I'd take any of the Repubs last night, but would guess that Romney would be the best one to take out Obama. He has business sense, and gubernatorial experience. Plus he looks good. He doesn't really like confrontations, and he's Mormon, so those two things work against him, and he's not particularly quick with regard to repartee, so Obama might outgun him there.
It would be great fun to have Herman Cain against Obama. I thought his mind was focused on "problems," and on "asking the right questions." He also had a robust sense of humor. He has a southern accent which will hurt him in the north, and the west, and the middle west.
Ron Paul is the most inventive and interesting, but his hands are shaking quite a bit, and I think this might turn off some voters. If we would lose anyway, I wish Paul would get the nod just to hear his far-out ideas. He has so many of them! I especially thought it was interesting that he wanted to do an inventory of the Fed, and that he thought we should bring home all the troops and reposition them along the Mexican border (with the states' permission). Paul sounds like a flake at first, but then you realize how good his ideas are. At least he doesn't sound like everybody else.
I didn't like Pawlenty. Huntsman and Santorum bored me. I hated Pawlenty for attacking Bachman. It lacked a certain je ne sais quoi. Decency? I can't stand politics as usual, killing a neighbor to rack up their votes.
I loved Michele Bachman, but I don't think she will hold up with the media (and now other candidates) launching one missile after another at her. I think she will eventually explode and make a gaffe that ruins her chance.
Romney is used to a shelling, and can handle it. We have to remember the entire media except Fox News hates the Republicans and will do anything they can to destroy them. It will be like getting the ring back from the orcs. Which of course will immediately poison anybody who's wearing it. But I think Romney will be the least susceptible to going completely crazy with the power of the presidency.
Romney's dad has already been in politics and showed himself well. I think it's important to get someone with family experience. Obama has none, and this lack of experience shows. Bush 2 had his dad. The Roosevelts had one another. I think it's important to have some family history in any given profession so that one has another's back, and can offer support.
Being the most important person in the world is hard, and few can handle this responsibility. Reading the OT it is easy to see how few handled the responsibility well. Too many become Ahabs once they get to run the ship: using it to settle scores instead of remembering that the business of America is business.
26 comments:
I agree with you about Pawlenty going after Bachman. He unfairly (I think) winged Romney too with his comment about only mowing an acre of his lawn. Totally unnecessary. "Petulant" comes to mind - and it reminded me too much about how President Obama talks about people.
Santorum rose in my estimation.
But I still have no idea whom I would prefer.
Santorum's remarks against abortion in any instance were very moving, and heartfelt. I think many Americans could resonate with that statement, but probably a similar number or greater would be against it. I liked what he said, but wondered about the efficacy of revisiting Roe v. Wade when it isn't even within his purview to change (it's the SCOTUS andhe's only the POTUS).
So I thought he wasting his ammo.
I didn't think Pawlenty had any right to attack Romney on class lines. These are Republicans. We believe in the right to amass wealth and think it's a virtue to be rich, so long as the money is lawfully gotten and didn't hurt anybody in the getting. If one's hard work yeidls benefits, then that's what we more or less want in a leader. So I thought Pawlenty was wrong on two scores to hit Mitch with that.
There's nothing wrong with being rich.
I ruled out Huntsman and Pawlenty, but like you I haven't battened on to one. I am wondering if Bachman won't blow up at some point with all the attacks focused on her.
I thought she handled the question of "submission" to her husband brilliantly. She was listed as an "evangelical" Lutheran in the sidebar. Doesn't she go to another church now?
I heard Bachman was being attacked for belonging to a church that didn't believe in gay marriage. The church in question happened to be a Wisconsin Synod congregation. But then I heard she didn't belong to that church any more and was going to an "evangelical" church. I was surprised to see her religion listed by FOX as "Evangelical Lutheran." Either FOX got it wrong or she now belongs to an ELCA congregation - or just some other congregation that describes itself as evangelical. I really don't know.
Ron Paul has two brothers who are Lutheran pastors, but he was listed as "Protestant" by Fox. I wonder who was in charge of the designations? Was it Fox, or the candidate who supplied this info?
JEP and Kirby,
I suspect that Bachmann belongs to a congregation of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod (the ELS, emphatically not the ELCA). This is a small (~20K member) synod, located mostly in Minnesota. They run a single college (Bethany, Mankato).
You LCMS guys are used to thinking of yourself as the conservative Lutheran synod. If you count American Lutherans, sure. If you count Lutheran synods, you're not even close. Of course the WELS is more conservative that the LCMS. But the ELCA, LCMS, and WELS are flamingly liberals by the standards of the "confessing Lutherans," of which the ELS is the largest (and most liberal!) member. The "Jonah question" for the ELS is over the authority of the Book of Concord. The "liberal" Lutherans take the implicitly position that the Book of Concord is inferior to scripture -- we follow the BOC when it is consistent with scripture. For the ELS, the BOC is always to be followed as it is consistent with scripture. Thus, the ELS denies explicitly that the BOC can ever conflict with scripture.
There are a number of Lutheran Synods to the right of the ELS, (Church of the Lutheran Confession, Augsburg Synod, American Association of Lutheran Churches, Association of Free Lutheran Congregations, and others).
I wiki'd her bio and was somewhat shocked at some of the positions her church and some of her mentors have taken. One is that only Christians should have governmental positions. That's going to get a lot of flak from people, even if she denies it as BO did his mentors.
At any rate, here is some of the info. I don't know all the splintered Lutheran groups as Stu does. Nor do I know why she dropped Wisconsin just prior to her run.
"Bachmann was a longtime member of Salem Lutheran Church in Stillwater. She and her husband withdrew their membership on June 21, 2011, just before she officially began her presidential campaign. They had not attended the congregation for over two years.[24][25] Salem Lutheran Church is a member of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. When challenged about that denomination's belief that the Pope is the Antichrist,[26][27][28] Bachmann responded by stating, "I love Catholics, I'm a Christian, and my church does not believe that the Pope is the Anti-Christ, that's absolutely false."[29] More recently, according to friends, the Bachmanns began attending Eagle Brook Church, an Evangelical church closer to their home.[30]
Bachmann has cited theologian Francis Schaeffer as a "profound influence" on her life and her husband's, specifically referring to his film series How Should We Then Live?.[13][14] She has also described Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity by Nancy Pearcey as a "wonderful" book.[13] Schaeffer is regarded as a key intellectual source for the theological-political movement known as dominionism, which holds that "Christians, and Christians alone, are Biblically mandated to occupy all secular institutions until Christ returns". Pearcey is one of the most prominent advocates of the movement.[13][31] Journalists Ryan Lizza and Sarah Posner have argued that Bachmann's worldview is deeply influenced by dominionism.[13][32][33]"
She just won the Iowa Straw Poll, with 28 % while Paul got 27% and then Pawlenty got 13%.
But I think only the very fired up people go to these things. Fired up people vote, but also get people fired up to bring them down.
One of BO's things was to pretend to be a phlegmatic feller who had some vague notions. He is in fact a firebrand of socialism, but he knows that he has to hide this in order to stealthily creep toward the Treasury and the Fed in order to redistribute them to people who don't want to work for a living.
He's managing this, I think.
Bachmann doesn't seem to have a stealthy bone in her body.
Not sure what happened to Romney in this turnout.
Ron Paul also has his adamant supporters, but he's so out there. I like some of what he says, and hate some of what he says.
I'd honestly rather have a safer candidate.
I watched Perry's speech today and felt it was rude that he did it on top of the straw poll.
Right now I'd like to raise Cain, and also Romney as businessmen. I think it's important to have a businessman in office next.
No more crazed ideologues.
"The business of America is business." -- Calvin
The Eagle Brooke web page claims a Baptist denominational heritage, but it presents itself as a post-denominational mega-church, with 13K members.
Kirby,
She just won the Iowa Straw Poll, with 28 % while Paul got 27% and then Pawlenty got 13%.
But I think only the very fired up people go to these things. Fired up people vote, but also get people fired up to bring them down.
Yeah. You've got to pay to vote, which filters out all but the true believers. Still, 538 says that the Iowa Straw Poll has good predictive utility, at least as regards next year's Iowa Caucus.
Not sure what happened to Romney in this turnout.
Romney skipped the Poll, limiting his Iowa campaigning to a single visit to the State Fair. He's mostly been spending time in New Hampshire.
The guy I'm most pleased by is Herman Cain. When I see him speak, I just smile at his clarity and genuine folksiness. It's kind of how I was taken with Huckabee's humor last round.
But I seem to always be an outlier. I don't think I've ever picked a winner in almost forty years of voting. Oh wait, second time W. ran, I voted for him.
First time around I just hated him. Then that two minute speech after 9/11 got me into his column, and I'll stay til I die, I imagine.
I was so relieved that he had strength and would pull us through.
On a personal basis I like all the Republicans this time around and am grateful they will run. This includes Bachmann. I suppose the fierce Christian groups will be opposed to the Marxist quality that at least many of us perceive in the POTUS contemporain.
Norman Podhoretz, who used to live in Delhi (briefly), had an editorial in this weekend's WSJ that says about BO exactly what I think about him. That he's a crypto-communist.
Getting to the Fed is somewhat like playing Kick the Can. You can't run when you're being looked at. You have to run in stealth to kick free all the debtors and illegals.
Obama's just brilliant. We need someone who is equally brilliant.
I think it's Romney, probably.
But he almost never has defining moments that you can YouTube and which exalt the population to vote for him.
We didn't see this for McCain either but I think all the stuff about the Hanoi Hilton sufficed to get him the nod.
Americans are basically looking for a hero that they can follow into the breach.
Reagan was just excellent at playing that role.
I wonder if the Dems will have BO as their nominee next season. Is it possible he could be tossed via a primary by Hillary? Could he even have the sense to step down?
You didn't mention Perry.
Clearly, he has the inside track at this point.
Bachman? Please.
Romney is pathetic.
The Republicans don't have a viable candidate at this point.
I'm not sure why they can't manage to promote a decent candidate.
Are there no intelligent, sensible Republicans out there?
It seems so.
I suspect Curtis Faville's idea of a "decent," "viable,"
"intelligent," "sensible" Republican candidate wouldn't be a Republican at all.
Since Pres Obama's suffering a "Down Phaeton!" drop into Gallup's high-thirties approval downgrade as a result of his indefensible policies, the lib-left and the MSM have resorted to preemptive strikes on any possible candidate Republicans might nominate. The MSM flatter themselves that the snow-job in their oxymoronic wide-eyed-and-yet-blind selling of Obama in 2008 got him elected. And since he's now got a sorry record of failure to overcome, best attack all the Republicans who might pose a threat to the "damaged Archangel."
Kirby, you probably read of (and saw the video of) the minor assaults committed by some lefty nutter on Prof Ann Althouse while she filmed some-or-other lefty/union goon demo at the Wisconsin state Capitol. The cheesy left in Wisconsin is fuming that the Republicans retained control over the state senate despite the lavish union bucks spent to buy them the senate. The bozo cop mouthpiece who threatened AA's son with arrest for defending his mum against the lefty goon-attacker (rather than searching for the attack-perp) of this diminutive law prof is a real loser and yet again shows the police have caught the union-solidarity bias virus.
(Not long ago, a unionized police fundraiser on the phone wouldn't take a polite decline to a donation request by my aged, ailing mum for an answer and got a bit testy with her, so I took over the phone at her request and told the guy that when I was in the active military we didn't buttonhole people on the phone to augment our benefits, retirements, and salaries, which were far less than he's getting, so, no thanks, "we'll call YOU first.")
In both the MSM's ankle-biting of Republican candidates and the attack on Ann Althouse, its the messengers who've become the targets.
JADL, I'd add the S & P group as a target. Not only has Obama sicced SEC on them, but he now has Buffett launching a buffet of attacks, throwing the ham, and the eggs, and the curdled cheese, at the S & P rates (who were in turn blamed for letting Fannie and Freddie continue to operate, and weren't about to let it through again).
The bucks stopped right there.
JA:
Unlike you, I don't think I'm always right, and everyone else is always wrong.
For one, I wasn't a supporter of Obama from the beginning.
When Ron Silliman was promoting him, I sent some mild reservations along to his comment box, which he refused to post.
That didn't surprise me, I suppose, but I did believe then--as I do now--that a fair representative sample of opinion is more likely to capture the truth, than a one-sided rant.
I described Obama as a poker-faced choir boy trying to make himself the apple of the pastor's eye. All his speeches were filled with a vague optimism, and were short on concrete suggestions. He had no "platform" in the traditional sense.
Many of my friends were elated to be voting for the first time for an "African American" for the office, while I--cranky old independent--wanted more substance.
After Obama took office, I was not surprised to see his policies lack definition, since he'd never promised anything to begin with. All that "it's a new day" crap. We've all heard that before.
The adjectives you chose to disrespect are all the things I'd hope for in any responsible statesman. Can you honestly say you don't share them?
I think on a preliminary basis, I'd like to see Senatorial timber, with experience at that level for at least one+ terms. The less a candidate knows about managing on the national plateau, the more they must rely on "advisers" and "experts". Good management skills (i.e., delegating) in the Oval Office isn't what we hire Presidents for, especially when that's all they're qualified for. You end up with a collection of people you didn't elect, in effect running the country.
Political independents and "classic" Democratic "liberals" have all been disappointed with Obama, not because he's been too rigid and doctrinaire, but because he's repeatedly been willing to give away the barns and pastures to keep the horses.
What everyone has been asking for is leadership, but Obama's been reluctant to take the reigns and lay down a clear plan. This is the strategy of passivity, one in which you can't be blamed for things you didn't advocate. Had McCain been elected instead of Obama, the Republican strategies would have been:
--Continue both Middle East wars indefinitely
--huge financial industry bail-out
--extension of unemployment benefits
--reduced environmental controls
--lower taxes for the rich
--commission to dismantle Social Security and medical programs
--expansion of sweet-heart trade pacts abroad
The net effect of this would have been roughly what we have today, though it would have a different maker's mark on it. Then, of course, the same excuses would be rolled out to justify the "failure" to bring the American economy back to full health.
The fact is, no American President has nearly as much effect on the economic progress of the nation as some people would like to believe. The forces which drove this country into recession had nothing to do with "deficit" spending (which Republicans defended anyway, during the Bush II terms). The real estate/mortgage industry/brokerage bubble, and the jobs lost to exportation of industry, weren't "caused" by any direct policies.
Mitt Romney is obviously the least repulsive of the choices offered. But he's such a wooden, doctrinaire Republican--he reminds me of Thomas E. Dewey--and he'll have the same record in the end. I've never heard him make a statement he hadn't memorized, and I've never heard a new idea either.
Low taxes.
I love Jesus.
Eliminate "entitlements."
Country club ethics.
Perry, on the other hand, is a train-wreck.
Low taxes.
I love Jesus.
Eliminate "entitlements."
Redneck ethics.
I see that JA is still employing his inflammatory rhetoric to stir up discontent.
"cheesy left in Wisconsin"
"union goon"
"lefty goon-attacker"
"union-solidarity bias virus"
Do you really think this kind of "tough-guy" "hard-nosed" "uncompromising" patter appeals to anyone?
For me, it's a real turn-off.
When I hear that kind of talk, I reach for tuning button.
There's an inherent contradiction between Christian notions of charity and the concentration of wealth in a tiny minority of the population.
Working hard to get ahead is one thing, but using passive investing to increase excess capital is another. Charity is one way of giving back, and a healthy society is one in which the wealth (and the power) is spread more evenly amongst all the members of society--and it produces a more prosperous one, as well. China is discovering this.
Now that you've taken the voluntary vow of prosperity, Kirby, you'll have to figure out a way to keep your opinions warm. That won't be easy on a professor's salary.
McCain might have done something sooner with the Deepwater horizon spill (Obama just ignored it, hoping it would go away), and he would probably have done something to cap Fannie and Freddie (absolutely insane mortgage model).
He might have been even more warlike esp. with regard to regional disputes. He might be somewhat tougher on Red China.
He would have sealed the Mexican border, for sure, by now, and would have some kind of deal in place to check green cards. He wouldn't have blocked Government Jan Brewer's law in Arizona.
He wouldn't have chosen two Supreme court justices solely on the basis of gender.
One good thing I think Obama did is to show minorities that they can be president. This has been a healing effect, which is, I think, good.
I think he has also cured a whole generation of twenty-somethings from thinking they could solve the world's problems by electing a nitwit solely on the basis of color of skin.
It's tempting to think the president doesn't do much. To a certain extent, even a chimpanzee could run the Oval Office, or at least that's what many people think.
But every day decisions get made that have an effect on all of us.
The decision to hand 140 billion dollars to the IMF, for instance, is not a decision that McCain would have made.
I hope a relatively moderate individual gets in next. Either Romney, or McCotter, would do.
I think Bachmann will start a Civil War. She's angry and wants to fight. I think we need a healer, not one who pretends to be a healer, as Obama did (and then we saw his true colors when he squashed Officer Crowley).
We need someone who is a visionary with feet on the ground.
Obama has a vision, but he has no sense of how much things will cost, or how much time they will take. His roots are shallow. He has a crummy background is what I mean.
His dad was completely nuts. His mom was possibly even worse. He didn't seem to like his grandparents or to respect them. That left the communist Frank Marshall Davis, who shared booze with the underaged Obama.
It's a terrible background. We're lucky he hasn't been even worse.
Kirby,
Playing the grass is greener, now?
First off, it's doubtful that McCain would have done any more than Obama w.r.t. the Deepwater Horizon spill. After all, the federal government isn't in the oil recovery business, and it doesn't maintain deep water well-capping capability. But beyond that, big oil has big influence in the Republican Party. He'd have probably gone out of his way to praise the courage, intelligence, and initiative of BP in its attempts to contain the well; and the story about how the blowout was caused by them cutting corners and ignoring expert advice would never have gotten out.
There's not much that McCain could have done to forestall the housing/credit collapse -- he'd have taken over in the same position that Obama did, with an economy that was in full meltdown, and core financial and manufacturing institutions on the brink of collapse. Very likely, he'd not have intervened in the auto industry, so GM and Chrysler would be gone. Very likely, he'd have pulled back on the Bush-Paulson TARP, and one more major banks would have failed. I'm thinking BoA. The federal debt and deficit would be lower, but the economy would be in worse shape. It's not at all clear whether the debt/gdp ratio would have been better or worse.
He certainly would have been more warlike. He has a notoriously bad temper, and an inclination to intervene. We'd certainly still be in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, the question is whether or not we'd be in Iran too. I'm doubtful, but hardly certain.
And he'd have taken over with a Democratically controlled legislature. There'd have been health-care reform (and the problem with health care costs in the federal budget would have continued unaddressed). But there'd have been a pile of vetos, and about the same level of ill-will as we see today.
I think Bachmann will start a Civil War. She's angry and wants to fight.
I think she already has, within the Republican Party. The question really is whether it will spread beyond the party itself. I see Bachmann as a Goldwater like candidate, a "true believer" who may be able to win the Republican primary, but is running so hard to the right that she'll draw little independent support.
Obama has a vision, but he has no sense of how much things will cost, or how much time they will take.
Just for the record, Congress allocates and appropriates funds not the President. The President doesn't decide how much will be spent, or how it will be allocated among the various agencies. So much of your side's propaganda is based on a willful misrepresentation of how government works, and where the authority for various decisions lies.
It's harder to get rich now. I checked with the Delaware National Bank this morning on CDs, which used to provide about 15% per year if you left them in for twenty years. My eyebrows shot up when I heard, 1.6 %.
A bit less than 2%, in other words.
Also, you can't employ anyone for fear of Obamacare making you pay that person an outrageous fortune and then they put in all kinds of wording that will make it easier for them to sue you for whatever you have. It's far better to stay out of the employment process until Obamacare is repealed.
I am finding the OT at least to be a pickle in terms of its account of poverty. Often it is said that poverty is a result of sin.
But giving to the poor is mentioned almost in the same breath as being virtuous.
I finished Proverbs last night, which some used to attribute to Solomon, but now the authorship is widely debated. I loved it!
21:13: Whoso stoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself, but shall not be heard.
Ok, that's clear enough. It doesn't say you have to give anythign to the poor, it just says you're supposed to listen to their cries of despair, perhaps as a warning to yourself, so that you don't do whatever they were doing that made them so poor.
But then there's this:
21: 17: "He that loveth pleasure shall be a poor man: he that loveth wine and oil shall not be rich."
"There is treasure to be desired and oil in the dwelling of the wise; but a foolish man spendeth it up."
Ok, so let's say the poor sick jerk spends all his money like a fool, and then wails. I have to listen to the wailing. Then, my conclusion is that he is a fool who spent his money.
Should I bail out the Wall St. jerk, or not?
I can pray for him, I think, that he become among the wise. I can't teach him anything. He has to learn it himself.
26: 11 "As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly."
It's LAW that people should listen to ultimately, not just the wails of the poor (without an understanding of their context).
"He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination." 28: 9
For gamblers, and fornicators, and spendthrifts, there is never enough. They are like a fire that never stops.
A fire will never say it's eaten enough and is satisfied but will rage all day and night until the end of time, granted something to batten on. should we fuel our own hard-earned money into such a portable furnace?
Proverbs ends with a lovely depiction of a faithful and fruitful wife, who doesn't worry her husband, doesn't overspend, and doesn't yell for no reason.
This is contrasted with an image throughout the text:
"It is better to dwell in a corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman in a wide house." 21:9
The whole wisdom of proverbs is about controlling one's self, associating with people who can control themselves.
16: 32 "He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that ruleth his spirit better than he that taketh a city."
There is a lot of stuff about preferring a sane home to wild abandon with strange women.
(Part 2)
It is implied throughout that the poor are profligate and then turn to others to help them in their spending sprees.
I know that Stu thinks there are apparently the legitimate poor, too, those who are just having bad luck. But the bad luck is also seemingly brought on either by Satan (this is what happened to Job), or else it's brought on by foolish living, a point emphasized throughout the text. We are supposed to listen to the poor so that we don't become like them, I think.
the left screams that we suddenly are supposed to care about the poor, and set up government bureaus to help them, but I have yet to see in 900 pages an example of a poor person who is also a good person, so I don't think this is what we're supposed to do for the poor: give them money to buy strange women and cocaine or whatever else has ruined them such as gambling or wine.
So I find this confusing, and am still trying to sort it out.
I am about to begin the Book of Jeremiah, and then I have Ezekiel, and some minor prophets like Famous Amos. then I'm basically in the NT, which I've already read many times, but never straight through, and where Jesus says, "the poor will always be with us," (not, mind you, that we are poor, but they will always be hanging around, wailing for more moeny to pursue their bizarre pleasures).
Note a rather important omitted word:
There'd have been no health-care reform (and the problem with health care costs in the federal budget would have continued unaddressed).
35 billion is the estimate for the uninsured who visit hospitals who ask the federales for bail outs.
It's nothing compared to stealthcare, which will cost at least a trillion, and probably ten trillion or more if you factor in how it's killed the economy.
CF:
Of course I don't take issue with the adjectives you mentioned, just the obvious implication that none could apply to Republican candidates.
Sure, there's a lot of "buyer's remorse" about Pres Obama and the Democrats' four-year Congressional dominance, just as there was (with some justification) with former Pres Bush and the earlier Republican Congressional majority. And you're not the only one who pointed out Obama's inexperience, dubious background associations, and empty platitudinising during the 2008 campaign.
However, I'd agree that in many ways the economy isn't easily responsive to corrective presidential or Congressional measures, though misguided policies (as I think pursued by the President and Democrats in the past few years) can certainly exacerbate economic problems.
As for the "war" in Iraq, perhaps you didn't notice, but the last US combat troops left the country a year ago, and the 50,000 remaining military personnel there are serving primarily in supportive roles.
I think there are a number of viable Republican candidates, including Romney, Perry, and perhaps even Paul Ryan, who has not yet announced his candidacy (and may not). I don't agree, though, that only senators are experienced enough to be viable candidates, but I suspect this assertion was primarily aimed at dismissing the candidacies of Romney and Perry. I think Bachmann has only a slim chance of winning the nomination.
I don't see the evidence for your assertion that Republicans candidates want to "end 'entitlements'"; rather, they just aim to reform and thus to sustain them in accordance with our means for funding them in future. Same goes for the need to reform and reduce the currently unsustainable pensions and benefits systems for public sector employees.
Not sure if tagging Gov Perry with "redneck ethics" is a lame joke, or just an expression of all-too-common provincial bigotry on the left. I remember getting similar treatment from you when you mistook me for a Southerner.
Just to add one tiny bit: the eye injury suffered by Ann Althouse in attempting to express her opinions in the public square in Wisconsin is very serious: the man who did it to her said she was a "social retard" before jabbing her in the eye.
I think JADL's language was quite mild, and besides, it's only language. He never hit anyone in the eye. I hope the person who did this to Ann will be arrested and tried for assault.
JA:
The Southern "redneck" retaliation was just desserts for your snide "Berzerkley" cracks in former posts. Not sure how I deduced that you were in the deep south.
Do you think the fact that one lives in a certain region necessarily dictates how one will think, vote, act?
There are some real bleedn' liberals in MIssoula, just as there are some grungy reactionaries in Chapel Hill.
Best we stop pigeonholing people and deal with concrete facts instead.
JA:
No buyer's remorse here.
I didn't buy Obama's product to begin with.
Like most Democrats, I'm frustrated with his reluctance to stand behind his putative commitments. At some point, apparently, he decided (or was advised) to avoid the appearance of promoting specific legislation or plans for same; leaving that task up to his allies in Congress.
Everyone thinks they know what Obama wants to see done, but almost no one seems to understand why he's refused to promote it. It remains a mystery.
As we move forward, Obama's passive stance may continue to cost him support. On the other hand, the Republicans failure to offer anyone of comparable competency and appeal, may set the table for a quietly adequate election to a second term, which seems to be his ultimate intent.
I don't admire Obama, though I certainly share many of his positions. On the whole, however, I abhor all of the Republican hopefuls, especially Perry and Bachman, and I would never vote for them under any circumstances whatsoever.
Post a Comment