When Does It Stop Being Bush's Fault?

[Jauronimo]

No, I can't name all the "flip-flops", but if you are really curious about what a liberal considers a "flip-flop" turn on MSNBC pretty much any night...if you Mitt Romney's view seems to be, in reality, that only rich women should be free to stay at home and take care of their children, while less fortunate mothers (or welfare mothers if you must) don't have any dignity if they don't work outside the home. His, and his wife's pho-outrage over the "mommy-gate" issue was as insincere and transparent as they could manage.

Pho-outrage? Isn't that what Marion Barry is campaigning on now?

 

I don't know what Vietnamese noodle soup has to do with this issue, but I think I know what I'm doing for lunch today. Thanks.

[Doc]

I'd rather have a candidate that flip-flops, than a president that does.

[OCinBuffalo]

You'll actually find fewer "usuals" denying this than you think. But anyone truly paying attention to the battle ahead knows that -- strategically speaking -- the minute Obama tries to hit Romney in a debate for flip-flopping on ANYTHING is the moment Obama is gasping for whatever air he can gulp.

 

A lot of praise was rightfully given to the Obama campaign for using new media to promote his bid in 2008. That same new media has managed to dig up digital audio and 4D hi-def video of virtually every Obama flip-flop from his sonogram to Gitmo...and he has a treasure chest of flip-flops that make Romney look steadfast in even his dumbest beliefs.

 

It's just like the idiotic progressives who think Romney being a Mormon is an issue. I can't wait to see how many progressives swallow their own puke when they're reminded that their Mormon friend Harry Reid is three people removed from being president on this very day.

 

Forget ideals. Forget promises. Forget even health care. There is nothing Obama can pin on Romney that Obama hasn't FUBAR'ed himself. The winner of this race is the one who screws up the least, and given Obama's inability to keep his ridiculous yap shut about anything and everything that crosses his path, I suspect he has a taller mountain to climb to re-election than most people think.

 

Progressives don't need to worry about Romney. They need to worry about Obama.

THIIIIIIIIIIS! This is exactly right.

 

Progressives have to face up to the fact that the current policy they support has very little to do with being a progressive. Resurrecting ideas from 1936, or 1965....is not progress.

 

By the Teddy Roosevelt definition of progressive, or by any other definition, the policies and the definition do not match. Where is the new technology/new ideas being used to solve problems? Where is the intellectual commitment to improve society by rejecting the old things that don't work, and replacing them with things that do? You can't be for improving society, and, also be for things that have been around for 50+ years, that clearly have no effect, or make things worse....and call yourself a progressive. Rather, the people espousing income redistribution, and the continuation of these failing programs, for the sake of the ideology they represent, and not because they improve society, should just call themselves socialists and get it over with.

 

Finally, the fundamental tenet of a progressive is that: they are FOR reform. You cannot be against reforming:

1. the tax code

2. entitlements

3. SSI

4. DoD all or nothing spending

5. basically the entire Federal government and how it operates

and call yourself a progressive.

 

Who is standing in the way of reform on each and every issue? Who is trying to keep things the way they are/"have always been"? Progressives.....that aren't.

Edited April 18, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[Buftex]

So would you rather have a President who flip flops like they all do...it's call playing politics or one that you (and most here) conisider a failure? I've made my choice. What's yours going to be??

 

So you voted for Johh Kerry?

 

Chef, these arguments can be twisted around to make any point. I think, sometimes, that is why so many of you keep your posts short and sweet, so as not to reveal much about what you think, but only how wrong you think others are.

 

I thought it was you (maybe it was LA, or somebody else) who hailed a **** storm of indignity on me for using the term, and accepting, that so much of what we argue about "playing politics". I get the difference, and I understand the subtlties. I get it, and I understand that Obama has not been a complete success (and I can't think of any who have been, except Ronald Reagan, who has now been deified by everyone), but I also don't see him as the complete, utter failure that you do.

 

Yes, I want the economy to be strong, but I don't necessarily want it to come at the cost of the things that Romney and his ilk consider to be unimportant or trivial. I know, everyone here is a highly focused, type-A, boot-straps guy who never makes any mistake, or has a lapse in judgement that they can't fix themselves. But what the hell do you guys want to do with everyone who isn't so blessed as you with supreme confidence every step of the way?

 

Could our education system be any more fugged up? The great Ryan plan, which seems to have become the new Republican bible can find endless social services to cut, but honeslty, can't find any bloat in our military? Really? Jump all over Obama for his "Buffet Plan", but turn their eyes to the fact that much of what Ryan proposes isn't really going to put much of a dent in the debt either...but it will make a few people happier, and make a lot of lifes all that much harder.

 

There are lots of people in this country, many who don't likely fit the profile of the typical TBD dweller...what do you want to do with them? Kill them? Lock them up in jail? Let everyone die?

 

I respect your conviction...I have no problem with you voting for Mitt Romney, or anyone else. That goes for anyone here. But why is it so difficult for some to see that not everyone has the same priorities as they do? What makes the needs or desires of some so much more important than the needs or desires of others?

 

THIIIIIIIIIIS! This is exactly right.

 

Progressives have to face up to the fact that the current policy they support has very little to do with being a progressive. Resurrecting ideas from 1936, or 1965....is not progress.

 

By the Teddy Roosevelt definition of progressive, or by any other definition, the policies and the definition do not match. Where is the new technology/new ideas being used to solve problems? Where is the intellectual commitment to improve society by rejecting the old things that don't work, and replacing them with things that do? You can't be for improving society, and, also be for things that have been around for 50+ years, that clearly have no effect, or make things worse....and call yourself a progressive. Rather, the people espousing income redistribution, and the continuation of these failing programs, for the sake of the ideology they represent, and not because they improve society, should just call themselves socialists and get it over with.

 

Finally, the fundamental tenet of a progressive is that: they are FOR reform. You cannot be against reforming:

1. the tax code

2. entitlements

3. SSI

4. DoD all or nothing spending

5. basically the entire Federal government and how it operates

and call yourself a progressive.

 

Who is standing in the way of reform on each and every issue? Who is trying to keep things the way they are/"have always been"? Progressives.....that aren't.

 

I don't identify myself as a "progressive", that seems to be something LA has bestowed upon me. I honestly don't even know what that term means, politically. As you define "progressive", I just don't think I (or anyone I know) really fits into that. What is the opposite of a "progressive"? A "regressive"? You know, the ones who insist that any cuts in military bloat will "weaken the empire", or leave us vulnerable, or paying any additional taxes will only discourage them from wanting to do business in America?

[Buftex]

The Mormon conversation has already started online by the Huffposts of the world, where it usually starts to get filtered out to blogs, social media, etc.. Whether it gets legs remains to be seen, but it should be immediately short-lived if anyone paying attention knows Harry Reid is a Mormon.

 

This is a Huffpost search for "Romney, Mormon." And we all know HuffPost is uber-progressive.

 

That says more about the sad state of politics than it does any one candidate. Are you going to tell me that Barrack Obama hasn't taken more than his fare share of grief for his religion, or alleged religion from the right leaning social media outlets, and bloggers? I am not saying it is right, but lets' be fair about this. Religion has played an absurd amount of importance in American presidential politics for the last 40 years or so...

 

Incidentally, if you look at the link you posted, nearly every article referenced (at least on the first page) is about a Republican or evangelical questioning whether Romney's religion makes him a Christian, or how he is "going to have to address his Mormonism" Like I said, I haven't heard one negative word about Romney being a Mormon from any prominent Democrat. If this does become one of the fairytale "Obama devisive" issues, chances are, it will come from the Republicans...

Edited April 18, 2012 by Buftex

[/dev/null]

Boner weighs in on Obama's bi-partisan approach:

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/18/boehner_shameful_obama_checked_out_last_labor_day.html

[Gene Frenkle]

That says more about the sad state of politics than it does any one candidate. Are you going to tell me that Barrack Obama hasn't taken more than his fare share of grief for his religion, or alleged religion from the right leaning social media outlets, and bloggers? I am not saying it is right, but lets' be fair about this. Religion has played an absurd amount of importance in American presidential politics for the last 40 years or so...

http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/59507/detail/

 

LOL

[IDBillzFan]

That says more about the sad state of politics than it does any one candidate. Are you going to tell me that Barrack Obama hasn't taken more than his fare share of grief for his religion, or alleged religion from the right leaning social media outlets, and bloggers? I am not saying it is right, but lets' be fair about this. Religion has played an absurd amount of importance in American presidential politics for the last 40 years or so...

Obama has taken more than his share of crap about religion. My only point is that as long as Harry Reid is three dead people away from being POTUS, the left should find something else to pick on Romney about other than being a Mormon. It only makes the left look uninformed.

[Jauronimo]

Yes, I want the economy to be strong, but I don't necessarily want it to come at the cost of the things that Romney and his ilk consider to be unimportant or trivial. I know, everyone here is a highly focused, type-A, boot-straps guy who never makes any mistake, or has a lapse in judgement that they can't fix themselves. But what the hell do you guys want to do with everyone who isn't so blessed as you with supreme confidence every step of the way?

 

There are lots of people in this country, many who don't likely fit the profile of the typical TBD dweller...what do you want to do with them? Kill them? Lock them up in jail? Let everyone die?

 

I respect your conviction...I have no problem with you voting for Mitt Romney, or anyone else. That goes for anyone here. But why is it so difficult for some to see that not everyone has the same priorities as they do? What makes the needs or desires of some so much more important than the needs or desires of others?

Where has Romney ever said that helping the poor and downtrodden isn't important or isn't a priority? Why do you assume that cutting social programs equates to a death sentence for the less fortunate or less capable?

 

Have you considered that the current system which intends to benefit the lower class has been ineffective and to their long-run detriment? Have you considered that the benefits of a strong economy are not limited to only the upper class, but indeed benefit all who participate? Generally speaking, I think we all want the same things for this country, in terms of standard/comfort of living, but disagree strongly on how to achieve that end.

 

Libs seem to think that cutting entitlements is a sign of disdain for the lower classes. They only seem concerned with the intentions of a program and how it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, rather than looking at the results. Perhaps Romney loves the poor so much that he will give them what they need rather than what they want. Is giving an addict another hit a sign of compassion? Tossing more money at the condition rather than addressing the cause of the problem doesn't seem very compassionate to me. It seems irresponsible and ultimately futile.

 

A strong economy is the only means to achieve the standard of living we all want and is the best remedy for poverty, education, healthcare, etc.

Edited April 18, 2012 by Jauronimo

[Chef Jim]

So you voted for Johh Kerry?

 

Chef, these arguments can be twisted around to make any point. I think, sometimes, that is why so many of you keep your posts short and sweet, so as not to reveal much about what you think, but only how wrong you think others are.

 

I thought it was you (maybe it was LA, or somebody else) who hailed a **** storm of indignity on me for using the term, and accepting, that so much of what we argue about "playing politics". I get the difference, and I understand the subtlties. I get it, and I understand that Obama has not been a complete success (and I can't think of any who have been, except Ronald Reagan, who has now been deified by everyone), but I also don't see him as the complete, utter failure that you do.

 

I do? I don't think I have ever called him a comlete and utter failure as a president. My issue with him is his lack of qualities for a good leader or manager. You may call LA shrill but you have to admit is liking Obama to that terrible boss you had that passed the blame and didn't lead, motivate or take a sword for you is pretty spot on. Listen to him speak and see how often he uses the word I. The word I use as a manager is we. One of the hardest things for me learning to be a good manager was it ain't about me, it's all about them. That I take most of the responsibility when thing don't go right. He's terrible at that. So do I feel he's been a complete failure? Hell no, no one is a complete failure but he's lacking the major qualities of someone I want as President and that's someone who I'd go to the ends of the earth for and he ain't it.

[3rdnlng]

That says more about the sad state of politics than it does any one candidate. Are you going to tell me that Barrack Obama hasn't taken more than his fare share of grief for his religion, or alleged religion from the right leaning social media outlets, and bloggers? I am not saying it is right, but lets' be fair about this. Religion has played an absurd amount of importance in American presidential politics for the last 40 years or so...

 

 

Take a look at this Gallup Poll & notice near the end of the article how religious people feel about Obama. I read somewhere that he's been to church 3 times in 2012. I don't have a link and it doesn't really matter except for what he espouses.

 

http://pollingmatters.gallup.com/2012_04_01_archive.html

[IDBillzFan]

I don't think I have ever called him a comlete and utter failure as a president.

That was me. I think he's a complete and utter failure. He can't lead. He can't inspire. He can't unite. He can't even organize.

 

But hey...things could be worse. He could wear a sweater vest. That would be really bad.

[Buftex]

Where has Romney ever said that helping the poor and downtrodden isn't important or isn't a priority? Why do you assume that cutting social programs equates to a death sentence for the less fortunate or less capable?

 

Have you considered that the current system which intends to benefit the lower class has been ineffective and to their long-run detriment? Have you considered that the benefits of a strong economy are not limited to only the upper class, but indeed benefit all who participate? Generally speaking, I think we all want the same things for this country, in terms of standard/comfort of living, but disagree strongly on how to achieve that end.

 

Libs seem to think that cutting entitlements is a sign of disdain for the lower classes. They only seem concerned with the intentions of a program and how it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, rather than looking at the results. Perhaps Romney loves the poor so much that he will give them what they need rather than what they want. Is giving an addict another hit a sign of compassion? Tossing more money at the condition rather than addressing the cause of the problem doesn't seem very compassionate to me. It seems irresponsible and ultimately futile.

 

A strong economy is the only means to achieve the standard of living we all want and is the best remedy for poverty, education, healthcare, etc.

 

 

Fair enough. And you bring up good points. But what is so troubling, to me, about Romney, his track record (some of which I admire, I don't hate the guy) is so inchoerent with the things he says now, trying to win an election. And I get,like I said to Chef, a lot of it is just playing politics. But he is painting himself into a pretty tight corner, as far as I am concerned.

 

Romney reportedly gave a doozey of a speech a few nights ago, to his largest donors, where he made some pretty big promises about new tax loopholes, cutting programs like HUD (wasn't that his daddy's old outfit?), making further cuts in education...he seems to adhere to the "trickle down" theory, which has never really worked.

 

I am not against cutting federal programs, and making government more efficient. The social "safety net" for the poor represents a relatively small part of our economy. I am sure there are cuts that can be made, and I am sure there are abuses...but I am also sure abuses exist, and cuts can be made elsewhere as well. Seeing and hearing the fervor of the audiences at the GOP debates when the topic of the poor, social programs (whatever term you want to use for these things, they all have their slanted implications, one way or antoher), was, frankly, disgusting. There seems to be this perception that anyone who receives government assistance is a no good, free-loader, drug addict...except for themselves, and anyone in their families who receive benefits of any kind.

 

And, it wasn't that long ago that universal healthcare was a Republican tenet. Nixon was a big proponent...it might be a B word to get it implemented (and maybe this is the wrong time), but would have a positive long range impact on the economy in the long run...you know, doing what is needed, not necessarily what is wanted. Something I read somewhere (sorry, can't remember the source, though I am sure someone will try to get me to find it!) said that one third of meidical expenses incurred in the US are done so by the uninsured. Which directly affects the cost of services that we all pay, and the cost of health inusurace for those who have insurance. So, in effect, healthcare in the US, pre-Obamacare, is one of the costlier entitlement programs out there.

[Chef Jim]

That was me. I think he's a complete and utter failure. He can't lead. He can't inspire. He can't unite. He can't even organize.

 

But hey...things could be worse. He could wear a sweater vest. That would be really bad.

 

Oh I knew YOU said that. Hell you could be at dinner with Obama and he'd order the calamari with marinara sauce for the table and you'd probably say: "Marinara for calamari?? WTF Barry??"

[IDBillzFan]

Oh I knew YOU said that. Hell you could be at dinner with Obama and he'd order the calamari with marinara sauce for the table and you'd probably say: "Marinara for calamari?? WTF Barry??"

I'm really not that bad. But let's be honest, if Barry ordered calamari, he'd ask for a side of Ranch and we both know it.

[Chef Jim]

Fair enough. And you bring up good points. But what is so troubling, to me, about Romney, his track record (some of which I admire, I don't hate the guy) is so inchoerent with the things he says now, trying to win an election. And I get,like I said to Chef, a lot of it is just playing politics. But he is painting himself into a pretty tight corner, as far as I am concerned.

 

Romney reportedly gave a doozey of a speech a few nights ago, to his largest donors, where he made some pretty big promises about new tax loopholes, cutting programs like HUD (wasn't that his daddy's old outfit?), making further cuts in education...he seems to adhere to the "trickle down" theory, which has never really worked.

 

I am not against cutting federal programs, and making government more efficient. The social "safety net" for the poor represents a relatively small part of our economy. I am sure there are cuts that can be made, and I am sure there are abuses...but I am also sure abuses exist, and cuts can be made elsewhere as well. Seeing and hearing the fervor of the audiences at the GOP debates when the topic of the poor, social programs (whatever term you want to use for these things, they all have their slanted implications, one way or antoher), was, frankly, disgusting. There seems to be this perception that anyone who receives government assistance is a no good, free-loader, drug addict...except for themselves, and anyone in their families who receive benefits of any kind.

 

And, it wasn't that long ago that universal healthcare was a Republican tenet. Nixon was a big proponent...it might be a B word to get it implemented (and maybe this is the wrong time), but would have a positive long range impact on the economy in the long run...you know, doing what is needed, not necessarily what is wanted. Something I read somewhere (sorry, can't remember the source, though I am sure someone will try to get me to find it!) said that one third of meidical expenses incurred in the US are done so by the uninsured. Which directly affects the cost of services that we all pay, and the cost of health inusurace for those who have insurance. So, in effect, healthcare in the US, pre-Obamacare, is one of the costlier entitlement programs out there.

 

So mentioning in a speech that he's going to make some cuts and mentions a couple of areas he'd cut but becuase he doesn't give a laundry list of all the things he'll cut it's painting himself into a corner. Damn dude that's pretty weak.

[Buftex]

Take a look at this Gallup Poll & notice near the end of the article how religious people feel about Obama. I read somewhere that he's been to church 3 times in 2012. I don't have a link and it doesn't really matter except for what he espouses.

 

http://pollingmatters.gallup.com/2012_04_01_archive.html

 

Sorry dude, not ignoring you...I just can't get this link to open.

[Chef Jim]

I'm really not that bad. But let's be honest, if Barry ordered calamari, he'd ask for a side of Ranch and we both know it.

 

Oh hell he'd not even order the calamari. You have to eat that with your fingers!! The thought!

[Buftex]

So mentioning in a speech that he's going to make some cuts and mentions a couple of areas he'd cut but becuase he doesn't give a laundry list of all the things he'll cut it's painting himself into a corner. Damn dude that's pretty weak.

 

 

When I said he is painting himself into a corner, I wasn't referring exclusively to his donor speech..but to his whole run for the GOP nomination. And we all know what the Ryan plan is. In reality, it seems like many are taking the "anybody but Obama" attitude that they were so critical of Democrats for taking, back in the 2004 elections, as it pertained to Bush.

Edited April 18, 2012 by Buftex

[DC Tom]

When I said he is painting himself into a corner, I wasn't referring exclusively to his donor speech..but to his whole run for the GOP nomination. In reality, it seems like many are taking the "anybody but Obama" attitude that they were so critical of Clinton and Obama supporters for taking, back in the 2008 elections, as it pertained to Bush.

 

In other words: extremists are idiots.