The Obama File

[spidergoat]

...
There was no lie, other than your tortured attempt to paper over what Obama said. He clearly said that anyone who starts a business "didn't do that"....

Didn't do what? Start a business or build a road? If you don't say build a road, then you are the liar.

[joepistole]

As is typical of the left, you assume anyone who doesn't agree with you is either stupid or evil.

No that is hogwash. When people regardless of political opinion are wrong, they are wrong. It just so happens that people with your political agenda are wrong most of the time – not to mention all of the moral short falls that you guys frequently exhibit (e.g. Limbaugh’s Operation Chaos, public misrepresentations as in this instance, and the many and frequent unfounded conspiracies promulgated and perpetuated by your people, death panels, communists & Muslim infiltration of our government, etc.).

There was no lie, other than your tortured attempt to paper over what Obama said. He clearly said that anyone who starts a business "didn't do that".

There was no “papering over”. There was no need to. Obama’s words when taken in context were quite clear. That is why you and your fellow Republican/Tea Party partisans felt in necessary to selectively lift President Obama’s words out of context and misrepresent them as you have many times before. Because Obama’s words when taken in context do not convey the message you like. That is why you and your fellows have the need to cherry pick his words and misrepresent them. News Flash: that is dishonest Mad.

Yes, we all benefit from living in a society which allows each of us to specialize and find what we can do best rather than each being forced to live as subsistence level farmers or hunter-gatherers. This is obvious and uncontroversial. If this is, as you claim, what Obama actually meant then it is a straw man argument of the first order.

No that is not what President Obama meant. I have to believe that you'r smart enough to understand Obama‘s words as Obama was quite clear in expressing his meaning. He said essentially no man is an island. We are all dependent on each other and our government to create the conditions that are necessary for successful business formation and growth and he pointed out some examples.

Now that reality runs counter to your political ideology, an ideology that believes in the notion of a magical job creator class. But your rather strange political ideology does not make reality any less real.

But I don't believe it is what he meant. I think it is one of those little slip ups that reveals what President Obama really believes.

Correction, you don’t want to believe what President Obama really said. Instead you would rather inject paranoia and reality distortions into what President Obama actually said.

Barack Obama does not believe in Horatio Alger. He doesn't believe in American exceptionalism. He believes in a government. Not the limited government of our founders, but a government not bound by any quaint notions such as "private property". After all, how can private property exist when everything each of us achieves is ultimately the result of the many benefits we all are lucky enough to have bestowed upon us by government?

How do you know that President Obama doesn’t believe in Horatio Alger? How do you know President Obama doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism? Additionally, American exceptionalism is a rather vague term. While it is a popular term in American right wing circles, it is hard to detail in any meaningful manner. In other words, American exceptionalism is one of the many words people such as yourself use to demagogue issues. Do you realize, the term American exceptionalism originated in communist circles? It is kind of funny to see neo conservatives adopt the term as their own.

So you don’t believe in government? What is your alternative to government? And just where the basis for this “limited” government you profess was the intent of our founding fathers. You do realize that most of the founding fathers created the Constitution to form a stronger central government? The original “Articles of Confederation” didn’t work out for the founding fathers. That weak central government notion was tried and it didn’t work even back then when everything was much simpler. That is why the founding fathers created a stronger central government. The kind of government you and your fellow conservatives are now advocating was tried and it didn't work.

Here's a nice perspective on Obama's comment:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...2313230.column

Oh, all I got was a bunch of advertising.

[madanthonywayne]

Didn't do what? Start a business or build a road? If you don't say build a road, then you are the liar.

It's not at all clear that that was what he meant, I don't think it was. If so, it was certainly a poor turn of phrase akin to Mr. Romney's "I'm not concerned about the very poor" comment. Like the comment by Romney, this comment may well have staying power because it plays into pre-existing ideas people have about the candidates. Here's a recent ad put out by the NRCC on the topic:


(I wanted to try out the new embed video function.)

[quadraphonics]

As is typical of the left, you assume anyone who doesn't agree with you is either stupid or evil.

That kind of ideation is totally routine in right-wing criticism. Why you imagine it's typical of the left is a mystery. Conservatives are always going on and on about how liberals just don't understand economics or how capitalism works, or how they want to undermine moral values and institutions. You can't possibly be oblivious to all that.

Yes, we all benefit from living in a society which allows each of us to specialize and find what we can do best rather than each being forced to live as subsistence level farmers or hunter-gatherers. This is obvious and uncontroversial. If this is, as you claim, what Obama actually meant then it is a straw man argument of the first order.

That is not what he claimed Obama meant. He was referring to the thorough-going reliance of all entrepreneurs and businesses on the variety of social and physical infrastructure to enable them to operate at all. This isn't just a matter of "specialization." Stone-aged tribes had specialization. He was making the point that the ideal of free-market entrepreneurship can only exist within an enabling framework of an educated, secure population with useful infrastructure and institutions to support it. This is to contrast with the stilted image of the Randian Superhero, who produces profit from the very Earth through sheer will and capability. He's knocking down the false idol of the Producer King, and reminding us that society is a shared enterprize that we all have a stake in.

But I don't believe it is what he meant. I think it is one of those little slip ups that reveals what President Obama really believes.

You think Obama "really believes" that people who worked to start businesses did not actually work to start businesses? That he really, literally "believes" a sentence that is self-contradictory? That's preposterous.

Barack Obama does not believe in Horatio Alger.

That's a patently ridiculous accusation to level at a person with the biography of Barack Obama.

He doesn't believe in American exceptionalism.

Raises the question of what you are even referring to with that term. It's normally taken to mean that America has a unique duty to spread democracy and liberalism. Which is to say that it's out of place in this context. So, what are you referring to?

He believes in a government. Not the limited government of our founders, but a government not bound by any quaint notions such as "private property". After all, how can private property exist when everything each of us achieves is ultimately the result of the many benefits we all are lucky enough to have bestowed upon us by government?

Now you're off into paranoid fantasy-land. Obama is out to do away with private property and impose some "unlimited" totalitarianism? Do you realize how unhinged you sound?

Meanwhile: have you read what the Founders had to say about corporations and the proper relationship between them and society and the state?

Or, how about some things Obama has actually said about the subjects you invoke:

Our economic dependence depended on individual initiative. It depended on a belief in the free market; but it has also depended on our sense of mutual regard for each other, the idea that everybody has a stake in the country, that we’re all in it together and everybody’s got a shot at opportunity. That’s what’s produced our unrivaled political stability.

All the money in the world won’t boost student achievement if parents make no effort to instill in their children the values of hard work and delayed gratification.

You have shown what history teaches us — that at defining moments like this one, the change we need doesn’t come from Washington. Change comes to Washington.

If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer. … It’s the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled. Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been just a collection of individuals or a collection of red states and blue states. We are, and always will be, the United States of America.

The question we ask today is not how big or small our government is, but whether it works.

What’s more, we are the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea – the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny. That is why centuries of pioneers and immigrants have risked everything to come here. It’s why our students don’t just memorize equations, but answer questions like “What do you think of that idea? What would you change about the world? What do you want to be when you grow up?

We shouldn’t just give our people a government that’s more affordable. We should give them a government that’s more competent and efficient. We cannot win the future with a government of the past

And yet, as contentious and frustrating and messy as our democracy can sometimes be, I know there isn’t a person here who would trade places with any other nation on Earth. We may have differences in policy, but we all believe in the rights enshrined in our Constitution. We may have different opinions, but we believe in the same promise that says this is a place where you can make it if you try. We may have different backgrounds, but we believe in the same dream that says this is a country where anything’s possible. No matter who you are. No matter where you come from

That is the true genius of America, a faith in the simple dreams of its people, the insistence on small miracles. That we can say what we think, write what we think, without hearing a sudden knock on the door. That we can have an idea and start our own business without paying a bribe or hiring somebody's son. That we can participate in the political process without fear of retribution, and that our votes will be counted

Our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom. But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, the vulnerable can be exploited. And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter -- that at that point we don't merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves.

I think that there's always been a spectrum of opinion about how unfettered the free market is. And along that spectrum, I think there have been some who believe in very fierce regulation and are very suspicious of globalization, and there are others who think that it's always -- that the market is always king. And I think what we've learned here, but if anybody had been studying history they would have understood earlier, is that the market is the most effective mechanism for creating wealth and distributing resources to produce goods and services that history has ever known, but that it goes off the rail sometimes; that if it's completely unregulated, that if there are no thoughtful frameworks to channel the creative energy of the market, that it can end up in a very bad place.

Hope is what led a band of colonists to rise up against an empire; what led the greatest of generations to free a continent and heal a nation; what led young women and young men to sit at lunch counters and brave fire hoses and march through Selma and Montgomery for freedom's cause. Hope is what led me here today--with a father from Kenya, a mother from Kansas; and a story that could only happen in the United States of America. Hope is the bedrock of this nation; the belief that our destiny will not be written for us, but by us; by all those men and women who are not content to settle for the world as it is; who have courage to remake the world as it should be.

The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity, on the ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart -- not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

America can do whatever we set our mind to. That is the story of our history, whether it’s the pursuit of prosperity for our people, or the struggle for equality for all our citizens; our commitment to stand up for our values abroad, and our sacrifices to make the world a safer place. Let us remember that we can do these things not just because of wealth or power, but because of who we are: one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

[madanthonywayne]

And just where the basis for this “limited” government you profess was the intent of our founding fathers. You do realize that most of the founding fathers created the Constitution to form a stronger central government? The original “Articles of Confederation” didn’t work out for the founding fathers. That weak central government notion was tried and it didn’t work even back then when everything was much simpler. That is why the founding fathers created a stronger central government.

Are you seriously not familiar with the concept of a limited government with enumerated powers as defined in our constitution? To quote James Madison:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined…” – James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 45

[spidergoat]

It's not at all clear that that was what he meant, I don't think it was. If so, it was certainly a poor turn of phrase akin to Mr. Romney's "I'm not concerned about the very poor" comment. Like the comment by Romney, this comment may well have staying power because it plays into pre-existing ideas people have about the candidates. Here's a recent ad put out by the NRCC on the topic:

(I wanted to try out the new embed video function.)

I agree it was poorly worded in such a way that assholes Republicans can take advantage of it by quoting it out of context. But it was pretty clear to me because I actually listened to the whole thing.

[joepistole]

Are you seriously not familiar with the concept of a limited government with enumerated powers as defined in our constitution? To quote James Madison:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined…” – James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 45

What do the “enumerated powers” have to do with the fact that our founding fathers found the original weak central government model- the model you and your fellow Republicans are advocating - inadequate and replaced it with a strong central government as defined by the Constitution?

Absolutely nothing! The enumerated powers clause in the Constitution only applies to congress. Do you recall that there are 2 other branches of government set forth in the Constitution? Additionally, the enumerated powers granted to Congress are few (16) but very broad and only limited by the Bill of Rights.

This is what you are ignoring or don’t know about the Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers are a series of papers written to sell the Constitution to (i.e. the stronger central government) to those who opposed the Constitution, the anti-federalists. Madison was a founding father who supported a stronger central government.

[quadraphonics]

Are you seriously not familiar with the concept of a limited government with enumerated powers as defined in our constitution? To quote James Madison:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined…” – James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 45

This whole line of argument is stilted and misses the point. The fact that the Founders limited the power of the Federal government is just that - they also included an explicit statement that all powers not explicitly granted to the Federal government are reserved for the States.

You are conflating a debate about federalism with a debate about government power as such. The fact that the Founders wanted a certain amount of power vested with the Federal government, and the rest with the States, does not tell us what they thought about the issue of government power as such. Just how it ought to be divided between the Federal level and the State level.

[Tiassa]

As is typical of the left, you assume anyone who doesn't agree with you is either stupid or evil.

Another baseless accusation that ignores reality.

Are you capable of understanding that disagreement in and of itself is a separate issue from how and why one disagrees?

There was no lie, other than your tortured attempt to paper over what Obama said. He clearly said that anyone who starts a business "didn't do that".

Demonstrate that clarity according to the whole of the speech. The context has been pointed out to you repeatedly, yet you insist on the propriety of taking a single sentence out of the context established by others.

Yes, we all benefit from living in a society which allows each of us to specialize and find what we can do best rather than each being forced to live as subsistence level farmers or hunter-gatherers. This is obvious and uncontroversial. If this is, as you claim, what Obama actually meant then it is a straw man argument of the first order.

A straw man of your own raising.

But I don't believe it is what he meant. I think it is one of those little slip ups that reveals what President Obama really believes.

Indeed, that is expected. One can nearly predict what you believe by attending FOX News' headlines. Seriously, it used to amaze me, but it happens so often I just accept that's how things go: FOX News manufactures a controversy, the liberal-leaning blogosphere points out what's wrong with it, and shortly thereafter Madanthonywayne brings it to Sciforums.

Like this bit:

Barack Obama does not believe in Horatio Alger. He doesn't believe in American exceptionalism. He believes in a government. Not the limited government of our founders, but a government not bound by any quaint notions such as "private property". After all, how can private property exist when everything each of us achieves is ultimately the result of the many benefits we all are lucky enough to have bestowed upon us by government?

Right-wing boilerplate.

Robert Schlesinger, January 31, 2011:

Only one sitting president in the last 82 years has publicly uttered the magical phrase “American exceptionalism”--care to guess who it is? Ronald Reagan, he of the “shining city on a hill?” George W. Bush, who closed his speeches by asking that “God continue to bless” America? Nope. The only president to publicly discuss (and for that matter embrace) “American exceptionalism” is Barack Obama ....

.... UC Santa Barbara’s excellent American Presidency Project has put the public papers of the presidents online, searchable, from 1929 onward. You could go and look for yourself, but I’ve already done the legwork for you. The result “American exceptionalism” returns is from Obama’s April 4, 2009 press conference in Strasbourg, France. Asked about “American exceptionalism,” Obama responded:

I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism. I am enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world. If you think about the site of this summit and what it means, I don't think America should be embarrassed to see evidence of the sacrifices of our troops, the enormous amount of resources that were put into Europe postwar, and our leadership in crafting an alliance that ultimately led to the unification of Europe. We should take great pride in that.

And if you think of our current situation, the United States remains the largest economy in the world. We have unmatched military capability. And I think that we have a core set of values that are enshrined in our Constitution, in our body of law, in our democratic practices, in our belief in free speech and equality that, though imperfect, are exceptional.

You can search for “exceptional” and get lots of results. For example Obama used the word in relation to both Arlen Specter and Sonia Sotomayor. George W. Bush used it to describe Harriet Miers, twice. As close as Bush comes to talking about “American exceptionalism” was a brief reference to the country’s “exceptional character.” Clinton talked about America’s “exceptional place in human history." But only Obama among the modern presidents has talked about “American excpetionalism.”

Steve Benen, December 4, 2011:

At an event in New York this week, the president reflected on his trip and said Asian-Pacific people are “looking to us for leadership. They know that America is great not just because we’re powerful, but also because we have a set of values that the world admires; that we don’t just think about what’s good for us, but we’re also thinking about what’s good for the world. That’s what makes us special. That’s what makes us exceptional.”

It’s hard to overstate how much Republicans have invested in this ugly attack. Mitt Romney, in particular, has based much of his presidential campaign on the notion that Obama sees the country as “just another nation.” It’s wrong and it’s cheap, but it’s an extension of the far-right’s belief that Obama’s patriotism deserves to be attacked.

I don’t imagine the president’s use of the rhetoric the right wants to hear will make a difference — is that crowd ever swayed by facts or reality? — but don’t be too surprised if Obama, eager to knock down the conservative nonsense, begins using the word more often.

Apparently the point needs to be made over and over again. In April of this year, Benen reiterated the point in response to Mitt Romney's claim that the president doesn't believe in American exceptionalism.

And then in May we saw a stunning performance on the right, when Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO) laid a stunner on Elbert county voters: ""I don't know whether Barack Obama was born in the United States of America. I don't know that. But I do know this, that in his heart, he's not an American. He's just not an American."

And, indeed, according to KUSA in Denver:

The recording and a photo of the event were posted online by Coffman supporter Brooks Imperial, who attended the fundraiser.

"I'm glad the congressman said it. Not enough have. More should," Imperial said.

This of course led to some controversy, which Coffman attempted to tamp down by explaining: "I don't believe the president shares my belief in American Exceptionalism. His policies reflect a philosophy that America is but one nation among many equals."

Over and over. Conservatives keep trying this line with different twists, expecting that nobody is paying attention to the last time the line failed.

For someone with so low an opinion of voters as you have expressed, one wonders why you try so hard to propagate misinformation. You take issue with the suggestion that you think voters are stupid. They're not stupid, right? They're just uninformed. That's what you said, right? Yet you are always pushing misinformation. Why "educate" the "uninformed" with misinformation?

Well, perhaps it's an accident. Perhaps taking note of history simply escapes your faculties. Perhaps you've accidentally sealed yourself so deeply inside the conservative bubble that nothing else penetrates, so you're not even aware of Obama's outlook on American exceptionalism. That would, after all, explain how it is that someone who devotes as much attention to politics as you do could manage to mangle history and the facts on record so badly.

Is it an accident? Or is it intentional?

Here's a nice commentary on this issue ....

Yep. A very nice commentary for those who ignore the context.

In the broader context, the question of sinister or stupid comes up not because of the mere fact of disagreement, but because of the nature of disagreement. Do you understand that, as you interact with people through this website, they inherently, as all humans do, carry with them some measure of your conduct? In any one incident, it is possible to believe you or anyone else has simply made a mistake. But the cumulative effect of countless repetition adds up. You keep misrepresenting issues. You keep making pathetic excuses. You keep trying to shield your outlook from reality.

Take the idea of racism, for instance. There are many people who "accidentally" advocate political outcomes that contribute to racial and ethnic divisions in the United States. If, for instance, one simply advocated educational solutions that would exacerbate disparities falling along economic lines that coincided with certain racial and ethnic communities, that would be one thing. But if that person also advocates the gutting of the Civil Rights Act because it is unfair to the privileged to continue to create equal footing where, as President Obama put it, people are "guaranteed the right to work hard for success"? And if that person argues that people making racist arguments aren't really racist, but simply using racism to denounce policy disagreement? And if that person tries to suppress consideration of why anyone else might see him as racist? Eventually, the little pieces fall together in a mosaic; the more pieces, the more clearly defined the image.

You are familiar, I presume, with the word "recidivism"?

Everybody makes mistakes. A wrong quote here, a misinterpreted assertion of fact there. It happens. But when it happens over and over again, with observable calculation, one starts to wonder if the problem is habitual.

Stop trying to hide behind mere disagreement. Certes, we disagree about various policy outlooks. But it is not this disagreement that makes people question your integrity. It is the repeatedly "erroneous" behavior that lends to questions of dishonesty.
____________________

Notes:

Schlesinger, Robert. "Obama Has Mentioned 'American Exceptionalism' More Than Bush". US News & World Report. January 31, 2011. USNews.com. July 18, 2012. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/...more-than-bush

Benen, Steve. "'That's what makes us exceptional'". Political Animal. December 4, 2011. WashingtonMonthly.com. July 18, 2012. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/pol...iona033886.php

—————. "Chronicling Mitt's Mendacity, Vol. XII". The Maddow Blog. April 6, 2012. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.MSN.com. July 18, 2012. http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_new...dacity-vol-xii

KUSA. "Rep. Mike Coffman: Obama in his heart 'not an American'". May 16, 2012. 9News.com. July 18, 2012. http://www.9news.com/news/article/26...ot-an-American

Obama, Barack. "Remarks by the President at a Campaign Event in Roanoke, Virginia". July 13, 2012. WhiteHouse.gov. July 18, 2012. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...anoke-virginia

[Aqueous Id]

Are you seriously not familiar with the concept of a limited government with enumerated powers as defined in our constitution? To quote James Madison:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined…” – James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 45

You don't equate the Federalist Papers with the Constitution, do you?

And then, again, if this is your basis for complaining of Big Government, you don't want the Federalists on your side:

Federalism was the most influential political movement arising out of discontent with the Articles of Confederation, which focused on limiting the authority of the federal government.

see Federalism.

Before deciding whether the Founders are on your side you need to pick the appropriate side. They were divided on the question, much more severely than now. The Supreme Court arose as an interpreter of the question of Constitutionality, as a result of a case that arose, from an issue that had to do with the rivalry between the factions. (Marbury v Madison.)

Of course it's a very long road from Philadelphia until today, insofar as you think of Big Government. In those days people were concerned about timely questions, like whether Congress should have the power to declare war, or whether it should be by popular vote. Today you're unhappy with - what? Taxes? I'm sure you know that's by amendment. What else? Private property? Other than taxes, which never were yours to begin with, is there anything else the Government has to do with your property? It's yours until you sell it. And the Government will defend that right in court. The exception is when they "take" your land for some public use, but that's very rare and at least you are compensated. So what remains of this threat posed by Big Government?

[Tiassa]

Are you seriously not familiar with the concept of a limited government with enumerated powers as defined in our constitution?

The following is a serious question. I would appreciate your honest answer, as it will help me understand a bit more about your political outlook:

Do you agree with the following statement? The Founding Fathers limited the scope and faculties of the federal government in order to protect against tyranny, so that such tyranny could instead be invested in the several states.

[Grumpy]

madanthonywayne

As is typical of the left, you assume anyone who doesn't agree with you is either stupid or evil.

Just the stupid and/or evil ones. Given your continued lying which are you?

There was no lie, other than your tortured attempt to paper over what Obama said. He clearly said that anyone who starts a business "didn't do that".

Didn't build the roads or set the country up so they could build a business. There's no question that this is what Obama said they did not do. Saying anything else is just lying, and I'm tired of tiptoeing around that fact. You lied, you just repeated the lie, knowingly(therefore evil) or not (therefore just stupid). Again, which are you?

Grumpy

[Balerion]

One expects a political party to portray their opponent's comments out of context for the sake of ridicule, but what's Mad's excuse for believing it? He has access to the full quote.

[Tiassa]

Didn't build the roads or set the country up so they could build a business. There's no question that this is what Obama said they did not do.

Well, if we want to get absolutely academic, Obama should have used the word "all", as in:

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build [all] that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

In the first place, the reason I see that implicit "all"—and, I suspect, why others see it, too—is that the sentence in question was bracketed by the larger context. Both before (teachers, "this unbelievable American system", roads and bridges) and after ("Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet").

Any real question about what Obama meant is found in those points.

Secondly, though, we might say, "Very well. If grammatical perfection is the standard, then George W. Bush needs to be prosecuted for treason."

Okay, okay, that requires an explanation, but it's easy enough:

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

—George W. Bush
—August, 2004

In 2004, President George W. Bush said his administration was trying to find new ways to harm the United States and its people.

Or did he?

Obviously, we knew what he meant.

But, hey, now that he's out of office, Republicans want to be the Syntax Police.

Makes sense, actually. I mean, they are Republicans, and these days, it seems this is how our political discourse works.

After enduring eight years of Bushisms, the right wing is just licking its chops, looking for any undercooked red meat to grind up and spew all over the news cycle. And, you know, I think most of us are familiar with what kind of spew undercooked meat can bring.

[madanthonywayne]

That kind of ideation is totally routine in right-wing criticism. Why you imagine it's typical of the left is a mystery. Conservatives are always going on and on about how liberals just don't understand economics or how capitalism works, or how they want to undermine moral values and institutions. You can't possibly be oblivious to all that.

Perhaps it is simply typical of the close minded of whatever political bent.

That is not what he claimed Obama meant. He was referring to the thorough-going reliance of all entrepreneurs and businesses on the variety of social and physical infrastructure to enable them to operate at all. This isn't just a matter of "specialization." Stone-aged tribes had specialization. He was making the point that the ideal of free-market entrepreneurship can only exist within an enabling framework of an educated, secure population with useful infrastructure and institutions to support it. This is to contrast with the stilted image of the Randian Superhero, who produces profit from the very Earth through sheer will and capability. He's knocking down the false idol of the Producer King, and reminding us that society is a shared enterprize that we all have a stake in.

I don't really see a difference in the two statements. Free market entrepreneurship is just one of the many varieties of specialization that civilization has allowed to us to develop.

You think Obama "really believes" that people who worked to start businesses did not actually work to start businesses? That he really, literally "believes" a sentence that is self-contradictory? That's preposterous.

I certainly agree that the statement is preposterous, but the idea that business owners are parasites who exploit the noble workers is certainly not foreign to the left. And if you see business owners as oppressors and exploiters of the workers, well, you certainly wouldn't be impressed by the hard work it took for the oppressors to oppress.

Raises the question of what you are even referring to with that term. It's normally taken to mean that America has a unique duty to spread democracy and liberalism. Which is to say that it's out of place in this context. So, what are you referring to?

Let's contrast a quote from President Obama regarding American exceptionalism as provided by Tiassa (see above):

I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism. I am enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world. If you think about the site of this summit and what it means, I don't think America should be embarrassed to see evidence of the sacrifices of our troops, the enormous amount of resources that were put into Europe postwar, and our leadership in crafting an alliance that ultimately led to the unification of Europe. We should take great pride in that.

And if you think of our current situation, the United States remains the largest economy in the world. We have unmatched military capability. And I think that we have a core set of values that are enshrined in our Constitution, in our body of law, in our democratic practices, in our belief in free speech and equality that, though imperfect, are exceptional.

With one from President Reagan:

...I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it and see it still... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_upon_a_Hill

Obama's starts off by equating American exceptionalism with British or Greek exceptionalism. In other words, he starts off by saying we're not exceptional at all. He then goes on to say that we shouldn't be embarrassed, that we're imperfect, but exceptional. Not exactly stirring or indicative of someone with deeply held feelings of patriotism. Reagan's quote, on the other hand, is inspiring and lacking any qualifications.

Now you're off into paranoid fantasy-land. Obama is out to do away with private property and impose some "unlimited" totalitarianism? Do you realize how unhinged you sound?

I do. Obama tends to do that to me.

Meanwhile: have you read what the Founders had to say about corporations and the proper relationship between them and society and the state?

The founding father's viewpoint on corporations? No, I don't recall any specifics on that topic.

Or, how about some things Obama has actually said about the subjects you invoke:

[INDENT]Our economic dependence depended on individual initiative. It depended on a belief in the free market; but it has also depended on our sense of mutual regard for each other, the idea that everybody has a stake in the country, that we’re all in it together and everybody’s got a shot at opportunity. That’s what’s produced our unrivaled political stability.

All the money in the world won’t boost student achievement if parents make no effort to instill in their children the values of hard work and delayed gratification.

You have shown what history teaches us — that at defining moments like this one, the change we need doesn’t come from Washington. Change comes to Washington.

If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer. … It’s the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled. Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been just a collection of individuals or a collection of red states and blue states. We are, and always will be, the United States of America.

The question we ask today is not how big or small our government is, but whether it works.

What’s more, we are the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea – the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny. That is why centuries of pioneers and immigrants have risked everything to come here. It’s why our students don’t just memorize equations, but answer questions like “What do you think of that idea? What would you change about the world? What do you want to be when you grow up?

We shouldn’t just give our people a government that’s more affordable. We should give them a government that’s more competent and efficient. We cannot win the future with a government of the past

And yet, as contentious and frustrating and messy as our democracy can sometimes be, I know there isn’t a person here who would trade places with any other nation on Earth. We may have differences in policy, but we all believe in the rights enshrined in our Constitution. We may have different opinions, but we believe in the same promise that says this is a place where you can make it if you try. We may have different backgrounds, but we believe in the same dream that says this is a country where anything’s possible. No matter who you are. No matter where you come from

That is the true genius of America, a faith in the simple dreams of its people, the insistence on small miracles. That we can say what we think, write what we think, without hearing a sudden knock on the door. That we can have an idea and start our own business without paying a bribe or hiring somebody's son. That we can participate in the political process without fear of retribution, and that our votes will be counted

Our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom. But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, the vulnerable can be exploited. And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter -- that at that point we don't merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves.

I think that there's always been a spectrum of opinion about how unfettered the free market is. And along that spectrum, I think there have been some who believe in very fierce regulation and are very suspicious of globalization, and there are others who think that it's always -- that the market is always king. And I think what we've learned here, but if anybody had been studying history they would have understood earlier, is that the market is the most effective mechanism for creating wealth and distributing resources to produce goods and services that history has ever known, but that it goes off the rail sometimes; that if it's completely unregulated, that if there are no thoughtful frameworks to channel the creative energy of the market, that it can end up in a very bad place.

Hope is what led a band of colonists to rise up against an empire; what led the greatest of generations to free a continent and heal a nation; what led young women and young men to sit at lunch counters and brave fire hoses and march through Selma and Montgomery for freedom's cause. Hope is what led me here today--with a father from Kenya, a mother from Kansas; and a story that could only happen in the United States of America. Hope is the bedrock of this nation; the belief that our destiny will not be written for us, but by us; by all those men and women who are not content to settle for the world as it is; who have courage to remake the world as it should be.

The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity, on the ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart -- not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

America can do whatever we set our mind to. That is the story of our history, whether it’s the pursuit of prosperity for our people, or the struggle for equality for all our citizens; our commitment to stand up for our values abroad, and our sacrifices to make the world a safer place. Let us remember that we can do these things not just because of wealth or power, but because of who we are: one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

That's not bad. That sounds like the old hope/change "all things to all people" 2008 Obama, not the guy we actually got.

[Repo Man]

You right wingers and patriotism. "Patriotism is the willingness to kill and be killed for trivial reasons." - Bertrand Russell. That Reagan quote is a load mental fellatio that any intelligent adult should be embarrassed by. Every nation thinks it is best, and all of their opinions are equally valid.

[Repo Man]

Well, perhaps it's an accident. Perhaps taking note of history simply escapes your faculties. Perhaps you've accidentally sealed yourself so deeply inside the conservative bubble that nothing else penetrates, so you're not even aware of Obama's outlook on American exceptionalism. That would, after all, explain how it is that someone who devotes as much attention to politics as you do could manage to mangle history and the facts on record so badly.

Is it an accident? Or is it intentional?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn_PSJsl0LQ

[Tiassa]

Obama's starts off by equating American exceptionalism with British or Greek exceptionalism. In other words, he starts off by saying we're not exceptional at all.

That statement requires either a certain bending of logic or curious degree of ignorance in order to be viewed as true.

The British Empire once claimed as much as a quarter of the world. For over a century, the sun never set on the British Empire.

The ancient Greeks invented democracy.

These are exceptional accomplishments by any measure.

Presently, it is America's turn. We have reshaped nations and empires, and styled the worldwide economy. Nobody escapes our influence.

It's not like Obama cited Bulgaria, or Equatorial Guinea, or Vanuatu.

He then goes on to say that we shouldn't be embarrassed, that we're imperfect, but exceptional.

So in formerly German-occupied France, when discussing the war in Afghanistan, Obama suggests that the monuments to American sacrifices in Europe during WWII remind that Americans should not be embarrassed in the face of widespread criticism of our twenty-first century wartime endeavors, and you object?

What would you have preferred? "Fuck off, Frogs! We saved your cheese-eatin' asses in Dub'ya-Dub'ya-Two!" Would that have been better?

Are you distressed that President Obama acknowledged that Americans don't always get it right the first time? For a former slave-owning nation, the first black president is a pretty potent reminder of our potential to get things right. Is "American" supposed to be some superior race? One that is never wrong? Or can we take a measure of comfort, and even pride, from the fact that we do not let our mistakes destroy us? For all the mistakes we've made in our nation's history, and for all our international neighbors might criticize, we're still here, still in the game, and still poised to lead. And you have a problem with acknowledging this? Or is it just because the point is coming from a Democrat, and no Democrat can make a point without you inventing some warped reason to whine about it?

I certainly agree that the statement is preposterous, but the idea that business owners are parasites who exploit the noble workers is certainly not foreign to the left. And if you see business owners as oppressors and exploiters of the workers, well, you certainly wouldn't be impressed by the hard work it took for the oppressors to oppress.

Ah, yes. The burden of the bosses.

Barry Deutsch, Ampersand, September 4, 2009

The reality is that from the burden of the slave owners who worked so hard to keep their workers in bondage, on through the end of child labor, when they worked so hard to keep children working exceptionally dangerous jobs, and on through questions of racial and gender discrimination, the business community has fought hard to treat workers poorly. And yes, perhaps the small business owner in middle America, or even here on the coast, resents that image.

I know my father did. Throughout my youth he and I tangled over the question of whether the insanely greedy corporate boards we heard of from time to time represented deviations or the standard. The bookkeeping scandals of Enron and others genuinely astonished him. He really, really didn't believe that such shenanigans would be so widespread. The same guy who once told me that Nepalese children working in garment factories for less than a subsistence wage ought to be thankful for the chance to help support their families just couldn't take it anymore. He's hardly a socialist, these days, but he does pine for the notions of capitalism he came to believe in—and that seem so threatened by the widespread corruption of large corporations and a weird transformation of the marketplace in which the goods and services themselves seem to be treated as mere inconveniences in the gathering of money. When the high-level business leaders and Republican politicians sold that vision of noble capitalism, he bought the pitch. He did everything right, as he understood it, and still ended up being bought out by a crew that was more interested in the family aspect of a "family business" than running a successful business. And that worked out well enough for a few years, until he figured out how his business partners were actually playing. It was easy enough for him to write those folks off as deviant sharks, but as the scandals piled up elsewhere in the business community, he found the honest, noble capitalism he believed in nothing more than a myth. And, yes, that hurt him deeply.

But even he now recognizes the efforts of the oppressors to oppress. Even he could figure out without a moment's confusion, when conservatives tried playing a class card in arguing that unions were overpaid, that the reason for this was that unions protected the workers while unrepresented workers were getting shafted.

It would be easier to view employers as something other than "oppressors and exploiters of the workers" if large corporations and conservative politicians didn't spend so much effort making the point.

That's not bad. That sounds like the old hope/change "all things to all people" 2008 Obama, not the guy we actually got.

Well, he did make the mistake of trying to play ball with Republicans, who, in their turn, showed no interest in working together.
____________________

Notes:

Deutsch, Barry. "A Brief History of Corporate Whining". Ampersand. September 4, 2009. LeftyCartoons.com. July 18, 2012. http://leftycartoons.com/a-brief-his...orate-whining/

[Grumpy]

madanthonywayne

Perhaps it is simply typical of the close minded of whatever political bent.

You certainly illustrate that point well.

I certainly agree that the statement is preposterous, but the idea that business owners are parasites who exploit the noble workers is certainly not foreign to the left

And given our current conditions where wages have been stagnant for 3 decades while corporate profits have soared, it's not foreign to reality, either. The statement is only preposterous if you deliberately distort the statement by taking it out of context and selective editing of what he said. We call that lying, by the way. Deceit, mendacity, falsehood and untruth also apply. And we've come to expect it from you in particular and the Rethuglicans in general. But then, Conservatives have never let facts or reality get in the way of a good lie. Look at Joe McCarthy or, more currently, Mischelle Bachmann. Loony toons comes to mind(no, it's actually forced upon it).

The founding father's viewpoint on corporations? No, I don't recall any specifics on that topic.

Let me inform you...

Though not a Founder, Abe Lincoln, Republican, had this to say...

"The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the Bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.. corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money powers of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed."

Abe Lincoln

He could have well been talking about the Vulture Capitalists of today and their Rethuglican enablers.

""I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

Thomas Jefferson

This too has haunting resemblance to current events.

“There is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by…corporations. The power of all corporations ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses.”

“The end of democracy and the defeat of the American revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of the lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.”

James Madison

We are falling into their hands as we speak.

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

Benjamin Franklin

Kind of takes the wind right out of your tax position. If you won't pay your way, the savages is whom you belong among.

You have been informed.

Grumpy

[quadraphonics]

Perhaps it is simply typical of the close minded of whatever political bent.

Begs the question of whether the object of the complaint is, in fact, raising the question of stupidity or malice.

I don't really see a difference in the two statements. Free market entrepreneurship is just one of the many varieties of specialization that civilization has allowed to us to develop.

So you agree with Obama's point there, that free market entrepreneurship itself depends on and is enabled by the substrate of "civilization:" the shared social undertaking that we have all built together. Good. Now, why are you making such a show of pretending otherwise?

I certainly agree that the statement is preposterous,

The statement that was labeled "preposterous" there was your previous assertion that Obama really, truly believes a self-contradictory statement.

If you really agree that what you asserted is preposterous, then I'm glad. But I wonder what you're doing here, arguing the opposite.

but the idea that business owners are parasites who exploit the noble workers is certainly not foreign to the left.

Be that as it may, such is not visible in anything that Obama - who is a center-right politician - said.

And if you see business owners as oppressors and exploiters of the workers, well, you certainly wouldn't be impressed by the hard work it took for the oppressors to oppress.

And since nobody in question sees things so, this line of paranoid ideation is irrelevant to the topic.

Do you really not see what you are doing here? You are insisting that Obama must fit in to the framing supplied by Fox News, apparently on no basis other than that your worldview demands such.

Obama's starts off by equating American exceptionalism with British or Greek exceptionalism.

No he doesn't. He equates his belief in American exceptionalism with similar beliefs elsewhere. Which is to say, he notes the obvious fact that patriotism is a common phenomenon. He is emphatic in his belief in American exceptionalism, in that quote. It takes a certain craven determination to so blatantly misread such a simple statement, and to expect others to accept that with a straight face. Try to give the rampant ideology a rest, huh?

He then goes on to say that we shouldn't be embarrassed, that we're imperfect, but exceptional.

Sounds pretty patriotic to me.

Not exactly stirring or indicative of someone with deeply held feelings of patriotism.

Maybe if you insist that patriotism must be totally uncritical and jingoistic. Which, apparently:

Reagan's quote, on the other hand, is inspiring and lacking any qualifications.

Reagan's quote, like most everything he ever said publicly, is feel-good pap. He was the grandpa President. Obama is a constitutional law professor - and I find no lack of inspiration in his various quotes. In fact, I find them vastly more inspiring than the output of Reagan, because they actually deal in reality and so are substantive. Reagan just trafficked in so much easy gloss and self-congratulation - and the results are hollow and artificial.

But apparently sticking our heads in the sand and blithely insisting that everything is perfect is the only way to be a "patriot."

I do. Obama tends to do that to me.

It's the right-wing noise machine that does that to you. You aren't generating these paranoid fantasies on your own, and nor could you sustain this stilted, unrecognizable image of Obama without consistent exposure to their alternate-reality media.

The founding father's viewpoint on corporations? No, I don't recall any specifics on that topic.

Why am I not surprised. Well, then, since you've managed to walk right into this one:

Thomas Jefferson:
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

Thomas Paine:
"But charters and corporations have a more extensive evil effect than what relates merely to elections. They are sources of endless contentions in places where they exist, and they lessen the common rights of national society”

President James Madison:
"The growing wealth aquired by them [corporations] never fails to be a source of abuses."

Abraham Lincoln:
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless."

And so on... you may also recall that the American Revolution was very much about corporate abuses, specifically the fact that the East India Tea Company had co-opted Britain's Parliament, but Americans had no vote there to counter their exploitation. And so they had this famous event called the Boston Tea Party, which was an explicit protest against the abuses of corporatism as it intruded onto the state and conspired with ealthy aristocrats to deprive the colonists of due representation. Strange that none of your present Tea Party buddies seem to understand that basic fact, these days.

That's not bad. That sounds like the old hope/change "all things to all people" 2008 Obama, not the guy we actually got.

Again, you are repeating a left-wing complaint that Obama caved too much to the status quo, the corporations, and the military/intelligence services. That he turned out to be, in fact, a center-right, consensus-oriented leader, and not some kind of leftist firebrand savior. Strange that you'd do that at all, but especially in this context.