Obama to go in the direction you want him to go in in complete conflict with his actions, his record, his statements, and what we know about his beliefs.  There is positive stuff that he has both done, and said, to build on, in lieu of trying to persuade him to adopt courses of action completely at odds with his record and beliefs.  The latter would seem to be a far more difficult, if not close to hopeless, task. 

    But first things first.  To get to where we need to go we are better off giving ourselves a chance of moving sometime soon in the direction we need to go (whether one puts the odds of that at 2%, 10%, 50%, 80%, whatever), rather than giving ourselves zero chance of moving in the positive direction we need to go, on policy.


    by AmericanDreamer on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 12:50pm

    Yes, Obama's first 4 months were spent stabilizing the disaster Bush left.

    Likely all mentioned will be a tad to a bit more better should Obama stay in. Except I expect him to bargain away Medicare & Social Security, just less than R&R would. Afghanistan we're out early, mid-2013 is my guess, once elections over just because of casualties. Don't know if his recent relaxation on whistleblowing is just campaign fodder - etc., etc.

    Will anyone fight for these things after election, or will we have to support Obama because the GOP's a bunch of huns? Get ready.


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 10:24am

    Ramona, Romney hasn't won yet and if he does it won't be the end of planet Earth. Take the most positive thought you have, channel it in Obama's direction and he will receive your energy.   


    by Oxy Mora on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 8:10am

    Sorry, Oxy, you're just going to have to indulge me. As my title says, it's time to panic. I'm panicking.

    by Ramona on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 8:13am

    O.k, o.k., Christ! I just coughed up the equivalent of a weekend at the Ritz Carlton to the Obama campaign in your honor. Are you happy now?


    by Oxy Mora on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 10:10am

    Ecstatic!  Bless your little pea-pickin' soul!


    by Ramona on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 10:38am

    Ramona. Your post was fine. Thanks for the links.

    And I get it. There's an election coming. People need to close ranks. Got it. Agreed. 

    Except that... in your blog, you never pointed to anyone in particular, out there on the left, firing away at Obama. You just said, let's focus on supporting Obama. Fine.

    But then in the comments, out of the blue, comes this stuff about the "far left anger" and what would they have accomplished, and so on. 

    Except that, Dick hadn't raised that issue. And your blog (thankfully) hadn't spelled it out, it had just had some useful anti-Mitt links. So where was it coming from?

    Well, apparently it was coming from you, who were upset after reading some blogs somewhere. I donno, at Salon or whereever.

    But let me ask this. Who AT DAGBLOG has been writing that sort of thing? Go over to the left hand side of the page, and please start going down the various blogs written in recent days. Now, how many do you see that are written against Obama? 

    I guess this is why I sometimes feel like there's a reality-warp in here. There's barely a peep, from a handful of people, about Obama's failings and how they're gonna vote against him. I mean, how many non-Obama voters are there in here? ONE? 

    One????? I mean.... I'm not sure how much more simon pure-Dem a place can get than this. 

    So to me, it then sounds completely off-tone when you come in and start up in your comments about the angry left and their self-destructiveness. 

    Why not just write about the need for unity, suggest what people can do, throw out some ideas, write some Mitt links, and avoid poking at something you say you don't want - namely a split with the Left?

    After all, people are reading you here - not at Salon, or wherever. If you wrote this for your home site, then ok, fine, but I guess I'd suggest a slight edit before landing it here, because the audience is a bit different.

    Not trying to be offensive, just saying, in the interests of beating Romney, let's get it right.


    by quinn esq on Mon, 10/15/2012 - 10:11pm

    Thanks, Quinn.  I'm getting quite used to your lectures and cross-examinations, but in this case it seems like nit-picking to me.

    No, you don't hear that much here at dag, but I wasn't just talking about dag.  I do wander out to other places, see other things, get angry over what I think are unproductive and repetitive arguments emanating from the far left--and sometimes I even say that.

    It never occurred to me that I should alter my posts to reflect the sensibilities here at dag.  I really don't think I want to do that.  Thanks, anyway.


    by Ramona on Mon, 10/15/2012 - 10:50pm

    Christ, this is pathetic, Ramona. Seriously, I won't argue about whether or not you should write stuff anymore, I'll just meet it head on. It's bad thinking, bad tactics, bad politics - so screw the tangential approaches.

    #1. It never occurred to you to "alter" your posts to reflect the "sensitivities" here at Dag, eh? What are you, 11 years old? If you're trying to make political hay, you adjust your message depending on the audience. Full stop. Unless you want to lose.

    #2. As for "sensitivities," nice jibe. Oh, those lefties, so "sensitive." How about this concept, straight-talker - different people need to be persuaded by different things, and in different ways.  

    #3. Here you are, with pro-Obama Unity Speech #117 on this site, and the sum accomplished? SFA. Most of the lefties left long ago, and of those remaining, I think we've found all but 1 voting for or supporting Obama this election. And here we are, arse halfway in the electoral dumpster, and what do we get from you? More of your endless goddamn whining. And what's it about? Attacking lefties who are opposing Obama (of which there are maybe 1 on-site)... and then proclaiming you want Unity. What part of Unity do you not understand Ramona?

    #4. And the left? At this stage of the election, you're worried about the AMERICAN LEFT?  Again, let me just say that your political radar must've taken a ditch back about, ohhhh, 1978. Yeah, gee, that's really what's the problem these days - some BERKEKEY PROF saying snide things about a California pol. That set you to dancing! Yessirree bob, it's no longer about GOTV, no longer about Obama's strategy, no longer about policy or shoe leather. It's about whining about Berkeley lefties. Hello? The Independents are wandering to the Right, and the mainstream Dems aren't motivated, but a few loser lefties whining on some blog somewhere or at some cocktail party in California think is completely key.

    #5. And again, sooooooo glad you go elsewhere to get pissed off, and then come back HERE to dump on lefties. It's such a grand policy. I have so enjoyed the little lectures I get from you all along the way as well, you know, about manners and behaving poorly to people who come to the site, when you're busy posting (and then reposting) blogs full of the same, tired, whiny, irrelevant, politically-idiotic tripe.

    Shorter? Aim your goddamn guns at the Republicans, Fire up the sad-ass mainstream Dems, Attract the mindlessly wandering Independents, and IGNORE the cocktail mindlessly negative Left. IGNORE THEM. 


    by quinn esq on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 12:22pm

    Sorry, Quinn, when you learn how to discuss an issue without going for the jugular, I'll listen. 

    No, I'm not 11 years old, I'm 75 and I don't have time for your shit.


    by Ramona on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 1:10pm

    Pfffft.


    by quinn esq on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 4:17pm

    The following is a very good rant on this issue; some of her points really resounded with me:

    A letter to my dismal allies on the US left
    Please, radical leftists, spare us the bitterness and negativity; we need hope and incremental victories and you provide neither


    by artappraiser on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 8:41am

    Oh, AA, you have made my morning!  And given me an incredible gift!  My spirits are raised!  I'm gloating!  (I hate myself for that part)

    I don't know what to pull first from that absolute GEM of an article (a gem because I agree with every word of it, of course), but I chose the following because those inane, distracting arguments do have an effect on the people who believe good things have happened under Obama but are afraid to open their mouths lest the Shrill Ones grab hold and never let loose.

    From your link:

    So here I want to lay out an insanely obvious principle that apparently needs clarification. There are bad things and they are bad. There are good things and they are good, even though the bad things are bad. The mentioning of something good does not require the automatic assertion of a bad thing. The good thing might be an interesting avenue to pursue in itself if you want to get anywhere. In that context, the bad thing has all the safety of a dead end. And yes, much in the realm of electoral politics is hideous, but since it also shapes quite a bit of the world, if you want to be political or even informed you have to pay attention to it and maybe even work with it.

    Instead, I constantly encounter a response that presumes the job at hand is to figure out what's wrong, even when dealing with an actual victory, or a constructive development. Recently, I mentioned that California's current attorney general, Kamala Harris, is anti-death penalty and also acting in good ways to defend people against foreclosure. A snarky Berkeley professor's immediate response began: "Excuse me, she's anti-death penalty, but let the record show that her office condoned the illegal purchase of lethal injection drugs."

    Apparently, we are not allowed to celebrate the fact that the attorney general for 12% of all Americans is pretty cool in a few key ways or figure out where that could take us. My respondent was attempting to crush my ebullience and wither the discussion, and what purpose exactly does that serve?

    This kind of response often has an air of punishing or condemning those who are less radical, and it is exactly the opposite of movement- or alliance-building. Those who don't simply exit the premises will be that much more cautious about opening their mouths. Except to bitch, the acceptable currency of the realm.


    by Ramona on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 11:16am

    Only in America would a guy from Wall Street get elected President, because a guy from Main Street couldn't clean up the near Depression Wall Street caused fast enough. Which is why I think it will happen. Who will the GOP blame when it turns out even worse than the Decider's reign of 8 years? They will find somebody and it won't be themselves.

    These are some folks below who deserve to be scammed by the lying Dumb and Dumber Duo, from a current Libya article on Yahoo.  The small brained morons idiotic views, they filled the comment section. These fools deserve 4 more years of GOP snake oil and fiascoes, they do not deserve good government, an honest President, or a recovering economy.  ("When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in body fat, and carrying a misspelled sign")


    homobama will give them our tax dollars, and do nothing else. this is all homobamas fault, not a video like he tried to blame. weak foreign policy, and favoring his muslim brethren. get rid of the muslim in our white house.
    Obama needs to get permission from his communist handler, Putin
    AWWWW BABY OBAMA AT IT AGAIN!
    If it weren't an election year Obama would never consider any action. The only thing he would do is apologize and somehow make this be America's fault---probably even Bush
    Well, since Obimbo and his pet boy Joe said for WEEKS that this was all because of some cute YouTube video, STRIKE BACK BY DISABLEING THEIR CABLE TV!
    Why did our President lie, yes, lie to us about what
    happened to our murdered Ambassador and the 3
    other people who were murdered in Lybia ?
    Who is he going to attack??? , "The Video"???????
    If he can not figure out what happened in Benghazi how is he going to figure out who to bomb? He needs to go. Vote Romney/Ryan and lets get back to work.
    WOW! I thought a VIDEO MURDERED the 4 Americans????
    Wow the White house finally figured out we were attacked,,,Note to the White House:military or other action should be kept secret until deployed.....hole licking liberal
    Obama accused Romney of using Libya for politics. It looks like Obama is doing just that. He lied about Libya and our ambassador died. Now, he is afraid to strike our enemy before he is afraid of losing in November.
    Boy if the nut bag muslims got mad over a little video, imagine what will happen when we drone strike them. We are one weak #$%$ country. In a way I am just like Meechele my bell, I now am not proud of my country.
    What is up with the story about the US supplying gun to the rebels in Syria. Another fine mess Obama has gotten up into .Obama is trying to pull all kinds of antics before the second debate. What a loser.


    by NCD on Mon, 10/15/2012 - 6:33pm

    "Guy from Main Street" - are you talking about Obama? Raised by a banker, Harvard Law grad? Real Mr. Smith goes to Washington stuff you got there, bud.


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 2:22am

    You mean guys from Main Street can't get to Harvard?  I'll bet many of them would differ.  And it's true that his grandmother became a banker--a pretty remarkable accomplishment--but their biographies tell us that Obama was raised by working class people.

    During World War II, Stanley Dunham enlisted in the Army. Madelyn worked the night shift on a Boeing B-29 assembly line in Wichita. Her brother Charlie Payne was part of the 89th Infantry Division, which liberated the Nazi concentration camp at Ohrdruf, a subcamp of Buchenwald,[10] a fact Barack Obama has referred to in speeches.[11] Madelyn gave birth to their only child, a daughter named Stanley Ann, who was later known as Ann, at St. Francis Hospital in Wichita on November 29, 1942.[12]

    With Madelyn and Stanley both working full-time, the family moved to Berkeley, California, Ponca City, Oklahoma,[13]Vernon, Texas,[14]El Dorado, Kansas, Seattle, Washington and finally settled in Mercer Island, Washington, where Ann graduated from Mercer Island High School. In El Dorado, Kansas, Stanley had managed a furniture store while Madelyn worked in restaurants. In Seattle, Stanley worked in a bigger furniture store (Standard-Grunbaum Furniture) while Madelyn eventually became vice-president of a local bank. Mercer Island was then "a rural, idyllic place," quiet, politically conservative and all white.[9] Madelyn and Stanley attended Sunday services at the East Shore Unitarian Church in nearby Bellevue.[9] While in Washington Madelyn attended the University of Washington although she never completed a degree.[2]


    by Ramona on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 7:20am

    I worked on the Island in the 1990's, it is smack dab in the middle of Lake Washington, it is now solid city, but has an excellent bike trail that goes across the i-90 bridge. We are now solidly liberal as a state and I attribute that to the way we vote. No one goes to the polls here, we all vote by mail. However, there continue to be pockets of conservatives and the Island is still one of those pockets along with parts of Bellevue.  Lucky for us they are small pockets. :)

    I haven't been keeping up with many blogs that have been hand wringing over the President. I just gave it up for political lent.

    But I recently purchased this, and it makes me smile every day.  It also makes me believe the President is winning this thing.. okay it doesn't make me believe this, but I am pretty damn sure he is winning this thing.


    by tmccarthy0 on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 8:56am

    Love it, Teri.  Maybe we should send one to Obama?


    by Ramona on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 11:18am

    Why are you reading us about Obama's grandparents? Obama grew up in Hawaii, his mom was an embassy worker/World Bank type in SE Asia, he went to a nice private prep school starting at 10 to 18, and went to Colombia and Harvard Law. 

    He was raised by his grandmother from 10 on - in 1970 she becoming the first female VP at Bank of Hawaii, Hawaii's 2nd oldest bank and #1 in the early 1970's, catering to great Chinese wealth on the islands & official bank for the Navy in the Pacific. Bank of Hawaii went on a growth spurt starting in the early 1960's when Dunham first started there, acquiring banks on small islands around the Pacific, expanding to Tokyo around the time Obama graduated, retiring in 1986.

    And I'm inclined to believe Obama's father was CIA rather than a furniture salesman, tied to Air Force operations or similar, with Boeing in Kansas, hops to Berkeley (nuke development), Seattle (Boeing?), Honolulu (Pacific fleet). Color me suspicious. (not that I believe every right-wing conspiracy theory).


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 8:58am

    I think you mean Obama's grandfather, and I don't know anything about his working for the CIA. That's usually classified, so not much info there.  But it's okay to speculate. What difference would it make if you found out he was?

    My husband had a pretty high security clearance and worked as a civilian for government contractors, including the Air Force and, all right, the CIA.  We lived in our house for 32 years and every few years the FBI would comb our neighborhood, asking our neighbors what kind of people we were.  Did we drink?  Do drugs? Did we pay our bills?  Did we seem to spend more than we made?  Anything suspicious about us? 

    So you can imagine what some of our neighbors must have thought.  I'm sure whatever explanation my husband gave wasn't good enough.  (Some of them thought it was pretty funny. They kept threatening to tell whoppers about us.  They couldn't wait for the next visit and were disappointed that the MIB would no longer be visiting once my guy retired.)


    by Ramona on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 9:30am

    Meant his grandfather. If he was in the CIA, made no difference at all that I know of - roughly equivalent to military service, which in Honolulu was kinda high percentage.


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 10:19am

    PP and Dan are a trip (no reference to you Jolly).

    Dan with his 'Obama is weak and incompetent' you with O's family CIA/Wall Street/banking credentials.

    So now Obama is like a Bush, without the oil wells? Then tell us why the right wing/GOP/Save Our Billionaires Future/ Koch/Adelson et al are spending tens of millions in an all out effort to defeat this toady, a minion of the CIA and Wall Street??


    by NCD on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 11:24am

    Because he's a Democrat. And even a completely captured Democrat isn't as good as a Republican who'll stack the court, prevent minorities voting, and rubber-stamp even more goodies for corporate donors.

    Also, the candidate belongs to those who brought him. So if Koch/Adelson bought and paid for Romney, they get a host of favors in return. Obama's benefactors are a different set, and Koch/Adelson/Rove don't get credit or greenstamps for his re-election.

    As I said above, his father being CIA wouldn't change anything. However, his grandma being bank VP and his schooling at Harvard seem to make him very comfortable with the banking class. Would you care to refute that? Did his appointments of Geithner and Summers signal a progressive, Main Street response to Wall Street meltdown? Is Smokin' Joe "insurance man" Biden the epitome of rebellion of the 99%?  (forget his Delaware nickname tied to the insurance industry)


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 11:54am

    Throw something like this into the fray and anything resembling a fair political game no longer exists.

    Koch Industries, other CEOs warn employees of layoffs if Obama is reelected

    My Republican brother-in-law is retired from Georgia-Pacific. I wonder if he's received any communication instructing him on the direction of his vote, not that the Koch brothers would have anything to worry about from him. I'd ask him except every time I look at him I want to puke.

    This election is definitely not the one to be lackadaisical about.

     


    by wabby on Mon, 10/15/2012 - 6:56pm

    Disgusting but not surprising.  It's why we fight.

    Thanks, Flower.


    by Ramona on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 11:19am

    If you want to give the left wing kids a strong reason to opt for Obama over Romney, you're going to have to give them a lot more to go on than the middle-of-the-road, middle-aged mush the Obama campaign is doling out.  Neither campaign is offering a bold plan for national recovery and growth, or speaking to the most pressing concerns of the next generation.  Why isn't Obama stepping into that vacuum?  If Obama thinks the dour and deluded bean-counting of Erskine Bowles is the way to inspire the next generation, he's nuts.

    Here's the OWS - New York online forum.  Make your pitch there:

    http://occupywallst.org/forum/


    by Dan Kervick on Mon, 10/15/2012 - 7:59pm

    Thanks, Dan, but I don't feel the need to go campaigning for an Obama vote.  Not at this late date, anyway.  We all know the issues and we all know what'll happen if the Republicans win.  All I want is for the inside attacks to end until after the election.

    There are plenty of places to vent our anger, but at the moment, venting against Obama will not get us a win.

    I'm asking for a moratorium, but I see you couldn't do it.  So be it.


    by Ramona on Mon, 10/15/2012 - 8:28pm

    Ramona, what are you on about? Where are these ferocious attacks on Obama taking place? You're the one who started attacking the left, in your comment to Dick above. 

    This is just getting weird. I'm out.


    by quinn esq on Mon, 10/15/2012 - 8:39pm

    Well, since you're gone I guess you won't see this.  It's just one of many, many, many more like it.  It's as if the far left's rage won't be assuaged until Obama is gone and the Romneys are in the White House.

    So that's what I'm "on about".  Okay?

     


    by Ramona on Mon, 10/15/2012 - 8:57pm

    That's great, Ramona. But you came in with a blog flaming the left, triggered by nothing on this site that anyone can detect, you then responded to Dick by going on further about the far left's anger and failure to think, and yet, felt entirely fine in criticizing Dan and say, "I'm asking for a moratorium, but I see you couldn't do it.  So be it."

    What kind of a crazy schtick is this you got going? Where you come in, heckle the left, proclaim you're only doing it because you want unity, then start it up again in the comments, but when someone writes back, you accuse them of "breaking the moratorum."

    To repeat, I'm not critiquing the propriety of you doing this. It's just an idiotic political move. And within the context of your blog, your accusation of breaking the moratorium is screamingly hypocritical.


    by quinn esq on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 12:32pm

    Right.  I've been naughty.  Noted.


    by Ramona on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 1:04pm

    Pffft.


    by quinn esq on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 4:17pm

    as I have added my shaky signature to the Declaratio Contra Piggies might I be forgiven the question:"Where is Obama's full throated plea for a Democratic. majority house? Instead he assumes a continued Repugnant bloc whose virulence is moderated because he has no future electoral contests in sight. Loyalty in return. for loyalty, ya feel me?. Fuck post partisan bullshit (HE STILL BELIEVES!!)

    by jollyroger on Mon, 10/15/2012 - 9:06pm

    I have no idea what you just said.


    by Ramona on Mon, 10/15/2012 - 9:20pm

    sorry, too high...I was expressing my chagrin that altho we all line up in "tribal' unity, Obama has yet to campaign for house dems, pressing the electorate for a Congress he can work with rather than a Republican House to which he can "reach out" in bipartisan comity. I was also referencing his 60 min interview where when asked how he could hope to get his 2nd term agenda past House obstruction, he referenced not the fear of God that he would put in their minds, but rather that once he wasn't running for anything their animus towards him would evaporate.

    by jollyroger on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 12:47am

    Yes, I get that.  Makes me crazy, too.  But this isn't just about Obama and the Dems, it's about the future of this country.  If we let Obama and the Dems lose, we've lost our only chance to actually get out of this.  That's not to say I see them as saviors; it's more about giving the finger to power.

    If the Republicans take over, it won't matter why it happened or how they did it.  What will matter is that every nasty critter that has ever threatened our existence will have been let out of their cages.  We will lose far more than an election.


    by Ramona on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 7:29am

    So the top Dem doesn't seem to care about the future of the country.

    Kinda bizarre, eh?


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 2:40pm

    So the top Dem doesn't seem to care about the future of the country.

    Is that what you got from what I said?  That's not what I said.  I believe wholeheartedly that President Obama cares deeply about the future of the country.  I don't always agree with his methods, but I have never questioned his loyalty or his concern.


    by Ramona on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 3:17pm

    "Obama has yet to campaign for house dems, pressing the electorate for a Congress he can work with rather than a Republican House to which he can "reach out" in bipartisan comity."

    "Yes, I get that.  Makes me crazy, too.  But this isn't just about Obama and the Dems, it's about the future of this country.  If we let Obama and the Dems lose, we've lost our only chance to actually get out of this."

    Excuse me that I know how to add 2 and 2 to get 4.

    And actions speak louder than words.


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 3:39pm

    No, PP, you don't get to put words in my mouth. Nothing I've said there even hints that I believe Obama doesn't care about this country.  In fact, the opposite. 

    What part of "If we let Obama and the Dems lose, we've lost our only chance to actually get out of this," would make you think that?


    by Ramona on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 4:01pm

    If getting Obama & Dems in Congress re-elected is our only chance, and Obama isn't campaigning for Dems in Congress, then he's either not as swift as you or he doesn't care.

    Q.E.D. Après moi le déluge. Ipso facto, hic haec hoc.

    Maybe it's time to wake up and smell the Drano.


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 4:20pm

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/elizabeth-warren-obama_n_1969893.html


    by Ramona on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 5:23pm

    Congrats for a single photo-op.

    Now read the book.


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 6:29pm

    Doesn't seem to care, is hardly a fact, it's just a feeling, "you feel he doesn't care". But that actually doesn't equal a fact, unless of course you can read minds, like Carnack.


    by tmccarthy0 on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 4:22pm

    I'm putting together comments from Jolly & Ramona - ask them what they intended.

    JR just might be Carnack. Or Carwreck, depending on dosage behind the wheel.. 

    If you want to spin the Wheel of Fortune, have a guess yourself - why doesn't Obama campaign for congressional seats in trouble? Above the fray? Can't be bothered? Doesn't go well with suit? Worried it'd cause more damage than help?


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 4:34pm

    Let me take this opportunity to say that I don't drive on acid anymore, and I would advise others not to as well...(referencing an unnpleasant experience rounding the ascending curve of the Triboro Bridge involving a conviction that the car was going to take flight any minute...otoh, "no harm no foul", as they say...(pp will enjoy the tidbit that I was on my way to the Long Island home of Ouspensky's old secretary ...)

    by jollyroger on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 4:58pm

    Summarized in "meetings with remarkable secretaries", no doubt


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 6:24pm

    might have made a better "meetings" movie than that other one, which should have served as a cautionary exemplar to the Battleground Earth producers. Earnest followers of quasi cults make shitty movies.

    by jollyroger on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 8:08pm

    I thought Simpsons was okay and Mario Brothers very good, but think I see what you mean - quasi cults that think they're a religion.


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 8:52pm

    (Especially when you're driving in a rain storm in a car with windshield wipers that only smear the water except for one small spot with three passengers who, in their excited acid glee, are unaware of the potential doom that awaits them.)


    by Elusive Trope on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 7:24pm

    It is certainly beyond peradventure that a Repugnant government (even with a dem Senate ) will complete the destruction already on train. Hence my.resolve to brave the unaccustomed rigors of morning activity in trekking to Philly.

    by jollyroger on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 3:42pm

    In districts that elected a Republican in 2010 and thus is at best a purple district, there is a good likelihood that the Democratic candidate does not want Obama to campaign for him or her.


    by Elusive Trope on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 10:19am

    True. But that's not the same as saying something to the voters about the importance of having a constructive Congress, one that actually will work with him to address problems the voters care about instead of seeking to undermine and destroy him at every turn. 


    by AmericanDreamer on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 10:51am

    I do remember seeing a report some time ago about how a lot of people, esp independents, prefer one party controlling Congress and the other party controlling the WH.  For these folks, it is more than saying one needs a constructive Congress, it becomes an exercise in persuasion, at a time you're also have other things you're trying to persuade them about.  So sometimes it may be just a case of having to pick the one or two things you are trying to persuade on, and getting a constructive congress ends up being too far down the list.  I'm not saying this is necessarily the right way, but rather that this is probably why it has not been brought up.


    by Elusive Trope on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 1:05pm

    I can think of many reasons why it has not been brought up.  Many of these are obvious.

    It is also obvious that unless the House flips pretty much any positive policy proposals requiring legislation are DOA for at least 2 years.  And that the kind of brass knuckle tactics we've seen from the House Republicans are likely to continue, if not intensify.  With all that that entails.

    Yes, there are risks with pretty much any course of action aimed at influencing the outcome of the election that one might choose, and certainly at this point in the campaign.  Of course. 

    One advantage of asking for a constructive Congress while connecting that to something specific you have tried to do, on the single biggest issue in the campaign, and want to do again if the voters give you that constructive Congress, is that it gives people a clearer sense of the choice they face on an issue they have said is of paramount concern to them.  Apart from the policy talk, I think the subtext such an appeal can convey if done right is to signal confidence and optimism--in this case at a time when that would be particularly welcome. 

    If you think that that move and that framing favors you more than it hurts you do it--knowing full well that, as with any course of action you take, there are risks.  Including the risk of not acting.


    by AmericanDreamer on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 1:17pm

    People who cherish divided govetnment need to be walked through the debt ceiling crisis slowly, with careful annotations to the current sequestration angst. Of course, there were no less than two independent presidential remedies leftvon the table by that worthless punk. Seignorage and the 14th amendment.

    by jollyroger on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 3:56pm

    I get that many would prefer to stand next to a werewolf than Obama at their rally. That said, consider the venues that went strongly for O but saw nothing back when there was a chance to make manifest the reasons for a partisan world view. One word: Wisconsin.

    by jollyroger on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 3:46pm

    The operative word is "partisan."   Whatever was said during his 2008 campaign, the one thing that Obama was truly honest about himself is his desire for bipartisanship - a facet which propelled him over Clinton, and the McCain (because no matter how partisan people are, they are many who like to believe they are bipartisan by nature).

    If we wanted someone to go for the jugular, we (liberal Dems) needed to nominate Clinton.

    Obama is just not the guy to consistently pound the drum for partisan fury.  He will always be at his core "there is no red state America there is no blue state America there is only the United States of America."  The reason this was so powerful was because it is a fundamental core belief, not just a tag line he was throwing out.


    by Elusive Trope on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 7:42pm

    Yeah, that "no red/no blue " bullshit bothered me at the time...

    by jollyroger on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 8:32pm

    Yet it resonates with many of your fellow Americans.


    by Elusive Trope on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 8:38pm

    Rubes!

    by jollyroger on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 8:49pm

    (HE STILL BELIEVES!!)

    I think he'd have to go into deep psychotherapy (and perhaps severe aversion therapy) not to. If you didn't read his two books (conveniently published giving ample time for all to read before he ran for the presidency,) here's why in short, from Wikipedia:

    Of his early childhood, Obama recalled, "That my father looked nothing like the people around me—that he was black as pitch, my mother white as milk—barely registered in my mind."[9] He described his struggles as a young adult to reconcile social perceptions of his multiracial heritage.[22] Reflecting later on his years in Honolulu, Obama wrote: "The opportunity that Hawaii offered—to experience a variety of cultures in a climate of mutual respect—became an integral part of my world view, and a basis for the values that I hold most dear."[23]

    Place yourself as a bi-racial American with a hippie mom in this situation from age 6 to 10, attending: local Indonesian-language schools: St. Francis of Assisi Catholic School for two years and Besuki Public School for one and half years and move on to Hawaiin mixed-heritage schools, and tell me what you learn about operating life in general. Be combative? And fight fight fight? I don't think so. More like: think, manuever, manipulate.


    by artappraiser on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 10:57am

    Place yourself as a bi-racial American with a hippie mom in this situation from age 6 to 10, attending: local Indonesian-language schools: St. Francis of Assisi Catholic School for two years and Besuki Public School for one and half years and move on to Hawaiin mixed-heritage schools, and tell me what you learn about operating life in general. Be combative? And fight fight fight? I don't think so. More like: think, manuever, manipulate.

    Yes.  And some people do change and adapt, especially in response to intense, crisis-laden experiences or adversity.  They can even expand their repertoires of coping strategies.  Even in adulthood.  Such as: the cagy conflict avoider who learns, despite himself and at long last, how to effectively confront when necessary (I speak from some personal experience myself in that regard.  I don't like confrontation.  In adulthood, and not earlier, I have learned, despite myself and at long last, to do that when I conclude that I need to.  Not always effectively, BTW, not saying that.  I hope I've improved and gotten better at the effectiveness part of that.)  

    To think this does not happen is, I think, to be inattentive to human behavior in a way I believe you are surely not.  And many presidents have changed while in office, in response to crisis.  I'll say this: if we are a society that needs to make and adapt to some difficult changes, and we have a president who is unable to do that himself despite its seemingly evident survival value for someone in that job...well, then add that to the list of challenges we are going to have to overcome.


    by AmericanDreamer on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 12:21pm

    Not to resurrect an interchange with A-man that got me serially expunged, I should reflect that although Prez and Biden are both lawyers only Biden tried cases. Prez chose to teach, not battle.

    by jollyroger on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 3:49pm

    I don't read books, but I do listen to the book tour interviews on NPR... That said, herein the danger of imbibing Limbaugh for the sheer schadenfreude of it all. He kept saying that the post partisan thing was just a pose, masking an inner Trotsky...I so wanted to believe!

    by jollyroger on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 4:00pm

    Wait, you don't read books.. Come on Jolly, you aren't serious. I am reading "If Chins Could Kill" and it is hilarious and worth reading. 

    PS Bruce Campbell pays me to write this everywhere.


    by tmccarthy0 on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 4:25pm

    Well, I do carry around a copy of Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas for when my android goes down, but I'm not sure if that counts cause I already read it before...

    by jollyroger on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 4:47pm

    I think I smoked mine.


    by quinn esq on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 6:56pm

    If you macerate it and make an alcohol extract you get DMT.(provided you bought the special Acacia paper edition...)

    by jollyroger on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 8:39pm

    Ramona, thanks for the links--the Stockman piece is especially interesting, considering the source and where it is being published.  I'm thinking it might register, at least, with some folks who fashion themselves savvy in understanding finance and economics who seem  sympathetic to a view that Romney's record and statements suggest he understands anything important for the rest of us about, and would be good for, American job creation or the health of the economy as a whole.  Will send this link if I can think of anyone I know who meets that description...   


    by AmericanDreamer on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 12:03pm

    Yup. Far and away the best of the links. Stockmans' piece should be being mass-mailed.


    by quinn esq on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 12:23pm

    Just saw the latest Obama commercial on MSNBC (no, not the one on Conan)- it's narrated by Morgan Freeman - i.e. God.

    The man who made penguins the most dramatic and compelling creatures on earth.

    Keep playing the commercial and we can't lose.

     

     

     


    by Elusive Trope on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 6:46pm

    I'm glad about Detroit.  But across America as a whole, assembly lines are hardly "humming".


    by Dan Kervick on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 8:49pm

    It's a great commercial.  Morgan/God is in fine voice.


    by Ramona on Tue, 10/16/2012 - 8:57pm

    Latest Comments