The Precipitous Slide

Popularity of a politico is usually
inverse to the degree of arrogance
emitted by said electee. It’s a law
of political physics. Immutable.

-The Republicans prove again that they can not Govern, however they are great at creating distractions through deception and dishonesty.-
Democrats run the gov’t. As for dishonesty, talk to Rep. Wrangel.

-Democrats run the gov’t. As for dishonesty, talk to Rep. Wrangel-.
Timbo
Like Clinton it is Obama’s task to clean up the mess after another Republican Administration.

“Health care reform is an easy issue to exploit because of its inherent complexity. The political opposition can use that ambiguity and complexity to their own political ends, and I think that’s what you’re seeing with President Obama.”
****
Absolutely! We’ve seen this before, no? I like the President, and I support the Democrats in Congress who push to implement progressive ideas. I support health care reform and am looking forward to the improvements that will make it through despite the party of no and attack. So far this year we’ve gotten SChip, the Fair Pay Act, and a huge conservation bill signed. The stimulus bill and new budget have money allocated to green pursuits, health care technology, rail, and highways. On top of that, we’ve decriminalized the DOJ. We’re doing a lot so the pushback is strong– and being a moderate progressive, left of center, but not left enough for some is a tough position to be in. I’m confident the Presidents numbers will rally. August has been tough for him for the third year running, and he’s made some mistakes, plus had one hella mess on his plate. But his numbers will bounce, particularly as we continue to move toward breaking even on TARP, the recession continues to scale back and become more manageable, and so on.
I support you, Mr. Prez!!

True, Clinton fell faster and why? Because he listened to the kook left in his early days. Luckily for us all, he came to his senses, moved to the middle, worked with Newt and actually pulled off some popular policies. And look where his popularity was when he left office – way up. Can Obama do the same? Not likely. While Clinton really did live near the center in reality, our current President is a tried and true lefty lefty. Put it this way, if he stays there, we’ll be talking years from now about who was worse – Carter or Obama!

It’s going to get even uglier.
Just wait until Obama’s base starts pushing him really hard to abandon Afghanistan.

“Some examples would be to release his original and official birth certificate”.
-Joe-
With that statement alone your comments lose any degree of credibility.

Can the leftists entertain the slightest possibility that these people would rather be left alone than have Obama, Wxman, Pelosi and Barney Frank decide what’s best for them?
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Sep 2, 2009 9:55:05 AM
****
You know that if we do nothing, premiums will double in seven years given the current trend, right? And you realize there are many, many people who voted for Obama and are NOT revulsed by his policies, but rather, are pushing for a new progressive direction, tired of the same old, same old, do nothing, shrink the middle class, create a con’s dream version of a nanny state for corporations and the wealthy, yada, yada, yada. And that the health care proposals on the table won’t necessitate a change in health care plan for most people, so many of us don’t consider what you call lies lies. We think the GOP is lying. The GOP is much, much less popular than Obama, you know.
So, in answer to your question, I want health care reform!!! I want a public option. I’ve listened and listened and elected officials of the GOP aren’t offering up the good or useful ideas a handful of you talk about. They’re not!! They’re just saying no, or heck no. Or let’s cut our wrists (Bachmann.) Have you seen the latest interview with Hank Paulson, the one in which he talks about how hard it was working with Congress, calls Repubs the party of no and PRAISES Pelosi and Frank.

Updegrove has it all wrong. The majority of the American people no longer trust Obama. He’s incompetent. That’s why his numbers are tanking. Independents can’t run away from him fast enough and are admitting they are embarrassed to have voted for him in the first place.

CNN: Majority of Independents now disapprove Of Obama.
Alyson, the fact that reform is needed does not by any means suggest that this particular reform is needed, or even that it makes sense. In fact, for many reasons it most emphatically does not. That is why the American people have rejected it.

Can the leftists entertain the slightest possibility that these people would rather be left alone than have Obama, Wxman, Pelosi and Barney Frank decide what’s best for them?
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Sep 2, 2009 9:55:05 AM
****
So, in answer to your question, I want health care reform!!! I want a public option.
Posted by: Alyson | Sep 2, 2009 10:07:39 AM
*****
The answer, Fascist Hyena, is no.

matt: “The polls are nonsense at this point.”
The panic is palpable.

The answer, Fascist Hyena, is no.
Posted by: Woody | Sep 2, 2009 10:31:34 AM
***
Although I concede that there are people like those I mentioned in another post, so maybe they do want their premiums to double in the next seven years. After all, 69% of Americans polled on the eve of the Iraq War believed Saddam Hussein was directly involved with the catastrophic events of 9/11. And a VP candidate was uncertain whether Africa is a continent or a country. A Republican congressman blessed a man who stood up at a town hall and proclaimed himself a terrorist. Another congresswoman is urging people to slit their wrists to fight health care reform. A majority (a majority!) of Americans polled can’t name the three branches of government or explain the bill of rights.
The thing is I’m not going to give up on trying to explain the benefits of health reform to them. I think it would be irresponsible.

“the first 8 months do not tell the future
============
Obviously. The past and present don’t tell the future.

-The thing is I’m not going to give up on trying to explain the benefits of health reform to them. I think it would be irresponsible.-
Fix the USPS, then we can talk. Consider it a test case.

FH:When the American people show an increasing revulsion with this man’s policies, it can only be because they believe the terrible lies nasty people are telling about him.
Yet when the president lies, as he does repeatedly (“if you like your current plan you can keep it”), those same people see right through the lies. Have I got that right?
==========
I was trying to say that last night. So yeah, I think you are right.

. If it passes, by 2012 the initially intimidated will have simply gotten used to the idea. Decisive action inspires confidence.
So instead of trying to defeat the right-wing propaganda machine, [to quote a fellow troll] let’s just double down and roll the bones.
========
Nothing says “confidence” like “I’m not starting my new initiative until after I’ve run for re-election”!

“I think the whole argument on both sides has little to do with logic and mostly to do with with uncertainty, trust, and what people are comfortable with. If it passes, by 2012 the initially intimidated will have simply gotten used to the idea. Decisive action inspires confidence.”
Yes, I think if Obama clearly defines what he will accept in the bill, and where it will take healthcare, then people will come on side in droves.

How funny…
Obama’s fellow Democrats are having to beg him to be a leader.
Maybe voting present 130 times in the Senate should have given everyone a clue–Obama has no courage.

“Obama has lost the trust of most Americans. He has told too many lies.”
No, Obama has APPEARED indecisive because he’s encouraged full participation of Congress and the Senate (and the Republicans) in both the Recovery Act and this Health bill.
It’s time for the President to kick the Republicans and their liars on the right wing media out of the way and get the job done properly.

Obama has courage……
he’s taking a vacation at Camp David from a vacation at Matras Vineyard!
That my friends……takes courage!!
He’s pooped!!

Independents that voted for Obama.
We forgive you.
But please don’t fall for Obama’s lies
ever again.
You are our only hope to stop a power-grabbing government that threatens our freedom.

From Alyson, THE most prolific blogger here, asks, at 10:07:39 AM:
“Have you seen the latest interview with Hank Paulson, the one in which he talks about how hard it was working with Congress, calls Repubs the party of no and PRAISES Pelosi and Frank.”
*************************************
Have you got the latest poll numbers? Congressional approval ratings? Pelosi ratings? Thought with all the facts and data you have at hand, you might also have these to share with us here, too. Thanks.

I don’t believe that Americans in general believe what this president says anymore. He’s be found to be lying, misstating and doing differently than he says far too many times in the short time he’s had in office. It’s not clear to me he can ever regain the trust of the majority of Americans.

Radical Anti-Free Market Marxist as president? What could POSSIBLY go wrong? When the “cult of personality” wears off, they’ll use force. It’s coming, and we’ll strike them down.

It’s time for the President to kick the Republicans and their liars on the right wing media out of the way and get the job done properly.
Posted by: julieterra | Sep 2, 2009 11:21:12 AM
___________________________________
Yes! And the Democrats that don’t support the bill! Kick ‘em out of the way too!

“there would be no domestic automakers”
Except for the pesky little fact that Ford did not take bailout money and is succeeding spectacularly.
The people are waking to the fact that obama is a liar and a fraud. He lost all credibility and trust when his stimulus did not do what he promised.
The people do not believe his rhetoric anymore.

From The Hill:
“Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) will let Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) keep his chairmanship despite his failing to report hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets on federal disclosure forms, according to Democratic aides.”
Why would anyone trust Democrats for anything? They are all insufferably corrupt. Rangel can expect Eric Holder to kill this investigation too.

You have to love the White House response, “If we did nothing, we would have let the banks fail, had no domestic auto makers, pulled out of Afgan, etc.”
How is Ford doing these days? No government bailout and leads GM for the first time in 80 years.

Maybe we should ask the President the following questions:
1) Will there be a provision that will require showing identification for service?
2) Will government funded abortions be included?
3) Will there be a $10 billion subsidy for the union pensions and health benefits?
4) How does healthcare reform affect stem cell research?
I think these are some of the biggest issues that Congress has faced and it would be interesting to see where the President is on these issues. He will probably support some, but not others. Will he veto the bill if it doesn’t meet these criteria.
Please do us a great service and ask President Obama these questions.

Thought with all the facts and data you have at hand, you might also have these to share with us here, too. Thanks.
Posted by: No_thanks | Sep 2, 2009 11:29:14 A
*** Actually, I don’t need to share them as others like to gloat about them, often– and I have shared what I read and look at. But since you brought it up, how do the GOP’s poll ratings compare?? There seems to be much less mention of that.
Also, is there some problem with being the most prolific commenter for a week or two? It’s research. It’s been enlightening. But, no worries, it won’t last forever :>)
(The Paulson interview was interesting though, yes? LOL. )

“how do the GOP’s poll ratings compare?? There seems to be much less mention of that.”
As I mentioned just yesterday, they lead the Dems on the generic congressional ballot, 43-36, their biggest lead in years. Dems are looking at suicide in 2010 if they persist in agenda that the American people do not want.

Dems are looking at suicide in 2010 if they persist in agenda that the American people do not want.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Sep 2, 2009 12:43:52 PM
***
Yeah, the polls at this moment don’t look good. Congressional favorability is at a 24 year low, although Pew shows midterm voting intentions still evenly divided. (I know, that’s just one poll.) 45% say they would vote for a Democratic candidate in their district, or lean Democratic, while 44% say they would vote for a Republican or lean Republican.
“The new survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Aug. 20-27 in English and Spanish among 2,003 adults reached on landlines and cell phones, finds that the Democrats’ dimmer electoral prospects are more a matter of disillusionment with the party that controls Congress than a revival of the image of the Republican Party. Favorable ratings of the GOP remain quite low (40%), even as opinion of Democrats has soured; just 48% say they have a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party, down 11 points since April.
Most of the shift in voting intentions since the 2006 election cycle has occurred among political independents.”
I personally think it’s still early to tell, but, heck, if we end up with a better,more moderate, less partisan, more engaged Congress that actually will work together and do something innovative to solve problems, rather than dig in to ideology and , I have to say I’m for it. I won’t be concerned unless it means we’re getting more yahoos– and for me the yahoos are people like Bachmann.
We’ll see. It’s a little early to be playing the daily poll game, though weekly assessment makes sense to me on some of the issues– health care, the war in Afghanistan. I don’t really want a President who is solely looking at polls though.

A lot of people on the left hate American culture. This is the culture of creativity and acceptance. Why the left is so resentful is a mystery to all.
Posted by: welldirected | Sep 2, 2009 12:54:50 PM
***
A lot of people on the right hate the American left which is part of the culture, the part that is creative, progressive, interested in ideas, innovation, science and equal opportunity. Why the right is so resentful is a mystery to all– around the world!!

Yeah, the polls at this moment don’t look good. Congressional favorability is at a 24 year low…
Posted by: Alyson |
My favorite recent poll was one where 46% said that people randomly chosen from a phone book would do a better job than congress. Put me down for undecided on that one.

“If we only did what was popular in polls, the banks would have failed, there would be no domestic automakers, and we’d pull all our troops out of Afghanistan tomorrow.”
Ok, well for one, the banks are still failing. For two, why would Ford have gone under again, they didn’t need a bailout. For three, I’m sure you will pull the troops out of Afghanistan soon enough. Nobody has any faith you’ll stay the course.
So you really didn’t fix #1, you’re lying about #2, and I have no faith on #3; and that’s the best you can do as your explanation why you need to ignore the will of the people and simply do whatever you want?
Well good luck with that. Enjoy the poll numbers you so richly deserve regarding support for the President, his party, and his new goals.

“Currently at 50 percent job approval in the daily Gallup poll”
Picking nits but on Sept 1 2009, Obama was at 52% and today sits at 54%.

a senior White House official told ABC News, “If we only did what was popular in polls, the banks would have failed, there would be no domestic automakers, and we’d pull all our troops out of Afghanistan tomorrow. But none of those decisions would be in the economic or national security interests of the country.”
Really? remind me how many banks have failed? GM and Chrylser are still performing poorly, cash for clunkers sold more Foreign cars than domesitic and EVERY SINGLE dealer is still waiting to be paid their cut from the government.
Why are we in Afghanistan and how is it benefiting America? I mean, the huge uproar of Iraq and the soldiers deaths, where i it for Afghanistan and the soldiers deaths? the cost…in the billions also, but not screaming over this?
no domestic auto-makers? Interesting, did Ford take government assistance?

Of course you do.
Scotty tells you what you want to hear.
Posted by: Ryan C | Sep 2, 2009 1:30:40 PM
_________________________________________
You can opine what you’d like, but he tends to be among the most accurate – and that’s why I personally follow him. I also follow Zogby, who tends to befriend the left. And Scott’s numbers are sometimes different then others because he factors in – admittedly – what he calls “likely voters” as, well, they are the ones who are likely to vote and actually affect an election’s outcome. To me, it’s all about accuracy. Otherwise, I’d stick to the Fox News poll or something if I really wanted something that was what I wanted to hear. The fact is, if Scott says the repubs have a lead, they likely do! The actual percentages might vary in the end, but as a barometer of trends, he’s dead on …. and right now, things ain’t trending the Dem’s way!

“You can opine what you’d like, but he tends to be among the most accurate – and that’s why I personally follow him.”
ROFLMAO!
Yes it has nothing to do with Rasmussen polls getting regularly reported by right wing media outlets.
“I also follow Zogby, who tends to befriend the left.”
ROFLMAO!
The Zogby who disassociated himself with Ziegler’s bogus poll and now relies on his Interactive model which has been so off in recent elections its silly?

Does Obama think he can convince anyone that he is not a tax and spend liberal on steroids?
What evidence will he use to support that? The stimulus bill, omnibus, cap/trade, health care?
Obama is not credible enough to pull that off anymore. And he looks rediculous trying to pretend to be fiscally responsible.

Blaming Bush doesn’t appear to be working anymore. Obama just looks like a thin skinned whiner. And completely clueless.

“you libs say you are for science, until 30,000 scientists tell you man-made global warming is BS.”
It was 30,000 guys that have a Bachelor of Science and work for the oil companies.

Ryan C:”But apparently right wingers are for bought and paid for science.”
Careful, now. Do you really want to bring funding into the AGW argument? Funding for those who promote the warmist agenda is in the billions per year, and it’s funded primarily by you and me.

Who on the right is against science? Unless you are referring to the 1% that don’t believe in dinosoars. . .
***
Or are creationists and believe that man and dinosaurs roamed the Earth together or deny man has contributed to climate change or. . . the list goes on.
I forgot to mention green initiatives on the side of the left supporting innovation. That’s an important one :>)

“Dumbest right wing conspiracy this week and that is saying something.”
Last week’s prize should go to RNC chairman Michael Steele. He went on Fox and said the VA has a manual that encourages vets to commit suicide, so people should be on the lookout when it comes to government-run health care. I really think a lot of these Republican politicians are headed straight to hell. Seriously.

Alyson, can you explain to me how CO2 acts to warm the atmosphere? What percentage of atmospheric CO2 can be attributed to fossil fuels? Can you name the most prolific and powerful “greenhouse gas”?

“Can you name the most prolific and powerful “greenhouse gas”?”
-The water vapor diversion again?

Alyson – “Want more info, or are you yanking my chain cuz you’re a denier and you want to fight?”
Yanking your chain? No. And you still didn’t answer any of my questions, which is an answer in itself.
BTW, I see your need to label others is paramount, so I would prefer you to use one of the following labels for those who have an open mind regarding the relatively new field of climate science: critical thinker, auditor, realist, engineer or (gulp) scientist. Thanks!

Posted by: Woody | Sep 2, 2009 2:28:11 PM
***
Oh sheesh. You’re one of those that uses multiple names and goes on with the questions, pretending the failure to answer you means something other than not wanting to play your game when it’s pretty clear we’ll find no common ground.
Ah, look another label! Cool! I needed that! It’s of paramount importance! Golly gee, I love when I get to do that.
Eyeroll.

Numeros, you’re comparing apples and oranges. Rasmussen, like the others, shows Dems with a larger share of party identification than Repubs. But when Rasmussen asks “which part’s candidate do you intend to vote for?” (a question that Independents also answer), the GOP wins, 43-36.
Keep your eye on the ball. And be afraid . Be very afraid.

Ryan C | Sep 2, 2009 2:31:51 PM
“-Blessed are the peacemakers” I gotta roll…

Numeros, you’re comparing apples and oranges.”
BTW how is comparing generic congressional ballots from different polling firms apples and oranges?
Is Rasmussen really that much of an outlier?

Since the mods were apparently thrown off by my complimenting someone on the right I will say it again.
Woody and I have had several calm and reasoned debates.
Given my posting style, I attribute that fact more to him than to myself.

“Lie and Lie. Banks were still not saved, and FORD would still be around. Ford never touched the government cheese.”
“Michael Knauer
Automobilwoche
March 10, 2009 – 12:01 am ET
Ford Motor Co. is pressing the German government for an extension of the incentive for scrapping older cars.
Without such support, temporary factory closings in Europe can be expected, said Ingvar Sviggum, Ford’s sales and marketing chief for Europe.
“If the scrapping premium is not extended, there will be a dramatic decline in demand in the second half of the year as a result,” he said. “Under certain circumstances, we will have to intermittently close down factories and, as an example, re-introduce the reduced working hours that we recently withdrew in Cologne.”"

I see by the photo that President Obama has been shown how to salute. I hope they can teach him how to distinguish a Staff Sergeant from a Major General (and does he even know what the Medal of Honor looks like, since he is the only President to miss the American Legion’s Salute to Heroes Ball honoring our Medal Of Honor recipients, since Eisenhower?).

As they use to say in the military, “You can polish a turd all you want, but you still have a turd.”

Obama is left-wing scum. He is a marxist traitor. Truly an evil man.

“His actions are those of a dictator.”
More juvenile name calling. He’s the democratically elected President of the United States, and he’s working through Congress and the Senate same as any other President.
It’s a system of checks and balances. Read about your own government.

I’m always leery of any outlier like Rasmussen but I do think there is a big difference in polling ‘Likely Voters’ vs ‘Adults’. Rasmussen uses likely voters, the others just use all adults. Real Clear Politics has pretty good background on each polls methodology.

Despite continued attacks from Republicans in August over his health care plans, President Obama’s overall approval rating has only dipped a couple percentage points. In the latest CBS News poll released Tuesday night, the president’s overall approval rating is 56 percent, which is down two points from the last poll taken at the end of July.

“And wait till parents hear about Obama speaking to students at the schools. Ha! A bigger slide will follow.”
Yeah why can’t Obama just sit there and listen to the teacher read My Pet Goat.

Gallup today:
PRINCETON, NJ — In August, an average of 45% of Americans identified as Democrats or leaned to the Democratic Party, while 40% identified as Republicans or leaned to the Republican Party. This 5-point advantage represents a decided narrowing of the gap between the parties from the 17-point Democratic advantage in January.
Gallup and Ras are about the same on ID. But Ras goes on to ask all voters, including Indies, “Who you gonna vote for?”
All the polls tell the same story. And the goofballs who used to tell us regularly a few months ago how wonderful Obama’s polls were don’t want to talk about it anymore. Who can blame them?

” And the goofballs who used to tell us regularly a few months ago how wonderful Obama’s polls were don’t want to talk about it anymore. Who can blame them?”
—————————————–
‘goofballs’ . . you surely sound intelligent.
Despite continued attacks from Republicans in August over his health care plans, President Obama’s overall approval rating has only dipped a couple percentage points. In the latest CBS News poll released Tuesday night, the president’s overall approval rating is 56 percent, which is down two points from the last poll taken at the end of July.

“Gallup and Ras are about the same on ID. But Ras goes on to ask all voters, including Indies, “Who you gonna vote for?”"
So are you saying that Gallup does not ask independents a generic ballot question for Congress?
From their polls at the end of July
“The poll data suggest party loyalty in the 2010 congressional vote is likely to be high. Currently, Republicans say they would vote for the Republican candidate by 93% to 3%, while Democrats would vote for the Democratic candidate by an equally lopsided margin, 94% to 4%. Independents are currently evenly divided in their vote preference.”
“All the polls tell the same story. And the goofballs who used to tell us regularly a few months ago how wonderful Obama’s polls were don’t want to talk about it anymore.”
I’m standing right here. I’ve responded to most of your posts dealing with polling and have done so when you began posting here.
Perhaps you could come up with a better lie.

Sorry, but none of the “czars” of previous administrations wielded anything like the power they do under Obama. How many previous “czars” were given control of entire private industries like the automobile industry?
Qwinn

“Sorry, but none of the “czars” of previous administrations wielded anything like the power they do under Obama.”
Quinn it appears you’re just making this stuff up as you go along. First you thought Czars were unconstitutional. Then you found out they’ve been around for a while. Now, you’ve changed your tune . . . and think they suddenly have been given exraordinary unconstitutional powers . . . Quinn you’re making this up, or reading it from some sketchy source.

“It is actually questionable whether czars in previous administrations were constitutional, even though their power was comparatively minor in comparison to what they wield today.”
I don’t believe you know what you’re talking about.

“I personally agree that that’s a “sketchy source”
You said it.

He’s the elder statesman of the Democrat Party in the Senate. He’s fourth in line for the Presidency, behind Biden and Pelosi. Show some respect!
Qwinn

Oh yes, he’s also officially President Pro Tempore of the Senate – that’s what makes him three heartbeats away from the Presidency. Why do you guys put such a “sketchy source” in one of the most powerful positions in the free world?
Qwinn

First, let’s note, julieterra, that I sourced my claims (even as no apology about how I just “make things up” is forthcoming), whereas Ryan C’s list is totally unsourced.
Secondly, I looked up 3 at random on that list. All 3 were created by legislation via Congress. Obama just appoints his without Congressional approval, which is what Byrd is complaining about.
Third, the idea that his czars don’t have unprecedented power is hilarious. Steve Rattner, Obama’s appointed Auto Czar, forced Chrysler to declare bankruptcy and merge with Fiat, even as Chrysler protested and offered up reasonable viable alternatives. If that’s not control, what the hell is? And what previous “czar” – or even Senator or Congressman or President – has ever wielded that kind of power over private industry?
Qwinn

“Steve Rattner, Obama’s appointed Auto Czar, forced Chrysler to declare bankruptcy and merge with Fiat, even as Chrysler protested and offered up reasonable viable alternatives.”
Do you really think we should be giving gigantic bailouts to companies using taxpayers money with no stipulations?
You continue to quote a source you yourself call ‘sketchy’ – that says alot.
Once you’ve gone through the remaining Czars in other administrations, let us know the results. The right wing has been pushing these “Czars” as if they were an invention of the ‘commmie’ Obama.
Now we know that is not true.

“their primary concern”
So if health care was in their top 3 concerns, but not number one – they were left out in the statistics you quote.
Nice one.

julieterra,
You’re going to have to step up your game, that last reply was so non-responsive and lame it’s not enough for me to maintain any interest in debating you. You’re just discrediting yourself at this point. It does save me the trouble, at least.
First: Several auto companies attempted to -refuse- bailout money, rightly fearing the strings attached. They were -forced- to accept the money, and the strings.
Second: Convenient that the forced terms of that forced bankruptcy (Chrysler COULD still pay its bills) shafted Chrysler’s lenders and investors in deference to those who had lower priority according to the established contracts: exorbitantly pensioned UAW bigwigs who supported Obama’s election campaign. No possible conflicts of interest there!
Third: Your claim that right wingers are saying Obama created the term “czars” is a complete straw man. No one has said that – you just made it up in order to knock it down, thus proving something – I’m not sure what, but good job proving it. He has, however, completely recreated the positions formerly titled “czar” by disdaning to get congressional approval for his appointments, and for massively extending their power. And, oh yeah, the fact that he appoints self-professed communists IS a valid reason to fear his over those of his predecessor.
Qwinn

Quinn – the things you imagine to be true are just that . .. your imaginings, not truth.
“Several auto companies attempted to -refuse- bailout money, rightly fearing the strings attached. They were -forced- to accept the money”
“shafted Chrysler’s lenders and investors in deference to those who had lower priority according to the established contracts: exorbitantly pensioned UAW bigwigs who supported Obama’s election campaign.”
“the fact that he appoints self-professed communists IS a valid reason to fear his over those of his predecessor.

1. “You continue to quote a source you yourself call ‘sketchy’ – that says alot.”
Because he’s the highest seniority Democrat in the Senate! He’s on YOUR SIDE, in a position of huge power and influence! Oh, my, God.
2. “Quinn – the things you imagine to be true are just that . .. your imaginings, not truth.”
I could source all of them, but why bother? You won’t even admit that your “you’re just making that up” was a flagrant smear, after I -proved- that my source was the -one of the heads of your own party-. If that’s not flagrant, -knowing- dishonesty, what is?
Qwinn

” after I -proved- that my source was the -one of the heads of your own party”
Unlike fanatical Republican right wingers, we don’t consider that the person is ALWAYS right just become they’re from OUR party.

Sorry Quinn, I don’t trust anything you post at this point. You’ve been providing half-cocked information from the get go.

“The number of people who cited health care as their primary concern was under 5% for over a decade, until liberals started screaming the words “emergency” and “crisis” over and over. But -we’re- the fearmongers. Right.”
——————————–
“their primary concern”
So if health care was in their top 3 concerns, but not number one – they were left out in the statistics you quote.
Nice one.

“You’re parroting Glenn Beck and accusing anyone else of lack of intellectual honesty? ”
I don’t watch Glenn Beck. Everything I said about Van Jones is a matter of public record. It is -his own words-.
Qwinn

Van Jones, Obama’s “Green Jobs Czar”, is an avowed radical communist.
***
Riiiiight.
I feel very sad that Van Jones has become a right wing target. I’ve heard him speak and he’s just amazing in the green economy field. He graduated from Yale is the founder of both the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and Green For and wrote The Green Collar Economy: How One Solution Can Solve Our Two Biggest Problems (Harper One 2008), a NYT bestseller which has been endorsed by Nancy Pelosi, Tom Daschle and Al Gore. Read it. Be open-minded.
Somehow I’d missed how he became a right wing target, but I opened an email from one of those lists my conservative cousin put me on in jest, and lo and behold, the Van Jones and czar talking points became clear. Glenn Beck is afraid of Van Jones. He actually cried on his television show, scared to death that the communists are taking over and that they’re going to eat the children of America or something. Now, I have to ask, why is Beck’s crybaby fraidy cat thing so appealing to people? Seriously. For the life of me I cannot understand the Glenn Beck appeal.
Unbelievable.

“I don’t watch Glenn Beck. Everything I said about Van Jones is a matter of public record. It is -his own words-.”
ROLFMAO!
Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt!
Seriously, learn to think for yourself instead of being a Beck lemming.

Well, my link to his manifesto was edited out of my last post. It is hosted at leftspot, a far left blog (note: not Glenn Beck’s website).
It is the mission statement and manual for a radical group, founded and led by Van Jones, which has the quotes I gave, including expressing solidarity with Lenin and Mao Tse Tung.
But, of course, if a bunch of left wing idols like Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi have nothing but nice things to say about him, that somehow raises him up, rather than lower them down. It is in fact our entire -point- that this self-professed communist revolutionary gets accolades from the Democrats, because there’s no real difference anymore.
There’s a reason the Communist Party USA hasn’t bothered to put up their own presidential candidate for the last four cycles, being entirely content with the Democrat candidates.
Qwinn

“He actually cried on his television show, scared to death that the communists are taking over and that they’re going to eat the children of America or something.”
Maybe he’s related to one of the 100,000,000 victims of communist governments over the 20th century?
I’m related to three of them myself.
But yes, that just makes us big old fraidycats. Unlike left wingers who scream in blithering terror and scream “terrorist!” at Town Hall goers protesting Obamacare.
“Quinn, almost every point you made was discredited by other posters here, and your information was proved incorrect. Your arguments were left in tatters.”
What crap. Not ONE of my points has been discredited. You’re just saying that hoping people won’t read further.
Qwinn

Quinn, why do you bother with idiots? They are just trying to tick you off because they KNOW the truth but will not admit it…only to cover their own ignorance! You should really pity them because they are the losers in this life…looking for any handout they can get OR PAID bloggers from the Obama gang to distort anything you say…give it up..these types of people CANNOT be educated..proven time and time again!!!

“You’re just saying that hoping people won’t read further.”
I encourage people to read further to see how the lack of depth of your health care ‘concern stats’ figures was revealed for what it is. And how your accusations at President Obama tried to make his method of appointing ‘Czars’ unusual and sinister . . . . and so on.
We know where the smear and fear comes from.

Quinn, understand this….they cannot silence us! The reason they are even on this site arguing with you shows you that all they can do is to try and tick you off…they cannot REFUTE any thing you say…that is why they can only TRY TO GOAD YOU! That is the way bullies try to push people around…like the unions and Acorn at the town hall meetings..they try to overshout and intimidate people…that is what ignorance does…because they do not have a legitimate leg to stand on…sucks to be them!

I am very pleased with my health insurance, my lifestyle and grateful that I was able to retire finanacialy stable after 55 years of working! I do not and never have had to depend on handouts from the government! Good thing this country has had hard working individuals supporting themselves all these years..not like the lazy, uneducated that are now called…”the gimme generation”!

Oh God, I explain how she’s totally missing the point and she starts right back in on the completely-missing-the-point spam posts again.
Before, primary 5%. After, primary 20%. What the 2nd and 3rd concerns are is irrelevant. The huge uptick – a quadrupling, in fact – of people scared out of their minds about health care is the direct result of liberal fearmongering.
Qwinn

Oh, wait, my crystal ball tells me what’s coming next.
Julieterra will now point out that I discredited Ryan C’s list by pointing out that 3, chosen at random, from his list were all congressionally approved. And so she’s only doing the same thing I did.
The difference is that I have already identified two unappointed czars under Obama, and I am sure there are many more. There is no evidence presented yet that a single one of Bush’s picks bypassed the approval process.
What Julieterra and her confederates have failed to do is -defend- his practice of appointing these guys without congressional approval.
Qwinn

Julieterra…Romeo is looking for you!
He has a couple of CZARS he would like you to meet..he says for you to google the new GREEN CZAR and read his manifesto!

Quinn – you continue to prove that you’ve proved almost nothing . . . only that you have an agenda to discredit and smear the President. That’s sad.
What are you going to say when I discredit yet another of your arguments by posting ‘Czars’ Bush appointed by – as you put it – bypassing the approval process?
That would just be another of your points disproved, where would you retreat to next?

Quinn does not have to discredit the president…Obama does that all by himself every time he opens his mouth!

“Quinn does not have to discredit the president…Obama does that all by himself every time he opens his mouth!”
Juvenile.

Again, you apparently are unable to distinguish between the media’s casual use of the term to describe bureaucratic positions within long-existing offices with actual new devoted offices and new positions granted the sort of broad authority and mandate that people are actually complaining about. The difference is recognized by anyone not attempting to whitewash Obama’s power grab – a semantic play that obscures nothing.
Google “cyber security czar”. On the very first page:
Washington Post: President Obama is expected to announce late this week that he will create a “cyber czar,” a senior White House official who will have broad authority to develop strategy to protect the nation’s government-run and private computer networks, according to people who have been briefed on the plan.
Business Week: There’s been a lot of discussion lately about the need for a national cybersecurity czar. The need for the Obama Administration to fill this role has only become more pressing after the recent resignation of Melissa Hathaway, acting senior director for cyberspace for the National Security and Homeland Security councils.
SearchSecurity.com: The White House is expected to announce the creation of a cyberczar position that will focus on protecting the nation’s critical networks from cyberattacks.
Scientific American: Report: U.S. to get its first cyber security czar this week.
The whole world’s media didn’t simultaneously forget Richard Clarke, julieterra. Everyone understands that the offices and positions Obama is creating are fundamentally different from the bureaucratic posts what went on in previous administrations. Well, everyone that is except the folks here who are desperately labeling what everyone understands and every media outlet acknowledges as some sort of crazy right wing rant.
Qwinn

“you apparently are unable to distinguish between the media’s casual use of the term to describe bureaucratic positions within long-existing offices with actual new devoted offices and new positions granted the sort of broad authority and mandate”
The Cyber Czar responsibilities, authority and mandate were all new and broad – and instituted in the position put in place under Bush. Fool.
Your bias is showing again.

“The Cyber Czar responsibilities, authority and mandate were all new and broad – and instituted in the position put in place under Bush. Fool.”
Let’s say this is true. How does this differ from what I’ve been saying all along – that Obama’s czars are fundamentally different, with far greater powers – than the czars that came before? You’re admitting the “responsibilities, authority and mandate” are new under Obama, but then you pretend that nothing’s changed? And “you don’t know what you’re talking about”?
Right.
Qwinn

” ‘The American people like President Obama. They don’t necessarily like his policies right now, but he does have the trust of the American people, and he does have the good will,’ Updegrove said.”
I’m so glad you concluded with this “scientific” perspective, stating this man’s opinion as though it were a given fact.
If we started today to pay off our national debt (which Barack Obama has quadrupled in a mere seven months) at a rate of $1 million a day, without any interest, it would take over 27,500 years to pay off the debt. So, why not add another $50 billion annually to our debt? The irresponsibility of a nation that continues to spend money it DOES NOT have on things it cannot afford is simply shameful.

You still haven’t answered my question.
Quinn – you continue to prove that you’ve proved almost nothing . . . only that you have an agenda to discredit and smear the President. That’s sad.
What are you going to say when I discredit yet another of your arguments by posting ‘Czars’ Bush appointed by – as you put it – bypassing the approval process?
That would just be another of your points disproved, where would you retreat to next?

But yes, that just makes us big old fraidycats.
Posted by: Qwinn | Sep 2, 2009 7:50:37 PM
***
Qwinn, here’s where you lose me. You use the word fear quite a bit in your posts, but get offended when someone notices that the GOP seems to talk about fear a heck of a lot more than the left. You say you don’t watch Glenn Beck but get offended when I say I don’t see the appeal of his crybaby fraidy cat act. If you don’t watch him, then how do you know whether or not he acts that way, and why would you think something I say about him applies to you, or applies more broadly than what I actually said, and, seriously, why would you care one way or another if you’re not really just parroting him? When you jump on observations about fear, fearmongering and fraidy cats and get all defensive and project them into some big thing, it makes it look like the observations may be touching a raw nerve. That may or may not be true, of course, but it’s how it appears.
Now, fairplay, I do think Republicans are more risk-averse and resistant to changes to the status quo than progressives (particularly right after a change of power where a
Dem takes over for a Republican; remember Clinton’s first year in office?). And I think there’s a certain paranoia inherent to conspiracy theorists on either side, right or left. And I am truly bewildered by the popularity of Glenn Beck.

Pardon me, julieterro… with the White House itself adjusting its debt estimates just last week, adding an extra $1 trillion to $2 trillion dollars to its pile of wasteful spending, I may have indeed been inaccurate. I erred in saying quadrupled, as I had forgotten the changes announced by the White House. Now, the estimate is that Obama has quintupled the national debt.
Thank you for inspiring the correction!

I object to your minimizing the brutality of communist regimes throughout history, acting as if any resistance to the standard operating methods of infiltration and revolutionary activity that led over half of the world to be under the control of communist regimes in the 20th century is illegitimate. It has nothing to do with Beck for me. We’re never going to find common ground, because as far as you’re concerned, Van Jones could very well be a communist – so what, right?
***
Okay, fair enough on everything except Van Jones. And I’m sorry that it seemed like I was minimizing the brutality of communist regimes throughout history. Now, regarding Van Jones, I think where we’ll never agree is that I don’t think he’s a communist at all. I’m quite certain there is not going to be a communist takeover of the country. I’ve watched people like Dr. Emmanuel get villified– and I do find the whole thing ridiculous. It’s not that I don’t care or that I don’t love this country; it’s that I’ve watched this very same game before– play by play. It’s a very old game. So, we’ll never agree, but I do understand better now where you’re coming from and appreciate you telling me.

On the wikipedia page of Van Jones:
“Jones said he was “a rowdy nationalist”[11] before the King verdict was announced. By August of that year, he said, “I was a communist.”[11] Jones’s activism was also spurred on by witnessing racial inequality in New Haven: “I was seeing kids at Yale do drugs and talk about it openly, and have nothing happen to them or, if anything, get sent to rehab…And then I was seeing kids three blocks away, in the housing projects, doing the same drugs, in smaller amounts, go to prison.”[9]
When he graduated law school, Jones gave up plans to take a job in Washington, D.C., and moved to San Francisco instead.[11] He got involved with Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), a group explicitly committed to revolutionary Marxist politics[12] whose points of unity were revolutionary democracy, revolutionary feminism, revolutionary internationalism, the central role of the working class, urban Marxism, and Third World Communism.[13] While with STORM, Jones actively began protesting police brutality.[11]”
Of course, it -is- wikipedia. Van Jones didn’t just become “involved with” STORM, he founded and led the openly Marxist organization.
But apparently, Van Jones in his own words saying “I was a communist”, and leading an openly Marxist organization for years, in no way proves that he was a communist. If I may ask, what -would- you consider evidence that he’s a communist?
Qwinn

“what -would- you consider evidence that he’s a communist?”
Your operating in the wrong tense.
George Bush was an alcoholic and cocaine abuser. Is George Bush therefore now an alcoholic and cocaine abuser?

I didn’t miss -any- point. This is the entirety of the post I was addressing:
You still haven’t answered my question.
Quinn – you continue to prove that you’ve proved almost nothing . . . only that you have an agenda to discredit and smear the President. That’s sad.
What are you going to say when I discredit yet another of your arguments by posting ‘Czars’ Bush appointed by – as you put it – bypassing the approval process?
That would just be another of your points disproved, where would you retreat to next?
You’re actually, ACTUALLY complaining that I “haven’t answered your question”, which is “I’m gonna pretend I’ll win the next argument, what will you do then?”. That’s your actual argument. It’s HILARIOUS.
Qwinn

“George Bush was an alcoholic and cocaine abuser. Is George Bush therefore now an alcoholic and cocaine abuser?”
First, the fact that you state the unfounded cocaine smear as fact shows just how in the tank you are.
Secondly, the context was “By August of that year”, I was a communist”. That does not indicate tense. I’ve been a conservative since I was old enough to reason. Would I therefore say “By the time I was a teenager I am a conservative”? No. “I was a conservative” is the proper tense in that sentence.
Has Van Jones ever -reputed- being a communist? Shouldn’t he freaking -have- to?
As far as I’m concerned, being an ex- communist isn’t any better than being an ex-nazi. Would you approve of an ex-nazi (who has never repudiated Nazism) being a white house official with broad authority and a mandate? I would.
Qwinn

Yes, wouldn’t it be better if it were just wall to wall liberal commentary, as it usually is?
Incidentally, to prove once again just how truth-challenged julieterra is, here’s where her information that Bush was a “cocaine abuser” came from:
“In 1999, St. Martin’s Press published a book[16] stating that Bush had been arrested for cocaine possession and that the record had been expunged. The publisher said at the time that the book had been “carefully fact-checked and scrutinized by lawyers,” but soon afterward recalled it and pulped all copies after it came to light that author James Hatfield had been convicted in 1988 of attempted murder and in 1992 of embezzlement, had spent five years in prison, and had falsely claimed that his vanity novel about James Bond was authorized by the copyright holder.[17]”
That’s some awesome sourcing you rely on yourself there, julieterra.
Qwinn

“And I’m certain this is a revenge thing and part of the “paint the left as communists and socialists” game plan.”
I would add ‘to paint Obama as a Hitler’ since our friend below brought up Nazi’s again, like a number of other posters on this site. The Hitler/Nazi smear gets used a plenty.

“I would add ‘to paint Obama as a Hitler’ since our friend below brought up Nazi’s again, like a number of other posters on this site. The Hitler/Nazi smear gets used a plenty.”
First of all, you’re ripping me wildly out of context, my mention of Nazis had nothing whatsoever to do with “Obama is a Nazi”.
And yes, conservatives started the whooole “The President is a Nazi” thing. Not one person ever said that about Bush during the entire 8 years of his Presidency. Except, you know, EVERY FREAKING MINUTE. Complete with assassination fantasies on broadway, and in books. And pictures of Bush as a vampire ripping out the throat of the Statue of Liberty. Oh yes. Those awful conservatives with their Nazi analogies. Where did they -ever- pick that up from?
You are utterly unbelievable.
Qwinn

I don’t have any clue what Glenn Beck said about Obama being a racist has to do with this issue,
***
Glenn Beck is losing advertisers and hence he’s targeted Van Jones in revenge. It’s pretty simple actually.

“Glenn Beck is losing advertisers and hence he’s targeted Van Jones in revenge. It’s pretty simple actually.”
And his ratings have shot up. His bottom line isn’t affected at all. Why would that motivate a hit piece?
But let me understand what you’re saying here. A white house official, appointed by Obama, uses an activist group he controls to boycott a critic of his administration.
Full stop. Right there. Totally disregard anything Beck does in response. Substitute the word “Bush” for “Obama” in there, and that alone would be a scandal that would get full press coverage for the next 2 years. A white house official is attempting to silence a critic of the administration and drive him off the airwaves! Imagine if a Bush white house official orchestrated a boycott to drive Keith Olbermann of the air. It would be absolute proof that Bush was a full-fanged fascist of the highest order.
Now, on top of it, you insist that the critic who responds to this attack by a white house official -is not allowed to respond-? And if the white house official attacking him has admitted on multiple occasions to being a communist and led an organization that was openly Marxist, -that isn’t fair play-? But it -is- fair for a white house appointee to silence media critics with boycotts?
WOW.
Qwinn

That’s one hell of a double standard you’re tolerating there.
**
Not really. I’m tolerating your claim that Obama called people racist and I don’t agree with that at all. Besides that, you have no idea what I’ve said or written and to whom. I’m pretty adamant about the word racist being used correctly and more strictly. I think it’s tossed around in an inappropriate and divisive manner. At the same time, however, I think people have the right to be incensed by what Glenn Beck said and to write letters. I think people should be more incensed more often by some of things said by high profile people in the media. Off the top of my head some of the sexist things said about Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin come to mind.

But let me understand what you’re saying here. A white house official, appointed by Obama, uses an activist group he controls to boycott a critic of his administration.
***
Boy can you twist things. Bravo for not getting it right at all!! I said Van Jones was a co-founder. He’s no longer active with the group. I would think with all your extensive research into the matter to bash him and the other czars you’d know that. And I said nothing whatsoever about what Glenn Beck is ALLOWED to do. Good grief. I I don’t buy his attack. I think it’s revenge-oriented and I don’t buy it and as it so happens, it fits right in with his libs are commies shtick.
It’s an old game, Gwinn. You’re very adept at playing your role, btw. And Glenn Beck is adept at playing his.
‘Night.

THE PHRASE “THE BIGGER THE GOVERNMENT GROWS, THE SMALLER THE INDIVIDUAL BECOMES.” NOT EXACTLY EMPTY WORDS.

How cheap are people who stay up til 3AM rebutting people who are asleep. Some people have to WORK in the morning, we all can’t get welfare like Obama and corporate welfare Bush-ites…

“Yes, in response to that absurd DHS memo published by this administration claiming “right wing terrorism” was on the rise. Of course, we later found out it was completely unfounded”
Completely unfounded?
3 Pittsburgh police officers who were gunned down by a right wing lunatic who thought Obama was going to grab his guns.
Members of a Minute Man group shot up a family in a border town seeking to blame illegals.
Then there’s the birther right wing lunatic who shot and killed a guard at the Holocaust museum.
Add to that a huge surge in threats on Obama’s life including sickos right here on this site (they are swiftly deleted).
The appearance of armed members of a militia group that was involved in plot to bomb government building during the Timothy McVeigh days showing uyp at townhalls.
I would say yes a DHS report on right wing lunatics being dangerous was absolutely correct.

The day you wrote this story he was at 52%. He went up 2 pts yesterday and another point today standing at 55% in Gallup.