Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Dear Obama: You Lose

Dear Obama: You Lose

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

You see, the only reason why you did so well in the first place is that as a person, you seemed way cooler than most other politicians. Wayy more cool than John McCain, even with his heroism and long record of public service. Most of those who voted for you didn’t even really care about the details of your platform. They were willing to let any serious discussions of the impacts of what you were proposing slide, or perhaps even give it a try. After all, Bush and the Republicans had at it for eight years; eight tough years. Years during which the media continuously told us how bad things were, how bad Bush was, how terrible the wars were and so on. So everyone agreed it was time for a change. And as the very candidate running on change, you beat the milquetoast John McCain handily. Fine.

But it’s been 4 years now. And I’m pretty sure that when you said change, most people thought you meant a change from Bush. I’m pretty sure they didn’t think you meant a change from the greatness and freedom of America. And 2010 was proof of that: one of the first big opportunities the people had to rebuke your power. Which they did, overwhelmingly, or to use your term, “shellack”-ingly. Is that a word? In any case, there was also the stream of newly elected blue state Republican governors, such as Chris Christie, and Scott Walker, and the failed recall and so on.

But never mind all that, you thought. “I’m LeBron, baby.” Seriously, you said that about yourself back in 2004 and it goes to your over-sized ego and state of mind. I’ve worked in my career for 20 years, and I believe I am excellent at it. But I’ve never boasted about my skills like that, ever, and would laugh at anyone who did. Even LeBron doesn’t go around saying, “I’m LeBron baby.” But that’s actually the type of guy you are. In all of your wisdom, you kept on. Forget Clintonian centrism; faced with popular backlash, you just knew your wonderfulness would just smooth it all over, is that right?

You know, I’m not even going to talk about the various and sundry issues and complaints involving your terrible performance as president. We don’t just have an 800 lb gorilla in the room (and no, that’s not racist), but we have an elephant as well, and several skeletons in the closet. You’ve been a disaster on every level. Those who suggest that the result of your presidency has been moderateness don’t get it; you don’t elect a radical to achieve moderateness. I’ll vote for the guy with my ideals on the tin, plain and simple.

The American people aren’t always so good at remembering. They do recall though, when reminded. Prior to the debates, most had forgotten that past presidents never talked about what “they inherited,” nor did they shamelessly and continuously construct strawmen that bear no resemblance nor pay respect to the opposition’s opposition. They do recall though, when reminded.

When Romney faced you in the first debate, America was reminded what it was like to have a president who deals in reality. What it was like to have a president who has answers and accomplishments, rather than excuses and questions. Experience and intellect versus liberal ideology. See, it wasn’t just a bad night for you. It has been a bad four years for us. It’s not just that you looked down. It’s that since day one, your entire premise has been based on blame gaming, and lowering expectations. Hope and Change turned out to actually be worse than what we had with Bush, with the one exception of a critical, and constantly harping press.

But re-electing a failed president because you like the positive media coverage doesn’t make sense. Not when so many people are hurting, and even those who are doing OK, are just bobbing along when they’d like to actually thrive and do better. You might be riding high on the flimsy cover Candy Crowley provided you last night, but while you may have won that small battle, it was amid losing the war.

Romney reminded people that it really doesn’t have to be this way. We don’t have to deal in class warfare of the 99 percent and the 1 percent. We don’t have to vote like our lady parts depend on it, because actually, they kinda don’t. We don’t have to construct strawmen about everything and say that things are above our pay grade, or unilaterally relax democratically passed laws to help our chances at re-election or any of the countless other impositions you’ve imposed on us these last four years. Before you showed up, we at least paid lip service to the sanctity of our process and laws.

Not to say your defeat in November will fix all the damage you’ve wrought. It won’t and your legacy will loom large and be infamous. You’ve forever changed the relationship between the government and the people for the worse, vastly extended the powers of the executive branch beyond all recognition and balance, and stuck generations with debt for years to come. Not to mention the impact your views have had on our national attitude. And I won’t even talk about the damage wrought on our already hurting foreign policy. I truly fear that regardless of your loss next month, these cats cannot be put back into their respective bags. Not all of them at least.

So barring any mass hysteria, or massive fraud, you will be sent packing in November. You’ve been exposed, and so have your cohorts in the media. And none too soon either – we’ve narrowly averted disaster, this time. And we’ll elect Mitt Romney, who will not only be a better president than you, but actually a good and great man who loves this country, as it is.

Photo: Newsweek

Powered by

About The Obnoxious American

  • Alexander J Smith III

    Interesting piece.

    Lots of claims in this one, the one I’m most interested in is what straw-man you believe Obama is ‘attacking’. Most of what I’ve seen are pretty accurate constructions of his opposition, and while I agree that he does spend a little more time than he should on the economic crisis that his administration walked into, that doesn’t actually change the fact that he was faced with a crisis that we hadn’t seen anything like since Black Monday 87.

  • Dr Dreadful

    It’s going to be close, but I haven’t seen any good, reliable poll analyses, even conservative ones, that predict Romney will win. He needs at least two or three of the marginal states that aren’t already in his column, and Obama’s slim lead in most of those has been holding steady.

    It does depend who actually turns up and votes, of course. Romney has a chance if the Republicans do a better job of mobilizing their base. But I think Obama will hold on by 20-30 EC votes – without any more obvious “massive fraud” than has been at play in any of the last three or four elections.

    You’re welcome to dream on, though, Obnox. We’ll see who’s right in a couple of weeks.

  • The Obnoxious American

    What “claims” would you like me to talk about?

  • Dr Dreadful

    Well, Obonox, you make a number of “claims” (I would call them assertions) in your article. The unsubstantiated ones are:

    – that Obama won in ’08 on style, not substance
    – that he is an egotist
    – that he blames everything on the Bush administration
    – that he plays the rich off against the middle class and the poor
    – that the election of a Republican administration will not have an adverse effect on women’s rights
    – that Obama is unique in relaxing the enforcement of selected federal laws
    – that he is unique in playing political games to help himself get re-elected
    – that he has singlehandedly changed the “national attitude”
    – that he has damaged American foreign policy
    – that if he wins re-election, it can only be because of mass hysteria or fraud
    – that Mitt Romney loves his country the way it is (in which case, why is he running for President? :-) )

    I get that your piece is rhetorical, but you did ask.

  • The Obnoxious American

    These are hardly claims, but feel free to dispute them if you’d like.

  • Igor

    Actually, OA, the way it works is that you are supposed to support your original assertions, NOT that people are to accept them until someone refutes them.

    That’s why you take on the responsibility of writing an article.

    Tough, isn’t it?

  • Fletch

    There has been one, and only one actual objective poll that has been conducted. Albeit, none of the media, pundits, analysts, and many, many conservatives for that matter, have actually seen this “poll” as a true marker. This election?? It’s going to be Chik-Fil-A times a million….(think about it….)

    Now I know that the above is anecdotal, but imho History will look back and “see” that moment in time as the watershed.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Obnox, this started with Alexander disputing your “Obama strawman” claim. You then asked what claims he would like you to talk about. I thought he’d already said which ones, so I decided to clarify things with a list. I agree that they are not claims – they’re assertions – but Igor is right. Ball’s in your court.

    By constantly kicking the question back to the asker, you’re either being evasive or lazy, both of which are most unlike you.

  • The Obnoxious American

    Igor,

    I’m simply not going to argue in favor of the obvious facts, which Doc so kindly laid out for all of us.

    If you think Obama won in 2008 on substance, or that he hasn’t blamed Bush for everything, fine – believe that all you like.

  • The Obnoxious American

    Doc, see my reply to Igor – not lazy but it gets tired arguing whether water is wet.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Then why write an article stating that water is wet?

  • The Obnoxious American

    That Obama is all of the things you’ve mentioned in your comment #4 is merely the impetus for the article and not in dispute by anyone save the most died in the wool Obama sycophants. This is an open letter of farewell to him as a failed president.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Yes, Obnox, I know that’s what it is. I’d have been content to leave it at that if it hadn’t been for your refusal to engage with Alexander’s perfectly reasonable question.

    BTW, that the assertions on my list are “not in dispute by anyone save the most died in the wool Obama sycophants” is another unsubstantiated assertion.

    I’m of a mind that you should get cracking now, so as to save time later when Glenn comes along with his usual lengthy sermon about Bush having done the same or worse.

  • http://brokebackmountaintribute.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Jet’s Electoral Prediction: boiling down and averaging every news source/poll/political climate, I get this result…
    Obama 316
    Romney 222

    I predict Fla will go to Obama, but just for fun I gave it to Romney. My home state of Ohio would’ve thrown our GOP gov out if he was up for reelection-as evidenced by the landslide opposition to his trying to screw public worker and teachers unions in the 2010 mid-term referendum.

    Alabama-9 Romney
    Alaska-3 Romney
    Arizona-11 Obama
    Arkansas-6 Romney
    California-55 Obama
    Colorado-9 Romney
    Connecticut-7 Obama
    Delaware-3 Obama
    Florida-29 Romney
    Georgia-16 Romney
    Hawaii-4 Obama
    Idaho-4 Romney
    Indiana-11 Romney
    Iowa-6 Obama
    Illinois-20 Obama
    Kansas-6 Romney
    Kentucky-8 Romney
    Louisiana-8 Romney
    Maine-4 Obama
    Maryland-10 Obama
    Massachusetts-11 Obama
    Michigan-16 Obama
    Ohio-18 Obama
    Oklahoma-7 Romney
    Nebraska-5 Romney
    Nevada-6 Obama
    New Hampshire-4 Obama
    New Jersey-14 Obama
    New Mexico-5 Obama
    New York-29 Obama
    Minnesota-10 Obama
    Mississippi-6 Romney
    Missouri-10 Romney
    Montana-3 Romney
    North Carolina-15 Romney
    North Dakota-3 Romney
    Oregon-7 Obama
    Pennsylvania-20 Obama
    Rhode Island-4 Obama
    South Carolina-9 Romney
    South Dakota-3 Romney
    Tennessee-11 Romney
    Texas-38 Romney
    Utah-6 Romney
    Vermont-3 Obama
    Virginia-13 Obama
    Washington-12 Obama
    Washington, D.C.-3 Obama
    West Virginia-5 Romney
    Wisconsin-10 Obama
    Wyoming-3 Romney

  • The Obnoxious American

    Doc, thanks for the advice, which i won’t take. I’ll let his comments stand in all their ignorant glory.

  • Clavos

    Glenn comes along with his usual lengthy sermon about Bush having done the same or worse.

    And, of course, his second most favorite preachment regarding the US’ unfavorable ranking among the First World nations in almost any category by which one can take the measure of a nation, all of which sorry rankings are due to the infinite deficiencies of not only Mr. Bush, but of all of the other GOP presidents and their administrations as well.

  • Baronius

    Jet – You give Arizona, Ohio, and Virginia to Obama. Switch them and it’s Obama 274 to Romney 264. Neither candidate can feel comfortable with the numbers that tight.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Jet gave Arizona to Obama? Not gonna happen, at least not this time round. Nate Silver’s Five Thirty Eight blog has a good explanation of why.

  • http://brokebackmountaintribute.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    It’s based on Arizona likley democratic election of democratic house and senate seats

  • The Obnoxious American

    I have a feeling quite a few states in the Dem category might surprise. Could be wrong, but even here in liberal land, no Obama stickers or signs, but quite a few for Romney.

  • http://brokebackmountaintribute.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    We’ll see… we’ll see

  • Baronius

    There aren’t many things I’d say “not gonna happen” to. A rainstorm can drop voter turnout 1% in the right state and change American history.

  • Dr Dreadful

    San Diego is fairly conservative, but I reckon I’ve seen about equal numbers of stickers and signs for both candidates.

  • Baronius

    The pollsters have finally figured out how important voter turnout is, but they’re still ironing out their measures of enthusiasm. The polls didn’t do that great a job in 2000 or 2004, and 2008 may have been an outlier in terms of voter enthusiasm. The problem ultimately is that people act unpredictably.

  • The Obnoxious American

    Agreed, there is no question that they are heavily underestimating GOP enthusiasm. And the GOP is more enthused right now than I’ve ever seen it.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Baronius, people do act unpredictably as individuals, but large populations of people are statistically very predictable.

    As a very basic example, let’s take the hypothetical case of “Wild” Harry McTaxbreaks, who lives in the Bible Belt town of Turnwright, AR. Harry was recently interviewed by CBS Evening News, and informed them that he hated “wingnut liberals”, wanted the government to “keep its filthy socialist hands out of my pockets”, and “you bet your damn ass” he would be voting for Mitt Romney at the forthcoming election.

    The city of Turnwright, in which Wild Harry lives, has a strongly conservative profile. It has a Republican mayor, 100% of its city council members are Republicans, and it has consistently returned Republicans to the statehouse and the House of Representatives, with comfortable majorities, in each of the last ten elections. In early 2004, President G.W. Bush signed a budget bill that resulted in Boom Boom Industries, a defense contractor that was by far Turnwright’s largest employer, closing its local factory. The town still voted for Bush that year by a 70-30 majority.

    Three weeks before the election, in a televised debate, Romney says something that Wild Harry takes to be a slight against “good honest God-fearing self-reliant working people”, of which Harry considers himself one. Come election day, CBS visits his home to do a follow-up report. Harry explains that because of Romney’s heinous insult, he won’t be voting for him. In fact, he’ll be abstaining and staying home.

    He waits for the news crew to leave, then puts on a wide-brimmed hat and a scarf, slips out of his back door, walks to the polling station and votes for Obama – just to show that Mormon commie freak.

    No, Wild Harry is not predictable. But how do you think the town of Turnwright in general is going to vote?

    The problem with predictions based on polls is that you have to be using the right algorithm – one that corrects for, among other factors, people like Harry. Pundits seem to be learning from their past mistakes, but there’s always been and still is a lot of wishful thinking, attempts to influence the electorate, ignorance of trends and plain sloppy thinking that skews their predictions.

  • The Obnoxious American

    Is this a dream sequence? If anything more people are saying that they are voting for Obama than actually are.

  • http://brokebackmountaintribute.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    One thing you’re not taking into account is early voting in the important swing states-something our/ohio’s republican administration is fighting (and losing) tooth and nail because factory workers and secretaries tend to vote dem.

    I personally took to the voting machine two weeks ago and the place was absolutely packed with people in company uniforms and casual clothes… in other words working class folk who normally would avoid the long lines after they got off work on election day, but found the convience of voting on their day off more inviting.

    The place was an old Khol’s dept store and the huge building was packed everywhere you looked with voting machines.

    Despite the crowd it took less time to vote than it did to find a parking place.

  • Dr Dreadful

    It’s just an example, Obnox. Currently there are more hardcore conservative regions in the US than there are hardcore liberal ones, which is why I picked that scenario as my example. Could just as easily have gone the other way and wigged out Jet or Glenn.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    OA –

    Castigating Obama for blaming the economy on Bush is a LOT like castigating a fireman for blaming the arsonist. “What, you don’t have the house rebuilt yet? What’s wrong with you!”

  • Alexander J Smith III

    -Obnoxious

    Well we can start with the “straw-man” you say Obama is attacking. Like i said before most of his constructions of his opposition are pretty accurate. You say he’s creating a straw-man I just wanted to know what the straw man.

  • http://brokebackmountaintribute.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    A better one would be for them to blame Obama for how long it’s taken to put the World trade center back up…

  • http://indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    First: Even as an opinion piece this article lacks anything remotely related to reality. Obnx’s assertion that it’s all over but the shouting for Obama is ludicrous at best. All polling still indicates that this is a very tight race across the board. The article is nothing more than vituperative wishful thinking. If anything, though, Obama still remains the odds on favorite to win on November 6th. He still holds small, but steady advantages in Ohio and several other so called swing states.

    As to Obnx’s assertions against Obama, as far as I’m concerned, they amount to nothing more than right wingnut bullshit.The fact is that Obama DID inherit a bag of that bullshit handed to him by the Bushies. Some feel that the situation was in many ways as bad as that facing Roosevelt in 1933. How long did it take the country to recover from the Great Depression? Two years? Four? While there were ups and downs all throughout the 1930s, the real rebound didn’t occur until after our entrance into WWII.

    Oddly enough, Romney (or Rmoney as some like to write) castigates Obama for not bringing the nation’s economy back during his four years in office, and then offers his plan which will supposedly result in a complete recovery in EIGHT TO TEN YEARS! WTF!

    The notion that Republicans offer no substantive danger to women’s reproductive rights is utter bullshit as well. The very first bill that Reps voted on in the House after the 2010 elections was to limit abortion. Since then, the House has voted on at least 39 different bills that would restrict women’s access to abortion or contraceptives – even to the point of allowing employers the power to decide whether or not to allow their female employees access to contraceptives through their medical insurance plans.

    Republican held state legislatures across the country have proposed and passed literally hundreds of laws limiting or totally denying women access to abortion and/or contraceptives. Many have or are attempting to enact so called “personhood” laws which would have the effect of making virtually all kinds of contraceptives and even in-vitro fertilization, illegal, and subjecting women and possibly their doctors to the possibility of jail terms.

    We’ve seen, just in the past 24 hours or so, how Senatorial candidate Richard Mourdock of Indiana believes that a preganancy deriving from rape is part of god’s plan. VP candidate Ryan is a co-sponsor along with Missouri’s Akin, of a proposed law redefining rape.

    I could go on and on with this particular diatribe, but I think the point is made. Women stand to lose a great deal with a Romney/Ryan win in November.

    Obama a socialist? Again – Bullshit. There is no proof in anything he has proposed or enacted as President to suggest that he is any kind of socialist. He is, first and foremost, a pragmatist. His policies have been far more centrist than most progressives would have preferred. Obama has proven to be far more of a hawk than most leftists would like. The notion that our position in the world has diminished under Obama is also rubbish. He has done more to pull this country’s image out of the crapper than any president in memory. He has shown the world that Americans are not necessarily a bunch of clueless, belligerant luddites whose mindset is stuck in a spittoon from a 1950s McCarthy hearing.

    On virtually every count in Obnx’s article, there is plenty of ammunition against each of them. Republicans have proven repeatedly throughout this campaign that they lack even a vestige of honesty and integrity – neither Romney nor Ryan can open their mouths without lying and/or reversing themselves on every issue at hand. Several state governments have, with varying levels of success, attempted to disallow registrations, even to the point of literally throwing registration forms into dumpsters, limit voting days and times, and generally disenfranchise as many likely Democratic voters as possible in the knowledge that they probably can’t win any other way. Republicans have belittled and damaged the entire electoral process by such actions.

    So don’t tell me or anyone how despicable you think Obama is. Look no further than the Republican Party to see just how rotten this campaign is.

  • http://cinemasentries.com El Bicho

    “America was reminded what it was like to have a president who deals in reality.”

    More like it was reminded what a used car salesman is like with all the lies Romney told. Even his campaign had to make corrections the next day.

    I gave up in the middle of Pg 2 because it is a poorly written rant that reads like the writer only gets info from Sean Hannity

  • http://brokebackmountaintribute.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Maybe Warren’s his ghost writer El?

  • The Obnoxious American

    Lolll you guys are hilarious. I didn’t expect you to like this article. But you simply cannot credibly dispute what’s been said. Obama has been a disaster as a president, and he’s been exposed as the small minded man that he is. But keep on defending him if you think he’s done such a great job for you.

  • Dr Dreadful

    But you simply cannot credibly dispute what’s been said.

    You’re speaking from a highly subjective position, Obnox. What you mean is that they can’t credibly dispute you from your perspective. In other words, nothing they can say is going to convince you that you’re wrong.

    But your perspective is not objective reality. Let’s flip this around. Back during the Bush administration, there were plenty of liberals to whom it was obvious that Bush was a crook, a warmonger and a dictator, and that if you defended him you were either delusional or a Karl Rove stooge. A lot of those writings are probably still online if you dig around.

  • http://indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    “But you simply cannot credibly dispute what’s been said.”

    But we have, and effectively so. Your article is nothing more than an empty rant with nothing but your obvious hatred of Obama to support your assertions. Nowhere in the article is there anything resembling a fact.

  • Clavos

    Back during the Bush administration, there were plenty of liberals to whom it was obvious that Bush was a crook, a warmonger and a dictator…

    As a lifetime conservative, I still believe that he indeed was a crook, warmonger, and would-be dictator (he’s too stupid to pull that off altogether), so I’m not surprised libruls would believe it; they would be right.
    Bush’s perfidy is the a principal factor in allowing the election of a candidate as unqualified as Obama is and has been.

  • Baronius

    This article is an opinion piece. It’s the equivalent of Chantal Stone’s recent “I’m Voting for President Obama”. You can argue about individual assertions in either piece, but to say that Ob can’t assert what he did is nonsense.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Nobody’s said that he can’t assert what he did, Baronius. The issue is with him backing up his assertions, which he seems unwilling to do because he feels they’re self-evident. They’re not, but, as you say, it’s an opinion piece – or, to put it another way, a rant.

  • Baronius

    Dread – As I sip my old Coke, I think about your comment that large populations are predictable. They generally are, right up to the moment that they’re not. When that moment comes, all the experts huddle around and ask, why didn’t we see the fall of Mubarak / the housing collapse / the failure of John Carter of Mars? And the reason is that the rythym of life generally continues as it has, until a completely unpredictable but easily foreseeable break. All the experts did see the possibility of a change, but assumed rationally that things wouldn’t change. One or two cranks predict disaster every time, and when disaster comes their stock goes up, but then they keep predicting big changes that never happen.

  • Baronius

    Looks like Tommy Mack just wrote an opinion piece too, filled with assertions he didn’t bother to substantiate. I look forward to the round criticism he’ll get for it.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Tommy did substantiate most of his assertions, and I’ve just called him on a biggie that he didn’t.

  • http://brokebackmountaintribute.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    The absolute best comment thus far refers to Romney’s ten year plan to fix the economy while hypocritically bitching that Obama couldn’t do it in four

  • Dr Dreadful

    Baronius, the thing about large populations doing unexpected things is that in hindsight, the signs were always there. Pundits, like most people except for Obnox, are fallible and miss things.

    The fact remains, though, that 99 times out of 100 the expected happens.

    What is it about the current picture a bit under two weeks before the election that you think we might be missing?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Doc –

    Just to back you up, mass psychology is generally so easy that even a politician can manipulate it, but individual psychology is generally so difficult that it takes someone with a doctorate to figure it out, and even then he’s often wrong. This point was crucial to what Asimov called ‘psychohistory’ in his Foundation series.

    It’s sorta like predicting the paths of falling leaves or migrating birds or tornadic events – it’s impossible to know where an individual leaf or fish or tornado will go, but it’s fairly easy to see where the majority of them wind up.

  • Baronius

    “What is it about the current picture a bit under two weeks before the election that you think we might be missing?”

    What are “we” missing? A lot of people, even experts, are predicting a win for either side, or that this is too close to call. A lot of experts were more confident in Gore in 2000 or in Bush in 2000, or for that matter, Kerry or Bush in 2004. I mean, there are still people who are calling the 2000 vote in Florida incorrectly. This feels a lot like a poekr game, where you’re not sure what the other guy has, and even after both hands are showing, the river card can change everything. I guess my real answer to the question of what we’re missing is “I don’t know, but no one else does either”.

  • The Obnoxious American

    I’m not sure what assertions you want me to defend. Is anyone really arguing that Obama won in 2008 on substance, and not gauzy hope and change? Or that he blames Bush for just about anything? I mean seriously guys, we can go down the list, none of these points are assertions unless you’re the type to dispute what side the sun sets.

  • The Obnoxious American

    - that he plays the rich off against the middle class and the poor

    See Millionaires and Billionaires. See “Fair Share”

    – that the election of a Republican administration will not have an adverse effect on women’s rights

    Eight years of GWB didn’t. And Romney is even more moderate. It’s not part of his platform. See Obama’s comments on when you have a good record, you run on it, when you have a bad record…

    – that Obama is unique in relaxing the enforcement of selected federal laws

    Unprecidented. Amnesty for illegals, Abandoning DOMA, etc.

    I could go on and on, but it’s tiring. The sky is blue because of the atmosphere.

  • http://indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Well Obnox – it’s just that once again everything you assert is just your opinion. You present not one fact. Not one. Not even part of one. Not even a tidbit of one. Not even a crumb, or molecule or atom. Not one. Note even one.

  • http://indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    And the supposed truth of what you say is not supported by what will likely be just over half of the voting public.

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    “that the election of a Republican administration will not have an adverse effect on women’s rights”

    It certainly will be if he gets to replace liberal judges on the SC. If you deny that, you’re less-informed than your articles indicate

  • zingzing

    “Is anyone really arguing that Obama won in 2008 on substance, and not gauzy hope and change?”

    he won because he promised to do certain substantial things, some of which he has done. no matter what you think of the healthcare bill, it’s substantial. instead of “bomb iran,” he said he’d end the wars, and refocus on terrorists, which he has done (for the most part). there’s a reason why people like you hate him, but it’s not for the things he’s said and done… it’s for something a little less substantial… your preconceptions, i guess, and your fantasies… maybe you didn’t like him, or maybe you thought everyone who did like him liked him for superficial reasons, but that doesn’t mean shit to those who liked him.

    “Or that he blames Bush for just about anything?”

    pretty much all things bush is arguably to blame for. you could argue against it… but come on. the past exists. as someone said elsewhere (maybe upthread), bush and his policies ARE a major part of what got us into this mess (at least as much as gov’t can control the economy). i don’t know why you’d bother denying it. unless you believe that romney (“gov’t doesn’t create jobs”) can create 12 million jobs overnight.

    “I mean seriously guys, we can go down the list, none of these points are assertions unless you’re the type to dispute what side the sun sets.”

    yes, they can be disputed. they have been disputed, many times. i don’t know why you’d bother to pretend those things can’t be disputed. you’re spitting out vast, silly generalizations, and you think they’re unassailable? i don’t know what planet you’re living on where you get to have your opinion become fact, but hope it’s nice and balmy there.

  • zingzing

    obnox, let’s say you bought a house from me. you bought it knowing there was a sinkhole in the back yard, but in the time between the signing and the move, that sinkhole got much larger and i decided to tear out my sewage pipes and just dumped my sewage in the developing hole. it grew more and more toxic just after you moved in. you dumped a shitload of ajax in that fucker, but it was still growing bacteria, albeit at a slower rate, and every time you got the bacteria under control and it started to look like you could fill up that hole, you had to go pay attention to the big fuckoff argument you were having with a couple of guys who lived on the next block, which you didn’t start, i did (god told me to), but them guys don’t know the difference… and then my friends tell you that you need to stop talking about me, because i have nothing to do with your problems, and it’s ridiculous of you to keep complaining about me, even though i am the source of your troubles. in fact, my friends say, you should move out, so my twin bother can move in and take a shit in hole in the back yard and antagonize the heathen guy who lives between the guys that are already pissed off at you.

    does that make sense to you? i hope it does. you seem to think it does. or are you just full of shit?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    OA –

    - that the election of a Republican administration will not have an adverse effect on women’s rights

    Eight years of GWB didn’t. And Romney is even more moderate. It’s not part of his platform. See Obama’s comments on when you have a good record, you run on it, when you have a bad record…

    REALLY? Um, OA, you do know that under the official GOP platform, there is no exception for rape or incest when it comes to abortion? To wit:

    “Faithful to the ‘self-evident’ truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.”

    Gee, where have we seen “cannot be infringed” before? And for the life of me, I don’t see any exceptions whatsoever in that platform statement.

    FYI, there are at least fifteen Republican senators who oppose abortion even in cases of rape. Those are the ones we know of – but not necessarily all of the ones who fit that particularly odious mold.

  • http://indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    About everything is better today than it was when Obama took the oath. While the recovery seems slow, it has actually been steady with only a few blips here and there over the past 3 years. I find it doubtful that McCain, nor Romney, nor anyone else could have put together a quicker or more substantial recovery.

    And who has it been that’s stood in the way of recovery? Seems to me Congressional Republicans may have had a hand in that. No Congress in memory – at least since the post Civil War years- has been so obstinate and obstructionist. As Mitch McConnell had the temerity to announce that he and the Republicans in general had as their #1 priority to make Barack Obama a one term president, it is not hard to realize that they in fact did everything in their power over the course of the last four years to achieve that goal.

    There have been several initiatives put forward by Obama and other Dems – many of which had their roots with Republicans or conservative think tanks – that, if enacted, could have provided literally thousands of jobs rebuilding much needed infrastructure and the like all across the country. But no. Each and every such plan was thwarted by Congressional Republicans. After the 2010 midterms, it became even worse what with the arrival of the Tea Bagging assholes who put forward the notion that compromise was a four letter word, that only they had the proper vision for the future – bipartisanship was totally out the window. That spirit still lives among many of them and has effectively spilled over and spread throughout the GOP like an especially ugly cancer, to the extent that there is now virtually no such animal as a “moderate” Republican. But hey, nevermind all that. All of our woes lay heavy on Obama’s boney little shoulders – the fault is his and his alone.

  • Igor

    Baritone is right.

  • Baronius

    I oppose abortion even in the case of rape. As a practical matter, I never expect to see that law in the US, but that is my position. If viewed from the standpoint of the mother, that’s tough. Maybe unimaginably tough. But from the child’s perspective, any other position is murder.

    As much as I’d like to see a Constitutional amendment banning all abortions, it’s not going to happen in the US, at least in my lifetime. Maybe 85% of the country believes that abortion is creepy, and they’d like it to be rarer. There would have to be a real shift in voter attitude for legislation to affect more than just the fringes of abortion law (like parental notification). Even an overturning of Roe would see only a handful of states forbid abortion. Maybe half would restrict it on the edges (third trimester or viability or something), and several would remain the same. I wouldn’t even guess which ones would do what, because some right-leaning states like Florida and Kansas have fairly high abortion rates, and anyway state politics can be complicated.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Baronius –

    Nobody likes abortion – it is a tragedy. But is it right for one group to impose restrictions against abortion on another group? Is it right to tell a girl that she must bear the child of her rapist and see that rapist in the face of her child every day?

    Abortions will always happen. The only choice we are making is whether those abortions will be legal and safe, or illegal and unsafe.

  • Baronius

    Nobody likes abortion – it is a tragedy.

    About 95% of the population would agree with that statement. But what makes it a tragedy? If it’s the equivalent of getting a cyst removed, why call it a somber personal decision?

    But is it right for one group to impose restrictions against abortion on another group?

    If abortion is murder, then it’s not right to impose murder on a group.

    Is it right to tell a girl that she must bear the child of her rapist and see that rapist in the face of her child every day?

    Like I said, this is tough. But on what grounds can you execute a child for his father’s crimes? I’m sure I wouldn’t want to carry my rapist’s child, but I could always put him up for adoption.

    Abortions will always happen. The only choice we are making is whether those abortions will be legal and safe, or illegal and unsafe.

    Lots of bad acts will always happen. Laws do affect the total number of those acts. They also say something about our society, and the things we value.

  • http://indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Oh Baronius, you are so magnanimous. You acknowledge how tough it is for the rape victim. Your sanctimony fosters for me a tear.

    So, in your mind, the victim of a rape – most of which are brutal and disgusting – should be forced to alter her entire life and literally live with the legacy of her worst nightmare for the rest of her life? She is to endure that in order to keep a zygote – a nondescript mass of cells- alive so that an unwanted – and perhaps an unloved- child be brought into the world. The victim is to perhaps give up her life’s dreams because the State mandates it? Meanwhile, even if the rapist is captured and imprisoned, he will likely be back out in society in no more than a handful of years.

    Oh, and the State you apparently dream of would likely be more than happy to end the life of that child by either sending him or her off to war and/or to order a fatal injection should this offspring not prove to be a model citizen.

    And, I also just love the shit out of some states that allow for the rapist having legal parental rights. That would be the icing on the cake.

    Hey, if this becomes law wherever, how about if each of these “rapekids” be brought to your house for you to care for since you obviously care so deeply about them. Would that you and other men who prattle on about this could actually be physically altered to carry rapekids to term rather than the rape victims.

    This just makes my blood boil. What a crock of woman hating bullshit!

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    “I oppose abortion even in the case of rape.”

    It’s so easy to take a stand when the outcome doesn’t affect you. I’d rather leave the decision to someone who has to experience it as opposed to someone pontificating on the Internet

  • http://www.rosedigitalmarketing.com Christopher Rose

    I oppose some people forcing their values on others, so those seeking to prevent others having an abortion if they choose to should fuck off and mind their own business.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Baronius –

    Okay…we all know there’s nothing like a mother’s love. We KNOW this. We all know that generally speaking, women love children more deeply than men do. So why is it, then, that women are generally the strongest proponents of access to abortion? Why is it, then, that the strongest opponents of access to a safe and legal abortion are men?

    Here’s a political cartoon that says it better than I ever could.

  • Clavos

    Good show, Glenn!! You managed to turn what was a good, respectful (and non-partisan) discussion of rape, abortion and women’s rights into a partisan political jab with just one html link!!

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And that’s what you do, Clav, when you can’t refute the message, attack the messenger. You ignore the points in the paragraph above the link, but attack the one who made the points all because of the link at the end of the post.

    Frankly, your refusal to refute the point makes you seem a bit insecure.

  • http://indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Well Clav, I don’t know how you avoid the politics of this issue. While there are a few so called blue dog Dems around the country who claim to be “pro-life” by far the most rhetoric against abortion is coming from the Right and Republicans. There are more than a dozen Republicans running for Congress, including Ryan who espouse the same beliefs regarding abortion that Akin and Mourdock have supported. There are some who don’t even want to make exceptions for the mother’s health.

    What that does is automatically relegate women to second class citizenship just by virtue of the State. They are apparently looked upon by many as nothing more than brood mares. They are tolerated in the workplace and other areas of society as long as they keep that proverbial dime between their knees. But the moment that coin hits the floor, regardless of the circumstances, women are to be subject to scrutiny by the State. Really Nils. Does that reflect your attitude toward women?

    Almost everyone believes that the most important issue in this election is the economy. I don’t suggest that it is unimportant, but these so called “social issues” will likely have a more far reaching impact on our society for years, perhaps decades should the tea bag fundies get their way. The economy is on its way to recovery and will likely return to some semblence of normalcy over the next few years regardless of who sits in the White House. In the mean time, though, women’s rights may be set back a hundred years if the full course of the theocratic agenda is allowed to go forward. How long do you suppose it might be before they start using dunking stools or burning witches at the stake?

  • http://indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    What I meant to say above in paragraph 2 was “by virture of their sex.”

  • The Correct One

    [personal attack deleted by comments editor]

    Obama is better than any of you!

  • Igor

    Hold the presses! I have the solution to the Rape and Abortion Crisis!

    I modestly propose a Constitutional Amendment that makes it illegal for any woman to deny sex to a man who desires her. After all, that would be frustrating the Holy Drive To Reproduce, the impetus behind True Right To Life advocates!

    Hah hah! I think I’ve solved it!

    Wouldn’t that be great, guys? Even Paul Ryan would go for that.

    But then I mentioned it to my wife, who said: “the REAL right to life position is to prosecute and execute any man who deposits his sperm anyplace anytime other than a womans vagina!”

    Hmmmm. Back to the drawing board.

  • Clavos

    You have me wrong, B-Tone, I’m not anti-abortion. In fact, that tends to be a religious issue, and as an anti-religionist, I oppose their embracing of being anti-abortion. I would allow abortion just to piss off the religious believers who don’t.

    Seriously, I really don’t care what any woman (including those related to me) does with her body; all I ask is that I receive the same consideration from them.

    My #66 was purely a jab at Glenn, who in fact did exactly what I accused him of: broke up what for a change was a civil discussion with his knee-jerk reaction over those eeeevil (to use his epithet) republicans. You and Doc and others can argue (and often well) political issues without once getting partisan (in the sense of invoking political parties) about it. Glenn? Almost never.

  • Igor

    Well, I guess my logic in #71 is irrefutable! No one has even attempted to attack the syllogistic citadel that I’ve erected.

    Unfortunately, the consequence is that every human must be executed! For frustrating the Sacred Life Force! Of all things.

    You don’t suppose there’s a little room for mercy in here is there?

    But mercy for one means mercy for all! Unless, of course, political favoritism is allowed. In which case we are reduced to tribalism.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    Gee whiz – I mean, shame on me for posting a politically partisan link (in a comment that otherwise isn’t partisan) in the POLITICS section of BC.

    What you did, Clav, was you searched for a reason not to address the REST of the comment by pretending that because I included a link to a political cartoon, well, THAT somehow means you don’t have to argue for or against the points I made.

    In other words, you found an excuse to evade having to answer…and it’s become a habit of yours – whenever you are presented a question that gives you a bit of difficulty, you decide not to answer at all, but to find an excuse so you don’t have to answer. This use of excuses to avoid having to give an answer has become your modus operandi…and you never realize the disservice you do to yourself as a result by not challenging yourself and your beliefs.

  • http://indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Clav – I was pretty sure you were not in he right to life camp, but, as I noted somewhere above, Republicans have had a field day over abortion, contraception and the like since the 2010 midterms with around 40 bills introduced in the House to restrict or totally deny women the right to obtain an abortion for almost any reason including rape, incest or even the health of the mother. It’s been far worse in many states across the country because there has been no stopping them what with many legislatures having both houses in Rep control as well as many state houses. At least on the national level the Dem controlled Senate and White House precluded any of the House bills from going anywhere. I won’t get into your beef with Glenn, but, given the circumstances, it’s not possible to separate politics out of this issue.

  • Clavos

    Glenn,

    I was addressing your #65, and only that comment. Your other “point” in that comment was addressed to Baronius, so I saw no reason on that basis alone to respond to it. Your “question” in #65 asks why, women who instinctively love children, would be the strongest defenders of the right to abortion. The answer, of course, is obvious: Pregnancy involves their bodies, not the rapist’s, not their boyfriend’s/husband’s. In the final analysis, it is they who will be stuck with the enormous burden of responsibility for the result if it’s carried to term and is born.

    Why are men so opposed to abortion? It represents the last vestige of the control over women that men have sought and wielded over women since time immemorial; today, even conception does not require the participation of a man, so once the right to prohibit abortion disappears, men’s innate fear of being controlled will become a reality (at least in the minds of men insecure enough to need to control women, which a lifetime of observation leads me to believe is probably the overwhelming majority of them).

    Women have always had the power of the sexuality of the vagina over men; men instinctively recognize that (there are any number of folkloric sayings related to the concept), and all the way back to prehistory, have sought other ways to maintain some semblance of control.

  • Clavos

    Oh, Glenn, I forgot to address your speculation in #74 as to my motives for not responding directly to your questions:

    bullshit (and presumptuous).

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    You appear to support a woman’s right to abortion, yet you vehemently oppose the side that protects that right – and the rights of LGBT’s, too, not to mention the right of our children to go to school without being having religious dogma shoved down their throats.

    Which is more important to you, Clav? The rights of women, LGBT’s and children? Or your personal perceived rights to pay ever-lower taxes, to have all the guns you want, and to pay your workers as little as you can get away with?

    That sounds crass, but please look past the admittedly rude tone to the overall point.

  • Clavos

    Don’t oversimplify, Glenn (you are prone to that) my objections to the Democratic zeitgeist go way beyond women’s issues and the religion thing, and even beyond taxes and guns (I don’t hire workers).

    My biggest objection to the Democratic philosophy is the almost single-minded dedication to putting everything in the hands of the least intelligent, least efficient entity in the land: the federal (and to some degree, state) government. Secondly, the eagerness with which Democrats, upon perceiving what they judge to be a failure in the system, immediately want to pass laws to “correct” the problem. We have more than enough laws now, and many of our society’s shortcomings could be resolved without adding still more complicated and often wrongheaded (Prohibition?) laws, which only benefit the lawyers.

    I could go on, but there’s no point, because in your heart you know you’re right and I’m one of those eeeevil apostates.

  • Igor

    @79-Clav: I disagree. It is no longer the government bureaus and bureaucrats who are the least efficient and most venal people in society, now it is the upper management of our pampered and protected private companies.

    “Privatization” has failed. It’s time we realized that. All the failures we see around us are failures of privatization, the attempt to replace government action with private companies funded with public money.

    Whether it’s Solyndra or the horrible NECC meningitis catastrophe, those are the failures of attempting to privatize essentially public actions.

    Solyndra makes clear that we should have government entities, perhaps in the NSF or universities, developing the alternate energy modes that we surely need. Private entities, seduced by big money, simply have no resistance to corruption.

    The nations health CANNOT be entrusted to venal corporations whose highest goal is to profit shareholders. NO market defense exists for the hapless citizen.

    Admit that ‘privatization’ has failed and go back to the kind of government administered projects that built the great dams and the great highways and the great ports, etc., that nourished Americas great successes.

    Privatization is a failure.

  • Clavos

    I completely disagree, Igor. While I won’t argue against you in regard to the venality of some in the private sector, they are still far outnumbered by those who do well and do right in business, and those people are so far superior to anything the government does as to be not even in the same league.

    But, I can see this issue is truly an opinion-based difference, so I imagine we’ll probably have to agree to disagree on it.

  • Igor

    I cite a variation of Greshams law that “bad money drives out good”. The last 30 years of business management has seen an onslaught of bad managers, enabled and cheered on by the protection that has been extended so freely to businessmen. We simply don’t prosecute them anymore, and the extensive tort reforms that have been effected in the courts have insulated them from the bad effects of management malpractice.

    A good manager simply can’t compete with a lying cheating bad manager, and Boards have been subverted by crooked managers.

    Bad managers DO drive out good.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    My biggest objection to the Democratic philosophy is the almost single-minded dedication to putting everything in the hands of the least intelligent, least efficient entity in the land: the federal (and to some degree, state) government.

    And that’s your greatest mistaken paradigm, that government is inept, incapable, et cetera…and I suspect it comes from your failure to realize that people are people are people, that those who work in the public sector are every bit as good and as faulty as those who work in the private sector. You’ve glorified the profit motive in the past, as if that and that alone is some kind of panacea to all the world’s ills, yet you look at altruism with utter suspicion.

    You point at the cost of Medicare fraud, yet you ignore the fact that nearly all Medicare fraud is committed by those in the PRIVATE sector…and that’s not even addressing the corruption within the oh-so-trustworthy private sector. The greater the hold that the profit motive has on a person, the greater the chance that person will be corrupt.

    And when the private sector does you dirt, Clavos, what do you do? What CAN you do? If you live in a nation where government is weak and small and deregulated, there’s absolutely SQUAT you can do. The government is, always has been, and alway will be the ONLY protection you have against the vagaries of the private sector.

    So…if you want to go where government is weak and small and deregulated so you won’t have nightmares that the government might tax you a few more cents on the dollar, go ahead! Just remember your choice when you go there and find that the reason you can’t fight city hall is because it’s owned lock, stock, and barrel by not-so-nice people. We had our Tammany Hall, sure…but you’ll find that outside the socialized democracies of the non-OPEC first-world nations, Boss Tweed is more of a rule than an exception.

  • Clavos

    Glenn,

    Those who work in the public sector are no different from us private schmucks, true, but the structure in which they work is radically different. Public sector employees are held to much lower standards than private; they are not held responsible for outcomes to the same degree (in many cases, not at all), they are not subjected to disciplinary measures to the same degree (except in the military), it is nearly impossible to fire line employees, etc., etc. I didn’t make this up, Glenn, the whole country knows how inefficient and mistake-prone most government agencies are; the poster child for inefficiency is your local DMV; everybody in the country makes jokes about it, and everywhere it’s used as the symbol for inefficiency and poor performance. There are innumerable stories about cost overruns in government projects; shoddy work, as in New Orleans’ disastrous levees that broke during Katrina.

    Again, I didn’t make it up; it’s real.

    It’s immaterial WHO’s committing medicare fraud, Glenn. The salient point is that medicare (the government) does way too little to prevent or control it; on the contrary, Medicare’s very inefficiency and ineptitude attracts the rip-off artists; the level of fraud is so high precisely because it’s so easy to pull off!

    The government doesn’t have to be big and powerful and controlling to serve its people: on the contrary, when it is all those things is when it begins to swing out of control. A perfect nearby example of a government that is too powerful and at the same time tightly overregulated is Chavez’ Venezuela: he has a tight hold on the people, and little else. the result? Rampant corruption and lawlessness (on the part of the government, not the private sector), to the point that the citizens’ personal safety is at risk. And to top it all off, because Chavez has virtually no controls on him, the country’s financial condition is perilous despite being in possession of the world’s largest known petroleum reserves.

    Yep, that’s what you get with a strong, highly regulated and powerful government.

    You say:

    The government is, always has been, and alway will be the ONLY protection you have against the vagaries of the private sector.

    To which the obvious reply is, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

  • Baronius

    I look at this a little bit differently.

    I’ve talked to a lot of military people over the years, and they’ll tell you that DoD civilians aren’t necessarily bad, and that uniformed personnel aren’t necessarily good. What it usually comes down to is actually being there. No one has respect for the admiral who always stays on land, or for the bureaucrat who sends an anchor to an Air Force base instead of a desk calendar because that’s what the requisition form said (and there’s a true story along these lines).

    The person who understands the situation best is probably not going to be the regulator. It’s going to be the guy in the shop who figures out a way to cut his costs 4%. He’s innovating, and innovation is unpredictable. Regulators live in a world of risk reduction, but they don’t live in the actual world where things get done.

    One thing that the Occupiers as well as the Tea Party can sense is that this problem is everywhere. Big Government, Big Labor, and Big Business are all hugely powerful but incapable of doing a good job on the detail work. The three of them keep each other in check. But business, as long as government doesn’t declare it “too big to fail”, has to stay innovative. Government and labor have to, as well, but in a different way. Arizona became the new California because the government was better. Microsoft trounced IBM because they understood the detail better than the corporate suits did.

    There are elements in both parties, and in business and labor, who would like to see us drift into corporatism. Public-private partnerships, everyone having a seat at the table, it sounds good. But it’s unresponsive to changing situations. It’s like a committee trying to write poetry.

    I mentioned the military earlier, and not just so Glenn would read this. The military is known as the one sphere of government that’s capable of being innovative. Why? Because it’s very easy to measure its failure when it falls one step behind.

    Now, government definitely has a role in our lives. I suppose there’d be a way to privatize food inspection, but I wouldn’t want to see it happen. Regulating financial markets smothers some good ideas, but can block some really crooked things from happening. So it’s not a 100% government or 100% non-government solution for society. But we’ve got to be really careful about how much power we give to an unresponsive organization like the government.

  • http://brokebackmountaintribute.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Jet’s latest Electoral data averages: 10/29/12
    -41 sources averaged together give this result…

    Electoral votes – without Virginia…
    Obama 290
    Romney 235
    Virginia tied

    Alabama-9 Romney 54% – 36%
    Alaska-3 Romney 62% – 36%
    Arizona-11 Romney 52% – 44%
    Arkansas-6 Romney 58% – 31%
    California-55 Obama 53% – 40%
    Colorado-9 Obama 50% – 46%
    Connecticut-7 Obama 52% – 42%
    Delaware-3 Obama 62% – 37%
    Florida-29 Romney 49% – 47%
    Georgia-16 Romney 51% – 43%
    Hawaii-4 Obama 62% – 38%
    Idaho-4 Romney 63% – 27%
    Indiana-11 Romney 51% – 38%
    Iowa-6 Obama 50% – 46%
    Illinois-20 Obama 55% – 36%
    Kansas-6 Romney 57% – 42%
    Kentucky-8 Romney 53% – 39%
    Louisiana-8 Romney 50% – 37%
    Maine-4 Obama 52% – 39%
    Maryland-10 Obama 60% – 36%
    Massachusetts-11 Obama 57% – 38%
    Michigan-16 Obama 50% – 43%
    Minnesota-10 Obama 51% – 46%
    Mississippi-6 Romney 56% – 43%
    Missouri-10 Romney 53% – 44%
    Montana-3 Romney 51% – 43%
    Nebraska-5 Romney 51% – 41%
    Nevada-6 Obama 51% – 47%
    New Hampshire-4 Obama 50% – 46%
    New Jersey-14 Obama 53% – 41%
    New Mexico-5 Obama 53% – 44%
    New York-29 Obama 61% – 34%
    North Carolina-15 Romney 50% – 47%
    North Dakota-3 Romney 53% – 37%
    Ohio-18 Obama 50% – 45%
    Oklahoma-7 Romney 58% – 33%
    Oregon-7 Obama 49% – 42%
    Pennsylvania-20 Obama 50% – 44%
    Rhode Island-4 Obama 58% – 33%
    South Carolina-9 Romney 46% – 40%
    South Dakota-3 Romney 52% – 43%
    Tennessee-11 Romney 47% – 40%
    Texas-38 Romney 58% – 39%
    Utah-6 Romney 71% – 20%
    Vermont-3 Obama 68% – 23%
    Virginia-13 ? 48% – 48%
    Washington-12 Obama 53% – 42%
    Washington, D.C.-3 Obama 88% – 8% !!!
    West Virginia-5 Romney 52% – 38%
    Wisconsin-10 Obama 50% – 47%
    Wyoming-3 Romney 65% – 33%

  • Igor

    Milton Freidman claimed that fraud was impossible (or at least unsustainable) in a Free Market. But he was wrong, and even Alan Greenspan now admits it.

    The problem is that monopolies soon dominate any free market (it is inexorable) and outside agencies are incapable of controlling them, e.g., the “revolving door” that assures that all regulators are pre-corrupted.

    “Privatisation”, the great hope of 50 years ago, simply doesn’t work, and, furthermore, it CANNOT work.

    As an aside, I went to the DMV to straighten out a bunch of auto licenses (I always seem to own too many cars), some in arrears, transfers, old parking tickets, etc., and it took me just a few minutes and the guy who helped me reduced the fee total to about half.

    By contrast, our privately operated US airlines have become so uncomfortable to fly and so insultingly obdurate that I have sworn to not fly them again. I’ll take Air France until it gets swept up in the US exploitation madness, or maybe I’ll just take a slow boat to Europe, after all I’m in no hurry, at my age, to get anywhere.

    Privatisation is a failure!

  • Baronius

    Unsustainable, I could understand. No fraud is sustainable. But impossible? I’d have to see documentation of that statement. But Friedman did get carried away sometimes. That kind of absolutism sounds silly from either side. I mean, if you find yourself defending the RMV as efficient, you’re probably taking a stand on ideology rather than reality.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    Those who work in the public sector are no different from us private schmucks, true, but the structure in which they work is radically different.

    And it is necessarily different, because one is driven by the profit motive, and the other MUST NOT be driven by the profit motive.

    Public sector employees are held to much lower standards than private;

    Bullshit. You’re going on your own assumptions but NOT on reality. Check out what it takes just to get hired on to federal jobs, especially places like the FBI and CIA. And then what kind of qualifications does it take to become a teacher or a social worker? Really, Clavos, can you name a single major private industry out there that requires the level of education for a majority of their workers as do the examples I gave? I don’t think so – even in hospitals, a majority of the workers don’t have college degrees. Furthermore, the government is structured so that nepotism – while it will always be there in all walks of life – is much less prevalent than in the private sector.

    they are not held responsible for outcomes to the same degree (in many cases, not at all),

    And how many people from BP or Transocean spent time in jail for the billions and billions of dollars in damage to our national economy – not to mention the eleven lives lost? I can show you example after example after example of corporations getting away with fraud and even with murder.

    they are not subjected to disciplinary measures to the same degree (except in the military),it is nearly impossible to fire line employees, etc.,

    What’s the disciplinary measures in the private sector? “You’re fired”…and that’s about it. I’m not about to claim that the public sector is a shining knight in this area – you yourself have seen me rant on the teachers union – but again, you’re going on your own assumptions. All supervisors have to do in most of the public sector – if they really need to fire a subordinate – is to counsel them several times, log proof that the subordinate isn’t doing their job over a period of time, and then present it to their own supervisors…and then they can fire the subordinate. It ain’t that hard. The reason why most aren’t fired is because the government generally (but not always) has a lot of people competing for the same job and has the opportunity to hire the best…and – again, generally speaking – we have a relatively low level of misconduct.

    the whole country knows how inefficient and mistake-prone most government agencies are;

    Thanks to people who Just Know how bad the government is, and a “news” network that Just Knows how bad government is…and all the while those who Just Know how bad government is are doing the bidding of corporations who are telling them that the government is oh, SO bad.

    Take Medicare, your favorite bugaboo. Its admin costs are about five percent (as compared to an average of about TWENTY percent admin costs of private health insurance companies). Yes, a lot of private health insurance companies defraud Medicare – and you blame the victim, of course – but think on this: even with all the Medicare fraud added in, the TOTAL admin costs of Medicare (which covers almost everything) is about the same as the average of private health insurance (which does NOT cover everything)…and that’s assuming that there’s NO corruption that adds cost to the private company!

    There’s a reason why England celebrated their National Health Service, Clav. No, they’re not perfect and yes, they’ve got their own problems, but England – which spends less than half the amount of taxpayer dollars than we ALREADY do per capita – has a higher national life expectancy. And DON’T give me any crap about America’s national diet – have you seen what the English eat???

    the poster child for inefficiency is your local DMV; everybody in the country makes jokes about it, and everywhere it’s used as the symbol for inefficiency and poor performance.

    Crap. You are making broad-brush statements and sweeping generalities…and you’ve got jack to back it up. How about going to work for the DMV for a while so you can see the OTHER side of the story, and then maybe you can give some rational and detailed criticism on how they can do it better. You’ve gone to great lengths before pointing out logical fallacies in the arguments of others – why don’t you apply that to your own arguments?

    There are innumerable stories about cost overruns in government projects; shoddy work, as in New Orleans’ disastrous levees that broke during Katrina.

    And WHO is it that performs the VAST majority of government projects? PRIVATE COMPANIES doing SHODDY work and doing their damnedest to short-change the taxpayer as much as possible. But YOU, on the other hand, blame the victim again and again and again. You use the New Orleans levees as an example. Yes, there were faults in the design of the levees by the Army Corps of Engineers…but that’s only half the story. The other half is the FUNDING, like when Dubya proposed less than twenty percent what the ACE said was absolutely necessary for the stability of the New Orleans levees. It’s like I keep telling you, Clav – you get what you pay for…and if you pay squat, that’s what you’re going to get: squat.

    Again, I didn’t make it up; it’s real.

    Except that you never seem to see the other half of the story.

    It’s immaterial WHO’s committing medicare fraud, Glenn. The salient point is that medicare (the government) does way too little to prevent or control it; on the contrary, Medicare’s very inefficiency and ineptitude attracts the rip-off artists; the level of fraud is so high precisely because it’s so easy to pull off!

    As I pointed out above, look how eager you are to blame the victim. What you are NOT getting is that when the profit motive is involved, the temptation becomes to great for some…and the greater the pressure to increase profits, the greater the likelihood that a lot of those profits are going to come from illegal sources – ask your governor Rick Scott – he knows all about Medicare fraud. And all one has to see to prove how inefficient private health insurers are is to see how much hell they raised over being forced to use at least 80% of their revenue to pay for actual health care.

    But let’s blame the victim, yeah! It’s not the criminals’ fault! It’s always the victim’s fault!

  • Clavos

    Glenn,

    You can’t call bullshit and immediately follow it with examples like the CIA and FBI. It takes few brains and only enough education to read and write to deliver mail, be a park ranger, push paper in an office, etc. As for teachers: I recall the old saying (which like most old sayings has more than a grain of truth in it) “Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach. And those who can’t teach, teach teachers.”

    The most severe problems of the american educational systems are the interference of the unions and the consequent low level of skilled teachers we wind up with because of the union work rules, especially seniority and job retention rules, not to mention their opposition to holding teachers to standards.

    [Medicare’s] admin costs are about five percent (as compared to an average of about TWENTY percent admin costs of private health insurance companies).

    Bullshit. That’s a canard spread by you liberals. The truth is that Medicare is not held to the same accounting standards as the private sector; much of their overhead is charged elsewhere, not to Medicare.

    And WHO is it that performs the VAST majority of government projects? PRIVATE COMPANIES doing SHODDY work and doing their damnedest to short-change the taxpayer as much as possible

    And who the hell is supposed to oversee them and make sure that doesn’t happen? When I hire someone to do work for me, I manage, I don’t say, OK, there’s the problem, fix it,” and just walk away, waiting for them to finish; I supervise. I make sure they’re doing it right, safely, economically and on time. The government gets cheated as much as it does because it doesn’t manage or supervise well enough, and it doesn’t hold either its own people or contractors to tight enough standards to ensure good work, most likely because the doofuses that work for it don’t know how.

    when the profit motive is involved, the temptation becomes to great for some…and the greater the pressure to increase profits, the greater the likelihood that a lot of those profits are going to come from illegal sources

    One more time, Glenn: YOU DON”T LET THEM. If they work for you, you have the responsibility to safeguard the taxpayers’ money — my money!! — AND ENSURE THEY DON’T CHEAT YOU.

    It ain’t rocket surgery…sheesh!

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clav –

    How easy it is for you to look down your nose at other professions and assume that it’s easy work, or not work at all. You know how much work you yourself have put out over the years, yet you ASSUME that because someone works in a relatively low-level position, that they must be uneducated or simply don’t how to work hard.

    And when it comes to teachers, I remember you once saying you never had kids. If that’s the case, then that’s precisely why you have so little respect for the profession.

    You don’t want private companies to cheat the government, yet what happens when the government doesn’t have the funding for enough inspectors, or doesn’t have the legal oversight authority they need (because someone hates regulations), or – as what apparently happened with the Big Branch mine explosion that killed 26 miners – the company bribes the inspectors? Are you going to lay the blame on the eeeeevil guv’mint as a whole because an inspector was bribed? And how many from Massey Mining went to jail? None that I know of, even though they were from an oh-so-disciplined private company.

    You referenced Chavez in Venezuela as an example of what’s wrong with government…but by doing so, you’re not comparing apples and oranges – you’re comparing apples and corn shit. Why? Because here we’ve always had a multiparty system – even it is only down to two – but there you’ve got a freaking dictator. Our government does not have the authority to nationalize Big Oil or any other major industry. Even in WWII we didn’t nationalize Big Oil, so your example of Chavez is completely off base.

    And you asked, “who watches the watchers?” (it took me a half minute, but I figured it out – no Google cheating). That’s easy – the Fourth Estate. You knew the answer when you typed the question. And what’s more, even with the slow-but-inevitable downfall of MSM news, the Fourth Estate is stronger than ever, thanks to a little something called the Internet. Love it or hate it – as both you and I do – it gives us a voice we would not otherwise have even in the heyday of ‘real’ journalism, whenever that was. Wikileaks comes to mind….

  • Clavos

    Because here we’ve always had a multiparty system – even it is only down to two – but there you’ve got a freaking dictator.

    Nope. In the recent election a few weeks ago, he was nearly beaten by a challenger. He keeps his job by borrowing a page from the US Democratic party handbook: he steals from the rich few (including the oil companies), and gives everything to the poor (and himself, of course).

    And you asked, “who watches the watchers?”…That’s easy – the Fourth Estate.

    Hmmm, not so much anymore. At one time, yes, but increasingly the American press has become partisan and turns a blind eye to the peccadilloes of whichever side they favor. Ironically, I think it’s the rise of the internet that has led to that — with its lack of standards and principles, the internet press has shown the MSM what it can get away with.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    You’re still comparing apples to oranges. Chavez has the power to nationalize industries, which tells me he has far more political power in his country than the US president has in ours.

  • Zingzing

    Clavos, have you ever looked into the areas where the private sector’s bottom line has created inferior/dangerous products? Or are you just ignoring that bit of reality? Or do you really believe the private sector is as you seem to think it is? I think you’re knowingly leaving out a bunch of things, but I’d like to know why you would. What does that help? Why can’t we be honest in political arguments anymore?

  • Igor

    @81 – Clavos: No, I don’t have to agree to anything. I think you are wrong and I think my position is stronger. For one thing I have much more experience than you and I have been more intimately involved in the history of the past 60 years, especially in the capitalist world.

    In the past I have used the same arguments you use today, but I have seen the deterioration of the business community, the denigration of good management, and the progressive destruction of the best in the business community.

    At the same time, there has been a never-ending blind fight against government agency that is nothing but ignorant.

    Your condescending attempt to placate me is pathetic.

    No, I don’t have to agree to anything you propose.

  • Clavos

    Sorry, Igor, I didn’t mean to offend you.

    I don’t think business has deteriorated nearly as much as you seem to. I seem to recall from history when the robber barons dominated american business, that there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth on the part of the have nots then too, and subsequently the anti-trust laws and other regulatory legislation were passed to ameliorate the situation.

    In any case, if your worldly experience sums 60 years, you do have more than I, but not, I suspect, as much as you think you do.

    The “never-ending blind fight against government agency” is, I must say, a neat turn of a phrase, but unfortunately, pretty much backwards. The never-ending fight in this country (again looking back in history) was begun by the (“ignorant?”) Founders, who built into their magnificent document, our Constitution, any number of checks and balances to control that “government agency,” lest it grow in size and power to control the people, instead of vice-versa.

    Unfortunately, modern “americans” ever in eager pursuit of all that “free” largesse flowing from the seemingly bottomless government teat, coupled with their deep psychological need to be “Mommie’d” and shielded from want and adversity (not to mention reality) from cradle to grave, are terrified of having to stand on their own feet and fend for themselves have allowed (even encouraged) the government to grow in size (Largest employer in the nation) and power to the point of peril for the citizens. Such legislature as the National Defense Authorization Act, which allows for the indefinite detention of citizens, and warrant-less surveillance (by executive order) which can use GPS devices to monitor every move of targeted citizens without securing any court order or review, so-called “extraordinary renditions” — applicable to both US and foreign citizens, the list goes on. These new laws have come with an infusion of money into an expanded security system on the state and federal levels, including more public surveillance cameras, tens of thousands of security personnel and a massive expansion of a terrorist-chasing bureaucracy. Talk about pathetic!

    Anyhoo, Igor, you may rest calmly tonight, secure in the knowledge that I will never again dare to suggest to you that you should agree with me about anything, pathetic as I am.

    I am in fact, at a complete loss as to why I persist in paying you any attention at all, you offer nothing but bitter words and a sour old man’s obsolete point of view.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    And I thought you were the cynic …

  • Igor

    @96 – Clavos

    “… I didn’t mean to offend you.”

    Then stop using trite cliches, like:

    “wailing and gnashing of teeth…”
    “have nots…”
    “mommied to death…”
    “government teat…”
    “cradle to grave…”
    “stand on their own two feet…”
    “anyhoo…”

    It seems there is no room for original thought left in your head, and your statements are made up entirely of tired old snatches of cliches from republican speeches.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Is there such a thing as a non-trite cliché?

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    Igor, you left off “govt schools are bad”

  • Zingzing

    I wonder if clavos believes we should even have a government, and if so, what it could possibly do. Obviously, surveillance of the population is no one’s idea of good government, but really, that’s all you’ve got? Government has to check itself, and it has those checks. Maybe they don’t always work like they should, but they’re there. Big business, however, needs its check as well, and it doesn’t have one past a certain point… At that point, there’s collusion, not a system of checks, not even A check. The consumer is just another sucker to huckster.

    If you’re going to criticize the gov’t for growing out of control, you have to realize the same thing is happening in the private sector. There isn’t some random relationship between these things. Rein in the private sector to a reasonable degree, and the gov’t won’t have to grow in order to keep up with its abuses.

  • Clavos

    Rein in the private sector to a reasonable degree, and the gov’t won’t have to grow in order to keep up with its abuses.

    The government isn’t growing in a direction that will result in reining in the private sector; in fact, it isn’t doing much at all about reining in the private sector. Didn’t this administration just bail out the auto industry at the behest of the unions and giving them substantial ownership? And didn’t it also bail out many of the Wall Street thieves?

  • Clavos

    Igor:

    Next time I’ll label the sarcasm for you.

    I should have known your desiccated brain wasn’t up to the task…

  • Igor

    Whoever told Clavos he was as clever as Jonathan Swift and should write satire was wrong. Clavos has a leaden hand. Maybe someone was trying to flatter his frail ego.

  • Zingzing

    Clavos, I never want to hear you talk about over regulation or “gov’t takeover of healthcare” then. Really this is quite a change from the usual right wing schtick.

    As for your auto union stuff, please don’t regurgitate romney’s blatantly false bullshit. the uaw got zilch, but its members got their retirement fund back. No vote on the board, no stock. If you begrudge them that, I don’t know what to tell you.

  • Clavos

    What, zing? No comment about bailing out Wall Street?

    Does that mean you’re OK with that?

    And are you aware GM is once again faltering?

    Or that the first bailout is costing much more than originally proposed? According to HuffPo, “The U.S. Treasury Department has said the auto industry bailout will cost taxpayers $3.4 billion more than previously thought.”

    Treasury now estimates the 2009 bailout will eventually cost the government $25.1 billion…”

    $25Billion, zing, that’s a hell of a lot more than was needed for the workers’ retirement fund.

    And for what? If it goes under, they’ll have their retirement , but no job, at a time when 23 million other workers are already out of work. And if we decide to bail it out again, where does it stop? When do we quit throwing good money after bad, vainly trying to save a loser?

  • Zingzing

    “What, zing? No comment about bailing out Wall Street? Does that mean you’re OK with that?”

    I hope you apply the same strenuous logic to everything.

    “that’s a hell of a lot more than was needed for the workers’ retirement fund.”

    Clavos and the Moving Goalposts: A Cock and Bull Story by Clavos.

    “When do we quit throwing good money after bad, vainly trying to save a loser?”

    I don’t know. It’s hard to tell what you want out of this anymore.

  • Clavos

    Well, I certainly didn’t need it in quadruplicate…:)

    zing, you didn’t even mention the wall st bailout; what conclusion am I supposed to draw from that? Did you know those jackals paid themselves bonuses with some of that money?

    What’s a “cock and bull story?” That the money paid to “bail out” GM is considerably more than what was needed for the pension fund? Or that it (GM) is failing again? You know otherwise?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    Your same arguments could have been made – and likely were made – against Reagan’s bailout of Chrysler. I can see you then saying, “We’re throwing good money after bad, and if Chrysler goes under, what good will that have done?”

    But Chrysler stuck around for nearly 30 more years under American ownership, and now – even though they’re owned by Fiat – they’re still employing Americans making cars in America. There were a lot of people then who Just Knew that bailing out Chrysler was a bad idea, just like you Just Know that bailing out GM was a bad idea.

    You should be looking at it like this – the bailout (which was a LOAN, remember) was what, about $25B using your number? That’s a little over $10K per worker, since it’s credited with saving about 2M jobs. Now think about that, Clavos – the taxpayer spent 10K per worker to save 2M jobs…

    …but that was effectively a one-time payment by the taxpayer, and since then, each and every one of those taxpayers will have paid in much more than 10K in state, local, and federal taxes on top of GM repaying most of their bailout loan…not to mention the fact that the people still have jobs and are still spending money keeping their lives and their local economies intact, day after day, year after year.

    That, Clavos, is a classic example of how a Keynesian stimulus works…and it DID work, no matter how much you want to deny it.

    And what about the flip side of the coin? What if – as conservatives such as yourself wanted – we’d have let them go bankrupt? That would have been 2M jobs down the tank – and Romney’s claim that it should have been a ‘managed bankruptcy’ is a fantasy because there was no private money to be had, remember? So in the three years hence, what would that $25B in tax savings have really done for America, esp. since that would have been just $25B that we didn’t borrow, and the American taxpayer wouldn’t have seen a penny in real tax savings in all that time? And let’s not forget that the state and local governments would have had 2M fewer jobs in their districts…and that much less tax income to pay for little things like police and schools and firefighters.

    Clavos, $25B is chump change in the federal budget and you know it…but that chump change enabled 2M people to keep their jobs – and (contrary to Romney’s claims that they’re closing down Jeep plants and sending them to China) they’re hiring more people, according to this article by right-leaning NewsMax.

    In other words, Clav, it’s time to stop worrying and learn to love the stimulus…because Keynesian economics work. That’s why non-OPEC first-world nations are, well, first-world nations.

  • Igor

    I have to keep reminding people hat Keynes was NOT in favor of constant stimulus. Keynes advocated COUNTER-CYCLICAL policies, that is, go against the flow. In other words, withdraw money from the economy during good times, and inject money during bad times, even if you have to borrow.

    Thus, GWBush violated Keynes in 2001 when, during good times, he gave away tax money to his rich friends instead of paying off more of the debt, as Clinton had done.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    So was Reagan in violation of Keynesian principles when he bailed out Chrysler?

  • Zingzing

    “zing, you didn’t even mention the wall st bailout; what conclusion am I supposed to draw from that? Did you know those jackals paid themselves bonuses with some of that money?”

    Draw whatever conclusion you like from anything i don’t say… And yes, I know about the bonuses. Do you think I’m a big fan of wall street? No?

    “What’s a “cock and bull story?” That the money paid to “bail out” GM is considerably more than what was needed for the pension fund? Or that it (GM) is failing again? You know otherwise?”

    You said Obama gave “substantial ownership” to the uaw, which is just some lie Romney said. I called out the lie and you changed the subject. Did you think a bailout would only include the pension fund the employees had worked for? (and I hope you agree that was the worker’s money.) No? Then what am I supposed to say to that rather meaningless “point”? I have no idea why that would surprise you.

    As for gm, I hope the best for them. And you should as well. I dunno what to do about it, but you certainly are standing around at the grave just waiting for the death. Are they certainly doomed? I dunno. Doubt you do either.

  • Zingzing

    And a cock and bull story is an idiom for a tall tale, although I take it from Tristram shandy, an early novel written by some priest told from the pov of a rather unreliable narrator, who bumbles from point to point without bothering to make any connections apparent to the reader (although they might be there in the narrator’s mind).

  • Clavos

    I wasn’t asking for the definition of a C & B story; I know that. I was asking for which of the things I wrote was one in your opinion. As an English major, I read Tristram Shandy in college.

    You’re right; the unions didn’t get ownership, the government did (That’s what I get for believing a lying scumbag republican). Obama paid $53 a share for 500,000,000 shares in the bailout. GM closed today at $25.68 a share, giving us taxpayers a loss of $27.32 a share. To make matters worse, GM is again sliding into the commode, according to Forbes, so it’s unlikely we will ever see that money again.

  • Clavos

    As for gm, I hope the best for them. And you should as well

    I should because…?

  • Igor

    Personally, I’m against all bailouts, and that includes favored contracts to military contractors (which I’ve studied quite a bit in the past).

    They return very little value to the employees, costing typically $500,000 to $1,000,000 for every $100,000 job saved.

    But they DO indemnify the Bondholders, who are the last line of defense in the corporate fortress.

    But why save the *sses of those bums? Why not just payout a settlement to employees? Or why not just take over the operation (nationalize the broke outfit, or run it thru chapter xxx bankruptcy)?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “And a cock and bull story is an idiom for a tall tale, although I take it from Tristram shandy …” #113

    That’s how it became an idiom, unless you have an alternative explanation.

  • Igor

    @111-Glenn: good question, but difficult to answer:

    “So was Reagan in violation of Keynesian principles when he bailed out Chrysler?”

    Bailouts were uncommon and small in years past, so it wasn’t really a consideration. It is only in recent years that we considered it important to outright bailout the entire financial industry. IMO that reflects the extraordinary power of large corporations in modern politics.

    Anyway, here are a couple blogposts by Mark Thoma (a well thought of econ prof) that may shed some light on Keynes.

    What would Keynes do?
    What Would Keynes Do?, by Bruce Bartlett, Forbes: Every day that goes by makes clearer the parallels between the current financial crisis and the one that led to the Great Depression. Then, as now, the core problem was one of deflation… What few people understood at the time was that the Federal Reserve was primarily responsible for the deflation…

    In its initial stages, the Fed might have been able to prevent a full-blown depression by being a lender of last resort. It should have been aggressive about buying every financial asset it could lay its hands on and created as much money as necessary to do so. But it … was passive and, as the value of financial assets collapsed, banks closed and vast amounts of wealth simply vanished.

    Keynes was a conservative

    Bruce Bartlett argues that the conservative position that governments “do nothing in the face of the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression” would endanger the very thing free market ideologues are trying to preserve, the capitalist system itself. This was something that Keynes understood very well.

    Though this argues that Keynes was a conservative, I don’t think it much matters what label we attach to Keynes, it is the idea that government intervention preserves rather than destroys the capitalist system that is important….

  • Zingzing

    Roger, according to the straight dope: “The first known use of the phrase was in John Day’s 1608 play Law-trickes or Who Would Have Thought It: “What a tale of a cock and a bull he told my father.” But the term was evidently proverbial before that.”

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Come to think of it, you’re right, zing. Should have checked with the OED before posting.

  • http://cinemasentries.com El Bicho

    Dear Obnoxious: You Lose

  • Clavos

    Dear Bicho: The Whole Country Lost.

  • http://cinemasentries.com El Bicho

    No, your mindset lost

  • Clavos

    No, your mindset lost.

    Oh, I hadn’t thought of it that way; I didn’t realize I have a “mindset,” whatever that is.

    Well, in that case, I’ll just sit here while y’all go ahead and do your thing. Have fun!