Brief points I always like the bit when the fact checkers change the criteria. To the one, that's fine; to the other, we ought not pretend that what the fact checkers find when they change the criteria is necessarily something new. And then there's the hilarious bit about how the Romney campaign thinks the fact checkers shouldn't apply to the Republican campaign. We have to remember that Republicans are invoking a standard the Romney campaign refuses to apply to itself. Which, of course, is nothing new; Mitt Romney's demands for special accommodation—tax returns, policy details, performance assessment, and as of last week, truth itself—are getting just a bit ridiculous.
Note that he's only a nose ahead of one Ronald Reagan by that measure. Of course, since you are a principled opponent of large government and high spending, it follows that you have always disapproved of Reagan's profligate ways and explosion of the deficit, even going back to the 1980's when it occurred. Furthermore, you would explicitly oppose the idea that the next President ought to emulate Reagan - big spender that he was - right?
The Fantastic Barack Obama The Fantastic Barack Obama "For the first 2 years he had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate." —Chris Wallace, FOX News We've heard the line a few times, here and there. As Steve Benen notes, "It's in Republicans' interest right now to characterize the Democrats' congressional majority in 2009 and 2010 as enormous. As the argument goes, President Obama could get literally anything he wanted from Congress in his first two years, so Democrats don't have any excuses." Over the weekend, FOX News host Chris Wallace argued with Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, claiming that Obama "had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate" for two years. Thus, Benen reminds: In January 2009, there were 56 Senate Democrats and two independents who caucused with Democrats. This combined total of 58 included Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), whose health was failing and was unable to serve. As a practical matter, in the early months of Obama's presidency, the Senate Democratic caucus had 57 members on the floor for day-to-day legislating. In April 2009, Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter switched parties. This meant there were 57 Democrats, and two independents who caucused with Democrats, for a caucus of 59. But with Kennedy ailing, there were still "only" 58 Democratic caucus members in the chamber. In May 2009, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) was hospitalized, bringing the number of Senate Dems in the chamber down to 57. In July 2009, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) was finally seated after a lengthy recount/legal fight. At that point, the Democratic caucus reached 60, but two of its members, Kennedy and Byrd, were unavailable for votes. In August 2009, Kennedy died, and Democratic caucus again stood at 59. In September 2009, Sen. Paul Kirk (D-Mass.) filled Kennedy's vacancy, bringing the caucus back to 60, though Byrd's health continued to deteriorate. In January 2010, Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) replaced Kirk, bringing the Democratic caucus back to 59 again. In June 2010, Byrd died, and the Democratic caucus fell to 58, where it stood until the midterms. [Update: Jonathan Bernstein reminds me that Byrd's replacement was a Dem. He's right, though this doesn't change the larger point.] Wallace believes the Dems' "filibuster proof majority in the Senate" lasted 24 months. In reality, he's off by 20 months, undermining the entire thesis pushed so aggressively by Republicans. The strange thing is the Republican determination to run against a fantasy. One would think that, if President Obama was so awful, Mitt Romney and the Republican Party could run against the actual President, and not some fancifully ugly bogeyman. Of course, Clint Eastwood certainly made the point at the GOP convention, lecturing his own imagination. Apparently, Republicans think Americans are complete morons. The proposition that people have no idea what's been going on in the U.S. for the last few years is always an interesting gamble. But, as I've noted before, there is a difference between acknowledging voter ignorance and exploiting it. Republicans need ignorant voters. Republicans want ignorant voters. That's the only way they can continue to run their fantasy campaigns against demons of their own imagination. ____________________ Notes: Benen, Steve. "A fleeting, illusory supermajority". The Maddow Blog. September 3, 2012. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. September 4, 2012. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/09/03/13641077-a-fleeting-illusory-supermajority
Romney and the Stupid Stick I have heard all of ... what, ten minutes of the Democratic Convention? And, well, yeah. They're absolutely beating the living shiznat out of Mitt Romney for the disrespect of apathy shown our troops overseas. It's one thing to simply wonder how the Democrats got the upper hand on defense and security; it's something else entirely to actually witness it. At this point, a smack on the wrists, a Dunce cap, and a short stool in the corner would be merciful.
The Democrats apparently forced through a voice vote that had an uncertain outcome, regarding the adoption of two more platform positions. The God thing was utterly stupid, I actually admired them for leaving it out this time, it's more inclusive of those with no faith. And Jerusalem? Is that a religious thing too? How is that non-negotiable? Elizabeth Warren is up there now lying about Obama standing up to Wall Street. Does she expect us to believe that? He got through some weak legislation at best.
I've taken a dimmer view of Bill after reading Hitchens' scathing book about him, but there's no question he's an amazing politician. Nobody--not even Obama--can do what he's doing on the stage right now.
The standard liberal take on Bill Clinton is that he was the best Republican president of the post WWII era, his only rival being Eisenhower. Still true. As Tom Tomorrow's penguin put it: "He's not on your side". But we do enjoy watching him set fire to the reactionary bat-belfry.
I've heard that Obama personally demanded that God & Jerusalem as the capital of Israel be put back in the platform. Clearly the chairman was not going to take no for an answer. Watch this video and tell me it sounds like 2/3 of the delegates voted to in favor of the amendment: [video=youtube;LcfsEpkVPps]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcfsEpkVPps&feature=youtube_gdata_player [/video]
That's certainly not the standard liberal's take, though he did make a lot of compromises in order to forward his agenda. That's what made him such a great politician. He played ball.
Well if that's true, then liberals are idiots. I've never met anyone who said that, and certainly not anyone who knows what they're talking about. He compromised a lot, but the country enjoyed success as a result. We've had to fight back against some of his policies recently, such as the Defense of Marriage act and Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but Clinton didn't give more ground than he gained.
Sorry to hear that. The better liberal pundits and essayists are worth checking out - often very insightful, and almost universally more reliable sources of info and analysis than most others. But you don't have to go listen to people like Rachel Maddow , intelligent and well-informed as she is, or books like "Stupid White Men" by Michael Moore, or blogs like Americapedia , or randomly popping up in the comments section of the DailyKos , or here or here - you can find the opinion in all kinds of places, such Tim Russert's interview with Alan Greenspan in 2007 on "Meet The Press":
It's been around The joke's been around a long time, and has diverse subscribers ranging from Michael Moore (2000) and Rachel Maddow (2010) on the liberal side to Alan Greenspan (2007). Clinton himself, as I understand, doesn't get it. Most people I know who use the line refer to his surrender to the Reagan economy, including GLB (Glass-Steagall repeal). And when they turn the joke on Obama, as many already have, the Heritage Foundation's health reform plan will be at the top of the list for reasons why.
Good Omens It's a little early for Democrats to start popping champagne corks, but President Obama might just have won the election as the stock market just hit a twelve-year high. And imagine that: the surge is a response to the ECB announcing it will buy bonds from debt-plagued, cash-strapped governments.
Yes but most investors, especially those buying gold, think that means more money to make inflation (someday at least) or to buy stocks. I.e. they don´t know what "sterilize" is / means wrt the ECB´s buying of Italian and Spanish bonds.
Businesses have been doing quite well under the Obama presidency and so have the stock markets. The big drag on the stock market and the US economy has been Europe. After the appointment of Draghi (EU Central Bank) earlier this year, things have been getting better in Europe. Europe is finally doing what we did in the US - liqudity crisis averted and the stock markets rally. I am betting the jobs numbers released tomorrow will be better than expected. This is very bad news for the people who need and want bad economic news (i.e. Republicans).
Matthew 26:34 This didn't take long: [video=youtube;mNQuT2worqc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNQuT2worqc&feature=youtu.be[/video] No doubt meant to be reminisent of Matthew 26.34
HOGWASH. It looks to me like some folks are getting desperate. This is silly. If that is all you have to make a stink about, then you have much bigger problems.
Well, it's Rep. West, after all Of course it didn't take long. It's Rep. West, one of the craziest and most vicious Republicans have to offer. This is one of those things; the delegates don't want to be bullied by Rapeublicans, and the party leadership knows how important this sort of superficial horse excrement can be. Score one for the godly rape advocates in the GOP. And there really is no elegant way to write "Rapeublicans". Maybe it's better to just imply the sound: Republicans.
