BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap

Subject: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Peter T.
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 11:10 AM

Obama interviewed on Air Force One, Friday afternoon. Very smart, not saplike at all.....

"In terms of what I've learned on the politics of it," he said, "I think what I've learned is that I've got a great team because we moved a very big piece of legislation through Congress in record time."

His bragging rights were easily justified. You'd have to go back to Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s or Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s to find a more sweeping, more expensive and more quickly enacted package of what Republicans call "new spending" and Democrats call "new investments."

"And that was not easy to do."

No, it wasn't. Not even when the vote fell almost totally along party lines, despite sacrifices by the Democratic majority of about $100 billion of pet Democratic projects and programs.

"And I think the end product is not a hundred percent of what we would want, but it is a very good start on moving things forward."

As for bipartisanship? "I made every effort to reach out to Republicans early to get their input and to get their buy-in," Obama said. "I think that there were some senators and House members who have a sincere philosophical difference with the idea of any government role in boosting demand in the economy. They don't believe in (John Maynard) Keynes and they're still fighting FDR.... I think we can disagree without being disagreeable on that front."

In other words, the president appears to have found that, given a choice, members of America's conservative major party tend to vote like conservatives.

"I also think that there was a decision made that was political and tactical on their part where they said, 'You know what, if we can enforce conformity among our ranks then it will invigorate our base and will potentially give us some political advantage, either short term or long term,' " Obama said. "And whether that's a smart strategy, I think you should ask them."

And it is not hard to imagine what they would say.

"The last point I would make, though, is that given the urgency of the situation right now, my consistent goal throughout this process is: Are we getting the most immediate, most effective relief possible to American families who are losing their jobs, losing their homes, losing their health care?," he said. "I welcome Republican participation in that process, but ultimately I'm answerable to the American people. And my determination was to get it done, and I think that we're going to get it done."

Obama is the third president in a row to come to Washington promising to bring more bipartisanship, then fail to close the deal. Did he make a mistake? Should he have defined bipartisanship as warmed relations between the parties instead of actually winning Republican votes? Obama did not say.

But he did say that he thought the GOP party-line vote was a fait accompli long before it was taken. "Look," he said, "once a decision was made by the Republican leadership to have a party-line vote -- a decision that I think occurred before I met with them -- then I'm not sure that there was a whole host of things that we were going to do that was going to make a difference.

"But again, my bottom line was not how pretty the process was; my bottom line was am I getting help to people who need it."

"Going forward, each and every time we've got an initiative I'm going to go to both Democrats and Republicans and I'm going to say, here's my best argument for why we need to do this."

Asked whether his experience had changed his expectations of winnable Republican support or how he might win it, he responded sagely. "You know, I am an eternal optimist," he said. "That doesn't mean I'm a sap."

As our laughter subsided, he described his goal? "Assume the best, but prepare for a whole range of different possibilities."

That's not an original thought, but it's durable.

Asked if he foresees a time when more drastic action might be required to save the financial markets, like the Japan or Swedish models, Obama explored the positives and negatives of each. Japan failed to intervene forcefully enough in the 1990s- "they sort of paper things over and never really bit the bullet"--and fell into an economic "lost decade."

Like many economists on the left, Obama found a "good argument" in Sweden's model, which temporarily nationalized its failed banks, then sold them off one-by-one. But here, too, he found a big problem: "They only had a handful of banks; we've got thousands of banks. The scale, the magnitude, of what we're dealing with is much bigger."

"But here's the bottom line," he said. "We will do what works."

Later he elaborated, "I think what you can say is, I will not allow our financial system to collapse. And we are going to do whatever is required to get credit flowing again so that companies and consumers can do their business and we can get this economy back on track."

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: katlaughing
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 11:20 AM

Jimmy Carter had some choice words about the Republicans and their "unity" in voting the other day. Well worth listening to at Countdown on MSNBC.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 12:05 PM

When you look at the entrenched divisiveness of the party system as it presently exists...when you look at the fact that they live to do damage to one another and thereby sieze power...it's almost inconceivable that any American president can be successful in accomplishing a genuine spirit of bipartisanship.

Those two parties loath and despise one another, and they act accordingly.

There is only one kind of situation that produces unity between them: An outside threat or an outside attack of a very extreme nature. It has to be one that comes from outside the USA.

Examples of that:

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour

The 911 attacks

The tribes will only unite in the face of a foreign enemy.

This world of human beings would unite immediately in the face of an alien invasion from outer space....but barring that? They will continue to compete with and war upon their fellow humans.

****

Obama's comments were very well put indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Sawzaw
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 12:40 PM

So Far, Amateur Hour Kathleen Parker Washington Post February 11, 2009; Page A19

The first however-many days of Barack Obama's presidency have been a study in amateurism. Many suspected that Obama wasn't quite ready, but kept their fingers crossed. Optimistic disappointment is the new holding pattern.

What's missing from Obama's performance isn't the intelligence that voters acknowledged in electing him. It's the experience they tried to pretend didn't really matter. Experienced politicians, after all, got us into this mess.

Absent is maturity -- that grown-up quality of leadership that is palpable when the real deal enters a room. There's a reason why elders are respected. They have something the rest of us don't have -- yet -- because we haven't lived long enough. We haven't made the really tough decisions, the ones that are often unpopular.

There's also a reason why it's lonely at the top. The view is better, but the summit isn't so much a mountaintop as a deserted city.

Obama wants too much to be liked. This isn't a character flaw. In fact his winning personality and likability have served him well through the years. Growing up in multiple cultures -- black and white, American and Indonesian -- he had to learn how to get along. By all accounts, he became easy company.
ad_icon

But there's a price one pays in becoming president. Giving up being liked is the ultimate public sacrifice. This was the hardest lesson for Bill Clinton, who loved people and found the isolation of the presidency particularly brutal. Similarly, Obama wants to stay in touch with everyday Americans, as symbolized by his reluctance to surrender his BlackBerry.

There was a time last week when Obama looked younger than usual. Not youthful so much as not fully formed. He seemed out of place in his presidential role. In a word, he seemed haunted. Had he been visited by the ghosts of Christmas future?

Or had he looked across the table into the eyes of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and realized that he was not among friends? Obama's lack of authority over the stimulus package has underscored the value of political experience and toughness -- and given weakened Republicans the leverage they needed to launch an aggressive attack.

In the midst of it all, Obama and his wife went to an elementary school to read to second-graders, a now time-honored presidential release valve. Clinton read to children during his impeachment hearings. Bush, eternally and infamously, will be remembered for reading "The Pet Goat" to an elementary school class as airplanes were slamming into the World Trade Center towers.

Obama said they were "just tired of being in the White House." Oh, just wait.

Other manifestations of Obama's political greenness include his apology for picking lax taxpayers for prominent positions, his campaign-like tour to Elkhart, Ind., on Monday and his ponderous first news conference later that evening.

Why did Obama feel it necessary to apologize for others' mistakes? If improper vetting was the problem, then say so and correct it. The tax code is absurdly complex, and most people with complicated lives hand over their numbers to accountants and hope for the best.

Admittedly, the problem became comical as one after another Obama appointee turned up with tax debts. Q: How do you get Democrats to pay taxes? A: Appoint them to Cabinet positions.

But Obama's eager confession -- "I screwed up" -- hit a hollow note. Doubtless, he was trying to demonstrate "change" by distinguishing himself from Bush, who could never quite put a finger on his mistakes. Rather than seeming Trumanesque in stopping the buck at his desk, Obama seemed more like an abused spouse who starts her day saying, "I'm sorry. It's all my fault."

In Elkhart, the president seemed locked in campaign mode, still wooing the crowd and seeking approval. At his news conference, the overriding impression was of a man not fully in control of his message or his material. Nine minutes into the first answer to the first question, I began missing Bush's customary dispatch. Bush's contempt for the media meant he never stayed long enough to bore us. The faith of the American people may not have been misplaced in Obama. But the young senator from Illinois became a president overnight, before he had time to gain the confidence and wisdom one earns through trials and errors.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Peter T.
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 12:50 PM

"I began missing Bush's customary dispatch" -- hardly surprising for someone so thoughtless. Er -- "not fully in control of his message or his material" -- exactly the opposite: he's so totally in control of his material that he can actually articulate it for a whole nine minutes. (Which isn't to suggest that he can't be boring). Nevertheless, by that time, George Bush had not only decided that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but had dispatched the war machine.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Sawzaw
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 12:51 PM

Oval Newlywed Game MAUREEN DOWD New York Times

The etiquette breach was not widely noticed, swallowed by the cacophony over the economy.

But Joe Biden no doubt felt the sting when Barack Obama dissed him again in public.

The new president is so elegant, and so full of comity, even to his foes, that when he is simply a tad ungracious, it jumps out.

At his news conference last Monday, Mr. Obama was asked by Fox's Major Garrett about the vice president's startling assertion that even if he and the president do "everything right," "there's still a 30 percent chance we're going to get it wrong."

Admittedly, it must be an adjustment for the president, a detached observer who "travels light," as friends put it, to be yoked to such a garrulous social animal.

It can't be easy for someone with a highly defined superego to be bound to the wacky Biden id, for one so disciplined to be tied to one so undisciplined, for a man so coolly unsentimental to be paired with someone so exuberantly sentimental.

And yet, the minute the president began to laugh and answer Garrett, I feared Joe would be the butt.

"I don't remember exactly what Joe was referring to," said Mr. Obama, who couldn't resist adding, "not surprisingly."

It was the "not surprisingly" that was surprisingly snarky.

The president had already used his "disappointed parent" routine with Mr. Biden in public, looking reproachful and tapping Joe on the back when he made a benign joke, as he swore in White House staffers, about his memory not being as good as Chief Justice John Roberts's. Chastened, he called Justice Roberts afterward to apologize.

After the election, when Mr. Obama made a mild joke about Nancy Reagan and séances, Mr. Biden, who was on stage as well, did not wince at his partner in public or tap him like a strict nun.

When Mr. Biden indulges in his rhetorical overkill of repeating the same phrase three times — the proud men and women of Scranton, he said at a recent appearance with the president, "wanted the government to understand their problem, to understand their problem, be cognizant of the problem" — Mr. Obama has an air of suppressed annoyance, like an editor dying to take a red pencil to a long-winded writer. (It's an air you never see when the president appears next to more like-minded, self-contained souls like Tim Geithner.)

Mr. Biden's stream of consciousness can be impolitic. Politico's Glenn Thrush refers to "the human political polygraph that is Joseph Robinette Biden." It can also be bracingly honest.

Joe is nothing if not loyal. And the president should return that quality, and not leave his lieutenant vulnerable to "Odd Couple" parodies.

On a recent "Saturday Night Live" skit, Jason Sudeikis's Biden leaned over Fred Armisen's Obama, to tell Americans: "Look, I know $819 billion sounds like a lot of money. But it's just a tip of the iceberg."

Armisen's clenched Obama murmurs: "Couldn't pick Hillary. I just couldn't."

Gawker, a media gossip blog, translated Monday's Garrett-Obama exchange this way:

"Uh, Mr. President, Joe Biden said something yesterday about how you two will eventually destroy the world, forever. Care to comment?"

"Oh, that's just the vice president. We all know he's mentally unbalanced, right, guys? Ha ha ha ha. But seriously: He's nuts, please keep him away from sharp objects."

Obama advisers say that the two men get on well and that the president wants his second's candid advice. Mr. Biden considers Mr. Obama inclusive.

But some aides joke about the care and feeding of Mr. Biden's ego, and kid about the way the vice president clings to the president's schedule. Mr. Biden puts out guidance about his schedule — a refreshing change from the black hole of Cheney.

(He has also added a sitting area in his office, something the unilateral Cheney never needed, and has turned up the temperature in the vice president's house from the chilly Cheney-mandated 62.)

Obama aides say the president went out of his way to stroke the vice president — who felt he helped interpret the exotic Obama for the hoi polloi during the campaign — by putting him in charge of a middle-class working families task force.

Still, the president should brush up on his Jane Austen. When Emma Woodhouse belittles Miss Bates, an older and poorer friend, at a picnic, Mr. Knightly pulls her aside to remonstrate. "How could you be so insolent in your wit?" he chides, reminding her that it is unfeeling to humble someone less fortunate in front of others who will be guided by the way she behaves.

That's how it works ... not surprisingly.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 12:52 PM

I've been thinking about this a lot the past few days, and yes Obama just articulated my conclusion. His promise to implement the fiscal stimulus quickly had to trump his promise to achieve bipartisan support for things. The stimulus is so unfocused the objections are easy to understand, but (a) its effects will be seen more slowly, which may be better at generating long term confidence (absent rampant inflation down the road), and (b) despite the astronomical numbers here, I think the main show (and the one with greater need for speed on results) is still in the Treasury and at the Federal Reserve.

(He stood fast against the Republicans but I am looking forward to the day he stands fast against the Democrats.)

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 12:54 PM

As I have said before, he's in for 4 years of hell. That's what anyone is in for who gets elected president.

Obama wants too much to be liked? Well, gosh! We probably all want too much to be liked...aside from those few among us who have decided that they get more satisfaction from being known as "the biggest bastard" on the block. Some people are like that. They actually get a real charge out of how much they piss off so many other people around them. I think Winston Churchill was one of those types. ;-) Obama definitely isn't.

Obama will bore anyone who basically doesn't believe in him in the first place. He will interest and appeal to those who do believe in him in the first place. That's how boredom works. You simply need a basic lack of interest or a basic disinclination toward something, and you get bored.

People always have patience if they're genuinely interested. They don't if they're not.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 01:04 PM

I'm also interested in seeing the 400 pages of extra crap the Democrats threw in after they gave up on the Republicans.

Obama can't be a one man show. We will always be stuck with Congress, as he is.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Peter T.
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 01:05 PM

I think Obama made some stupid mistakes in his first couple of weeks -- putting numbers to the employment outcomes of the spending bill was the biggest, followed by the justice department acquiescence in one of the worst rights abuses of the Bush administration -- but I am coming around to the opinion that he is playing a long game. When you look at the vast number of messes he has to deal with, thanks to what he inherited, he is going to have to transform the whole American project -- get it back to what it really does better than anyplace else in the world: harnessing the creative powers of its people to immense tasks. The immensest is dealing with energy and climate change -- this is going to require unbelievable transformations in contemporary social forms -- followed by dramatic government interventions into health care and education and a whole lot of stuff screwed around with by half-assed alternatives. And then there are two useless wars.

How do you deal with these? You have to first marginalize the idiots who got you to this point, and it appears he is working on that. Or they are doing it to themselves.....

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: DannyC
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 01:23 PM

Kathleen Parker's silly article from Feb. 11th (cited above) seems dated a short four days after it's published date.

Washington Post? Her comments might have been better suited for the back pages of "Psychology Today".

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: pdq
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 01:30 PM

"I'm also interested in seeing the 400 pages of extra crap the Democrats threw in after they gave up on the Republicans." ~ heric

US citizens and their childern will be paying the $1.5 trillion dollars that have been added in the last few months. This is in addition to the regular Federal Budget and special appropriations such as those for our current military ventures.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 01:40 PM

and their grandchildren. I know. Biden is right and there's AT LEAST a 30% chance they got it wrong.

They say the biggest cost is in lost tax revenue, but what the hell is someone going to do with an extra $250 over twelve months, or similar? If I were King, I would proclaim that the stimulus must be designed with a principal focus on tax credits to (a) the neediest - relating to unemployment and health care, and (b) those most likely to spend it - credits for car purchases and home purchases, etc., rather than having so much emphasis on bloating government agencies.

But I'm not king. Neither is O.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Sawzaw
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 01:59 PM

How much time did the Republicans have to actually read the 1000+ page bill?

How could they know everything they were voting for? Why should someone be obliged to approve something when they do not know everything they are approving?

To offset the Democrat pork, they more pork in there for the Republicans and they still did not vote for it. Pork + Pork = Pork+

I say the Democrats except for some brave ones, voted for pork or "earmarks" and the Republicans voted against it.

Pass this right now or we will be in worse trouble. It's the same gun to the head strategy that Libs accuse Bush of using to push the war in Iraq through.

I have the feeling that it will backfire on the Democrats whom are drunk with power at the monent.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 02:17 PM

The other side in any partisan system of politics is always perceived to be "drunk with power" by those they won out over in the last election. Haven't you noticed? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: DougR
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 02:19 PM

I agree, SAwzaw, this is pure and simple Obama's and the Democrats in Congress' Bill. If it works, they get the credit. If it fails it will be the Republicans fault of course.

As to actually reading the whole Bill, I doubt anyone in Congress did. Harry Reade, Nancy Pelosi, and "turncoats" Snow, Collins and Spector will get what they want out of it anyway.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 02:22 PM

"How could they know everything they were voting for? Why should someone be obliged to approve something when they do not know everything they are approving?" Sawz

Kind of like the paper preceding the war preparations. But, silly me. That was the Republicans.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 02:36 PM

Reid's Las Vegas train didn't get express reference in the 1000 page final version either, but he can use an $8 billion allocation to high speed rail and hope to persuade the DOT to help fund it:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-stimulus-rail14-2009feb14,0,2367517.story

"However, the bill does provide $8 billion for unspecified high-speed and intercity passenger rail projects, more than three times as much as allocated in earlier versions of the legislation."

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 02:37 PM

The vast majority of bills are not read in their entirety by "everyone in Congress". They are not read in their entirety by most of the members of Congress. I know this for sure because I have heard it spoken of openly by a few people in Congress from time to time. This applies to Democrats and Republicans alike, needless to say.

Look, it's a buddy system. It's a power structure with major players and minor players on 2 teams. It's two teams out to beat each other in the political game. A few of the major players on the ruling team get together with some smart professionals and they put together a huge, bloated piece of legislation which they want passed on behalf, usually, of some very powerful special interests. They then inform "the team" that it's time to rally round and support the party and "do the right thing for the good of the country" (meaning our team). Of the various members on "the team", a handful of them may take the time to thoroughly read and understand the entire bill. Most of them just gloss over it quickly or they let someone else tell them what's in it. Most of them vote the party line without having ever really read the bill very carefully at all...they probably don't have the time to in many cases or the patience to, they figure that their bosses must be right anyway, and they figure they'd better be good little boys and do what's expected of them. If they do, then they might get a promotion at some point, right? They might rise higher in the party structure.

The bill passes, and it is voted for by quite a few people who are far from having read it in its entirety. It is also voted against by quite a few people who are far from having read it in its entirety.

That's standard in Washington. It's standard in pretty well any huge bureaucratic organization. A few people fully grasp what's going on...most just go through the motions.

It's that way with BOTH parties. It always has been.

They only complain about it when the OTHER party does it.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: John Hardly
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 02:54 PM

"bi-partisanship" is a lie and a not-at-all worthy goal.

If you are a Progressive, "bi-partisanship" is just a means of possibly progressing at a slower rate than you would prefer -- but necessary if that is the only way you can progress at all.

If you do not believe that the government is the solution to this banking problem, then "bi-partisanship" is merely a needless compromise for which you win exactly nothing, and lose the economic principle in which you believe (and for which it is likely you were elected).

"bi-partisanship" is a renaming of the game. In reality, what is referred to as "bi-partisan" actually means "one party government" and it only works in one direction -- toward bigger, more intrusive government.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: DannyC
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 03:07 PM

Regarding the "not having time to read the information" comments:

The Congress people have tremendously able, gifted and hard-working staff members who not only perform the due diligence and discovery work, but network with each other so that allied subject-matter experts can weigh in on the technical significance of subsections within each Bill's content. These professionals know what the Bills contain. The resulting voting decisions (and public positions) of Congress members are 'informed' by the staffers.   

It is innaccurate to claim that the due diligence is not performed by each party. However, at times it can be an effective public tactic to get before a microphone on the steps of some vaunted Hall and claim that you (or your party) were not given the time to read the content of a Bill (that, by the way, despite having insufficient knowledge thereof, you oppose). The claim is, however, complete and utter nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Peter T.
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 03:13 PM

Like I said before, the numbers game was a stupid mistake. Now it appears that Obama and his aides are backpedalling today on the various news shows.   This shows how stupid it was: it will undermine his future credibility, and will give the Republicans ammunition for the next 2,4 years. And backpedalling is equally stupid. The whole thing is a totally unnecessary waste of political capital.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: DannyC
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 03:15 PM

As a very young man, I sat in the House gallery for the better part of an hour during the discourse regarding The Civil Rights Act. A Republican was on the floor for the duration speaking of the rash and radical nature the Lyndon B. Johnson's initiative. At that time in History, over-sensitivity to a bi-partisan solution would have resulted in a setback for aspirations towards American unity. Fortunately for us all, the Dems pushed the Bill through.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 03:28 PM

Not according to what I've heard, Danny. And it was not in the context that you are alluding to ("an effective public tactic to get before a microphone on the steps of some vaunted Hall and claim that you were not given the time to read the content of a Bill") . Sure the Congressmen have staff who work for them and network and find out stuff for them, but many Congressmen still vote for bills that they have only a very partial knowledge of, and they do so precisely because they have been quite pointedly asked to do so by more powerful people who are higher up the chain of command, and they know they are expected to do so. Great persuasion is brought to bear in the halls of government within any given political party, and it generally has its way with almost the entire rank and file. You get the odd maverick like Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul who frequently bucks the party line, but mostly you just get supine acquiescence.

This is just as true in Canada or the UK or most other countries as it is in the USA.

You know what happens to the few mavericks who dare to think for themselves and dare to vote against party line? They may get re-elected by their own constituents if they are popular enough on the home turf...or they may not...but they are never allowed to rise very high within the command structure of their own party, precisely because they did not cooperate with its command structure. They remain as a voice in the wilderness. They say what no one else will say, it is paid very little attention to by either their party or the mass media, and nothing much changes.

That's the way it is here in Canada. It always has been. That's the way it is in the USA as well.

Party line is a way of enforcing conformity upon representatives and muzzling conscience. That's why I have so little regard for political parties. There isn't one political party of any consequence in the world right now that I have any respect left for...though I certainly do respect many of the individuals (elected and otherwise) who are in those various parties.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: DannyC
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 03:34 PM

True enuff, LH... no contradiction here. It's the above-reference "allied subject matter experts" (and their sponsors) within the power structures that build the positions that the mouthpieces assert.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: John Hardly
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 03:35 PM

"...A Republican was on the floor for the duration speaking of the rash and radical nature..."


"...and was then referred to the Rules Committee, whose chairman, Howard W. Smith, a Democrat from Virginia, indicated his intention to keep the bill bottled up indefinitely."

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: pdq
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 03:49 PM

Also, look at the final Senate vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Bill. A far higher % of Republicans voted for the bill than did Democrtats. People should keep keep their facts straight, otherwise they look like blind partisans.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: DannyC
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 03:53 PM

"...and was then referred to the Rules Committee, whose chairman, Howard W. Smith, a Democrat from Virginia, indicated his intention to keep the bill bottled up indefinitely."

Yes, and from that scism, Richard Nixon's opportunistic Southern Strategy was born. The realignment became a fundamental element of the GOP's dominance of Presidential politics for 40 years. The GOP's success had been achieved by leveraging racial division... but it's all over now...

Gotta go... Got a gig in LouAVul ... Ciao, y'all!!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 03:57 PM

That would be the Howard D Smith who was a leading member of the "Conservative Coalition", which in a highly bi-partisan fashion brought together the conservative majority of the Republican Party and the conservative, mostly Southern, minority of the Democratic Party, fighting to preserve segregation and racial discrimination...

Bi-partisan isn't always the right way to go. Depends on what the parties involved are after.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: pdq
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 04:11 PM

Credit Where Credit Is Due: The Republicans Passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act

By Michael Zak
August 8, 2003

During the Kennedy administration, the Republican minority in Congress introduced many bills to protect the constitutional rights of blacks, including a comprehensive new civil rights bill. In February 1963, to head off a return by most blacks to the party of Lincoln, Kennedy abruptly decided to submit to Congress a new civil rights bill. Hastily drafted in a single all-nighter, the Kennedy bill fell well short of what our Party had introduced into Congress the month before. Over the next several months, Democrat racists in Congress geared up for a protracted filibuster against the civil rights bill. The bill was before a committee in the House of Representatives when John Kennedy was murdered in November 1963.

Invoking his slain predecessor, Lyndon Johnson made passage of the bill his top priority, and in his first speech to Congress he urged Representatives and Senators to do "more for civil rights than the last hundred sessions combined". Though he shared Johnson's convictions on safeguarding the constitutional rights of blacks, if Nixon had been in the White House then instead, Democrats in favor of segregation and those unwilling to see a Republican achieve the victory would have blocked his legislative initiative in Congress.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act was an update of Republican Senator Charles Sumner's 1875 Civil Rights Act. In striking down that law in 1883, the Supreme Court had ruled that the 14th amendment was not sufficient constitutional authorization, so the 1964 version had to be written in such a way as to rely instead on the interstate commerce clause for its constitutional underpinning.

Mindful of how Democrat opposition had forced the Republicans to weaken their 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts, President Johnson warned Democrats in Congress that this time it was all or nothing. To ensure support from Republicans, he had to promise them that he would not accept any weakening of the bill and also that he would publicly credit our Party for its role in securing congressional approval. Johnson played no direct role in the legislative fight, so that it would not be perceived as a partisan struggle. There was no doubt that the House of Representatives would pass the bill.

In the Senate, Minority Leader Everett Dirksen had little trouble rounding up the votes of most Republicans, and former presidential candidate Richard Nixon also lobbied hard for the bill. Senate Majority Leader Michael Mansfield and Senator Hubert Humphrey led the Democrat drive for passage, while the chief opponents were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, of later Watergate fame, Albert Gore Sr., and Robert Byrd. Senator Byrd, a former Klansman whom Democrats still call "the conscience of the Senate", filibustered against the civil rights bill for fourteen straight hours before the final vote. The House of Representatives passed the bill by 289 to 126, a vote in which 79% of Republicans and 63% of Democrats voted yes. The Senate vote was 73 to 27, with 21 Democrats and only 6 Republicans voting no. President Johnson signed the new Civil Rights Act into law on July 2, 1964.

Overall, there was little overt resistance to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The struggle was not yet over, however, as most southern state governments remained under the control of segregationist Democrats. It was a Republican federal judge who desegregated many public facilities in the South. Appointed by President Eisenhower in 1955, Frank Johnson had overturned Montgomery, Alabama's infamous "blacks in the back of the bus" law in his very first decision. During the 1960s, Judge Johnson continued to advance civil rights despite opposition from George Wallace, Lester Maddox, and other Democrat Governors.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 04:15 PM

"The Congress people have tremendously able, gifted and hard-working staff members who not only perform the due diligence and discovery work, but network with each other so that allied subject-matter experts can weigh in on the technical significance of subsections within each Bill's content. These professionals know what the Bills contain. The resulting voting decisions (and public positions) of Congress members are 'informed' by the staffers." DannyC

I agree with Danny C. I used to work for a real estate developer and and a good part of my job was to read not only trade magazines but books and newspapers, marking things that were pertinent to my employer.

On the other hand I have a City Attorney friend who does not have the staff to do that. False economy, imo.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 04:25 PM

If you look at the geographical distribution of the voting in the USA from the mid-1800's to now, it's fascinating. The Republicans began with their strength in the northern states, mostly where the Democrats are strong now. The Democrats were unbeatable in the Deep South. There was a website that showed this on a color chart for each election year, but I'm not sure how to find it now. They have almost totally reversed their geographical areas of dominance by playing various political games and courting various constituencies.

In short, southern reactionaries of the most extreme sort once voted solidly Democratic and did so until the early 60s. They now vote solidly Republican. They abandoned the Democrats en masse over the Civil Rights issue in the early 60's.

Northern intellectuals used to consider the Republican Party their bastion of reason...they now think it's the Democratic Party.

It's hilarious...and kind of sad. The USA is still suffering political fallout from the Civil War, which ended in 1865.

Both parties have pandered (at various times) to the most reactionary forces in the nation in order to secure votes. They have both held the other in contempt for doing so...yet both of them claim to be the voice of reason.

I have my doubts, in either case.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 04:37 PM

Here we go...it's at this site:

USA election results - historical maps

Check it out! It's fascinating to see the shift that has occured. Try these years:

1948
1952
1956
1960
1964
1968

Then go right back to the pre-Civil War and follow it to the present day.

See how first one party, then the other, became the darling of the Deep South. See how the northeast was once a Republican bastion, then became a Democratic stronghold.

It was the civil war that put the Republicans in strong in the North and the Democrats in strong in the South. It was the civil rights issues in the early 60's that reversed those strongholds diametrically to the opposite.

It's frickin' incredible when you look at those maps and see the blatantly clear patterns emerging. I think that the issue of slavery and the Civil war and the continuing role it has played in shaping and damaging the political process in the USA is the single most dire thing that has ever happened to the country, bar none. It is THE most crucial wound in the American psyche. That is a situation unique in the western world.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Alice
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 04:59 PM

Not sure if it is unique, but yes, racism and anti-racism underlies a lot of politics, not just in the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: heric
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 05:34 PM

I just went through it and I don't see racism in that map. Maybe this is a Rorshach thing?

I do see colors flipping immediately after bad economic events.

I don't see the Civil War in FDR's first win (1932). I don't see it in Carter's big win or Carter's big loss. I don't see it in Bush Sr's big win or Bush Sr's big loss.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 06:35 PM

"Obama: I'm Not A Sap..."


             What should we call him?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: pdq
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 06:39 PM

If we keep it in the "tree" theme, we could call him a "pitch man".

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Feb 09 - 09:17 PM

Mebbe you just ain't lookin' hard enough, heric. ;-) Of course one party gets thrown out and the other gets elected whenever the economy tanks, we all know that...but didn't you notice certain regional bloc tendencies? Certain areas of the country that clung for a long, long time faithfully to one party....then suddenly abandoned it...and have since clung for a long, long time faithfully to the other party?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Sawzaw
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 02:06 AM

"Kind of like the paper preceding the war preparations. But, silly me. That was the Republicans."

That is kind of like horse shit.

A. how many pages were in the bill? 5 pages
B. How long did they have to read it?
C. They did not have to vote for the bill and were not obligated to vote for anything they were not able to read.


Not One Person in Congress Read the 1,100 Pages

Canadian Free Press February 14, 2009

The "Stimulus Package" with over 1,100 pages was handed to law makers at 11p.m. on Thursday night and Pelosi wanted their votes the next day, because she was leaving for Rome to consult with the Pope.

Obama had promised at least 48 hours to read and understand the package bailout plan, and NOT one congressman has read the 1,100 pages, but with eyes closed, they voted for something they did not see, understand, comprehend, nor did they allow the voters to voice their opinions about something that will in-fact "change" our country into a socialist regime, not to mention...they just screwed-up the eVerify program!

Three key figures we need to replace ASAP in the Republican Party......

1) Arlen Specter (R-PA)
2) Susan Collins (R-ME)
3) Olympia Snowe (R-ME)

All three went against the advice of their fellow republicans and voted "Yes" on this package, while NOT ONE read the contents!!

Obviously....Our Congress is dangerous, out-of-control, and conducting business, not on behalf of the American people, but on behalf of their social acceptance to the next cocktail party in Washington.

They should be absolutely ashamed of themselves, and I hope Harry-da-Reid (D-NV) enjoys his $$billion some odd dollar grant (joy ride) on his super shuttle train between Las Vegas and Disney World, thanks to the stupid tax payers that voted for "Change," which will only amount to a $250 bonus to each person, the tax payer's token for using their empty heads...as Pelosi laughs all the way to the Vatican in her G-V jet to give the Pope his share of the scam money.

"Stimulus Package" to Give Jobs to Illegal Aliens

U.S. Border Patrol (Local 2544)

2-14-09 Congress has stripped language from the stimulus bill that would help ensure illegal aliens don't take jobs from Americans and legal immigrants. It is mind-boggling to think that our representatives are so spineless that they can't even stand up to the Hispanic Caucus at a time when jobs are disappearing at astonishing rates and many Americans are faced with financial ruin. E-Verify is fast, simple to use, and discriminates against nobody. It simply verifies that a person is legally entitled to work in this country. We know it sounds simple, but Congress found a way to screw it up.

Why would the Hispanic Caucus and our representatives be so opposed to using a simple program to help verify the legal status of workers? Good luck getting them to answer that question directly. It is this type of malfeasance and pandering that is largely responsible for driving this country to the brink of a depression.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Peter T.
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 02:58 AM

Yes, of course, it's those pesky illegal immigrants that drove the country to the brink of a depression, flooding the country with their Spanish language and their tacos, taking those underpaid jobs that for some reason American employers keep giving them instead of employing true redblooded Americans -- no redblooded American would be responsible for depressions.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: John Hardly
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 07:08 AM

Nobody said anything about their language or their tacos.

yours,

JH

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 07:58 AM

You're right, Saws, now we'll have a bunch of illegal chowing down at the public trough, and sending their paychecks out of the country. Real smart, what?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Peter T.
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 08:24 AM

And the defense rests......

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 08:41 AM

There was a defense...?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Sawzaw
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 09:28 AM

Mexico would collapse tomorrow it the Billion$ sent by aliens to their relatives in Mexico stopped flowing.

Plus Mexico does not have to take care of their citizens that have entered the US illegally.

"Not only has this northbound flow of labor—as many as 400,000 to 500,000 emigrants annually—meant that the Mexican government isn't under intense pressure to provide for the welfare of half a million more people each year. It also has paid large dividends in terms of remittances. In 2007 an estimated $24 billion flowed back into Mexico from remittances, virtually all flowing south from the United States."

I am all for LEGAL emigration. America was built on legal emigration.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Sawzaw
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 09:30 AM

"American employers keep giving them instead of employing true redblooded Americans"

That was the purpose of E-Verify

E-Verify is fast, simple to use, and discriminates against nobody. It simply verifies that a person is legally entitled to work in this country. We know it sounds simple, but Congress found a way to screw it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 12:41 PM

"something that will in-fact "change" our country into a socialist regime"

Ha! ;-D You WISH! It's what you've always desperately needed in the USA...some genuine democratic socialism instead of the robber baron system you presently have in place....but I doubt you'll ever get it.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Sawzaw
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 01:46 PM

What is the policy on illegal emigrants in Canuckistan?

It sounds like a utopia with free healthcare and all.

If were to be ignored by my government, unemployed and very poor, can I sneak into Canada and get a job so I can send money home?

You would support me with your tax money wouldn't you?

You would not mind if i lived with 6 other illegals in one house and worked so cheap that it depresses the wages that citizens earn would you?

You would not be so stingy and cheap that my kids could not ursurp public recources like education that is paid for by citizens would you?

After all I would only be seeking a better life which trumps the law.

Ev'rything free in Canada. Even a poor tailor is entitled to some happiness.

Or maybe I could save myself and sneak in to the real land of milk and honey, Cuba.

Wow man, I would really have it made there, right Comrade?

And the weed down there it is Fantastico No?

It wasn't until 2003 that Cuban officials admitted drug consumption, no matter how limited, was becoming a problem on the island. Until then, it was a "capitalist ill" introduced by unscrupulous tourists, although they acknowledged that there were Cubans who cultivated small amounts of marijuana or who sold bales of drugs found washed up on the shore.

The government fought this "incipient market" with a vengeance. In January 2003, early morning raids with drug-sniffing dogs on the homes of suspects left floors ripped up and sofa cushions slashed.

Where drugs were found, special Interior Ministry police units hauled away the entire contents of the residence, as for the most part approving neighbors looked on. And Cuba's already stiff penalties for drug trafficking were made even more stringent.

Last year, according to the Communist Party daily Granma, over 1,800 people were tried for dealing drugs. The article published Feb. 3 did not specify how many foreigners were among those prosecuted.

Just days ago, Cuban state-run radio reported that a Holguín court sentenced 13 Cubans to prison sentences of from six to 25 years for drug trafficking. According to the report the 13 confessed at their trial to being part of a drug network. No other information is available on the case. The only public knowledge of such trials comes from the usually reticent official government media.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 02:02 PM

Yeah, Cuba's damn tough on drug traffickers. I was down there in 2000 and I had a very nice time. One guy on the street tried to sell me various drugs. I said I wasn't interested. He then offered to set me up with "a girl". I said I wasn't interested. He then offered to set me up with "a young man". I laughed!!! and I said "Now I'm REALLY NOT interested!" He smiled, shrugged, and walked off.

I guess that guy is leading a pretty risky life, eh?

Look, I think maybe you don't understand what I actually believe in. Would you understand me if I said to you that I am entirely in favor of both capitalism and socialism? And that I like a society that has both?

Think about it. I used to think I was a "socialist" until one day I realized that if I say I am a socialist, some people in this world will totally NOT understand what the heck I am talking about! (and I bet you're one of them)

So here's how it stands now. I am not a capitalist. I am not a socialist. I am not a Communist. I am not any kind of "-ist". I am just a human being who needs to earn some money and have some work I can do. I appreciate the very good points of both capitalism and socialism, and I like living in a democratic country that has both. I regard neither of them as something to be feared. They can both be misused. They can both be very beneficial. They harmonize well in a good system.

Canada and most of western Europe have fairly good systems in that respect. The USA needs to take a further look at what can be done to improve what you have now. It's reasonably good, but it could be considerably better.

We are both lucky to live where we are living, you and I. We started off life with advantages that people in many countries don't have.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 05:38 PM

As for "the weed" in Cuba being fantastico...I have no idea. I didn't see anyone smoking weed while I was in Cuba.

I see people smoking weed all the time in Canada (normally in the privacy of their own homes)...but I'm not one of them. I don't smoke anything at all. Neither do I judge the people I know who do, because they are completely harmless and good people whom I consider my friends.

Cuba is not nearly as well off as Canada or the USA. But it never was... And it never would be...given where it is and the last few hundred years of history that led up to now. If you look at the neighbouring Latin American countries around Cuba, its poor people are considerably better off than in those countries, and its streets are far safer. Cuba is way better off now that it would be if Castro's revolution had not thrown out Batista. That's the part you don't get. They NEVER EVER had the possibility of living as you and I do in that country, but their lives improved considerably when Batista was thrown out.

You are trying to compare a lemon to an orange and saying, "Look! The lemon is more sour than the orange!" No kidding. ;-) To assess the value of a lemon you must compare it to the other lemons, not to the oranges. Compare Cuba under Castro to Cuba under Batista. Compare it to Mexico. Compare it to El Salvador. Compare it to Guatemala. Then you have a comparison that makes some kind of sense.

Compare Canada to the USA if you want. Fine. They are both "oranges". But don't try to compare Cuba to Canada or the USA in order to assess anything meaningful about Castro's revolution. They didn't start on the same playing field as we did here in North America. We were born lucky. Very lucky. We had it all, right from the start. They did not.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Sawzaw
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 05:51 PM

So you are not inviting me to sneak into Canada but it is OK for Mexicans to sneak into the USA?


That's just not right. After all nice, fuzzball Canada has more money flowing in that is flowing out and the mean, stingy old USA has hundreds of billions more flowing out than is flowing in. It is so bad the the government has to borrow it back to keep afloat.

Now that is just not fair at all. Dang. I am going to protest to the UN.


Globe and Mail

Ottawa has ruled out amnesty for the estimated 200,000 undocumented workers toiling in Canada's underground economy, saying it would not be fair to those who have applied legally and are waiting in line, according to a letter obtained by The Globe and Mail. Allowing illegal workers to stay would likely "encourage more illegal immigration," noted Linda Arseneau of Citizenship and Immigration Canada's ministerial enquiries division in an Oct.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 05:57 PM

Oh, to the contrary. I am inviting you to sneak up here. C'mon, man...do it now! You can join our jams here if you play an instrument. A bunch of draft resistors came up here back in the 70's, and they were some of the most likeable guys I've ever met. I'm all for it.

p.s. I'm being whimsically humorous...don't make too much of it. We, like any other country on this planet, do attempt to police our borders and prevent illegal immigration. That's just normal.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Feb 09 - 06:06 PM

I might add...we're quite LUCKY that we don't share a common border with Mexico (and thereby the rest of Latin America), as you do. If we did, the flood of illegal immigration into this country would be like a tidal wave. It would be one hell of a big problem. I have no idea what would need to be done in such a case...but it wouldn't be any easy thing to "fix", that's for sure.

With countries...as with businesses...location can be everything.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Peter T.
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 01:32 PM

Yeah, Canada's big problem is that there isn't a thousand mile moat between Canada and the US. The Great Lakes are just a down payment on that solution. Where are the glaciers when you need them?

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 01:56 PM

LOL!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 05:29 PM

Seems like Mr Obama has been taken for a "sap", as I predicted months ago, the Clinton team are on their way to becoming the International face of America, while Mr Obama sinks ever deeper in the financial and domestic swamp.

Hillary the Hawk plays a mean hand!
Still a hot bet for first woman President.....anybody want to lay odds???

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 05:39 PM

You're not betting on Sarah Palin?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 05:45 PM

Nah! far too much integrity!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 05:48 PM

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 06:48 PM

First of all, almost all of the 1100 page bill was available to the Republicans well before the vote... There weren't any surprises in it... IF there were then the Repubs wouldn't have been so quick to say, "Too little tax cuts and too much spending"... But that is exactly what they said... Which lead us to believe only one of two things:

1. They did have enough time to read the bill making them liars or...

2. The didn't bother to read the bill making them irresponsible...

Secondly, they telegraphed their intent to vote against the bill before Obama even met with them which lead us to believe one of two things:

1. They are betting on the stimulis to fail so they can go back to being the crooks in charge or...

2. They had come from thier palm readers and knew that Obgama wouldn't accept their paln for more trickle down economics

Thirdly, this current batch of repubs should be brought up on charges of treason... It's one thing to be in tne minority... It another to obstruct but hese folks think it's okay to just reject, yes reject, the current US governemnt... It is their job to represent their voters but they are AWOL and don't wish to play...

Reminds me of the brownshirts....

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Barry Finn
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 06:59 PM

They aren't betting that the bill will fail Bobert they are doing their best to trample over the whole nation just so they can win while we all lose.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 07:08 PM

"Canada's big problem is that there isn't a thousand mile moat between Canada and the US." Peter T

Now 'fess up - aren't there some other nations that you are grateful not be a neighor to? Then you would have cause to complain.

Heck, on occasion I am glad that Canada neighbors us.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Peter T.
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 07:52 PM

No, it is like living next door to a seductress, rather than a hag. The seductress is far more able to lead you down the garden path to your destruction.....

(note the Calvinist tone)

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Amos
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 08:19 PM

Sawz,

Every time you post one of those raving frothing rants that are void of details or specifics, you sound more like Rush Limbaugh!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 11:10 PM

Peter T, I like that. It accepts part of the blame.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Feb 09 - 11:49 PM

Indeed it does. Just like the North American Indians before us, Canadians are easily seduced by clever marketing strategies.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 01:36 AM

Might that be because they are human beings, LH?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: DannyC
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 09:15 AM

Sorry lads, had run off and earn a living.

I won't linger here long, however, I had correctly posited here that the GOP of the past 40 years intentionally utilized racial divisions to secure executive power through a tactic that was labeled "The Southern Strategy. It's existence is irrefutable. It's racist foundation is readily apparant.

In reviewing some posts to this thread, I noted that some reactionary supporters were seeking to obfuscate the facts. I cannot let the various revisionist statements stand without pointing out that if the GOP had been clean on the Civil Rights obstruction issue, then Newt Gingrich would have had no need have turned apologist in 1995:

"But he (Gingrich) just as strongly insists that "Republicans have an obligation to reach out much more emphatically and more strongly to the black community and find ways: to communicate that we will in fact be protecting civil rights that we're not going to block-grant civil rights and, the federal government is going to stand firmly committed against discrimination. "

"Gingrich now acknowledges " ... the legitimate fear of African Americans who look back only 30 years ago to segregation, to state police who were beating people like John Lewis [then a young civil rights leader, now a Democratic House member from Georgia], and you can sense the legitimate, genuine fear we could slide back into that kind of environment."

(Both quotes taken from an editorial - "A New Tack on Affirmative Action", LA Times, August 8, 1995)

The GOP leader's words confirm his own party's racist legacy.   

Slan,
Danny

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 11:54 AM

When Lyndon Johnson put his civil rights bill to Congress, there was a filibuster.

A record setting fillibuster.

One speaker went on for 24 and 32 minutes before leaving the floor (with the aid of a catheter)

The speaker was Strom Thurmon, the the proud Southern seperatist, racist and father to the son of a black woman.

The new chair of the RNC is M. Steele, a Republican negro.
His leadership now consists of congratulating all republicans for just saying no to any response to the economic crisis.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: DannyC
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 12:08 PM

Well said Donuel...

And in light of your comments, oughtn't we reference GOP Senate Leader Trent Lott's (R - Miss.) comments in praise of Strom Thurmond. I won't bother to look up the date, but we all know that it was of recent vintage.

The chickens have, indeed, come home to roost... and the millions of Americans who stood on the Mall this past January (and the tens of millions of us weeping privately in our homes) proclaimed that fact!!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 01:13 PM

Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, 2002.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Feb 09 - 02:24 PM

Right you are, Ebbie... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: Sawzaw
Date: 21 Feb 09 - 12:34 AM

First of all, Democrats made the bill available at 11 p.m. on Thursday night.

At 9 a.m. Friday morning, the House began debate on the bill.
If members of Congress actually took the time to read the bill, they would have to read through the night at a rate of 626 words per minute before heading to the House floor.

"Too little tax cuts and too much spending"... But that is exactly what they said

Now who said exactly that?

When I Google that phrase it only shows up in one place

Now which part of this Obama plan is working? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

"After the stock market collapse in 1929, the Hoover Administration increased federal spending by 47 percent over the following three years. As a result, federal spending increased from 3.4 percent of GDP in 1930 to 6.9 percent in 1932 and reached 9.8 percent by 1940. That same year-- 10 years into the Great Depression--America's unemployment rate stood at 14.6 percent."

Subject: RE: BS: Obama: I'm Not A Sap
From: DannyC
Date: 21 Feb 09 - 09:12 AM

Sawzaw,

Your post of earlier today is emblematic of the state of the reactionary movement that you are ineffectively seeking to represent in being...

scattered, inarticulate and incomprehensible.

Tell ya what... We'll give you a Mulligan... you're welcome to try again.

Reagrds,

Danny (who's away to The Carolinas)