Barack must be desperate for voters...

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

What did Bush 43 do that was undignified? From wher I sat, I thought he was too dignified, because he always let liberals insult him, and he never fought back.

Maybe he should have fought back...maybe take charge....be Presidential

This just Screams "Presidential Dignity" when I see it



Dignity upon Dignity....

[UserRemoved]

Here's some dignity for ol Barry

Russian newsreader Tatyana Limanova makes insulting gesture at Obama - Telegraph
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Maybe he should have fought back...maybe take charge....be Presidential

This just Screams "Presidential Dignity" when I see it



Dignity upon Dignity....

The first video is a bit unfair since Bush wasn't president at the time. The second video is hilarious. I guess being a bumblemouth is not dignified, but he wasn't directing undignified verbiage toward others--just showing the lack of oratorical grace that he was noted for.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Yep, and all I said was the past 3 presidents didn't have it....maybe the next one???....who knows.

Maybe he should have embraced the Teleprompter

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The "libs here" support the slaughter of 4,000 unborn babies a day. Let's assume half of those are women. Who cares more for them?

As always, a pathetic attempt to spin a topic that doesn't have even a remote relationship to abortion into "killing unborn babies."

You're really committed to mentioning that "Liberal = Baby Killer" any time a non-Conservative politician is mentioned. We get the point.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

man, that is hilarious

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

You're really committed to mentioning that "Liberal = Baby Killer" any time a non-Conservative politician is mentioned. We get the point.

Didn't his hero Newt lie about 800 babies being left in dumpsters in DC?

Birds of a feather...

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

I dont want to blame everything on "O" but I think his attitude has made it worse.

While divisive politics certainly have a long history, it would seem as though the 1990's saw the current track we're on today really take hold.

Sure, the Dem's have had their moments, but the Republican efforts to maintain authority and destroy Clinton and Obama really has no equal, even considering left wing desires to impeach Bush for misleading the country into the Iraq war.

Obama might appear detached, but I don't think his attitude is a problem. From everything I've read he's completely engaged and works his ass off.

One thing I can say for Romney is he is a mature and moral person and believe he would bring dignity back to the office.

Agree, but I'm sure you could say that of a number of people who get to Washington and are soon corrupted even though they believe they're doing the right thing...it's not easy to lead when you're in a bubble.

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The first video is a bit unfair since Bush wasn't president at the time. The second video is hilarious. I guess being a bumblemouth is not dignified, but he wasn't directing undignified verbiage toward others--just showing the lack of oratorical grace that he was noted for.

I'd consider this a similar moment to the Michelle Obama remark...first time proud of country...just a different kind of clumsy. With context it makes sense, but wasn't delivered well at the time.

-spence

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Paul, you called me a "scum bag", and 5 minutes later, you're saying that I'm the only one who thinks it's OK to insult people.

Paul, please get off your high horse. Maddow's actions provoked me into insulting her, and my actions provoked you into insulting me. From where I sit, you and I are both equally guilty of insulting those with whom we disagree, so I fail to see from where you assume the moral high ground on this issue.

Good luck responding to that.

Unbelievable.

No, I have no problem insulting you at all. Your constantly insulting ALL people who don't agree w/you. That is the difference. I would have thought you got that.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

No, I have no problem insulting you at all. Your constantly insulting ALL people who don't agree w/you. That is the difference. I would have thought you got that.

like I said...neat trick

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

As always, a pathetic attempt to spin a topic that doesn't have even a remote relationship to abortion into "killing unborn babies."

You're really committed to mentioning that "Liberal = Baby Killer" any time a non-Conservative politician is mentioned. We get the point.

Johnny, if a liberal accuses me of not caring about women, then I think it's pretty valid to point out that I am opposed to the slaughter of 2000 unborn girls a day, and to point out that most liberals support that.

If the shoe fits Johnny, if the shoe fits...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

No, I have no problem insulting you at all. Your constantly insulting ALL people who don't agree w/you. That is the difference. I would have thought you got that.

Wrong. First of all, I don't insult all people who disagree with me. In the case of Maddow, it's irrefutable fact that she likes to call people like me "tea bagging racists", which is obviously meant to be derogatory.

And second of all, you said that insulting was inappropriate. I wonder when you got appointed the God of deciding who it's appropriate to insult, and who it's not appropriate to insult. But liberals often anoint themselves with such authority, in order to defend an obvious hypocrisy.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by spence

Obama might appear detached, but I don't think his attitude is a problem. From everything I've read he's completely engaged and works his ass off.

-spence

Doesn't matter how hard he works if he does a crappy job. There are no "A's for effort" in his position. And his childish remarks and smarmy attitude make people dislike him. That doesn't make him detached, but it makes him look like an ass.

[spence]

Originally Posted by fishbones

Doesn't matter how hard he works if he does a crappy job. There are no "A's for effort" in his position. And his childish remarks and smarmy attitude make people dislike him. That doesn't make him detached, but it makes him look like an ass.

The jury doesn't decide on the job he's done for another year. I think Obama can present a pretty effective presidency if he can get his PR together.

As for childish and smarmy remarks, I'm not sure there's much here to go on...unless you hated him to begin with.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

While divisive politics certainly have a long history, it would seem as though the 1990's saw the current track we're on today really take hold.

Sure, the Dem's have had their moments, but the Republican efforts to maintain authority and destroy Clinton and Obama really has no equal, even considering left wing desires to impeach Bush for misleading the country into the Iraq war.

Obama might appear detached, but I don't think his attitude is a problem. From everything I've read he's completely engaged and works his ass off.


Agree, but I'm sure you could say that of a number of people who get to Washington and are soon corrupted even though they believe they're doing the right thing...it's not easy to lead when you're in a bubble.

-spence

"the Republican efforts to maintain authority and destroy Clinton and Obama really has no equal"

Sorry, remember Sarah Palin? Libs weren't out to destroy her? MSNBC is STILL obsessed with her, and she isn't even running for anything.

"From everything I've read he's completely engaged and works his ass off."

Spence, let me get this right. If you "read" that Bush was awesome, obviously you would dispute it. But when you read that Obama works his butt off, that's good enough for you, it must be true?

Just trying to clarify.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The jury doesn't decide on the job he's done for another year. I think Obama can present a pretty effective presidency if he can get his PR together.

As for childish and smarmy remarks, I'm not sure there's much here to go on...unless you hated him to begin with.

-spence

"As for childish and smarmy remarks, I'm not sure there's much here to go on."

on Sarah Palin..."you can put lipstick onm a pig, it's still a pig".

On blue collar Americans: they cling to their guns and religion because they are bitter and racist.

On the Cambridge police: I wasn't there, and I have no idea what happened, but it's fair to say the police acted stupidly.

On those who criticized him for his remarks about the Cambridge police: I'm sorry if people took my remarks as derogatory. (Is there another way to interpret the word "stupid"?)

On his bowling skills: I look like one of those special olympians out there (ha ha ha!!!! Boy, there's nothing funnier than making fun of handicapped people!)

on republicans: they need to get in the back of the bus.

This is just off the top of my head. Spence, care to comment on your assertion??

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"the Republican efforts to maintain authority and destroy Clinton and Obama really has no equal"

Sorry, remember Sarah Palin? Libs weren't out to destroy her? MSNBC is STILL obsessed with her, and she isn't even running for anything.

She's still quite influential in the GOP though...as odd as it may seem.

As for efforts to discredit her, these were a response to an open invitation. Her VP nod was a trick play and she was obviously not ready for the job, if she ever would be...although she's making a hell of a lot of money just hanging out there

"From everything I've read he's completely engaged and works his ass off."

Spence, let me get this right. If you "read" that Bush was awesome, obviously you would dispute it. But when you read that Obama works his butt off, that's good enough for you, it must be true?

Just trying to clarify.

I think Bush was a disengaged President. He thought of himself as the "decider" and wanted to make a mark but really didn't want to own the decision making process. In all I think he's a decent guy who just gave up too much authority to those around him. The proof here is in the pudding.

Obama by contrast appears to put a lot more mental energy into the job. I don't think he has a bad attitude or hates America. If anything he's insulated himself too much from inside the beltway jabber and hasn't worked to control the debate. This has hindered his effectiveness.

There are limitations to both styles.

-spence

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by spence

The jury doesn't decide on the job he's done for another year. I think Obama can present a pretty effective presidency if he can get his PR together.

As for childish and smarmy remarks, I'm not sure there's much here to go on...unless you hated him to begin with.

-spence

You're not serious, are you? He'd need the miracle of all miracles to present an effective presidency. As for me hating him, nope. You're not gonna bait me with that old crap. I may not have voted for him, but I hoped he would succeed. You can find that in a post I made way back when he was elected. Even you can find plenty of instances where he's been smarmy and childish. Plenty to go on there.

[scottw]

Spence is hilarious

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I'd consider this a similar moment to the Michelle Obama remark...first time proud of country...just a different kind of clumsy. With context it makes sense, but wasn't delivered well at the time.

-spence

Spence, PLEASE enlighten me...in what context did Michelle mean that statement?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

She's still quite influential in the GOP though...as odd as it may seem.

As for efforts to discredit her, these were a response to an open invitation. Her VP nod was a trick play and she was obviously not ready for the job, if she ever would be...although she's making a hell of a lot of money just hanging out there




I think Bush was a disengaged President. He thought of himself as the "decider" and wanted to make a mark but really didn't want to own the decision making process. In all I think he's a decent guy who just gave up too much authority to those around him. The proof here is in the pudding.

Obama by contrast appears to put a lot more mental energy into the job. I don't think he has a bad attitude or hates America. If anything he's insulated himself too much from inside the beltway jabber and hasn't worked to control the debate. This has hindered his effectiveness.

There are limitations to both styles.

-spence

"Her VP nod was a trick play "

Read some actual facts. At the time of her nomination, she had the highest approval ratings of any governor in the country. Her nomination catapulted McCain ahead of Obama in every poll, and they stayed ahead till the economy collapsed.

[ecduzitgood]

Besides voting present what qualifications did Obama have to be voted president compared tgo Sarah Palin being VICE president?
Obama could have shown his love for this country and it's laws by telling his Aunt and Uncle to please leave and reenter legally. Wouldn't it be nice to have an American citzen working the package store job instead, I'll bet a vet would show some appreciation to have aunt tootiefruities apartment rather than her opinion that we owe her citizenship now (she is on video check youtube.
Did they ever get anyone to replace Michele Obama and her $350k a year job and if so are they getting the same pay.
Besides the automakers (union) bailout and the stimulous whcih went to mostly state and federal employees and contractors who has he helped?
How much has she cost us compared to previous first ladies?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, PLEASE enlighten me...in what context did Michelle mean that statement?

easy..............watch the video...her dreams were coming true

'Barack stood up that day,' talking about a visit to Chicago neighborhoods, 'and spoke words that have stayed with me ever since. He talked about 'The world as it is' and 'The world as it should be…' And, 'All of us driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won't do – that we have an obligation to, fight for the world as it should be." MICHELLE OBAMA DNC CONVENTION


"As an organizer I start from where the world is, as it is, not as I would like it to be. That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be - it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be. That means working in the system.

There's another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevsky said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families - more than seventy million people - whose income range from $5,000 to $10,000 a year (in 1971). They cannot be dismissed by labeling them blue collar or hard hat. They will not continue to be relatively passive and slightly challenging. If we fail to communicate with them, if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, but let's not let it happen by default."

We will start with the system because there is no other place to start from except political lunacy. It is most important for those of us who want revolutionary change to understand that revolution must be proceeded by reformation. To assume that a political revolution can survive without the supporting base of a popular reformation is to ask for the impossible in politics.

Men don't like to step abruptly out of the security of familiar experience; they need a bridge to cross from their own experience to a new way. A revolutionary organizer must shake up the prevailing patterns of their lives--agitate, create disenchantment and discontent with the current values, to produce, if not a passion for change, at least a passive, affirmative, no-challenging climate.

A reformation means that masses of our people have reached the point of disillusionment with past ways and values. They don't know what will work but they do know that the prevailing system is self-defeating, frustrating, and hopeless. They won't but won't strongly oppose those who do. The time is then ripe for revolution.

Change means movement. Movement means friction. Only in the frictionless vacuum of a nonexistent abstract world can movement or change occur without that abrasive friction of conflict." SAUL ALINSKY


they were the "ONES" they'd been waiting for no doubt it was the first time in her adult life she was really proud of America

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, PLEASE enlighten me...in what context did Michelle mean that statement?

Quite simply, the context was about the upwelling of people, especially younger people, getting excited and engaged with their government.

The line was a bit sensationalistic and Her speechwriters/handlers should have realized it left her too open for criticism. But given the situation it's also a quite reasonable thing to believe, the energy around Obama's candidacy was like something I know I've never seen in American politics.

The reversal, that this is the first time she's ever been proud of her country as an adult is really quite a silly thing to believe when you put a little thought into it, especially considering how the Obama's have remarked that their story would be impossible anywhere but the USA. Yes it fits ScottW's tin-foil hat Alynsky obsessed fantasy of commies trying to undermine America, but outside of that, it's just a clumsy remark that was blown out of proportion by a well coordinated effort to tear Obama down.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Quite simply, the context was about the upwelling of people, especially younger people, getting excited and engaged with their government.

The line was a bit sensationalistic and Her speechwriters/handlers should have realized it left her too open for criticism. But given the situation it's also a quite reasonable thing to believe, the energy around Obama's candidacy was like something I know I've never seen in American politics.

The reversal, that this is the first time she's ever been proud of her country as an adult is really quite a silly thing to believe when you put a little thought into it, especially considering how the Obama's have remarked that their story would be impossible anywhere but the USA. Yes it fits ScottW's tin-foil hat Alynsky obsessed fantasy of commies trying to undermine America, but outside of that, it's just a clumsy remark that was blown out of proportion by a well coordinated effort to tear Obama down.

-spence

no...it acutually makes sense in context with her many other comments...


The Other Obama by Lauren Collins

Obama begins with a broad assessment of life in America in 2008, and life is not good: we’re a divided country, we’re a country that is “just downright mean,” we are “guided by fear,” we’re a nation of cynics, sloths, and complacents. “We have become a nation of struggling folks who are barely making it every day,” she said, as heads bobbed in the pews. “Folks are just jammed up, and it’s gotten worse over my lifetime. And, doggone it, I’m young. Forty-four!”

From these bleak generalities, Obama moves into specific complaints. Used to be, she will say, that you could count on a decent education in the neighborhood. But now there are all these charter schools and magnet schools that you have to “finagle” to get into. (Obama herself attended a magnet school, but never mind.) Health care is out of reach (“Let me tell you, don’t get sick in America”), pensions are disappearing, college is too expensive, and even if you can figure out a way to go to college you won’t be able to recoup the cost of the degree in many of the professions for which you needed it in the first place. “You’re looking at a young couple that’s just a few years out of debt,” Obama said. “See, because, we went to those good schools, and we didn’t have trust funds. I’m still waiting for Barack’s trust fund. Especially after I heard that #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney was s’posed to be a relative or something. Give us something here!”

Read more Michelle Obama’s pride and the politics of candor : The New Yorker

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Her VP nod was a trick play "

Read some actual facts. At the time of her nomination, she had the highest approval ratings of any governor in the country. Her nomination catapulted McCain ahead of Obama in every poll, and they stayed ahead till the economy collapsed.

Do you think that just by repeating the word "facts" in all your posts it gives them more credibility?

Palin did have high marks as Governor, although I'm not sure I'd put the job on the same level as leading New York, Texas or even Iowa for that matter. We are talking about a state that has a tiny population and vast natural resources that by law benefit the voters. Big topics on the legislative agenda are the wolf population and how to allocate the 442 million Federal tax dollars they decided not to spend on the bridge to nowhere. Hell, that's more than a half million dollars per resident!

When she hit the spotlight it was clear that she was completely unprepared for the job. Yes, she's hot and delivers a solid snarky one liner, but beyond that there's not a lot of substance.

The media attention she attracted did help McCain in the polls, and the economy did have a big impact on their demise. But the simple fact is that the voters saw her as a novelty in the end. She was a trick play that gave McCain a bump, but when the reality of the next year became clear, voters had more confidence in Obama and Biden.

McCain blew it. Had he picked Joe Lieberman as is rumored to be his personal choice...they would have cleaned up.

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

Used to be, she will say, that you could count on a decent education in the neighborhood. But now there are all these charter schools and magnet schools that you have to “finagle” to get into. (Obama herself attended a magnet school, but never mind.) Health care is out of reach (“Let me tell you, don’t get sick in America”), pensions are disappearing, college is too expensive, and even if you can figure out a way to go to college you won’t be able to recoup the cost of the degree in many of the professions for which you needed it in the first place. “You’re looking at a young couple that’s just a few years out of debt,” Obama said. “See, because, we went to those good schools, and we didn’t have trust funds. I’m still waiting for Barack’s trust fund. Especially after I heard that #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney was s’posed to be a relative or something. Give us something here!”

Sounds like she understands the frustrations of Middle America pretty damn well.

You should start posting this on the NASCAR blogs

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Sounds like she understands the frustrations of Middle America pretty damn well.

You should start posting this on the NASCAR blogs

-spence

no...sounds like she understands the "frustrations" of the OCCUPY idiots pretty damn well...which makes perfect sense...

sounds like a lot of familiar whining..."give me a damn education, give me some damn healthcare and give me some damn trust fund money"....nice

based on her reception at NASCAR, I'd say "middle America" has got her figured out

[spence]

Originally Posted by fishbones

You're not serious, are you? He'd need the miracle of all miracles to present an effective presidency.

Remember, his effectiveness will be judged relative to the challenges he's faced and the anticipated effectiveness of his challenger.

A tanking economy, two wars, 10 natural disasters etc...hell, this would have been tough first term for anyone.

The fact that we didn't slip into a depression, that we're exiting Iraq, that we've killed a heck of a lot of terrorists including OBL, expanded health care coverage, a lot of positive financial and military reforms, restrictions on lobbyists, incentives for small businesses etc...

There's a lot to sell the independent voter on. Obama's bigger worry should be that the left (and younger voters) feel he has led from the middle and might not mobilize like they did in 2008. But, it's looking like the GOP might have a similar problem getting the religious right to the polls as well.

In the end I think it's going to be a very tight race. Obama is a good debater and the debates will probably decide the election.

-spence