Generally speaking I think the entire argument in favor of Obama is being approached from the hyperbolic reductionist position where it is an undebatable given that somehow the oceans swallow up the land and the sun goes dark if any Republican takes the White House .... there is no good that any of them could possibly do, ever, and any assertions otherwise means the asserter is either a racist, sexist, or some other sort of 'ist' .... or, if you are feeling charitable, they are simply viewing things through rose colored glasses. It's exactly the same crap the republicans did (and are still doing) with Obama ... they are still flogging the "he's a deep radical left winger socialist" thing.

For a specific example, take the case of Ron Paul: unquestionable racist.

Sure, Ron Paul has like 2 sentences specifically attributed to him that are pretty damn crappy when viewed floating in isolation. But ... hell ... some of the stuff Bill Cosby said would be a total scandal if put in Ron Paul's mouth and stripped down to a single sentence. Shit ... Cosby was pilloried somewhat by taking the best quotes out of context as it was. Paul has said many times he feels the comments need the full context of the article to be properly judged ... that doesn't seem particularly unreasonable. Yet it's never once been included in any reporting I can find.

If it was Obama getting questioned similarly, you would be *demanding* that the press publish the entire context of the piece in question. And you would be excoriating anyone who tried to argue while refusing to acknowledge a quote to fullness that met your specifications. As well you should. In contrast ... you don't even give a shit about any of that for Ron Paul; not worth debating, jury out, no context needed, we all know what those guys all *really think* anyhow ... on to trivial dismissal as deep racist.

My question is why don't you think people who aren't on "your side" deserve the same level of honesty in debating their history and positions with full context and the potential outcomes if they were elected with a similar level of rationality to what you most certainly demand when questions are pointed at a Democratic candidate?

I'm as much speaking in the "royal you" sense here as to you personally ... where it fits, apply personally ... where it doesn't, don't.

Personally, I think that Ron Paul might be the strongest option the Republicans have, if not Jon Huntsman. Those two are the two most likely to peel off independents, whereas most of the others are more likely to push them over to Obama. Romney might be somewhere in between.

Too many points and too little time.

I give you this one.

I'll only say this: Making more sense than any other Republican candidate is a pretty low bar, in my opinion.

I don't know if he should be judged against "other Republicans" or by the validity of his ideas. "He makes good sense...for a Republican."

We can, and I guess do, disagree on this.

Thanks for the chat.

All kinds of people believed in Obama. Was he credible therefore?

People can start to believe all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons.

If you are talking about media-driven polls, then, well...that's TeeVee, isn't it? And how well does Paul poll outside of a few pockets?

The only poll that counts is the election.

The only thing that builds actual credibility is whether a person accomplishes what he says he's going to accomplish.

How much slack you cut him when he inevitably falls short is an individual matter.

Jesus STILL hasn't returned, but Christians still find it credible that he will. Given that his believers think he's God, there isn't much excuse for his tarrying, is there?

I certainly think he's nailed why folks who aren't self-identified liberal but are against war, the corporate/banker capture of government, etc. don't see the party as a viable vehicle to enable their political goals.

You forget the long history of the right's attack on liberalism, which goes far beyond and begins far earlier than "the war" and the "banker bailouts." Many erstwhile Democratic Party loyalists did move to conservatism and Republicanism, and it wasn't because the Democrats weren't sufficiently anti-war or pro union or had abandoned their principles.

“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes,” President Obama, September 12, 2008

Beginning January 1, 2013, ObamaCare imposes a 3.8% Medicare tax on unearned income of “high-income” taxpayers which could apply to proceeds from the sale of single family homes, townhouses, co-ops, condominiums, and even rental income, depending on your individual circumstances and any capital gains tax exclusions. Importantly, the “high income” thresholds are not indexed for inflation so will reach increasing numbers of middle-class taxpayers over time.
 VOTERS NEED TO KNOW.

It most likely has the inheritance to your children penalized also upon taking receipt of your home, to boot.

IF YOU OWN A HOME - IT IS IN THE HEALTH CARE BILL!!!!!!!!!!!!

BE SURE TO FORWARD THIS TO ALL YOUR 'FRIENDS' - REPUBLICANS, INDEPENDENTS AND DEMOCRATS Subject: 

If You Own a Home-please read
Read second paragraph carefully if you intend on selling your home after 2012.

 THIS WILL BLOW YOU AWAY !!!!!

The National Association of REALTORS is all over this and working to get it repealed,  before it takes effect.  But,  I am very pleased we aren't the only ones who know about this ploy to steal billions from unsuspecting homeowners.  How many REALTORS do you think will vote Democratic in 2012?

 Did you know that if you sell your house after 2012 you will pay a 3.8% sales tax on it?  That's $3,800 on a $100,000 home,  etc.  When did this happen?  It's in the health care bill and goes into effect in 2013.............. Why 2013?  Could it be to come to light AFTER the 2012 elections?  So,  this is "change you can believe in"?  Under the new health care bill all real estate transactions will be subject to a 3.8% Sales Tax.
 If you sell a $400,000 home,  there will be a $15,200 tax.  This bill is set to screw the retiring generation who often downsize their homes. 

Does this make your November and 2012 vote more important?

THIS WAS EMAILED TO ME ------ I HOPE IT' NOT TRUE 

OBAMAS PLAN ......NO HELP FOR THE HOMEOWNER; THE BANKER AND GOVERNMENT SLAVES  

(You may not be able to fix stupid, but you don't have to vote them back into office) 

Thanks for your response. I'll try to respond later. I don't think the points are "bull crap," but that's the way we liberals talk.

PP: 1) Social Security was more limited initially, but please explain what aspect of Social Security changed dramatically? And what was as objectionable as the corporate aspect of "health care reform" that hasn't actually contained costs nor prevented more cuts to Medicare et al?

PS: I guess it depends on how serious you think it was to exclude women and minorities and various job categories. My point is really that SS evolved, and I see no reason why HCR can't evolve. It's barely been implemented. I do think he made some mistakes with this--Medicare For All would have been better and may have had a better chance of easily passing. But he put points on the board on an issue that had eluded progressives for the entire century and deserves credit for it  in my book. But I understand that that's a personal judgement and I can't "prove" it to you.

PP: 2) he "caved" to the racist southern party & didn't integrate the army? well he didn't go to the moon either. shame on him.

PS: This is silly, PP. But I dare say if we transported the Dixiecrat issue into today's arena, it would be considered a serious failing on the president's part. Certainly on par with knocking out terrorists with drones.

PP: 3) the US economy suffered a 1937 recession due to monetary tightening. It was fixed by 1939, long before we got into WWII. FDR got us out of the depression.

PS: That was two years into his second term, no? I believe he resolved much of the unemployment, but didn't necessarily get the economy going--two different things. Obama's job numbers from the time he took office show a pretty good picture, too. There seems to be a lot of discussion, even on the left, whether FDR got us out of the Depression, even if he did a lot to ameliorate its impact. You seem certain--why?

PP: 4) FDR's New Deal was monstrous in its creativity and effect. All Obama had to do was throw a few trillions at banks, and voila, our recovery. Sadly, he didn't do much for mortgages or job programs, but such are our conservative times when we're all Hooverites.

PS: Well, to be fair, I think there was a lot of uncertainty as to the best course of action. I'm not sure most people understood the problem or what to do until after they'd thought about it awhile. Of course, some people had it right from the beginning. But some people are always right, aren't they? I agree, FDR was far more creative than Obama. But he also had less debt and more lattitude from Congress to be creative. But yes, Obama, once in office, proved himself to be too cautious. I agree.

PP: 5) FDR had the "advantage" of being elected after people had tried for 4 years to cure a worldwide problem. Oh joy, what a lucky guy to walk into the depression in March 1933 - such career possibilities. Which button is "go"?

PS: He had the advantage of seeing what did not work. He also had the advantage of not carrying any of the blame for the crisis. Because of the timing, it was clearly Hoover's depression. The same can't be said for this recession. In Obama's case, they made the mistake of thinking that the recession was like the Depression, when different forces (over indebtedness) were at work and would need different solutions. It was perhaps a natural assumption, but wrong. He's come to understand the crisis late and faces the difficult problem of convincing people that the cure for too much spending and debt is even more spending and debt. This is hard for the average person to grok. It's counter-intuitive.

PP: 6) I really don't give a shit about Obama's personal life, and the reception he got coming into office including a grossly undeserved Nobel Peace Prize, shows his uphill battle wasn't terribly uphill (PS - he was raised by the VP of a bank and a furniture store owner and went to a cherry prep school - can we ditch the poor young black child growing up in the south meme already?) - the majority of America plus the rest of the world was rooting for him, and his failures have been from timidity, lack of creativity and caviling to the opposition that obviously didn't want him to succeed from the get-go. Bad strategy. (Yes, Hillary warned him that there wouldn't be a new day in Washington with manna from heaven, and that he'd have to take it to the people. But he didn't listen because she's a chick. And he dismantled his popular ground organization and focused on imitating Bush to look like he's "serious" and "bi-partisan"

PS: He made bad choices, I agree. And? I disagree on the personal life impact, especially if you compare the lives of the two men. He ran on a bi-partisan platform. It was a great part of his appeal. It may even have accounted for his election. And I think it's what he believed and maybe still does. It would've been hypocritical for him to have abandoned that stance right away or even after signs of trouble. I think he hung on to that hope for too long, but I'm not him.

PP: 7) And Democrats had a majority in both houses when he was elected. Yes, he had Blue Dogs among those, so it wasn't as simple as FDR's super majority. But I can't think of anything Obama did that showed real out-of-the-box thinking on any of the issues (aside from cutting spending in the middle of a recession as a prelude to some supposed jobs program that has no chance of passing). Everything has been milque-toast and ineffective compromise and loads of excuses and coulda-shoulda-woulda.

PS: He has been too cautious, IMO. Mostly, he let the opposition set the terms of the debate on spending and cutting. I don't know how much of that was due to what he actually thought and how much of it was due to miscalculation about the virulence and determination of the opposition.

PP: Maybe he can try for a good presidency this term.

PS: Hopefully, yes. But not if his supporters abandon him. We'll see. One advantage of a Romney presidency will be a more unified left.