Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom More media types leaving the Obama fold. <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html" target="_blank">http://online.wsj.com/article/...ons.html</a> <<The president seems everywhere and nowhere, not fully focused on the matters at hand. He's trying to keep up with the news cycle with less and less to say. "I am angry" about AIG's bonuses. The administration seems buffeted, ad hoc. Policy seems makeshift, provisional. James K. Galbraith captures some of this in The Washington Monthly: "The president has an economic program. But there is, so far, no clear statement of the thinking behind the program." So one wonders why, say, the president does not step in and insist on staffing the top level of his Treasury Department, where besieged Secretary Tim Geithner struggles without deputies through his 15-hour days. Might AIG and the bonus scandals have been stopped or discovered sooner if Treasury had someone to answer the phones? Leadership is needed here. Not talkership, leadership. Mr. Obama's second job is America's safety at home and in the world. Dick Cheney this week warned again of future terrorism and said Mr. Obama's actions have left us "less safe." White House press secretary Robert Gibbs reacted with disdain. Mr. Cheney is part of a "Republican cabal." "I guess Rush Limbaugh was busy." This was cheap. But Mr. Cheney was, is, right in the most important, and dreadful, way. We live in the age of weapons of mass destruction, and each day more people and groups come closer to getting and deploying them. "Man has never developed a weapon he didn't eventually use," said Reagan, without cards, worrying aloud in the Oval Office. What can be used will be used. We are a target. Something bad is going to happen—don't we all know this? Are we having another failure of imagination? A month ago FBI Director Robert Mueller, in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, warned of Mumbai-type terrorist activity, saying a similar attack could happen in a U.S. city. He spoke of the threat of homegrown terrorists who are "radicalized," "indoctrinated" and recruited for jihad. Mumbai should "reinvigorate" U.S. intelligence efforts. The threat is not only from al Qaeda but "less well known groups." This had the hard sound of truth. Contrast it with the new secretary of homeland security, Janet Napolitano, who, in her first speech and testimony to Congress, the same week as Mr. Mueller's remarks, did not mention the word terrorism once. This week in an interview with Der Spiegel, she was pressed: "Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?" Her reply: "I presume there is always a threat from terrorism." It's true she didn't use the word terrorism in her speech, but she did refer to "man-caused" disasters. "This is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear." Ah. Well this is only a nuance, but her use of language is a man-caused disaster.>>
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt I wouldn't say she's left the fold. I think it was a critique of what Obama has accomplished so far. I don't agree with everything she said, but there was no sense from reading it that she's turned against him.
Originally Posted By ecdc You know, these hit-and-run posts got old long ago. No analysis, no opinion, and when they're thoroughly responded to, there's silence. It couldn't be clearer that a lot of conservatives here have no interest in a real conversation about the state of our country or politics. Instead, they decided a while ago that Obama is bad news 'cause of that "D" after his name (oh and his fans who pray to him morning, day, and night, while genuflecting at the very mention of his name) so now they're going to latch onto any desperate piece of news that allows them to pat themselves on the back for being right. Congratulations, conservatives. You were right: Obama isn't the Messiah. He isn't perfect. And not everyone is in love with him. Now that you've thoroughly pummeled the straw man to death and beaten the phantom dead horse repeatedly, can we move on and talk about stuff that people have actually said? No? You'd rather invent stuff to respond to so you can be right instead of responding to actual facts and arguments? Ok, fair enough. Let the party continue, then. Let me know how that works out for you in 2010 and 2012.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy Since when was Peggy Noonan an Obama fan to begin with? She wrote scathing articles about him all the way up to the election. Then, post election, she writes one positive piece. Now, it's back to the playing the "conservative" viewpoint. She never was on his side.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I wouldn't say she's left the fold. I think it was a critique of what Obama has accomplished so far. I don't agree with everything she said, but there was no sense from reading it that she's turned against him.<< I for one am shocked that a former Reagan speechwriter isn't a giant Obama fan. A Republican criticizing a Democrat? Who'd a thunk it? But I should apologize for my previous post. I did just realize that Obama's been in office for nearly 70 days now. Personally, I can't believe we're not all lighting Cubans with $100 bills yet. I really thought my monocle and top-hat would be busted out by now. I mean, c'mon? How long does it take to fix eight years of incompetence? How long does it take to fix the widening gap between the super rich and the poor, and the dwindling middle-class? How long does it really take to fix a crumbling infrastructure? And a botched war against the real people who attacked us? And a failing economy? And a broken health care system? Social security? Religious extremism that brings about a war on science? Rising teen pregnancy rates due to abstinence-only education? A global reputation in shambles? How long does it take, America? Next time one political party runs our country into the ground for 8 straight years, I'll expect the other party to fix it in 40 days, max.
Originally Posted By gadzuux She's playing 'Cassandra' with her dire warnings of WMD. We've lived under the threat of nuclear armageddon for our entire lives. Over the years it's been reduced to a kind of background hum - that is until GOP fearmongers start to feel irrelevant, and they crank up the peril and doom scenarios all over again. This is a throwback to the days when republicans were perceived to be the party of "defense", and dems were weak on matters like crime and law and order. But it's a tired card to play, especially since the republicans have squandered every advantage they may have once had over the last eight years. OF COURSE cheney is out there saying that Obama and the democrats are making us more vulnerable to attack - what else would he say? We've seen his version of national security, and we've rejected it. Does the author point to any specific actions - or inactions - on the part of Obama and his administration that has increased our peril? Nope - just vague allusions about how "we're a target" and we're not doing enough about it. Nevermind that the most significant attack in our history occurred on their watch, while they were blithely ignoring the warning signs that were blinking red. So we can be forgiven for chalking up these comments as hypocritical rants from another partisan hack.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<hypocritical rants from another partisan hack. >>> Indeed. Both sides. Plenty of blame to go around. Will it ever end?
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "I for one am shocked that a former Reagan speechwriter isn't a giant Obama fan. A Republican criticizing a Democrat? Who'd a thunk it?" Was she? Well then why in the world is the OP even questioning her position? Good grief.
Originally Posted By piperlynne ""<<<hypocritical rants from another partisan hack. >>> Indeed. Both sides. Plenty of blame to go around. Will it ever end?"" God I hope not. . something has to keep me entertained at work.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I mean, c'mon? How long does it take to fix eight years of incompetence? How long does it take to fix the widening gap between the super rich and the poor, and the dwindling middle-class? How long does it really take to fix a crumbling infrastructure? And a botched war against the real people who attacked us? And a failing economy? And a broken health care system? Social security? Religious extremism that brings about a war on science? Rising teen pregnancy rates due to abstinence-only education? A global reputation in shambles? How long does it take, America?> Best WE post in a while. Thanks for the reality check.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It's hardly reality in Dougworld. Just in the United States of America 2009. Seriously, he didn't mention anything that isn't reality. The gap between the superrich and the rest of us DID widen under Bush. The infrastructure in general WAS allowed to deteriorate. We DID botch capturing bin Laden and the Al Qaeda leadership, etc. etc. Sorry the truth hurts. (Wait: "that's not the truth." Just saving you your usual "thoughtful" response.)
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh The gap between the superrich and the rest of us also widened during the Clinton administration. The infrastructure in general was allowed to deteriorate then as well. And we botched capturing bin Laden and dealing with Al Qaeda under President Clinton. About the only thing he listed that I think he was right about was that teen pregnancy did go up a bit under President Bush when it declined under President Clinton, but ascribing it to abstinence only education is like trying to claim Bristol Palin got pregnant because her mother pushed abstinence only education. It's just not so.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 The states with abstinence only education tend to have higher teen pregnancy rates than those that don't. And the problems listed, even if also present with Clinton, got worse as a matter of degree under Bush. Also, Clinton was not thisclose to capturing bin Laden after invading the country where he was hiding. So that's a disingenuous comparison.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The states with abstinence only education tend to have higher teen pregnancy rates than those that don't.> One, those states tended to have higher rates before "abstinence only" education was tried. Two, as you were so fond of saying when discussing recognition of gay marriage, correlation does not equal causation - the Dakotas, which are pretty solidly red states, have low rates of teen pregnancy and abortion, while New York and New Jersey have high rates of both. <Also, Clinton was not thisclose to capturing bin Laden after invading the country where he was hiding.> No, he was closer. He was actually offered bin Laden, and turned the deal down. <So that's a disingenuous comparison.> You're projecting again. I'm not the disingenuous one.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<The states with abstinence only education tend to have higher teen pregnancy rates than those that don't.>> <One, those states tended to have higher rates before "abstinence only" education was tried.> Source? <Two, as you were so fond of saying when discussing recognition of gay marriage, correlation does not equal causation > True enough, fair point. However, nationwide... <a href="http://www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/abstinence-only-programs-ineffectual" target="_blank">http://www.blogcatalog.com/pol...ffectual</a> "Using data from a 2002 national survey, researchers found that among more than 1,700 unmarried, heterosexual teens between 15 and 19 years old, those who'd received comprehensive sex ed in school were 60 percent less likely to have been pregnant or gotten someone pregnant than teens who'd had no formal sex education. The study found that teens who'd been through abstinence-only programs were less likely than those who'd received no sex ed to have been pregnant. However, the difference was not significant in statistical terms, which means the finding could have been due to chance. In addition, there was no evidence that comprehensive sex education increased the likelihood of teen sex or boosted rates of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) — a concern of people who oppose teaching birth control in schools. Lead researcher Pamela K. Kohler, of the Center for AIDS and STD at the University of Washington in Seattle told Reuters Health the study "also solidly debunks the myth that teens who learn about birth control are more likely to have sex." <<Also, Clinton was not thisclose to capturing bin Laden after invading the country where he was hiding.>> <No, he was closer. He was actually offered bin Laden, and turned the deal down.> Source? And context? I think I know what you're referring to, and I think it's dubious. We know almost certainly that bin Laden and the other leaders were very close to actual US troops (something Clinton never enjoyed) before we decided to let the Afghan allies do the job - whose loyalties proved to be flexible, let's say. <<So that's a disingenuous comparison.>> <You're projecting again. I'm not the disingenuous one.> Again with the "projecting" crap? Man.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Best WE post in a while. Thanks for the reality check.<< Thanks, Dabob. I'm sure people can discern my frustration in my posts lately. I'm just flabbergasted at the attitude towards Obama found in some quarters lately. This isn't a liberal or conservative thing, or a Republican or Democrat thing. This is our country. We need him to succeed. We need our economy to get better. We need to figure out the healthcare and social security problems stat, before baby boomers start putting in Medicare and social security claims in droves. It's been 67 days. Holy crap! Give the man a chance. I supported Bush all through 9/11 and even at the beginning of the Iraq War. It wasn't until towards the end of his third year that I realized this was going nowhere fast. Ever sit in a movie and it starts kinda slow, and there's a couple of things that don't really work, but you hang in there convinced it'll get better? Then, around half-way through, you just realize the movie sucks? That's how I felt about the Bush administration. Obama's tackled more in 67 days than Bush did in 67 weeks. He's unveiled a plan to help stimulate jobs and get money back to Americans. He's unveiled a plan to help banks. He unveiled more plans today to turn the tide in Afghanistan. He's unveiled the first steps in an effort to repair infrastructure and healthcare. Tomorrow he's set to unveil how to help the auto industry. None of it's perfect, but it represents more competence and attempt at helping our country than Bush showed in eight years. By far. Hey, maybe in two years Obama's administration will have gone nowhere too. He's had a rough couple of weeks and I've been disappointed in how he's handled a few things. But compare the comments by some here to what DVC_dad has said. DVC_dad was no Obama fan before the election. I'm sure he still has real issues with some of his policies. But DVC_dad is a smart guy and he gets it. He's a patriot. He wants Obama to succeed. He wants the country to get better. He's more interested in that than watching Obama crash and burn so he could say, "I told ya so!" unlike so many others.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Again with the "projecting" crap?> I'll stop mentioning it when you stop doing it.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <We need to figure out the healthcare and social security problems stat, before baby boomers start putting in Medicare and social security claims in droves.> Of course. Because the liberals spent years stonewalling conservative, free-market approaches to fixing the entitlement problem, all conservatives are now supposed to embrace big government solutions, that won't work in the long run. No thanks.
Originally Posted By ecdc Except they've been working for decades in some European countries. But instead of focusing on the fact that they work, conservatives just shout "Socialism!" and run for the hills. Then they continue to put their trust in the "free market," which as we've learned over the last few months, isn't free at all.
