So Is This

Good pickup. I thought exactly the same thing when he said this.

Of course there a lot of empirical evidence collected lately that suggests that ‘what works’ is anything BUT what we’ve been doing.

We’ve officially proven that if you want to drown government in a bathtub, you still have to deal with the stinking corpse that results.

Talk about a welcome change from the ideology-first recent past.

Yes, but they’re going to try to make it about ideology. I don’t think Bill Clinton was ideological either. Not always right, but not ideological either. That didn’t stop the right wing claque from going against him.

Obama’s anti-ideological starting point is what I like best about him. It’s interesting to compare him to Jindal and Romney, two very smart professional school trained exemplars who walk straighter ideological lines but still have a problem-solving approach by both training and probably nature. All three are light years apart from the reductionist absurdity of Bush/Cheney.

the ideology-first recent past.
-
If you mean the GOP of the last 15 or so years, I agree with every word in this post. As JJ points out, you can’t call Clinton an ideologue. Yet the right wing did call him all sorts of nasty things. The GOP base has now been ordered and trained to believe that Obama is a socialist terrorist (and that congressman from Georgia appears to believe it too, because GOP is intellectually rotted from top to bottom). They’ll evaluate everything through that POV.

JC
I am glad this is what stuck with you because you can be influential in making sure that the wingnut driven establishment Republicans don’t use you to turn this into something it is not. Clearly, they have a compelling interests in making this about ideology. My question is how tough are you? Are you enough of a journalist to resist the temptation to follow Rush and Drudge into the dark side? Beware Jay they will want you to attack the evil Liberal.

JC is this lip service or do you really believe it?

Sure the Usual Suspects will continue to hammer away at Obama with the ‘socialist/terrorist’ line. But all the ideologically driven rhetoric by everyone from the Usual Suspects to McCain on down to Joe the Plumber didn’t have much effect on this election, did it?

I think/hope that the politics of fear is waning.

Not that reporters don’t need to watch out for it and call it when it happens. But with the apparent new focus on pragmatic politics and getting things done for the country, I suspect the right-wing doomsayers will be speaking to smaller and smaller audiences.

A number of things struck me as I watched the full interview:
-
1. Obama is so comfortable with himself that he is able to escape his ego and view a situation through the eyes of another. He describes the moment when it was clear to him that he would be the next president, and he said he thought of what was running through the mind of his mother-in-law who was raised in segregated, discriminatory Chicago. That’s an astounding comment on Obama.
-
I dare say I would be thinking, “HELL, YEAH! I’M THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!” Instead, Obama is putting himself in the shoes of his mother-in-law. Beautiful.
-
2. He is able to explain complex issues clearly and in simple terms. This skill will serve him well, of course. It allows people to disagree with his approach to any particular polcy issue while understanding why he is doing what he is doing. It doesn’t mean he can’t be criticized, but, unlike the Cheney-Bush administration, there is an air of openness about such a discussion of the “whys” and “whats” that has not taken place in the eight years of this administration.
-
3. Republicans and conservatives will continue to proclaim that “the sky will fall” under the “no-experienced” Obama, but, as you note, what a breath of fresh air to have an intelligent, thoughtful, well-informed, tough-as-needed and confident president. Obama will be no one’s tool. I am certain that his cabinet members will understand that they work for him and that he is the Commander-in-Chief. (Unlike Bush who, judging by many reports, was uninformed, disinterested, and willing to cede control on important issues because it allowed him to do less work.)
-
I am sure there are conservatives who will watch that interview and who will still claim that Obama is “just words,” but the vast majority of Americans are seeing a wise leader.
-
And thank god for that…

This actually is more FDR than Reagan. If FDR was anything, it was pragmatic “we have nothing to fear but fear itself” was a call to action.

Paul D: “they” may make it about ideology, but I think Obama is, strangely enough, much more politically adept than Clinton was, and will disarm some of his opponents. I think it’s clear that most Republicans in Congress will get more of a hearing from Obama than they got from Bush, for example. Besides which, Obama is going in with more good will than any president in my long lifetime, I think.
.
Howard Dean had something interesting to say at a Smithisonian Association panel I heard on C-Span early this morning, in response to a question about whether we could succeed at being non-partisan. He said that last night he had been at an event where someone got up and said he hoped that now we were really going to make the Republicans pay for what they’d done to us, and Dean said he had to pause and get hold of himself, because there’s a part of him that would like to do that too. But Dean said he thought the under 35 voters had said they didn’t want that kind of partisanship any more, and that in 4 years it would be the under 39′s, and then in another 4 the under 43′s, and that we failed to listen to them at our peril. Dean said it’s time for “truth and reconciliation.”
.
I think Obama really means this, and I think he may have the strength of character to carry it off.

kathy,
-
You wrote:
-

… think Obama is, strangely enough, much more politically adept than Clinton was…

-
I agree. And here’s the primary way they are different: Clinton needed acknowledgment, acceptance and approval. All the time. He was needy (and somewhat insecure) in that sense.
-
Obama is far more comfortable and confident in who he is. He does not need to be validated by others the way Clinton did/does. That makes Obama a far more powerful leader than Clinton, at least in potential.

Bravo.
-
Now let’s see if he follows through on it. I voted for him because I thought he would, but I’ve been fooled by politicians before (Bush in 2000 for example).

Sean DeCoursey forgot his password Says:
.
Not that I want to sound mean – but I’ve always wanted to talk to someone who fell for Bush and ask them why — no snark intended.

Not a big Reagan fan but the 86 tax bill and his handling of the fall of the SU were indeed pragmatic.

One thing I find interesting is that Clinton was criticized for being pragmatic. That always seemed strange to me.

He is able to explain complex issues clearly and in simple terms
.
This is his exceptional talent. It reminds me of then opening to Living Color’s “Cult of Personality” (Vernon Reid can play the guitar. Just sayin’) where they sample FDR’s “We’re going to speak in simple terms that everyone here can understand” from an early, maybe the first, fireside chat.
.
I had a freaky realization. Two of our best presidents, FDR and Lincoln, were preceded by two of our worst, who were in office at very difficult times and found the situation beyond them. I’m really hoping Bush is in line with Hoover and Buchanan. And Obama is not.

Not a big Reagan fan but the 86 tax bill and his handling of the fall of the SU were indeed pragmatic.
.
Do keep in mind that the net effect of the 86 tax reform was more regressivity. The broaden the base, lower the rate part of the personal income tax was good, but the increase in the payroll tax rate, rather than a more rapid raising for the cap, was not.

One thing I find interesting is that Clinton was criticized for being pragmatic. That always seemed strange to me.
.
that is why we ended up with the government we deserved. for too long we listened to people who claimed that if you weren’t tied to a particular ideology then you had no convictions and a person without conviction is not to be trusted. then we got Bush and realize that adherence to dogma above all else is the reason for the inquisition, the crusades, and Katrina.
.
Oh well lesson learned.

Pretty simple really. I was sick of the corruption and duplicity and triviality of the Clinton years. You’re the President and you have an affair with a young impressionable intern that works for you? In the military that would have been a prosecutable offense. In most civilian companies it would have been grounds for a lawsuit. No pop stars or actresses or models were available? I also really, really didn’t (and still don’t) like what Clinton did to the military while he was in office. Rumsfeld never could have happened if the military hadn’t been purged of warriors in favor of CYA bureaucrats during the Clinton years.
-
Bush I was a very underrated president. He made real political sacrifices for the betterment of the country, like going back on his “read my lips” pledge when it was apparent a tax hike was needed. I thought Bush II would govern in the same manner as his father and restore dignity to the Oval Office. I was incredibly, massively wrong.

Talk about a welcome change from the ideology-first recent past.
–
Ideological isn’t the right word to describe the Bush Administration; It suggests a coherence his Presidency lacked. What would Bush’s ideology be? Certainly not conservatism or progressivism. I’m happy to see Obama taking such a pragmatic approach, but I think in some ways the failures of Bush’s Presidency show the merits of ideology, especially for people who are not as intellectually gifted as Obama. If Bush had been reading conservative thinkers – or reading at all – during his time in office, maybe he would have been able to impose some kind of order and coherence to the administration’s policies.
–
Ideologies arose for a reason: they provide an intellectual structure with which to examine policies and issues. Clearly those structures can become too confined, and it’s great to see Obama’s commitment to pragmatism (which isn’t so much a rejection of ideology, as an awareness that many ideologies have value). But maybe one decent ideology is better than no ideology, no pragmatism and no exceptional intelligence.

jay,
-
You wrote:
-

“I had a freaky realization. Two of our best presidents, FDR and Lincoln, were preceded by two of our worst, who were in office at very difficult times and found the situation beyond them. I’m really hoping Bush is in line with Hoover and Buchanan. And Obama is not.”

-
I had a wise political friend, an elder statesman who was once part of the Clinton administration, tell me in September of 2004 that the American people always found a strong leader when the country needed a strong leader. (This despite the nation’s stupidity in electing someone like Bush — TWICE.) He cited the same two examples you cites: Lincoln and FDR. I asked who that next leader would be, and my friend said he didn’t know, but a leader would emerge and would be propelled forward by the people.
-
Eerie…
-
When the chips are down, Americans go for the smart guy. Even if he’s black and young and not that experienced.

Sean DeCoursey
.
I don’t agree with a lot of your post but I do respect your opinion on most of it save one thing. To give props to Bush I for raising taxes and breaking his pledge is to praise a bald faced liar. He knew before he ever got into office that he would have to raise taxes. He ONLY said no new taxes because he knew Bob Dole had too much character to make the same bullsh!t pledge and thats how he secured the nomination. That was put on full display in the Lee Atwater documentary and he should NOT be given any credit for bullsh!tting his way to the presidency in my opinion

You’re the President and you have an affair with a young impressionable intern that works for you? In the military that would have been a prosecutable offense. In most civilian companies it would have been grounds for a lawsuit.
.
For me, what ticked off is that he and Hillary were both strong proponents of feminist policies, particularly the enforcement of rules against sexual harassment. For a senior executive to get involved, in any way, with a very junior employee broke all those rules.
.
Bush I was a very underrated president.
.
I think this is true. One reason Clinton had a bad first couple of years is that there were no obviously wrong policies for him to reverse by executive order. Obama, on the other hand, has a field of primroses to pluck from.

Rose–
.
You’re right in calling out Jay on “ideology.” Part of the point, and the problem of both the Bush administration and the press is related to this mistake. W was NOT ideological. He was partisan. He had no ideological ideas. He just wanted to loot the treasury for his friends and engage in policies that would keep him in office, able to do that.
.
The largest tradmed failure is trying to balance left/right politics, when the republicans aren’t playing left/right politics. They are practicing kleptocracy, increasingly nakedly as they lose elections.

Sean–
.
One more thing on Bush I. I hope Obama reaches out to him. I honestly believe that he was sincerely a public servant, in his own mind. I disagree, in many ways, about how policy should be made, but I don’t doubt his commitment to public service. He and Carter are both people I hope Obama looks to. Carter was very prescient, Cassandra like, in the event.

The Obamas truly are America’s finest. Whether it’s this casual personal interview, or a serious discussion with a head of state, I will be so proud to have them represent America. I totally trust that they are sincere about doing what they say if for nothing other than the fact that they truly and genuinely want to make their own children proud just as they are of their own parents.

jay
.
Obama said he has already talked to Bush I remember. It was the same day he made the Nancy Reagan joke

“W was not ideological.” Completely disagree. I think much of W’s policy was based on a Christian ideological core forged to sharp edges by neoconservative blacksmiths. There may have been times when that ideology was used as a rationalization for mere cronyism, but it was central to the man and his Administration.

I think much of W’s policy was based on a Christian ideological core forged to sharp edges by neoconservative blacksmiths
.
Above and on the KT thread, I expressed concern that I was being suckered by performance by Obama.
.
I have no doubt that the whole thing from Bush is an act, a bit used to obtain power for the purpose of kleptocracy. The wingnut base are rubes, and Bush and Rove were the hucksters.
.
An interesting question is which Palin is, huckster or rube. I assume she’s a huckster, and just needs a better handler.
.
This is one of the extraordinary failures of the traditional media–in not explicitly exposing the republican program.
.
One other interesting failure is the presentation of the Tom Daschele wing of the dems, taking out the DLC. Stoller has written about this, and we’re seeing it in all the legislative types being appointed to Obama’s team. Not saying this is a bad thing, but this is an interest group conflict not being covered.

Obama said he has already talked to Bush I remember. It was the same day he made the Nancy Reagan joke
.
Sad things happen to parents. It will be sad, for Bush, that he has a more receptive audience in Obama than in his eldest son.

I’m sure that if you ask a conservative or a liberal they will say their ideas work. I wonder what criteria Obama plans to use to reach a trans-ideological platform? What ideas does he plan to use first, in order to find out if they work or not.

Now come on pourmecoffee,

Every appointment he made in his administration was based on ideology. So many incompetant selections based on the litmus test: were you a true believer. The Justice Dept. .. you had to be a true believer and agressively establish voter fraud campaigns, support voter intimidation programs and prosecute any Democrat that was gaining traction. Their job was to prosecute to establish a permanent Republican majority. Health .. you had to be an abstinence believer. Your job was to not foster the criminalization abortion but to outlaw even basic contraceptive use. Expl: Encourage pharmacists to deny filing contraceptive pill orders based on religiuous objections. Treasury.. their job was to eliminate every possible oversight and allow a fraud free environment for Republican supporters. Defense Dept: Open to flood gates of appropriations to friendly Republican led businesses. W was ideological, he was criminal.

Now come on pourmecoffee,

Every appointment he made in his administration was based on ideology. So many incompetant selections based on the litmus test: were you a true believer. The Justice Dept. .. you had to be a true believer and agressively establish voter fraud campaigns, support voter intimidation programs and prosecute any Democrat that was gaining traction. Their job was to prosecute to establish a permanent Republican majority. Health .. you had to be an abstinence believer. Your job was to foster the criminalization abortion but to outlaw even basic contraceptive use. Expl: Encourage pharmacists to deny filing contraceptive pill orders based on religiuous objections. Treasury.. their job was to eliminate every possible oversight and allow a fraud free environment for Republican supporters. Defense Dept: Open to flood gates of appropriations to friendly Republican led businesses. W was ideological, he was criminal.

Computer caused the double post sorry.

@newfloridian – Read, please. Follow who’s arguing what.

Sean: “You’re the President and you have an affair with a young impressionable intern that works for you?” Young impressionable intern? She stalked Clinton. That he was willing to be stalked is another matter, but she was certainly no victim.
.
jay and others on Obama: “He is able to explain complex issues clearly and in simple terms. This is his exceptional talent.” Bill Clinton is also extraordinary at this, arguably quite a bit better at using effective framing to explain policy tradeoffs. But with Clinton you could/can always see the wheels turning. With Obama you see someone simply saying things that are true.

palininatowel -
.
agree with your assessment of both Obama and Clinton, to wit:

And here’s the primary way they are different: Clinton needed acknowledgment, acceptance and approval. All the time. He was needy (and somewhat insecure) in that sense.
-
Obama is far more comfortable and confident in who he is. He does not need to be validated by others the way Clinton did/does. That makes Obama a far more powerful leader than Clinton, at least in potential.

Can Jay point out a single instance where a president elect has declared that he would not be “bi-partisan”, and wouldn’t be “ideological”, etc. etc. etc….

I mean, Obama gave us boilerplate, and the media is treating it like its manna from heaven. It was bad enough before the election — but the media’s treatment of Obama since then looks more like the way the media treated Bush in the wake of 9-11 (not merely uncritically, but worshipping)

Hmmm, the srewed Chicago politician is now the equal of “FDR, Reagan, and Lincoln”. You all are so wiped in political bullcrap you have no clue who he is and where he has come from. Obama knows one thing very well, how to screw everyone out of everything he wants.

Quite drinking the kool-aide children and take off the rose colored glasses. Obama is the greatest snake the White House will ever house to date.

Let me remind you quickly of his most favorite Pastor, of over 20+ years. “God Damn America!!!”

newfloridian and pourmecoffee, I think part of the confusion is it’s difficult to define what an ideology is. The difference between neoconservatism and liberalism, traditional conservatism or even socialism, is that neoconservatism is purely a phenomenon of obscure academic circles that somehow took over the government. Absolutely no regular person calls themselves a neocon. McCain could never have announced to a Ohio town hall, “I will pursue neoconservative policies as President.” There are no Joe the neoconservative Plumbers.
–
I think that lack of popularity reflects neoconservatism’s weaknesses. And it really is obscure even within the academic world (I believe fascism was too, BTW). It couldn’t stand up to the scrutiny of strong intellectual debate. I’ve never met a neoconservative professor, although I know they exist. In addition, in domestic policy neoconservatism is very poorly defined. So simply calling Bush a neocon doesn’t explain his domestic agenda.
–
Anyway, I still think that Bush’s Presidency would have been less awful if he had followed an established ideology whose influence is seen in functioning governments, such as conservatism.
–
Sean DeCoursey, I agree with your criticisms of Bill Clinton, although I’m appalled by the personal life of most Presidents, so I don’t even think about them anymore. I also know it’s difficult to fully evaluate someone’s life unless you know everything – it’s quite possible that Bush has started drinking again, and we wouldn’t know.
–
Can Jay point out a single instance where a president elect has declared that he would not be “bi-partisan”, and wouldn’t be “ideological”, etc. etc. etc…
–
plukasiak, okay I have to admit that’s true. Good point. But I still think Obama is more serious about pragmatism than most Presidents.

“White House will ever house to date”?
That’s one fine piece of construction Physician, Viet Nam vet, successful businessman, who has friends and family in Iraq.

i don’t think it matters what ‘joe the plumber’ identifies with on a semantic level, neoconservativism was certainly the ascendant ideology of the Bush II administration. it doesn’t matter whether they begged, borrowed or stole to get there. they were socially conservative, with a caveat that unlimited time and effort be put into aggressively expanding the american model of governance through military force, backed by divine right and exceptional status. that = neoconservativsm. it certainly wasn’t pretty, but it was what it was.

For any former or current Ron Paul supporters who might be lurking
.
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/ron-paul-decries-looming-new-world-o

Is “choke on my balls, Jay Carney” an ideological solution, or not? Cabinet-position vetters want to know.

wvng,
-
Wow. Really? The “she wanted it so she had it coming” defense?
-
It obviously takes two to tango. It’s wrong because the power relationship is so, so skewed. High school teachers aren’t supposed to sleep with their students (even the ones that are 18) for the same reasons. You think that would be ok too?
-
Rose,
-
Neocons don’t have a domestic policy outside of spending lots of money on the military budget, running patriotism classes in schools and supporting domestic spying to keep the state strong. Honestly, neoconservatism is like a nice-ified Hitler Youth on the domestic front. On the foreign policy front, they’re at least as aggressive as the fascists were ideologically.
-
Rusty,
-
You do have one point. It is way, way too early for all the Lincoln/FDR/Kennedy comparisons on Obama. He hasn’t even taken the oath yet. Let’s wait at least a year or two and see what he actually manages to accomplish.

“Let me remind you quickly of his most favorite Pastor, of over 20+ years. “God Damn America!!!”
.
Um, Rusty, did you know that the election is over?
.
And Rusty? Don’t mix your phyla, please! Obama’s a mammal, just like the rest of us. Except you.
.
You’re a spirochete.
.
Of matters of real import, I don’t think that Reagan is going to have a lot to offer Obama. He was on watch when the USSR collapsed, so he gets some credit, but the collapse began with the Solidarity movement in the ’70s.
.
I think though, that if there are things he has to offer that Obama can borrow, more power too him.

“Rumsfeld never could have happened if the military hadn’t been purged of warriors in favor of CYA bureaucrats during the Clinton years.”
.
Wow. More “Blame Clinton for what Bush did” stuff?
.
You got as much cred on Clinton as you do on Katrina, don’t you?
.
Did anyone ever point out to you that Bill, at that particular time, was working on a fiendish plan to cause earthquakes in California?

rusty,
-
Obama is “the greatest snake the White House will ever house to date?”
-
Were you laughing when you typed that, given that he is replacing the very people who looted the national treasury in what has been the most massive organized crime heist in the history of mankind?
-
Hell, even if Obama was a crook, they emptied everything — the safes, the cupboards, the drawers, the mattresses, everything — over the course of the last eight years.
-
What’s left to steal after the Cheney-Bush criminal cabal cleaned out the bank accounts? They even stole the silver!

palin, does the construction “ever house” followed by “to date” make a bit of sense? No? Then welcome to, long time Swampland favorite, Rusty’s world.

The general elections in democratic countries can be quite puzzling.

Take for instance the latest elections in the US. Less than 63% of the eligible electorate cast their ballots. Of this about 52% voted for the winner. In other words, the president-elect won hardly one-third of the total eligible votes – which indeed translated to some 63 millions.

The US has a population of 310 millions with about 190 million voters. Whatever happened to the almost 70 million of them who opted not to exercise their rights, probably thinking that elections were a waste of time and money?

This would suggest that the presidency had been won with a minority, seemingly countering the sacred notion of a democratic government by the majority. It is quite pathetic that such situation prevails among most nations.

One wonders if general elections ought to be made compulsory for every voter (a few countries do). Otherwise it simply does not appear right.

53,
-
Dude, you’ve really got to move past the whole “everything Clinton is good, everything Bush is bad” complex. The truth is a whole lot more complex. Bush did lots of bad stuff. Not because he’s a bad person, but because he was wrong, or because he just wasn’t up to the task. He also did a few things right.
-
Clinton did some good things and some bad things. Again, not because he’s a terrible awful person, but because sometimes he was out of his depth, and sometimes he was just wrong. Clinton did more things right than wrong, and Bush got more things wrong than right, but pretending like it’s only the one or the other is incredibly counter-productive and pretty weak intellectually.
-
Also, I hadn’t heard about the earthquake causing. Did he use the space shuttle like in Conspiracy Theory or was it drill nukes like in Austin Powers?

Ooh! Ooh! I have a non-ideological position you can work with, Jay!

………………….www……………..
…………………wwwwww…………….
……………….wwwwwwwww……………
…………….wwwwwwwwwwwwwww………..
…………….wwwwwwwwwwwwwww………..
……………….wwwwwwwww…………..
……………….wwwwwwwww…………..
……………….wwwwwwwww…………..
……………….wwwwwwwww…………..
……………….wwwwwwwww…………..
……………….wwwwwwwww…………..
……………….wwwwwwwww…………..
……………….wwwwwwwww…………..
……………….wwwwwwwww…………..
…………wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww……

OMG! My position was distorted by ideology!

……………………………….www……………..
…………………………..wwwwww…………….
……………………….wwwwwwwww……………
………………..wwwwwwwwwwwwwww………..
………………..wwwwwwwwwwwwwww………..
……………………….wwwwwwwww…………..
……………………….wwwwwwwww…………..
……………………….wwwwwwwww…………..
……………………….wwwwwwwww…………..
……………………….wwwwwwwww…………..
……………………….wwwwwwwww…………..
……………………….wwwwwwwww…………..
……………………….wwwwwwwww…………..
……………………….wwwwwwwww…………..
……..wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww……
……wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww……
….wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww…..
….wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww…..
……wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww…..
……wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww……
……..wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww……
………wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww…….
…………wwwwwwwwwww.wwwwwwwwww……..
……………wwwwwwwwww.wwwwwwwww………

.
I can’t name a single thing that George W. Bush did in 8 years that was a net positive for the United States of America. Not a single thing. I can’t think of a single act of the Bush Administration in 8 years that wasn’t predicated on bad faith.
.
There were plenty of things that Clinton did that were disappointing, to me. However, those things were not acts of bad faith, like the George W. Bush administration.
.
I’m open to hearing examples, though. Go ahead, Sean, I’m listening.
.

” .. I don’t wanna do is get bottled up in a lot of ideology and is this conservative or liberal. ..”

OK.
We must eliminate the ideological constraints.

“States with households which at some time during 2005-2007 had difficulty providing enough food for all their members due to a lack of resources, were Mississippi (17.4 percent), New Mexico (15 percent), Texas (14.8 percent) and Arkansas (14.4 percent).”
http://www.newsnet5.com/health/18000875/detail.html

With exception of NM, these are the ‘red’ states that refused to join the rest of (real) America in voting for CHANGE.
Thus:
. Right-wing, conservative radicalism begets starvation (or vice versa)
AND
. Starvation begets anti-CHANGE (or vice versa)
Conclusion: Right-wing radicalism is not good for CHANGE. QED
Corollary: Eradicate right-wingnuts NOW.

The Guardian claims Hillary accepted the SecState offer.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/18/hillary-clinton-obama-white-house

Focus on the Family is laying off 149 of their staff. Donations down.
I guess religion doesn’t pay as well as it did.. oh but the leaders didn’t take a pay cut they just cut their staff.

I guess the old “Let God sort them out” applies here. I wonder since they are so anti abortion, but never ever express any interest in the child after they are born, except as a potential donor…. if they take the same interest level in their fired employees. Perhaps now that they are fired they don’t exist, at least until they get a job and can start donating again. .

Oh, and acidj, looks like up to 4 million delusional Americans will be in DC to celebrate the inauguration.
http://www.americablog.com/2008/11/4-milllion-expected-in-dc-for-obamas.html
.
You might want to stay away.

Wonkette on the fired Focus employees:
.
“Sure, you have no income now because James Dobson burnt all of your company’s money on a state ballot proposition. But imagine the alternative! Would you want to be employed knowing that several hundred miles away, in another state, pairs of consenting adults that already have been living together, people whom you’ve never met and will never meet, were applying for state licenses (pieces of paper, really) that offered them some new tax and medical options??”

newfloridian and wvng: I guess the Lord didn’t provide.

Andy. Or, perhaps, the Lord did. Judgment.

Sean:
.
When you blame Clinton for Rumsfeld’s presence, you are really pushing that conspiracy envelope you so delightfully describe.
.
Rumsfeld was minted before Clinton came to office.
.
As for Clinton mistakes, I criticize him for being a bone head on free trade, but I’ll tell you what:
.
Clinton may have had his seegar smoked a few times, but considering what the Soviets, er uh, GOP and Bush served up next made me wish for the bad ol’ days of Clinton – until Obama came and kicked ignorant azzes like yours into the ditch.
.
BTW, since unemployment is rising rapidly, should those areas of highest unemployment be ignored by FEMA if the next disaster hits?
.
And don’t hand me “what are you talking about?” ’cause I’ll hand you more than a couple of your own Katrina chestnuts…

………………McCain.w
…………………….w
…………………….w……..wwww
…………………….w……..wwwww
…………………..wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
…\.|./……………wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
….\|/wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
..www*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
…Lewis…………………………………..
………………………………………….
………………McCain.w
…………………….w
…………………….w……..wwww
…………………….w……..wwwww
O………………….wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
..O.O………………wwwww\w|w/wwwwwwwwwwww
…O.O.wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww\|/wwwwwwwwww
..ww.O.wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwww
……………………….Powell……………
………………………………………….
..OO………………………………………
.O.O………………………………………
….O..O……….McCain.w
…….O……………..w
……………………………X.<-Palin…….

It’s almost like he wants to govern.

James,
-
Offhand, I’d say the good things Bush did are as follows:
-
1. No Child Left Behind. Yes, I’m aware of all the myriad problems with it. I’m also very cognizant of the fact that it is the first time we’ve ever had any form of national standards and applied them to schools. It’s imperfect, but first tries often are. Accountability was and still is desperately needed by the educational system. This is step one.
-
2. Removed from power and killed Saddam, Usay, and Qusay Hussein. Yes, I know how messed up the war and invasion were. I was there. But because I was there I will never be convinced that eliminating these guys was a bad thing on balance. It could have been done better, but the world is better for it having been done.
-
3. Removed the Taliban from power in Afghanistan. Obviously this was badly funged in the endgame. But it’s still important to remember just how despicable these guys were when they were in power.
-
4. Didn’t cave on Iraq when things were going bad. This might surprise a lot of people, but Bush actually did do the right thing when faced with a losing situation in Iraq. He said no, we’re not leaving. No we’re not quitting. And he kept to it in the face of intense opposition from the public, media, and other world leaders. Then he kept firing a general every year until he found one that had a working strategy. We actually tried a lot of different approaches in Iraq before Petraeus got put in charge. None of them worked, but we did try them. Once he found that guy, Bush turned over as much authority to him as the Constitution allowed him to.
-
America needed to stick out an ugly fight. Everyone in the world learned the lessons of Lebanon and Somalia. Kill some Joe’s, get it on CNN, the Americans go home. It’s largely forgotten now, but we lost the first few years of WWII and the Civil War. The FDR and Lincoln just kept firing generals and promoting new ones until they found some that won and turned things over to them. One of the biggest failures of Vietnam was the consistency in the top ranks running the war.
-
5. Opened negotiations with Iran and North Korea. This includes setting up a diplomatic post in Tehran. Yeah, you can make a good argument that it should have happened sooner, but it did happen. No American president has held talks with Iran since the Revolution in 1979. At least not until that noted internationalist and fan of diplomacy George W. Bush did. Obama won’t be the first President to talk to Iran, we now have an interests office there thanks to W.
-
6. Tried to fix Social Security. I’ll give credit for the attempt here. It was a bad plan and failed horrifyingly, but every single leader since at least the 1970′s has known the system was insolvent long-term and needed to be re-worked. None tried because it was political suicide. Bush tried and failed, but at least he saw the problem and tried to do something about it, which is more than you can say for Carter, Reagan, Bush I, or Clinton.
-
7. Continued working out free-trade agreements. As the NYT notes this morning, Congress still hasn’t passed the Columbian FTA. Trade agreements are important and usually benefit the U.S. disproportionately since we have very few tariffs on incoming goods already but other countries frequently heavily tax our goods.
-
Look, Bush’s presidency has been a disaster for America and the world, but like Nixon, you can’t honestly or credibly discuss the failings of his term in office without acknowledging what went right too.

1. No Child Left Behind does not apply national standards to schools; standards are set by each individual state.
.
2. We’ve not so secretly replaced some torturers with American-sponsored torturers. Now Iraqis can blame the United States for all there troubles with good reason!
.
3. The Taliban and their allies control most of Afghanistan.
.
4. I fail to see how satisfying the bloodlust of warmongers is a good thing that George Bush did.
.
5. George Bush closed negotiations with Iran and North Korea. (Technically, Bill Clinton opened negotiations with North Korea; George Bush closed them, and then finally opened them again.)
.
6. George Bush tried to destroy Social Security. (Long-term insolvency was averted in the mid-1980s when Ronald Reagan raised payroll taxes.)
.
7. Free-trade agreements as supported by George Bush are problematic for the U.S. because they accelerate income inequality when enacted by structural reform.
.
Surely, you can think of good things George Bush has done that were not failures?

1. No Child Left Behind does not apply national standards to schools; standards are set by each individual state.
.
2. We’ve not so secretly replaced some torturers with American-sponsored torturers. Now Iraqis can blame the United States for all there troubles with good reason!
.
3. The Taliban and their allies control most of Afghanistan.
.
4. I fail to see how satisfying the bloodlust of warmongers is a good thing that George Bush did.
.
5. George Bush closed negotiations with Iran and North Korea. (Technically, Bill Clinton opened negotiations with North Korea; George Bush closed them, and then finally opened them again.)
.
6. George Bush tried to destroy Social Security. (Long-term insolvency was averted in the mid-1980s when Ronald Reagan raised payroll taxes.)
.
7. Free-trade agreements as supported by George Bush are problematic for the U.S. because they accelerate income inequality when enacted by structural reform.
.
Surely, you can think of good things George Bush has done that were not failures?

“…without acknowledging what went right too.”
.
Nice list of “talking points”. Right?
.
Like Katrina, it’s only right if you are one of those “staunch” GOPers.
.
And they’ve been tossed out like yesterday’s garbage…

But see, Aaron?
.
These things are good!
.
I mean any “hard working” “right minded” “American” would realize that these things are good!
.
Besides, Palin and Limbaugh say so! So does O’Reilly, Buchannon and Hannity!
.
Now how could you argue against such esteemed fvckers?

Lovestruck Jay Carney hails the thoroughly unqualified, terrorist fraternizing, community organizer’s “seemingly obvious but all-too-rare, refreshingly non-ideological declaration about how best to govern.” This is a parody of a Washington press corps, boilerplate, useful idiot, right?

Evidently, the entire history (unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, Jeremiah “God *#@$ America” Wright, Michelle “For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country” Obama, “community organizing” and voting record) of the thoroughly unqualified, terrorist fraternizing, community organizer are completely foreign to the lovestruck Carney. Oblivious, anyone?

“Oblivious, anyone?”
.
Yes. you…

[...] she speaks Lingua Americana, please read this transcript of Obama’s 60 minutes interview from Time Magazine’s Swampland blog and judge for yourself what Obama’s new style of speaking seems to [...]

[...] and is this conservative or liberal. My interest is finding something that works.” Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2008/11/17/so-is-this/#ixzz1hCiv0DwJ Interestingly enough, the link to the full transcript has been removed from The Hollywood Reporter [...]