Is 2012 Politics Behind Obama’s No Pick For The 2011 Superbowl?

This is just part of his move back to the center after being a radical left-wing (fascist) extremist.

Oh for Chri$t sakes. Is the Village this hard up for Carnack moments?

Yes, indeed. Barack Obama’s entire political fortune depends on remaining neutral on the participants of the 2011 Super Bowl. Unemployment, deficits and debt, Obamacare and Middle East unrest all take second place to Obama’s football prognostications.

What are you smoking, Michael?

We can always tell when Scherer’s run out of belly-button lint during his long bouts of navel gazing. I guess he’s helping us define when low-quality Sunday content ceases to be better than no content at all.

HAPPY 100TH BIRTHDAY, RON.

We really, really miss you now.

This may be, and I know this is a bold statement, the lamest post ever on Swampland.
.
I will be happy to be corrected.

Really? This?

And don’t try to pass it off as a joke later.

I miss his pragmatism. Raised taxes to try and balance the budget, realized that supply side economics did not work, with the help of Tip made social security fiscally responsible through 2037. The tea party would hate him with a passion if they had any inclination to explore the facts of his presidency, after all, according to ricardomax little bush is a liberal. What would that have made this man?

rwbbinla@4.1,

Rubbish.

Ronnie is a Tea Party hero. He was pragmatic as he had to be with a Democrat House, but he won more battles than he lost. One battle that he lost was Congress reneging on it’s promise to cut $3 for every $1 in tax increases. It was not Ronnie’s fault, but I am sure it taught him a lesson about the big spenders in Congress.

Ronald Reagan summed up his strategy on the Cold War as “We win, they lose.” And as we all know Reagan’s strategy worked. That alone makes him the greatest president of the 20th Century.

I know off topic, but:
.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/04/AR2011020403104.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2011020403674
.

Five myths about Ronald Reagan’s legacy
.
1. Reagan was one of our most popular presidents.

Reagan’s average approval rating during the eight years that he was in office was nothing spectacular – 52.8 percent, according to Gallup. That places the 40th president not just behind Kennedy, Clinton and Dwight Eisenhower, but also Lyndon Johnson and George H.W. Bush, neither of whom are talked up as candidates for Mount Rushmore.

2. Reagan was a tax-cutter.

The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 was, at the time, the largest peacetime tax increase in U.S. history. Ultimately, Reagan signed measures that increased federal taxes every year of his two-term presidency except the first and the last. These included a higher gasoline levy, a 1986 tax reform deal that included the largest corporate tax increase in American history, and a substantial raise in payroll taxes in 1983 as part of a deal to keep Social Security solvent. While wealthy Americans benefitted from Reagan’s tax policies, blue-collar Americans paid a higher percentage of their income in taxes when Reagan left office than when he came in.

3. Reagan was a hawk.

Though Reagan expanded the U.S. military and launched new weapons programs, his real contributions to the end of the Cold War were his willingness to negotiate arms reductions with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and his encouragement of Gorbachev as a domestic reformer. In 1988, Reagan signed the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which stated that torture could be used under “no exceptional circumstances, whatsoever.”

With the exception of the 1986 bombing of Libya, Reagan also disappointed hawkish aides with his unwillingness to retaliate militarily for terrorism in the Middle East. According to biographer Lou Cannon, the president called the death of innocent civilians in anti-terror operations “terrorism itself.”

4. Reagan shrank the federal government.

Federal spending grew by an average of 2.5 percent a year, adjusted for inflation, while Reagan was president. The national debt exploded, increasing from about $700 billion to nearly $3 trillion.

The number of federal employees grew from 2.8 million to 3 million under Reagan, in large part because of his buildup at the Pentagon. (It took the Democratic administration of President Bill Clinton to trim the employee rolls back to 2.7 million.) Reagan also abandoned a campaign pledge to get rid of two Cabinet agencies – Energy and Education – and added a new one, Veterans Affairs.

5. Reagan was a conservative culture warrior.

Although he published a book in 1983 about his staunch opposition to abortion (overlooking the fact that he had legalized abortion in California as governor in the late 1960s), he never sought a constitutional ban…

Mike’s tea-leaves reading aside, maybe Obama couldn’t bring himself to publicly support a team that has a rapist in a key role.

No correction needed, Paul… in fact, I’ll offer a “seconded”…

“Ronald Reagan summed up his strategy on the Cold War as “We win, they lose.” And as we all know Reagan’s strategy worked”
.
That Reagan-or as many fetishists refer to him Ronnie – “won” the Cold War is an insult to every President from Truman to GHW Bush. Not to mention the people who suffered under the Soviets.
.
For some reason of all the dreamy recollections of The Gipper the idea that he is responsible for the collapse of the USSR is the most loathsome to me.
.
Now back to a dull Super Bowl.

Paul-no@4.4,

Paul, Paul, Paul.

Ronald Reagan was pivotal in causing the Soviet Union to finally collapse. He kept the financial pressure on them by rebuilding America’s post Vietnam military, increased the pressure to intolerable levels by advocating SDI and the final touch was supporting the Mujahideen which drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan.

With the able aid of Maggie Thatcher and Pope John Paul II, Reagan was able to keep up pressure on the Soviets at all points. That led to the collapse of the “evil empire.”

“We win, they lose.” A fitting epitaph for Ronnie.

Someday I hope to love, or be loved, as blindly as Reagan fetishists or the way Billy Mays felt about the Power of Orange.

apr2563@4.3,

All that you posted may be factually true, but it misses the very essence of Reagan.

1. Reagan cared little for popularity. He did what he thought was right and let the chips fall where they may. He had the marvelous ability to continually hand liberals their heads in spite of the fact that they held him in contempt for not being a member of their class. Sarah Palin must be finding that fact to be very familiar.

2. Reagan was a tax cutter. He lowered individual income tax rates dramatically with the Kemp-Roth Tax Cut. He later increased taxes with the proviso that Congress would match the tax increases with 3 dollars in spending cuts for every dollar of taxes. That never transpired as Congress has to be bludgeoned into cutting spending.

3. Reagan was shrewed. Despite liberal complaints, he refused to bargain with old line commies, who were good enough to keep dying until a man Reagan could bargain with came to power. Maggie Thatcher took the measure of Gorbachev and told Reagan that he was a man that Reagan could do business with.

Reagan did voice a desire to rid the world of nuclear weapons, but he wasn’t a naive fool on the subject. He saw that it might be possible to make nuclear missiles obsolete with SDI.

4. Reagan grew the military which had foundered since the Vietnam war. He built up it’s capacities and re-instilled a can do spirit. That cost money but the effect was enormous in that it ended the cold war. Compare that to Obama’s $862 billion “stimulus” boondoggle which stimulated nothing but public employee’s union’s greed.

5. Reagan was a culture warrior. Indeed he was! He changed the culture of America from the “malaise” of Jimmy Carter. He restored America’s spirit and his financial and tax policies brought on the longest period of growth since WW II.

Reagan opposed abortion and spoke out against it often. But I doubt that he believed that a constitutional amendment would be the answer. I suspect that Reagan, like many conservatives believed that abortion would only be ended by changing hearts and minds rather than by changing laws.

Today is a fitting day to be talking about Reagan. Happy 100th, Ron.

Paul-no…@4.6,

Obama loves Reagan.

Don’t you read Time magazine?

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20110207,00.html

No.
.
But I followed your link and saw it was a Scherer story so I laughed and moved on.
.
Do you read TIME magazine? Did Scherer write that BHO attributed all the alleged accomplishments of Reagan that you claim?

The Soviet Union wasn’t simply defeated… it first frayed around the edges then deflated. And the fraying was more dependent on the presence of Gorbachev, John Paul II, and other reformers willing to take personal chances than Reagan. With Andropov or Breshnev in place, this doesn’t happen. Without the others working as they did too-it doesn’t happen.
.
Poland, Czechoslovakia, East Germany all experienced signifcant popular revolts in which the Soviet Union could have been expected, in the past, to have intervened. Gorbachev had the resources at this disposal to have crushed much of these had he so chosen. He didn’t. John Paul worked dilligently to support Polish freedom over a long time, with both speeches and hard work. You have Walesa in the Czech Republic and the German people deciding that they wanted to be one country again. Once again, no success if the East German army decides to crack down. Without Soviet backing for that, it doesn’t happen.
.
The Berlin Wall didn’t fall simply because Reagan said to tear it down. He was very fortunate to have reformers in the Soviet bloc working as hard on reform (and freedom for their countrymen) as he was.
.
And risking a h*ll of a lot more.

Packers win… congratulations Cheese-heads!! You done good.

…or the way Billy Mays felt about the Power of Orange.
.
Paul,
.
I think the autopsy showed that Billy believed more in the power of “white powder” than Orange.

afguy-no need to speak ill of the dead*.
.
Besides my line was funny.
.
*I kid, I’m totally fine with speaking ill of the dead.

All that you posted may be factually true, but it misses the very essence of Reagan.
.
Shorter paulie @4.7:
.
Don’t bother us with facts if they disagree with our preconceptions. We believe what we believe because it “makes us feel good”..
.
Thaks for encapsulating the TP/extreme RW mindset very clearly.

FWIW – MIke Tomlin, coach of the Steelers, is a class act.

I tip a Tyranena Bitter Woman IPA to the Pack.
.
If the Steelers had won I would have tipped a Weyerbacher and if Dallas somehow found a way to steal the game I would have tipped a LoneStar.
.
Yes, I have had all three tonight.

Agreed on Tomlin.
.
Pure class as always.

More than a few Packer fans in Minnesota, a call back to the days before the Vikings were formed.
.
This is from another place on the web:
.
“Minnesota, this is our moment. If the state troopers are doing their job and pulling over cars with Packers garb for the inevitable slew of DWIs, we may be able to take care of our deficit. This win could be the biggest win for Minnesota!”

paulie,
.
I have things in my front yard that had LOTS of “essence” when fresh.
.
Once they dry out, they lose their original “essence” and, from that time forward, you can then claim that they had any “essence” you care to.
.
That process is called “revisionism”.

As a Vikings fan, I hate the Packers. As a human, I hate rapists. I wanted them both to lose. Ah, well. Lesser of two evils.

afguy@4.13,

Reagan always made me feel good. It was liberals and commies to whom he gave agita.

Once again, identifying with someone because of who he pissed off.

Paul-no…@4.9,

What’s wrong with Mike Scherer? And why does he elicit laughter from uou?

afguy@4.13.

A colorful and odoriferous analogy, but hardly apt.

Every once in a while, do TRY to bring something CONSTRUCTIVE to the discussion.
.
Stop being a slave to your emotions. It doesn’t speak well of the intellectual depth of your “movement”.

afguy@9.2,

I didn’t admire Reagan just because he pi$$ed off libs, but it was a nice fringe benefit. Same for Sarah.

Not apt?
.
Really?
.
Aren’t you trying to attach a different aroma to this particular subject than what was necessarily originally present?

afguy@9.2,

I am the least emotional poster that you know, afguy. With me it’s “Nothing but the facts, ma’am.”

I don’t go off on rants like some. I don’t use gratuitous insults, nor do I use ad hominems. But I do use sarcasm and irony deftly. The stiletto, not the club.

afguy@4.17,

I was just bringing light where before there was so much heat.

Well, with the both of them, that seems to be the main thing you emphasize.
.
Perhaps you’d like to tell all of us what about Palin you find the most admirable (remember – pissing off liberals is already covered so you need to come up with something else believable).
.
Her intellectual depth? Her grasp of foreign affairs? Making loads off money off of her TV and book appearances? Her measurements? Her ability to “inspire” you below the waist? The amount of attention she is able to draw to herself? What????
.
Remember – “pissing off liberals” is already covered.

“What’s wrong with Mike Scherer?”
.
Short answer…this post.
.
Longer answer…his body of work at TIME. His embed with the McCain campaign was a study in political reporters as Stockholm Syndrome.
I asked, the weekend before the election, whether the McCain camp really believed they could win or if they were just putting on a brave face.
.
MS answered in comments that yes they could win. After the election Newsweek published their now traditional behind the scenes report of each campaign.
.
They reported that the McCain camp knew the inevitable, they were going to lose. Scherer either didn’t know, despite his covering the campaign, or didn’t want to harm their message the weekend before the election.
.
Add to that MS’s posting, without comment or any added content, McCain’s web only ads.
.
You could substitute Obama for McCain and my feelings wouldn’t change.

I don’t go off on rants like some. I don’t use gratuitous insults, nor do I use ad hominems. But I do use sarcasm and irony deftly. The stiletto, not the club.
.
Yeah, we get it. You excel in the subtle “dig”. What you don’t do well is tell all of us what you believe in.
.
We DO know what you’re against. What do you want your TP reps in Congress to get done, beside tearing down government and cutting taxes?
.
Spend some time on the constructive aspects of your beliefs, not just using your rapier-like wit to cut down others.

I was just bringing light where before there was so much heat.
.
Yes, and that light has a distinctly-shaded filter applied to it.
.
Simple illumination ain’t really the main point there, is it?

But…but…you HAVE to understand – he needs Wisconsin votes! That’s why it’s important!!!

“The stiletto, not the club”
.
Just make sure you take them off first.

afguy@4.10,

You neglect to mention a few things by accomplished Reagan…

1. Rebuilt the US military both materially and spiritually after the trauma of Vietnam.

2. First president to introduce and support SDI.

3. Stinger missiles to Afghanistan which overcame the Russian military’s advantages.

4. Medium range missiles to Europe with the accuracy to put a nuke through a bathroom window in the Kremlin.

5. Set the stage for the Soviet Union’s collapse by labeling it the “Evil Empire.”

5. Covert support to Solidarity in Poland.

6. Covert support to anti-Communists in Nicaragua.

7. Removed the Cubans from Grenada.

8. Deployment of the Peacekeeper ICBM

9. The “Reagan Doctrine” — “Rollback” not “Containment.”

10. Had the outstanding good fortune of having one old line commie leader after another catch a cold, which in commiespeak meant that they had dropped dead.

Thanks Ronnie, you were the best. Happy Birthday.

nflfoghorn@9.6

Good one. But I wasn’t referring to heels. The stiletto I use is sharper. You won’t even feel it going in.

afguy@10,

Don’t want to tear government down, afguy. I just want to put it on a diet. It’s too fat and out of control.

I am always in favor in cutting taxes. Giving more cash to politicians is like giving crack to an addict.

I want the Constitution treated as the law of the land, not as a list of suggestions.

I want a government that has more concern for it’s citizens than it does for the special interests.

I want government to have a smaller presence in everyone’s life.

Those are just a few of my views. I’ll reveal more as different subjects come up.

“I think the autopsy showed that Billy believed more in the power of white powder’ than Orange”
.
Hi, Billy Mays here for the Koke Kutter (TM)!! Nothing chops up the good stuff any finer! Cut some now and save the rest for later in its convenient Goodie Bag! Guaranteed to smack you upside the head or your money back! Here’s how to order!

A commenter at Brad DeLong’s blog once asked:

“Does journalism attract smug, shallow personalities or does journalism turn normal people into smug, shallow personalities?”

I’d have to go with ‘yes.’

And here I was ignorant of who Billy Mays is, until Wiki cleared it all up. Was expecting to read about some hardcore funkmetal pornstar.

I thought this post was satire. But yeah, it is impossible to tell.

afguy@9.5,

I was just waiting for you to ask.

1. Went from the PTA to the Governor of her State through her own efforts not because of the person she chose to marry.

2. Pro-Life woman who not only talks the talk, but walks the walk too.

3. Took on old boys network in her state and defeated a sitting governor of her own party.

4. Took on a popular former Democratic governor and beat him.

5. Got a better deal from oil companies for the citizen’s of her state.

6. Negotiated a gas pipeline through Canada to bring much needed natural gas to the lower 48.

7. She took a beating from the liberal media and left wing political assassins since 2008 and not only survived but prevailed.

8. Her views are based in solid conservative values and she states her case for those values very well.

9. She is one of very few politicians with a child that served in combat but she does not exploit her son.

10. She got off to a shaky start in 2008 but by the end of the campaign, she was the only thing that the McCain campaign had going for it. She rivaled Obama in drawing huge and enthusiastic crowds.

You have to be joking. Seriously?

How about a follow up post on the Puppy Bowl. That would be about as relevant.

Polls have shown that interest in the presidential campaign traditionally peaks 3-6 weeks before the elections. But this is also a book that transcends the season. It’s truly for anyone who wants to know more about the issues, which are perennial issues that will continue to affect our everyday lives.

http://fms.nu/fQoUxs

90% of the liberals here couldn’t tell you what they believe. All they know is what the liberal talking points are for the day. Case in point: the Tucson shooting. This place was a bunch of parrots echoing the “tone down the rhetoric” line.
.
You don’t understand how out of control the government is. Laws only apply to certain people, not the politicians and not illegal aliens. We want the rule of law applied to everyone, and we want those laws and regulations to be a minimal burden on Americans in order to allow the free flow of ideas and commerce. It’s not government’s job or place to pick and choose winners and losers, or decide what you can eat, drive, how much electricity you can use. Or, whether you can breed your dog. It is governments role to build infrastructure and protect the people from things like terrorism.
.
It is not the government’s role to make a citizen have to purchase a product. That’s comparable to tyranny. The King decides that you must buy a cow from him. It’s for your benefit, so you can eat.

liberalmeltdown@10.2,

I love that King and cow line. May I steal it?

Did I miss, among the lists of all the “great” things Reagan did (like quadruple the national debt), the fact that he got ammesty for some illegal aliens through Congress? The current group of Tea Party activists who adore (maybe too light a term) Reagan also are among the strongest pushing to pack up 2,000,000 people and drive them back to Mexico even though a large number didn’t come from there.

Isn’t this kind of petty speculation beneath the level of journalism at Time? Whether the president is picking or is not picking a Super Bowl winner is of no consequence to real Americans. It’s probably politically smart to refrain from choosing sides in a game between two battleground state teams…
http://www.sunstateactivist.org

Well, both of you royally step in it.

Never overestimate the level of journalism at Time.

What I want to know is, who would actually modify their vote based on which football team a candidate came out for?

I know elections swing on low-attention voters, but that’s absolutely pathetic.

Believe it, Paul http://www.dailyillini.com/sports/football/2010/07/05/science-proves-correlation-between-football-election-results

The success of major college teams in the two weeks before an election can have a measurable impact on how well incumbent politicians do at the polls, researchers report in Tuesday’s edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“Events that government had nothing to do with, but that affect voters’ sense of well-being, can affect the decisions that they make on election day,” the researchers said.

The new study looked at elections for president, governor and senate between 1964 and 2008 and compared them to football results for 62 major college teams. The researchers found that wins in the two weeks before an election boosted the vote share of incumbents in the county where a school is located by 1.05 to 1.47 percentage points.

American sports writers and those who cover sports on television (e.g., ESPN, ESPN 2, ESPN Classic, ESPN News, ESPN U, ESPN Deportes, virtually all of those who cover sports on local television stations, et al.) are as militantly leftist and as virulently stupid as those writers/television personalities at ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, NPR, CNN, A-Mess-NBC, the New York Times-Democrat, the Washington Post-Democrat, the Associated (with terrorists) Press, et al.

Slipping again… you forgot Ladies’ Home Journal and Sports Illustrated on your list…