Random Obama Whoring TWO: Re-Elected

Since Election '12 is now history (thank the gods), I figure its time to revive that old thread with a new sequel thread.

Jon Huntsman recently was named as a possible alternate candidate to John Kerry for Secretary of State.

NPR says that Erskine Bowles (who co-chaired up the president's debt reduction commission) is a candidate to replace Geithner at Treasury.

But "a more likely choice might be Jack Lew, the current White House chief of staff and formerly the president's budget director."

http://www.npr.org/2012/11/12/164934...surys-geithner

EDIT - and Rasmussen has the President at his highest approval rating since July '09 w/ 54%. (Knowing their recent math troubles, should we assume it's actually 56%?)

At the least. More than likely it's around 58%.

Rasmussen as far as I have heard always leaned right. Didn't RR post a list of the most accurate to least accurate (on election thread) and Rasmussen was at the bottom with Gallup?

I'm guessing next election people will pay a little more attention to Nate Silver tho. Well, maybe not Fox News. They are in their own universe.



TIS

Actually I believe it's our own JL who posted that list.

Anyway, I'm also optimistic that serious Immigration Reform will be passed. The GOP base will riot, but let them and again let them wonder why they still can't win the Latino vote. God knows they won Obama his 2nd term. (Considering Obama deported more in his 1st term than I believe in Dubya's two terms.)

The same with a fiscal "grand bargain," even though again the GOP base will riot again. Sacrifices will have to be made, both bases will hate it, but I'm confident Obama can drag his base kicking and screaming as he did in '10 with that tax bill. (Boehner on the other hand, I don't.)

Is Obama still a Muslim, not born in the USA, and with dubious education credentials?

Yes....According to Trump

Reports state that John Kerry may be the leading candidate for Secretary of Defense, and Susan Rice may the leading candidate to replace Hillary as Secretary of State.

All I know is he's a Muslim AND an atheist too.

How Mitt Romney Finally Killed Reaganomics

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...eaganomics.html

New ABC Poll: 57% of Americans support finding a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants. 51% also support Gay Marriage. (5th straight poll finding plurality support since spring '11.)

This column was written back in October, about the President's two (obscure) successes.





http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/opinion/sunday/friedman-obamas-best-kept-secrets.html?_r=0

McCain is threatening a filibuster if Susan Rice is nominated for Secretary of State.

Also, Buffalo News Op-Ed is endorsing Hillary '16. Because it's never too early apparently.

http://www.buffalonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121113/OPINION/121119774/1074

Now this news should please most of our locals.

Santorum '16?

http://cognoscenti.wbur.org/2012/11/13/santorum-nominee-richard-albert

~The candidate for this new century. The 15th Century.

"Santorum?" Are you allowed to use that kind of language on these boards?

That's hilarious to the few that get it. To those that don't, don't ask.

I heard of that when a while back and it was a huge joke in various circles. BUT I would not have known hadn't I looked it up.


TIS

I'm glad to say I would not have known either if I hadn't Googled it.

Before GOP primary, if you googled it, it was the first result. He actually managed to send it down to the 6th or so link.

Report: Obama Signed Secret Cyberwar Directive In October

Less than a month before Election Day, President Obama signed a secret directive that clarifies what types of actions the military is allowed to take to protect the nation from cyber threats, the Washington Post reported Wednesday.

Called “Presidential Policy Directive 20,” the directive is an update to a 2004 directive issued by then President Bush. The new version “explicitly makes a distinction between network defense and cyber operations,” that is, attacks or offensive actions, a first for the government, according to The Post, which proceeds to outline just how the new directive might work in practice:

An example of a defensive cyber operation that once would have been considered an offensive act, for instance, might include stopping a computer attack by severing the link between an overseas server and a targeted domestic computer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nati...69c3_story.html

Remember when that "47%" gaffe hurt him? Here's the sequel.

Romney blames his loss on Obama "giving" people stuff



Or maybe Willard, you lost because your party's base (the same folks you catered to in the primaries) turned off those Latino voters, including a good 15-20% which once voted for Dubya in '04? Maybe those black voters refused to let the first black President be defeated for re-election? Maybe those young people, including post-graduates that on paper you should've been able to pick off but instead lost, turned out after all because of those gay marriage referendums in several states?

Asshole.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-election-campaign-donors-20121114,0,5622330.story

If all the reports are true that right up to the minute Obama was declared the winner, nobody in Romney's camp, including Romney, could believe he lost, I hope that they make this into a movie just like they did with "Game Change".

David Frum responds to Willard's "gifts" blame game.

-----------------------------------------------------

All voters want "stuff," Republicans as well as Democrats. If anything, Republican voters have been more successful at obtaining "stuff" than Democrats: Medicare is more generous than Medicaid, farm programs deliver better returns than means-tested programs.

The Romney-Ryan ticket did not stint on the stuff-offering itself: it promised Republican voters that all the cost of deficit reduction would be dumped on Democratic voters - voters under 55 - with Republicans gaining the additional benefit of a 20% cut in tax rates.

But Mitt Romney was very wrong to see 2012 as a referendum on "stuff." It was a referendum on the question, which candidate would do a better job promoting prosperity and creating jobs. That was the referendum that Romney and the Republican party lost. We lost both because voters did not believe in the job-creating magic of upper-income tax cuts - and because voters were unpersuaded that the GOP even cared that much about job creation, as opposed to wealth preservation.

That's the lesson defeated Republicans should be drawing. Governor Bobby Jindal gets it. Who else?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/15/mitt-still-doesn-t-get-it.html

Doesnt stop stupid generals from e mailing their girlfriends.

John McCain Gets Angry Over Questions About Missed Benghazi Briefing

McCain holds press conference demanding answers about Benghazi, then skips two-hour classified briefing with administration officials about the investigation. You can't make this up. I also heard he almost had a meltdown on CNN, but can't find any video.

Alas...we had a good run. /

I think I heard that by 2025, the Caucasian population will drop below 50%.....or was that 2050, below 25%. Jeez, I'll be 101 years old! Muy Bien! I hope they legalize marijuana by then.

I only had three kids because I read once that every fourth child born in the world is Chinese.

On JL's suggestion for a movie about Romney '12, who else heard about the $25,000 his camp allegedly spent on victory fireworks that would've fired over Boston Harbor?

If he had won, we wouldn't have thought twice about that. Now he just looks like (to quote Grover Norquist) a "poopyhead."

I heard that. From all reports, his whole campaign staff thought all the polls were wrong, and that he wasn't going to lose. I don't know if it's true or not, but it's also been reported that Romney never even had a concession speech. Supposedly the short speech he gave was written that night after Obama was declared the winner.

That wouldn't suprise me he's a cocky fuck hes not a good liar as obama is so he lost!!

That's a blunt of saying it, but instead of "liar" I would say better candidate.

Liar. Candidate. Same difference .

delete this

Ya'll have got to read this:

"President Obama is using a Cold War-era mind-control technique known as "Delphi" to coerce Americans into accepting his plan for a United Nations-run communist dictatorship in which suburbanites will be forcibly relocated to cities. That's according to a four-hour briefing delivered to Republican state senators at the Georgia state Capitol last month.

On October 11, at a closed-door meeting of the Republican caucus convened by the body's majority leader, Chip Rogers, a tea party activist told Republican lawmakers that Obama was mounting this most diabolical conspiracy. The event—captured on tape by a member of the Athens-based watchdog Better Georgia (who was removed from the room after 52 minutes)—had been billed as an information session on Agenda 21, a nonbinding UN agreement that commits member nations to promote sustainable development. In the eyes of conservative activists, Agenda 21 is a nefarious plot that includes forcibly relocating non-urban-dwellers and prescribing mandatory contraception as a means of curbing population growth. The invitation to the Georgia state Senate event noted the presentation would explain: "How pleasant sounding names are fostering a Socialist plan to change the way we live, eat, learn, and communicate to 'save the earth.'"

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/11/...ations-takeover

^^^wth? lol, people have too much time on their hands.

This one is interesting too! GOP stops at nothing when it comes to manipulating the election results.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012...-election-chart

McCain looked like an asshole on tv today that guy needs to go to one of his 14 houses and take a big dumb to get that look off his face

afs, this is something I've been upset about for a few years. Every ten years the state legislatures are charged with the responsibility of redrawing congressional district lines according to information from the Census. The Republicans won a majority in our PA State legislature and came up with the most ridiculous slicing up of PA one can imagine. My district was cut to eliminate Democratic areas, and stretched thinly for 85 miles til it reached a Republican area where it spread out.

There is absolutely no question that the gerrymandering was designed to minimize the statewide influence of Democrats generally and African Americans particularly.

But also, PA Republicans initiated an aggressive campaign to split our electoral votes in the Presidential election, so that our 20 electoral votes would be divided in the following way: 2 votes to the popular winner and the other 18 votes according to the winner in each of the 18 districts that they so creatively created.

If that measure had been passed, last week Romney would have been awarded 14 of PA's 20 electoral votes despite Obama winning the Commonwealth overall by at least 5 percentage points.

Well do you think your movie reviews come off as blunt? People have different opinions you start a rating system **** ***

Wow, Kly, that's really awful. I'm not sure why something as real and wicked as this is lost on some people. They sure like fictional scenarios such as Obama planing to move everyone to the cities though.

Fortunately, it wasn't really lost on the people. First, while the movement to apportion electoral votes in PA was advanced by a public interest group, which was acting as a veil for the State GOP, to portray the winner=take-all electoral system as undemocratic and unrepresentative, it became clear that the intent was to manipulate the outcome of the election, and the movement was defeated.

Yes, of course. Thank Goodness for that. But there's nothing to do about redistricting. That's going to change 10 years worth of elections. And not just in PA.

If you scanned some radio stations during the election all the rap stations were endorsing Obama; I find it funny he stands on stages with Jay Z despite his wealth look how it was bulit up that shouldn't be you want someone endorsing you for president he'll get you the votes but whats it saying to our fellow americans

I love our musicans of today in Hip-Hop Culture (Young Jezzy) - My President is black. (Meek Mills of Philadelphia ) My President is black my glock is too and I'll lock a block near you."

Jay Z made his money as a professional musician/entertainer, a very successful one at that. You know he's not actually a gangbanger, right? I mean you don't think Lady Gaga really dressed up for Halloween everyday either, do you?

You make it sound like Chris Brown endorsed him. Now THAT would be a true image problem.

That was posted at 4:00 a.m. I'm we;l aware of Jay Z's Status in America as being an enterperneur an entertainer

Senate GOP working on new DREAM lite bill?



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/15...Latino%20Voices



Drinking and typing don't go together.

lmaooo

I despise gerrymandering. Both parties do it, and people always get fucked pretty muchout of their Constitutional guarantee of representation (by the people, from the people...) Non-partisan gerrymandering is the solution a few states have adopted, and that would save us that stupid melodrama.

(I also suggest Congressional term limits. Sure most of those House seats are very Party-safe, but they would ensue at least primaries where you would get some actual local democracy. 12 years total, 6 House terms and 2 Senate terms.)

10-year-old Girl Writes to President Obama About Gay Marriage -- and He Writes Back

http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/10-old-girl-writes-president-obama-gay-marriage-222000648.html

What's non-partisan gerrymandering? Do you mean re-redistricting? Cause gerrymandering by definition is there to give an unfair edge to a certain party.

Just FYI, which I didn't know. Obama is the first sitting U.S. President to visit Cambodia and Myanmar, aka Burma.

He is probably the first president who is not Euro-centric. He really sees us from a Pacific perspective, which makes sense since he was raised in Hawaii and Indonesia.

He is also the first sitting president I have ever seen go bareoot into Buddhist temple.

I wonder what color the sky is on their planet.

Malia is taller than her father now.

Danito, that is a cute video and yea, both the girls are getting big. I like the turkeys, names Cobbler & Gobbler. I sent a clip to my grandkids. They will get a kick out of the turkey's response. :lol


TIS

NY Times: Obama talked with Egypt president Morsi 6 times over past few days to help broker Gaza ceasefire.

http://t.co/WJtN8KP4

...why?

President Obama a popular choice for Italians as a favorite figurine for traditional nativity scenes

http://www.reuters.com/video/2012/11/08/obama-figurine-back-on-top-of-list-for-i?videoId=238985527

Anyone catch him making the sign of the cross when he pardoned the Turkey? I can't believe he has not received holy hell for this gesture.

"IN NOMINE PATRIS ET FILII ET SPIRITUS SANCTI"

Reagan may have done it during his second term, but by that time he probably thought he was at the beach.

Jeb Bush mulling Presidential Run

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/23/us/pol...amp;_r=0&hp

Call me pessimistic, but I just think he's pissing against the wind. I know his Dad expected him, not George the fratboy, to become President. But that time has come and gone. Last two national elections the Democrats have thrown Dubya under the bus over the economy, and say the economy does continue to improve, the Dems will gladly throw Dubya under the wheels again. (Republicans still run against Jimmy Carter.) This is especially not good for a guy with "Bush" for a last name.

My advice? That Ken doll Marco Rubio is obviously running for President. He was once upon a time your political apprentice down in Florida. Back him up as an advisor and campaign surrogate. Who knows, if Rubio wins you could end up being his running mate or score a plum Cabinet, Ambassadorship posting.

Florida cop volunteers to assassinate Obama.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2012/11/23/obama-florida-cop-resigns-assassination/1722063/

I'm reminded of back in '96 when Bubba actually feared Lamar Alexander, who tanked in the national GOP primaries that year. (Bubba expected, wanted Bob Dole and got him.)

The GOP candidate Obama feared the most? (It wasn't Romney)



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...o=feeds-newsxml

~Huntsman's campaign was doomed when he tweeted that he believed in Evolution.

I think that's just the Obama people rubbing salt in Willard's wounds. There's no love lost there.

Huntsman's tremendous wealth, deep ties to Mormonism and stance on evolution would have made him just as unelectable as Romney.

Actually I thought Huntsman seemed the most "normal" candidate to run against Obama. He and his daughters who campaigned with him all seemed "likeable" and knowledgable. The other candidates came off as nutjobs IMHO. With the exception of Romney who wasn't necessarily a nutjob but seemed too mechanical or "unhuman" so to speak, or out of touch.

Yet, it's the season for nutjobs in the GOP so Huntsman really never stood a chance I guess.


TIS

I always thought Huntsman was the best GOP candidate. His problem was that he was unwilling to "bend" his beliefs to appeal to the far right the way that Romney did. In Romney's defense, he had to do that to get the nomination. I honestly wonder what Romney would have said if he was asked if he believed in evolution. At least with Huntsman he would tell you what he really thought.

He would have said that his opinion is evolving on the subject .

I had to laugh at the picture of Mitt pumping his own gas. He looked so tattered & unkempt for Mitt. I'm guessing he and his wife are relieved it's over and doubt he'll ever run for office again. They can't take the heat.



TIS

Well, if Romney can't take the heat, he'll have to tell his servants to get out of the kitchen

Maybe the dog kicked him out and Mitt was riding on top of the car.

Completely agree.

Ha ha ha I know. Usually there's not a hair out of place. He looked liked he just rolled out of bed.

TIS

A photo of Ann and Mitt Romney that was posted on Facebook with the caption, "Hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving! Much to be thankful for this year."

That IS true we DO have much to be thankful for Mitt.

Nice picture. They both look relaxed (relieved). Also, looks like a nice house. I wonder which way to the car elevator.




TIS

^^LOL, your right TIS. I am thankful for four more years!

Rev. Franklin Graham: God may have to ruin our economy because Obama was reelected

http://www.opednews.com/populum/linkrss.php?f=Rev-Franklin-Graham-think-in-Daily-Kos-121124-64.html

So typical. God is destroying the economy, but the right wingers blame the black guy.

Why punish everybody? Why not send all the Obama voters to hell instead?

Funny!

I haven't seen that last pic before. That's hilarious.




TIS

Notice that if Romney had won, he would've said it was God's will. But Obama's win wasn't by the will of God because...because...because...LOOK, ELVIS! *jumps into car and speed off*

Such wreckless pissing away of Moral Authority by such religious right "leaders", along with Bristol Palin promoting abstinence and the Catholic Church loudly campaigning against Gay Marriage (but not child sex crimes committed by the Priesthood), is doing wonders to tarnish not just social conservatism and that political bloc, but organized religion in general in America. I can't blame all those Americans, swelling in ranks, refusing to associate themselves with any religion. (Of course that doesn't mean most of them are atheists, I don't think they are. They just don't want to be associated with these assholes.)

So keep it up Franky. Remember IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE with "Each time a bell rings, an angel gets its wings?" Well let me write up a new Rule based off that: Each time you (and your ilk) open your mouth and speak for the Almighty Lord, more Gays get married.

That's so Phony I doubt they know how to cook a decent meal. They just posed for the camera. I remember when Romney came to Montgomery County, PA and the former mayor of Phila ( Ed Rendell) blitzed him, Romney couldn't even order a sandwich from a touchscreen monitor in WAWA ( a local conveinent store chain in PA n NJ)

LOL, They probably kicked the maid out of the kitchen for the photo shoot.



TIS

Morgan Freeman!

GOP-led States warming up to Obamacare

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-led-states-start-warming-health-care-law-182557927.html

He's a sack of shit if I made $52K a day I would be in NJ helping people.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Why Sarah Palin should be the 2016 GOP nominee -- seriously

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-palin-20121126,0,2243156.story

Is Charlotte Allen actually a deep cover Democratic operative?
Because that's the only way her essay makes sense.

Wishful thinking on her part. Once she opens her mouth, left will have a field day.

I hope she is do the Dems can kick some more butt.

FP is reporting that Former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel (R) is being vetted by the White House for a top national security posting. He could be up for contention for either Secretary of State and Defense.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/...l_security_post

I remember Hagel. Tho I don't know a lot about him, I know he was in the military and from what I know and have heard he is more moderate Republican and not a total whack job, right? He seemed "ok" to me. The fact that the article says he disagreed with Bush, is a plus. We know he's not a lapdog for the GOP. Anyone know a lot about him?


TIS

I do know he had spoken out against Bush policies while in the Senate, and lately has spoken out against the far right taking over the Republican Party. By today's standards, he's definitely among the most moderate Republicans out there.

New Fish species named after Obama

Etheostoma Obama, the Spangled Darter

5 new fish species discovered/reclassified in my state of Tennessee, the other 4 after Presidents Teddy Roosevelt, Clinton and Carter, and fmr. Vice-President Gore.

(And no offense, but Teddy of that bunch deserved that honor the most.)

http://www.buzzfeed.com/summeranne/barack-obama-now-has-a-fish-named-after-him

Irony: The Obama administration charged 6 whistleblowers/leakers under the 1917 Espionage Act, more than all the past Presidents combined.

Obama Signs Whistle-Blower Protection Law

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2012/11/28/...kuscare00000004

Ronny correct me if I'm wrong but aren't members of congress protected from insider trading that's why their all millionaires and tbis country has gone to shit. I mean no one will work with "obama" IMO they need to get Bohner out of government the guy IMO is a racist ..

Yes they are protected. A rule written by...Congressmen. The Golden Rule is he who has the gold makes the rules.

It's why Congress is also notorious for voting raises for themselves. (By tradition, whenever they do and threatens to outearn the President, he/she automatically earns a salary bump. Why? Because the POTUS is by tradition the highest paid officeholder in the federal government. #2? Postmaster General. Why?!?)

insider trading by congress (except for their families) was banned earlier this year by obama

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/19/politics/stock-act-loophole/index.html

Not so. Only the Congress may pass federal legislation. The President may only sign such legislation, veto such legislation, or do nothing reagarding such legislation.

I know. The congress passed the Stock Act and the President signed it. This article isnt that clear.

"The Stock Act is an Act of Congress designed to combat insider trading. It was signed into law by President Barack Obama on April 4, 2012. The bill prohibits the use of non-public information for private profit, including insider trading by members of Congress and other government employees. It confirms changes to the Commodity Exchange Act, specifies reporting intervals for financial transactions.

The bill was introduced by United States Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) on January 26, 2012, and passed in the Senate by a 96-3 vote.Later the House of Representatives passed it by a 400-2 vote. The bill went through a conference committee before final passage"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act

Obama Quietly Working Towards Climate Deal



http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-12...gotiations-rage

The President in the next 2 weeks will apparently announce the new Secretaries for State and Defense. Hagel is indeed on the shortlist for Defense. Rice is still favored at State, but the POTUS is worried about the confirmation fight ahead for her.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2012/12/04/obama-to-announce-new-cabinet-members.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Fpolitics+%28The+Daily+Beast+-+Politics%29

Is the Obama administration and Europe working on an "Economic" NATO?

US/EU free trade treaty gains momentum

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/d...ss_todays-opeds

All the talk about about a really poor jobs report coming out today turned out to be untrue as almost 150K jobs were added, and unemployment fell to a 4 year low of 7.7%. Yes, many have stopped looking for jobs, but the numbers were still much better than expected.

Of course, if you tune into Fox today and tomorrow morning you will hear its commentators state that the numbers are due to Christmas season hiring.

Fox has a spin for everything.

Funny take on it from Politico:

"POLITICO Breaking News
-------------------------------------------------
The economy added 146,000 jobs in November while unemployment fell to 7.7 percent, the Labor Department reported Friday. Analysts had estimated the November jobs number would come in at around 85,000 to 95,000. "

Two things:
1. Once again we see another month of positive jobs growth and unemployment creeps down. Which means it shouldn't be too long until we hear conservatives questioning the BLS again.

2. Who are these analysts and how do they consistently underestimate the numbers by nearly 50% and still keep their jobs?

#1 - I thought they already have? God knows if the economy continues it's (lathargic) recovery at this rate, they'll have to be able to publicly discredit BLS or else the Democratic '16 standard bearer will win big. Like 400+ EVs. (I can easily see her doing that.)

Barring no major scandals or fiascos in the meantime, of course.

#2 - They must've been hired under Clinton because they're following his political motto: Underpromise and Overdeliver. (Unlike the reverse as most of his women say. *drumroll*)

Wow, you're already coming out in support of Hillary in 2016, Ronnie?

I never heard that Clinton was a one pump chump, Ronnie.

Michelle Obama for Senate?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/06/michelle-obama-illinois-senate_n_2252869.html

No. But she seems to be the early favorite for that nomination. (Of course look how well that went for her 4 years ago.) And I actually somewhat buy the logic of that argument. Of course 4 years might as well be 40 years.

Plus shortly after the election, National Journal asked pundits/operatives from both parties to draw up who they think will be the nominees for both parties. Both were split on the GOP's standard bearer, Christie and Rubio and Jeb Bush duked it out. Both sides shared the same #1 forecast for the Dems: Hillary.

Traditionally in the last 50+ years, Vice-Presidents of twice-elected administrations you naturally assume would get that party's next nomination. (Nixon, Bush, and Gore.) Cheney decided not to run, out of health and probably wouldn't have won the GOP nomination anyway if he had.

Is anybody in the Democratic Party actually excited about a potential Joe Biden presidency except for Joe himself? God knows he would be a great stimulus for the Comedy industry. But otherwise it's odd that he could run in '16, and be the underdog in his own party. If the odds of winning that nomination are pretty slim with Hillary in therace, Biden won't run again and will retire to Delaware, if at least to keep himself from being humiliated as the first incumbent Vice-President to lose a national primary campaign for President.

No.

Sorry but Hillary was a politician in her own right, with her own ambitions. Despite not being a New Yorker, she pulled a Robert Kennedy and was able to be elected to the Senate regardless. As a Presidential candidate, she scored 11 million primary votes and seems to be considered by the public to be a successful Secretary of State despite having little to no significant diplomatic accomplishments in her term.

Now mind you we don't know these public figures really. But the First Lady, she's not Hillary. Yes she's well liked, that's because she's been a prop (a very successful one) for the President, she's championed cookie cutter, nonoffensive issues and causes. Not to mention I just don't sense the drive, that natural ambition, that ego. Plus I don't think she necessarily has the political skills to pull off a campaign. (or maybe she does but it's obscured by her role? I don't know.)

I'm reminded of a few years back when Hillary resigned from the Senate to be SOS, and of course her replacement was to be appointed. Caroline Kennedy for awhile was the emotional favorite, and she went for it. Except she bungled it and was just not cut out for politics on that level. Eventually she faded away in favor of Kristen Gillibrand, who just won re-election with 72%(!) of the vote.

She could be a future serious national candidate. Hell for all we know, if Hillary doesn't run '16, Gillibrand could be our first female President.

She is a Harvard law graduate. I read that she was told to act as a prop, so that the angry black woman image she previously presented does not ruin her husband's prospects. To be fair, even in Hillary's case, the angry white woman (saying she is not the type that stays at home and makes cookies) did not help her case. The fact that she isn't Hillary makes her even more electable. As for having no ego, I can't say. If this was all an act, we'll know later on. But I wouldn't be surprised to see her run.

Michelle Obama is extremely intelligent, articulate, driven and well liked and electable. I have no idea whether she has any interest in serving as a senator or even running for office.

I have no idea what her 2016 plans are, but if I had to take a guess, I see her returning to academia, probably as Dean of Students at Univ. of Chicago Law School where she previously worked. I'm guessing she would want family time.

As for her husband, I see the possibility of an appointment to the Supreme Court, like Taft, some time after his term if he were so inclined.

I don't think Michelle Obama would even consider running for office. I just don't see it.

As far as Hillary goes, IMHO she's been a great Sec. of State and I think she definitely would be the frontrunner should she decide to run for President. However, I know she hated by many and it seems many haters are men. I wonder if there isn't still a little chauvinism toward a strong woman as a leader. Do the same qualities that make a man a good leader, make a woman a bitch (in some people's eyes)???

TIS

Four years to go, Tis. So I don't want to get into this yet. But Hillary has female critics as well as male. Not as many, but they're there. I know more than a few women who were put off by her "standing by her man," when in fact she only did as much to further her political dreams.

The fact is, Hillary HAS been a good Senator and SOS. But if not for the Lewinsky sympathy vote, there's a good possibility that her political career never would have gotten off the ground. She traded in a bad marriage for a Senate seat and never looked back. I give her credit for that. She's as Machiavellian as Michael Corleone .

I'll be shocked if Hillary doesn't run. No matter what she says now, I fully expect her to take some time off, recharge her batteries, and be all-in for 2016.

Agree. I've thought that ever since she announced she would be leaving after this term. A new PPP poll out this monday has Hillary leading Biden for the '16 Democratic nomination. By 50 points. (61-12). Jesus. Right now it looks too good to pass up. (Oh dear, did I just jinx her? Sorry DailyKos.)

As much as I might've poo-pahed her SOS run, it did make her look Presidential to the public. In the early years of our Republic, Secretary of State (not Vice-President) was seen as the stepping stone to the Presidency because so many SOSs would later become President, plus as SOS you could actually do shit unlike VP. (We joke about how useless the VP is now, but it was even worse back then.) Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Quincy Adams, Van Buren, and Buchanan. (Not including SOSs who were nominated for President but lost like Clay, Cass, Blaine, Bryan, and Hughes.)

If as the Democratic base back in '08 had gotten what they demanded and Hillary was VP, she never would've have had the recent opportunity to demonstrate herself as a capable public official and administrator with the Gaza episode, doing frantic shuttle diplomacy. (Reportedly during a dinner gala event at wherever she was, I guess Cambodia, she would excuse herself periodically work the phones throughout the evening without the other guests/hosts apparently aware.)

One thing historically held against women was whether they can perform competently under heavy public pressure or not in such (let's admit it) shitty high stakes jobs held by men? And Hillary herself at times has failed that smell test. I reminded of back in the '08 campaign when at one point she reportedly whined to her inner-circle that the media was being too soft on Obama because he was black, and too tough on her because she was a woman.

(I remember at the time the late ultra-leftist writer Christopher Hitchens on MSNBC calling her a crybaby for forever demanding respect from the male establishment in spite of her sex, but then pull the gender card when things didn't go her way.)



Dumb luck, or more politely known as "favorable circumstances," are half of everything in politics.

Senator Hillary with national aspirations voted for war with Iraq because on that issue the GOP bucked tradition and the party in power at the White House actually gained seats in both houses. She wasn't alone in her party, she was joined with future Vice-President Biden and future tabloid pariah John Edwards. Nobody foresaw the quagmire to come. All 3 ran for President in '08. That vote haunted Hillary, and Obama (back in '02/'03 opposed the war vocally as a State Senator) used that to hammer her as an establishment figure no wiser than Dubya.

In '94, both Bush brothers ran for Governor with Jed reputedly seen by Bush Sr. as the family heir apparent, groomed to become a future President. Jed lost, Dubya won.

In '04, in Obama's run for the U.S. Senate his would-be Republican rival was Jack Ryan, who after winning his state party's nomination withdrew from the race after his divorce papers were unsealed and which documented him dragging his then-wife actress Jeri Ryan to sex clubs and try to engage in exhibition sex. The Illinois GOP waved the white flag on that race when they nominated out of state resident Alan Keyes to take Ryan's place.

Speaking of Bush Sr., in 1970 he lost a close Senate election in Texas, his second Senate race defeat and was washed up as a elected official. Nixon offered another Texan in John Connally the job as Secretary of Treasury, which he accepted on the condition that Nixon give H.W. Bush a job in the administration as reward for challenging that seat. In the 1970s he would be appointed as Ambassador to the U.N.,director of the C.I.A., Envoy to China, and as RNC Chairman. All this visibility without winning another office that decade allowed him to run for President in '80, and of course be elected Vice-President that year. Without Connally's help, No President Bush, No President Dubya.

Or better yet, this past election. Would bigshot GOP candidates like Christie and Jeb Bush and Huckabee have passed on running if they knew the unemployment rate in America on Election Day wouldbe 7.9% Oh no, they figured (as CW did) that the rate would be much lower by then and Obama would be invincible. Opps.

Hey Lilo,

Did you see The President in Redford/MI at the diesel factory today?




TIS

The President, if he's still gung-ho on going after Washington/Colorado for their pot, needs to read this. Mr. President, don't let your 2nd term go up in smoke.

Gallup poll: 64% Americans against Feds enforcing anti-marijuana laws in weed-legal states

http://www.gallup.com/poll/159152/americans-federal-gov-state-marijuana-laws.aspx

Scientists Name Extinct Lizard ‘Obamadon gracilis ’ After President

http://www.boston.com/news/science/blogs...sYphM/blog.html

The White House's top health official made clear on Monday that it would not fund a partial Medicaid expansion for states that choose not to embrace the new funding under the Affordable Care Act.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wrote a letter to governors saying the administration "continue[s] to encourage all states to fully expand their Medicaid programs."

In an accompanying blog post, she declared that "the law does not create an option for enhanced match for a partial or phased-in Medicaid expansion to 133 percent of poverty."

In other words, the states must take all or nothing. That sets up a dilemma for Republican governors, who have to decide whether to stonewall Obamacare or accept the generous funding to cover their low-income uninsured residents.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/en...icaid-expansion

Susan Rice withdraws from Secretary of State consideration

Probably just as well. If she couldn't stand the heat already, she'd crack under pressure from the job later on.

She was never even officially nominated yet, but got a taste of going thru the wringer that's for sure. John McCain is likely doing his dance of joy until his next complaint that is.

On the other hand, I have no problem with John Kerry, should he get it. Funny how I have heard several Republicans, while trashing Rice, hinting that Kerry would be good. Likely the same a-holes trashing Kerry's record when he ran, (for protesting war because after all nobody protested the Viet Nam war right?) .

Btw, HP is running a story indicated that Republican Chuck Hagle is likely Sec. of Defense. I actually think I'd be ok with that. I never minded Hagle.


TIS

Unless they asked her to fall on her sword; then she's a really stand-up gal. But truth be told, I'm leaning towards what SC posted.

i personaly would vote for hillary,amongst other things many of yous have said,shes honest.she hasnt been corrupted by a life-time in politics.like,obama, she seems like she still has morals and isnt the kind of person to sell out her values in order to apease a 'super-pact' which is another devil with in itself.

not that my opinion matters any ways. i havent been able to vote since 1978.lol.

Sure you can, Sit. You can't be disenfranchised in New York State anymore unless you're incarcerated or still on parole. Unless you're on lifetime parole??

i didnt think so.not that im up-to-date on modern voting laws,but ive been told i wouldnt be able to. ive actually never voted. 1976,the last thing on my mind was the presidential election.hell my mother registered me for the selective service.i never did none of that. how sure are you on that?i havent been on parole since '92.or probation since 95.

I think PizzaBoy is correct about that. Once you have totally completed your sentence you should be able to register to vote again in NY. I think it varies in different states but NY i'm almost positive will let you vote again after your sentence has been totally completed.

Depending on what you were convicted of i think you can also file to have your record expunged after 10 years from the date your sentence was over. Some crimes can't be expunged though so it depends on what you were convicted of or pled guilty to. Again different states have different qualifications for expungement of a criminal record so it depends on what state you went to court in. I'm not 100% positive but i don't think you can have a conviction in federal court expunged.

Here's a bit of trivia. Obama will be the only president other than FDR to take the oath of office four times. In his first term, you will recall Justice Roberts botched the oath, and he went to the White House the following day and swore him in a second time just to make sure. This time, Jan 20 falls on a Sunday, so he will be sworn in on that day in the WH so we have a president as of noon when his first term offficially ends. Then on Monday the 21 he will be sworn in again at a public ceremony where he will deliver his inaugural address.

Without hard proof, I guarantee that the White House nicely, politely told Rice that her guaranteed contentious hearing would use up way too much political capital that the WH hopes to use to fight the GOP on taxes and debt ceiling (i.e. when they hold our economy hostage again), and pass comprehensive immigration reform early next year.

Not to mention Rice had been getting some heat from the Left on the Keystone oil pipline and for not doing enough regarding Congo, Syria, yada yada.

Final percentages show election wasn't even close.

Obama seems all but certain to achieve a mark hit by only five others in U.S. history - winning the presidency twice with 51% or more of the popular vote."


TIS

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/1...YuN3aqA.twitter

An astute observation.

Right-wing preemptively smearing Chuck Hagel before the upcoming confirmation hearings.

Apparently saying you're worried about America's interests first before any other foreign power, including Israel, makes you an anti-semite. At least that's the bullshit vibe I got from this hit piece.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324907204578185223495090066.html

Gallup: Obama's approval rating is now 56%.

Of course since this is Gallup*, I say it's actually 59%.

*=They like Rasmussen will need many showers to clean off the stink from their '12 polling fiasco.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/159440/obama-approval-highest-october-2009.aspx

It's probably higher than that right now. Between the hurricane and the tragedy in Connecticut he has shown himelf to be more "human" than any of the GOP candidates from earlier this year. That emotion wasn't staged or politically motivated. The man really cares.

Bush had roughly a 90% approval rating after 9/11, he really cares too!

I always believed that. I never thought Bush to be a bad guy.

I think they all care in there own ways. But who would want that job? I don't care how much people approve of me, you can't do anything without a camera up your ass! Can't go to a store in peace, play a round of golf! All the headaches and hassles! Not for me. Which is why I quoted the great Archibald Bunker below.

Ego. It's the pinnacle of every ambitious American politician. It's why it'll be hard for Obama when he leaves office for everything else afterwards will only go downhill, come up short. Notice what Clinton has done since leaving office: Campaigning, whether for his charities or for other Democrats. Alot like fellow Southern governor George Wallace, I think he genuinely loves to campaign, and just can't get away from it.

But beyond that, I like to think most at some point want to become POTUS so they can reshape America hopefully for the better good, leave behind a legacy for subsequent Presidents to follow and deal with. This partly ties into ego as well.

Seriously! Its all diwn hill, what is there left to accomplish? The living presidents are just a bunch of busy bodies who nobody wants around. Jimmy Carter most of all. Everything that guy touches turns to crap.

Ignorant.

Whatever one's political opinions on him, Carter with his Carter Center has been a leader in exterminating the shit out of Guinea worm disease in Africa. In 1986, there was 3.5 million cases of Guinea Worm Disease. In 2009, 3,185 total cases. Is that "crap"?

Then again George W. Bush's greatest, unfortunately most unheralded accomplishment from his Presidency was his PEPFAR (President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) initiative in Africa.

What never heard of it? Not surprised, I've never heard the GOP seriously trumpet this policy triumph, and in fact many people in D.C. from the Congressional GOP to President Obama have proposed cuts in PEPFAR. What exactly is PEPFAR?



http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-...viral-treatment

Ignorant is stating a Presidents greatest feat was to erradicate worm disease in a country thesize of Rhode Island! Thats your best defense for Jimmy "Peanuts" Carter. Even more ignorant is calling an opinion ignorant. You can do better than worm disease.

Growing up, I wanted to be President. Of course, back then, I never understood how arduous was the job as you've described.

By the way, it's "their".

First off, it was only a colloquial nickname for Dracunculiasis, a disease that once ravaged 20 countries in Asia and Africa. (Now only 4, all in Africa.) Try Google sometime.

2nd, Carter as President did what no subsequent President has pulled off: A peace deal in the Middle East. Pretty much his one achievement, but a good one.

3rd, why am I arguing with the ignorant? You can't win.

And he still doesn't get enough credit for it. Even Matt Damon, as Hollywood lefty as they come, has heaped praise upon Bush for PEPFAR.

The President's inauguration will have a twist. He will take the oath on two bibles: Abraham Lincoln's, which he used in 2009, and Martin Luther King's private bible. The symbolism is unmistakable as Obama will be facing the Lincoln Memorial (where King delivered his "I Have a Dream Speech" fifty years ago) on Martin Luther King Day.

As dontomasso pointed out a few weeks ago, Obama will take an earlier private oath on Sunday, the 20th, for constitutional reasons. He will be using the bible belonging to the family of his wife.

Ross Douthat wrote this for the NYT for the Big O's real 2nd Inaugural Address.

------------------------------------------------------------

"I got tax increases without entitlement cuts, I flipped the script on the culture war, and now Marco Rubio is going to help me pass an immigration bill.

I’m still up for a grand bargain, but I don’t need one: The economy’s limping back, the deficit should stabilize in the short run, and the long term — well, that’s my successor’s problem.

I’d like to win on gun control and climate change, but I’ll settle for making the case and seeing whether a Biden administration (you only think I’m kidding) can finish the job. Sure, second terms can be dicey propositions. But as long as I don’t get impeached or start a land war in Asia, I’m feeling pretty good about my legacy.

And oh, you centrist chin-strokers who kept saying I was no Clinton? You were absolutely right.

I’m the liberal Reagan. Deal with it,"

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/20/opinio...peech.html?_r=0

Some odd presidential trivia:

If President Obama completes his second term, he will become the first brown-eyed president to serve two full terms. Since 1900 the only other brown-eyed presidents were Lyndon Johnson and Nixon. Prior to that John Quincy Adams, Andrew Johnson and Chester Alan Arthur were the only brown-eyed presidents (Historians can't confirm whether or not William Henry Harrison's eyes were brown).

Man you just jinxed him, klydon.

I seem to recall something in the Book of Revelation about a brown-eyed leader, Armeggedon, etc.

Yeah, the whole anti-Christ thing. I think it all went to hell when Kneau Reeves shot Al Pacino.

Don't forget to watch the President's State of hte Union address Tuesday night.

WOW. This guy sure grew a pair after getting re-elected!

His speech sure made Marco Rubio thirsty.

Fun Fact: First SOTU address in a deccade to not mention Iraq.

Honestly the Opposition Response to me is a shitty gig that's considered a big political score. You're for the most part having to respond to a speech you haven't heard yet (maybe read since advance copies are given to the press on the day of the Address) and when the incumbent usually goes for a collective, positive and unifying theme of "let's fix some stuff!"....you come off in response as being a partisan dick. (Which is the point of the Opposition Response, but nevermind.) Worse you have zero audience feedback doing your speech in a room with you and TV crew.

Not the best gig for aspiring Presidential candidates to make a national splash. Ironically Gerald Ford gave the first televised Opposition Response.

In short, as long as Rubio didn't pull a Bobby Jindal trainwreck, he did fine. And I say that without seeing it. Well except for this.

Good point Ronnie. I heard someplace that Chris Christie turned it down. If thats true it was a good move on his part. It really is a terrible gig, and I am surprised whichever party is not in the white house doesn't trot out someomne more seasoned, and less partisan, who can say how great the US is and how he/she respetfully disagrees with the president. They should save the rising stars for the Sunday talk shows. If we have to put up with Rubio for four years before the next presidential election people will be sick of him too soon.

In addititon to that, I think it's so obvious that the GOP is trying so hard to portray itself as embracing inclusiveness. It reminds me of that episode of Everybody Loves Raymond, wherein, in an attempt to illustrate his participation in domestic chores around the house, he goes shopping and buys all of the wrong things.

How true, Oli. All I can think of is Lindsey Graham pointing to Rubio and saying, "Some of my best friends are Hispanics."

Absolutely. The country knows him already after that hurricane. If anything, I predict he'll do everything possible to maintain that mainstream shine until the '16 primaries. (Save for '14 mid-terms when he'll go stump for state/local Republicans, after he easily wins re-election this fall.)

I've said it before, he's the one GOPer in '16 I would fear if I were the Democrats. (Notice his weight is still an "issue.")



I just think they're fooling themselves to believe he'll win (or split hard) the Latino vote because he's Hispanic. This "Hispanic" bloc is made up of a bunch of nationalities, and one strike against Rubio is that he's Cuban and that's a whole social-economical world away from Mexicans. The latter a long time reliable Democratic bloc, the Cuban-Americans used to be for the GOP as well. (Except trends seem to suggest the younger C-As are going Democratic.)

What do I mean? Ignorant people believe black people in mass voted for Obama because he was black. They voted for him because their politics agreed with his politics. Its why you rarely see black Republican elected officials, and when they do happen, usually (if not all) from mostly white districts who probably vote Republican anyway.

If Rubio (if his Response address last night seemed to suggest, which I've not seen/read yet mind you) pitches more or less what McCain and Romney and the same stale message from the 1980s in 2016 except he's brown...he'll only marginally do better with the Latino vote.

Sure someone will bring up his involvement with immigration reform. But one must also remember, most of his early national polling support is from the Tea Party/conservative base. At some point he will either have to go along with whatever plan Obama backs and try to manage his way in '16, or he'll turn on the Obama plan and blast it for Democratic outreach (no matter how illogical) or whatever to keep that base from turning on him.

Then again 3 years might as well for 30 years away.

The Rubio response seemed to be a rehash of Mitt Romney's failed campaign. But it's a tough gig. The Rand Paul Tea Party response, which I didn't view, was the alternative for those Republicans, who still have a problem with the Hispanic thing.

It must have been pretty uncomfortable for Boehner when the President demanded that Congress should bring gun control proposals to a vote. Boehner will do anything to avoid having to bring an issue like universal background checks to a vote when his party would have to vote against the opinion of 92% of the nation in order to appease the NRAA leadership.

And finally, shame on Alito, Thomas and Scalia for not attending the State of the Union.

I'm surprised they didn't try to get Ryan to do it. He already has the partisan dick part down pat, so it would have been a perfect role for him.

I think Rubio did fine.

Ryan already did that gig.

As we've mentioned before there is plenty of room for honest vigorous criticism of the President and his policies. Unfortunately the national Republican party would rather cater to people who aren't sure the right side won the Civil war and whose idea of debate is telling the President of the United States to suck on something.

While that may still play well in some areas, the facts are it's no longer enough for the Republicans to win nationally. Eventually the Republicans will either drop the pretense and become an explicitly white nationalist party and lose even more decisively in 2016 and beyond OR they can drop the over the top rhetoric and pull themselves back from the brink of demographic and electoral irrelevance.

Republicans still have the majority of governorships and the House. They could still mount an effective political comeback in 2014 and 2016 if they can drop or at least downplay some of their fixation on social issues and stop talking about millions of their fellow Americans as if they are foreign or subhuman. Republican governors like Rick Snyder (who is very right wing) have figured this out.

Losing 4 of the last 6 presidential elections should have set off at least some soul-searching among Republicans. But it doesn't look like it. Eventually I expect the Republican Party to go the way of the Whigs.

Very scathing review yesterday from the very leftwing Politico about the lack of transparency in this administration.

Obama, the puppet master
By JIM VANDEHEI and MIKE ALLEN | 2/18/13 10:29 PM EST

Barack Obama is a master at limiting, shaping and manipulating media coverage of himself and his White House.

Not for the reason that conservatives suspect: namely, that a liberal press willingly and eagerly allows itself to get manipulated. Instead, the mastery mostly flows from a White House that has taken old tricks for shaping coverage (staged leaks, friendly interviews) and put them on steroids using new ones (social media, content creation, precision targeting). And it’s an equal opportunity strategy: Media across the ideological spectrum are left scrambling for access.

The results are transformational. With more technology, and fewer resources at many media companies, the balance of power between the White House and press has tipped unmistakably toward the government. This is an arguably dangerous development, and one that the Obama White House — fluent in digital media and no fan of the mainstream press — has exploited cleverly and ruthlessly. And future presidents from both parties will undoubtedly copy and expand on this approach.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/obama-the-puppet-master-87764.html#ixzz2LLkLfr8x

Cant say Im an Obama fan, however no matter who it is takes shit from either side! Politics for these people is just that! Its to the point where they vote for power, cash or to stick it to the other side. Us poor schmucks are never considered. However does nobody stand back and say " this guy is our leader" lets at least put up a false front and show support. Just a surface fake. We look like on of those families where everyone laughs at us because everyone in the family hates each other. Its gross.

I wanted the meteor to hit him. He is doing such a poor job on the economy they should take away air force 1 from him.

He thinks he needs a raise now. Who idea was sequester want it Obama's ?

Why didn't Obama care limit tge amount of mal practice awards. Obama care would have been a lot cheaper.

I heard after 5 pm he stops being president and plays with his iPad like a little kid.

He plays golf with tiger woods and just leaves his wife at home. I guess nice arms get you just so far.

The states with republican governors are doing much better then the states with democrats as governors. That should tell you something if your a reasonable man.

I try to be resonable, my only point was I dont care about who we are stuck with. My point was its politics as usual. People are the pawns in this game and it shouldnt be like that. These fuckers work for us, problem today is the people who actually work have less say than the people who dont.

When Obama first got in American companies down sized like in the 80s.

Well they are doing it again. No one can say the economy is getting better under Obama.

My son has been told to let go a ton of people. He also sees the hand writing on the wall so he is looking to move on before it happens to him as well.

2 hard ware or office supply chains are merging I forget which. When that happens 17 local stores will be closed.

Nice to be retired so I don't have to deal with this stuff.

Nice to be retired so I don't have to deal with this stuff. [/quote]


Yup! Just threw my alarm clock away last week!

Every modern American President, from Eisenhower on, both Republican and Democrat, has played golf with the world's best players of the time. Not just Obama. Now don't get me wrong, there are plenty of things to get on Obama about. But playing golf isn't one of them.

But like I said, if you want to blame him for something, start with the economy that's no better five years after he took office than the day he was sworn in. And don't give me stats and unemployment figures. I know what I see every day. The poor people in this country are no better off today than they were under Bush.

And speaking of Dubya, I've always maintained that he was an idiot in way over his head. But the statute of limitations for blaming him is over. By that logic, you could blame the economy on George Washington (whose wife stayed home and baked cookies).

^Agreed PB 100%. I'm tired of hearing people blaming G.W. for our current problems. I'll be the FIRST to admit Dubya was not the greatest President, but it's our current President's responsibility to take the steps necessary to fix our economy and state of affairs. While this is not an easy task, I just see Obama is an idealist who fans the flames of a non existent class war, uses weasel words to make his politics seem reasonable and doesn't have it in him to lead the US.

Some things I agree with. His stance on immigration, gays, gun control (somewhat), and other issues I think are enlightened. But when it comes to the economy he has no clue.

I think it's really important that we all remember exactly how bad things were when President Obama took office and where we are now. For example the DJIA was at 8,000. It's at 14,000 now. This country was on the brink of a depression and was bleeding jobs when he got started. It has since recovered all the jobs lost and added slightly more. Corporate profits are at record highs.

From an anecdotal standpoint in 2008/early 2009 I was training people overseas to take over my team/job in the very real expectation of being terminated. Now I have the very real expectation of a five figure bonus in a month or so.

That said, for most people, wages and income have been stagnant, except for the top 10%, really the top 1%. And unemployment is about where it was when he first took office. It's fair to criticize the President for not doing more and to point out that the economy remains sluggish. But given where it was I think the President and his team deserve some credit-to the extent that any President deserves credit or blame. Because of changes in the economy with immigration and globalization I think that 7% unemployment might be the new normal. But most economists don't see it that way.

I do think that the President is more interested in topics that used to be losers for Democrats but are now winners-gender equality, gay marriage, contraception, immigration, etc.Those social issues are losers for Republicans but help bind together Democratic coalitions.

All fair points, Lilo .

So we go from "cant blame Bush" anymore to, Obama has replaced all the jobs that are gone with public sector jobs in lieu of private and thats ok? Maybe I misunderstood what you meant. However you stated we were bleeding jobs when he started which you state he replaced then you state the unemployment numbers are the same? Am I to assume that was a misstatement or are they the public sector? Is public sector a long term answer for unemployment? Or are these jobs created for number purposes?

Ever see the movie Brazil?

Agree 100% with your comment.

I am much better now than I was 5 yrs ago when I graduated from college in the mist of Lehman, Bear Sterns, and others collapsing and the NY economy in disarray. Imagine being anewly minted college grad trying to find a job when the economy was bleeding 500K jobs a month. Not fun I tell ya LOL. I did a few things during that time that have helped put me in a very good position right now professionally.

I have to agree with Lilo. The economy was in a free-fall, but I do see very promising signs lately. Our retirement accounts are way up (thanks to the high Dow), the housing market is recovering slowly and I finally got a job after looking for 18 months. Towards the end of my search, I saw an uptick in the number of interviews, and not only did I get a job, but I was offered two in one week. My daughter's boyfriend was looking to buy a car recently and I can tell you that there are no great bargains out there. The auto industry has apparently recovered.

As for unemployment, I think that a great deal of it is a "screw you" mentality by some companies. They know that employees are so terrified of losing their jobs that they are squeezing them for every penny they can. If someone leaves, they don't necessarily get replaced, and the remaining employees in that department are expected to take up the slack. Is it that the company really needs to save that money, or is it that they can get away with making their other employees produce more??

No doubt this recovery is encouraging and promising, but how much can this be attributed to Obama and his administration? Not much in my opinion. The auto industry somewhat, but everything else has sort of recovered on its own. With the sequester coming however, I'm a bit worried.

Is it that the company really needs to save that money, or is it that they can get away with making their other employees produce more?? [/quote]

Cant believe I am going to comment on this, here goes.

Its called production! We ship jobs because we get products for less! We want jobs here yes we as a nation will have to look back when we were a super power and relize its all about production! More units produced per hour equates less cost and more jobs here. When did we becone a nation where producing and output became "mean corporate culture" thats why its called WORK. what do you expect, a cup of coffee and a heart sticker for doing your job? Unreal! This is why were falling apart! Nobody wants to work. They all want an easy day and a pat on the ass!

Our country was founded by farmers, all had a production based farming mentality! Want a example fir work ethic, go to a farm and watch. This is why Europe is a disgrace, they all want tio do nothing have four hour lunches and have pensions and benefits.

And oh yeah, our economy is called CAPATALISM! Production and inovation driven!

Unfucking believable!

Free Econony lesson: production up, cost of units go down. Cost go down we dont produce elsewhere!

1) As I said the economy remains sluggish. The President owns that.
2) I did not write that President Obama replaced private sector jobs with public sector jobs. It's a misconception that the public sector employment has expanded under President Obama. It's actually quite the opposite case. Public sector continues to shrink under Obama.

While Obama is responsible for daving the economy from freefall, I agree he now owns the lackluster "recovery" if you can really call it that.
What is puzzling is why things have not picked up faster and with more strength. From the left, Paul Krugman predicted in 2009 that the stimulus was too little by half and that because of this the recovery would be pretty much the way it has beeen. From the right the argument has always been the stimulus put us in a horrrible debt situation, and had it been as high as the left wanted we'd really be in a bind trying to pay it off.

Right now it seems like the dems refuse to specify anything they would actually cut ("fraud and waste" are not items that, if cut, would eliminate deficits, let alone cut into the debt) and the reps idea is to just let everything grind to a halt, which is reckless and borderline treasonous.

The truth IMHO is neither side has the courage to do what has to be done, namely raise taxes and cut benefits....by raising taxes I specifically mean taxes on the top 1%, and then means testing things like social security etc.

Agree with most of the above, however one point I take issue with is testing social security. How could we test the benefits of those who paid into and has qualified for the benefits lose them. Who we need to test are the people who haven't! We should test them and send them to work!

Well, here in Central New York, I can give you an idea of what we see around here and what I hear from Business Owners at the Round Table Meetings and Rotary groups.

#1- The Small Business owners will tell you that it wasn't with the Governments help that they have survived all this crap that has been happening. It is thru hard work and many hours of fighting to stay open.

Sure you read about the big companies and bail outs, but what about smaller companies? Screwed. They weren't to big to fail...they didn't get any help, just more and more price increases from others who passed their need onto them. From the Feds, to local Government all kinds of increases or fees to feed big brother.

VERY often a company has done better or hung on just because other companies have closed so they have picked up business from their fallen brothers. The strongest or the last to stand .

You talk about jobs, well the number is this and the number is that, but what about the quality of these jobs?

In many job markets the job base pay is going down for new hires and most times there are little or no benefits for them. As they let older, more high paid workers go, they now replace them with two part timers with no benefits. Yes two jobs, but how can you live or get ahead with this? Never mind start a family or raise one if you a re a single parent.

King Como's (NY Gov) on the TV saying no new taxes and he is making jobs. BULL S**T. No new taxes, just new fees and increases on almost everything they can charge for. He does not show you the cut backs or jobs lost due to the lay offs or the closings which are all around here. His new gig is going to push for more state jobs to be pushed into the private sector. So lets say you were making $17.00 to $21.00 an hour and had benefits with the state job, the new company only wants to give you $9.00 to $10.00 an hour and no benefits. How is that helping you get by now.

Then you have the jerk offs to think that it all well and good to save money as long as it isn't them or there family taking the hit. I have heard that "you are luck to have a job" or were an overpaid State worker thrown at them. Yet many have not had a raise and have had their benefits cut or their co pays towards benefits increase for several years now.( we don't have it to give you) So they cut your pay or with the cost of living going up you lose how it lasts AND increased your contribution. The real kick in the balls is letting go or finding fault with people before they get a pension.

Words behind the walls have leaked that they are trying to get rid of anyone who may have high medical costs or are older and may go out on Disability or Worker Comp. with bad backs, knees etc. They also have cut back on staff till there is no one to cover for medical leaves or vacation time. So if you have time on the books you will lose it if not taken by April 1st. and you can't get approved time off because of no coverage.

How does it feel to take a 40% to 50% pay cut and lose your health insurance for any bread winner? Even worst if you are a single person or a single parent. Yet it still show as a job.

The cost of getting to work kills your paycheck for low paid workers or part time ones. Car payment, Insurance, and now look at those gas prices almost hitting $4.00 a gallon here. God help you if you have to pay to park in some places... What's left of your pay at these rates? Oh yes, I have a job, that pays me very little after expenses! And you wonder why people stay on unemployment or welfare?

Mark my words! many smaller companies are talking about getting all employees hours under the cutoff point to keep them from having to getting involved with Obama Care. or keeping employees under I think that magic 50 number.
Funny how those with good jobs never ever look down that ladder to see how bad those below them have. I know it opened my eyes and ears. Now lets open to the doors for another 11 million people to tax the system even more. What's happening to the middle class? Don't worry the rich will cover you!

It is not just the President you have to call out but evey damn one of them all the way down to your local office.

They all suck and none of them care. None of them.

Yes, they get great pensions, great medical, free perks after they get out, even if they only serve a short time not like the rest of us people. Their bullshit lines are we need this to get good people to come forward and serve the country.
Like every one of us isn't serving the people and helping keep this country great?

You don't see them under Obama care do you or other rules they are exempt on. There should be no special rules for them if they are making the rules for us, they should take what they give all of us, maybe the rules would change so we all get the same deal.

Not quite PB... they all care ..... about themselves.
They are a bunch of narcissists.

i always enjoy reading your posts fatherson!

Amen!

Fathersson, where specifically in Central New York are u from?

I lived in Geneva for four years during college, and in Ithaca for two years while in business school.

Agree 100%

Laughing my ass off at all the religious stuff lately, especially from the nitwits crying that the Devil in "The Bible " miniseries looks like President Obama. I've read that the President himself got a good laugh out of that one.

I keep thinking of Kathy Bates in "The Waterboy." Foosball is the devil, Bobby Bouchey!

Well, it would be more convincing if he wore a blue dress.

Susan Rice to be named new National Security Adviser .

Terrible fucking move, Mister President. There are other ways to get under the Republicans skin without involving National Security.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/05/tom-donilon-resigning_n_3388885.html?ncid=webmail1

i dont care for any politician regardless of party....i call them oppo-sames, they are all out for one thing and that is money....the real people that control this country and dictate policy are the corporations and there lobbyists

politics has become a career when it really shouldnt be in my opinion...limit everyone to 4 years, do the best you can for the country and get out

just my opinion

Well it shouldn't be just an opinion, Cheech. Everyone should adopt that view as a personal mantra. Your point is that fucking valid. They ALL suck.

Whether you're a righty religious nut, or a lefty who thinks it's still the summer of fucking love with a flower in your hair, you're part of the problem, not the solution.

Such cynics

sometimes real life can be cynical my friend

Did Obama really name Susan Rice after all the controversy surrounding her, national security advisor? Does he have no sense at all? Unbelievable

The NSA doesn't require Senate approval. And from what I hear Rice is a better advisor than she is a diplomat. I thought she was a bit abrasive at the UN and doubt she would have been much different as Sec of State. And yet the President likes both her and Susan Power, who will replace Rice at UN. But the policy is the President's. I think it's important for him to have the people around him he feels comfortable with, whether he be Republican, Democrat or whatever. So this is a win-win for the President and Rice. He gets to make the point that he will choose his team and Rice gets to be remain as close to the President as she's always been.

Agreed. As national security advisor, she doesn't have to be a natural diplomat with a gift of politesse. She has to be smart, analytical, articulate, and hard-working. And she has to have the confidence of the president. Which she clearly does. Doesn't matter what the GOP thinks of her, its not like they are going to support any of his policies or work on a bipartisan basis to get stuff done.

Democrats aren't either. I'm with PB mostly these days, it's both sides that are fucking the country up. A finger shouldn't be blamed at one side or the other, or you're just part of the problem. Not you specifically Dap but you get what I mean

Both sides do share blame. But the GOP has been the one to have consistently backed away from numerous grand bargains over taxes, debt ceiling, sequester at the last minute usually due to the hoopla of their tea party compatriots. When GW was in office, their was never this level of bipartisan bickering as their is today. Both parties came together at least a few times to pass numerous pieces of legislation. The GOP(particularly the Tea Party) want to deny Obama any legislative "win" at all costs.

I am just frustrated at the political impasse in DC. It is ridiculous. I dont foresee anything getting done in the next 3 years, not even things that seemed like a sure thing a few months ago like immigration.

Most on this board know I lean Republican economically most of the time. I like Republican candidates in the northeast and midwest because they tend to be more moderate than their southern and western compatriots. Not always the case but even so. I believe that the tea party element of the GOP needs to be eliminated or reduced in power completely in order for it to move forward and become more progressive. That nutty radical section of Republicans are hounding their own speaker for Christ's sake! No the GOP is not completely to blame, Democrats are to some degree for not budging on entitlement reform. But I am so sick of tea partiers

Don't worry everyone! Obamas Stimulus Bill will kick in soon. LMAO!

Obama is a great President! ( Wow, I said it) He's killed more terrorists then Bush did using drones! He also kept that nice prison in Cuba open as well! He also is listening in to every Americans phone Conversations. Hey, if u have nothing to hide then let them listen in.

Is the shoe on the other foot or what?

I love Obama! He's a bad ass when it comes to foreign policy! I call him the terminator because he's killing everybody with our drones! I may not love his domestic policies but his foreign policies are great!!!! Forget torture, he goes straight for the kill!

When you call a black man who happens to be President of The United States a "subhuman mongrel" as Ted Nugent did, you're letting your inner Asa Carter or Joseph Goebbels out. That is exactly the same sort of language as "Lebensunwertes Leben" or "Blutschande" or "Race Traitor" or several other similar terms used by Nazis and Klan members. It's not surprising that Nugent feels this way. His views have been obvious for a long time. Pure filth.

The Republican Party's general refusal to denounce and disassociate themselves from such vile language may well work for the near term future in Texas. But fortunately the rest of the US is not Texas. Eventually even the Texas Republican party will need to choose between riding with white supremacist hate speech or winning elections. Maybe not this year but certainly by 2020 and beyond.

I'm not sure what redeeming feature there is in GOP so that the rest of them (what rest?) distance themselves from his like. Reducing the government and spending you say? The biggest chunk of government spending goes to the over-sized military that GOP NEVER goes around trimming, so what's their use anyway except for lowering taxes and increasing the deficit? Better they go extinct altogether.

Lets see, he saved the economy from a depression, he passed the first comprehensive health care act in American history, he has wound down the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and not become ensnared in another mindless war, and now he is going over the heads of Congress to accomplish environmental reform. I only hope he gets to appoint some Supreme Court justices in the next three years.

Sorry to break this to you Smitty, but it worked.

Unfortunately, it's unlikely. Ginsburg and Scalia are likely the next to retire, but it appears both, who happen to be close friends oddly enough, are expected to serve into the next administration. After the process that transpired in having Bush select Alito (or more accurately, having Alito selected for Bush), I believe that the GOP is willing to concede the selection of SC nominees to a well funded narrow, but extreme, faction of the party.

Isn't Ginsburg (0r at least one of the Justices) well into their 80s? Geez, who'd wanna work into their 80s?




TIS

Antonin Scalia 77 yr 11 mo
Arthur Kennedy 77 yr 7 mo
Clarence Thomas 65 yr 8 mo
Ruth Bader Ginsburg 80 yr 11 mo
Stephen Breyer 75 yr 6 mo
John G. Roberts 59 yr 0 mo
Samuel A. Alito, Jr. 63 yr 10 mo
Sonia Sotomayor 59 yr 8 mo
Elena Kagan 53 yr 9 mo

She amazingly remains the most active judge on the court in terms of volumes of briefs read and oral argument participation where Scalia often participates.

Before Clinton appointed her, he had offered the nomination to Mario Cuomo, who was wishy-washy about whether to accept. Clinton waited was eventually told by one of Cuomo's
sons that he will accept. Clinton was preparing to announce it the next day when Cuomo called him to say he was still unsure. Clinton then turned to Stephen Breyer, who was recommended by Ted Kennedy. Breyer interviewed at the White House a day after he had broken some bones in a biking accident. Clinton wasn't persuaded to nominate him when Madeline Albrightasked why nobody had suggested Ginsburg.