Obama Presidency Discussion Thread

[FoolKiller]

The funny thing is I have a Stephen King book sitting about 2 feet away from me right now. Is it more sad that I couldn't be bothered to look, or that I couldn't spell it without looking to begin with?

Seriously, I wouldn't care, but you can only be accidentally called Stephanie during the first day of school so many times before you have to chose to either embrace the less common spelling or try to change your name.

Then you get older and everyone just calls you Steve.

 

[FoolKiller]

A new Obama issue I have found: he has cut the program that allowed under-privileged kids to get into private schools in DC, and away from the failing public school system. Everyone involved believed it was working.

I usually don't like to quote George F. Will on anything, unless I am looking for tips on buying a bow tie (aka never), but he raises a very good point here.

And I also quote Juan Williams of NPR to balance the George Will.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/22/AR2009042203089.html

Obama's Budget Follies
By George F. Will
Thursday, April 23, 2009


Monday morning the government braced for austerity, as the government understands that. Having sent Congress a $3.5 trillion budget, the president signaled in advance -- perhaps so his Cabinet members could steel themselves for the new asceticism -- that at the first meeting of his Cabinet he would direct the 15 heads of departments to find economies totaling $100 million, which is about 13 minutes of federal spending, and 0.0029 percent -- about a quarter of one-hundredth of 1 percent -- of $3.5 trillion.

If the Agriculture Department sliced the entire $100 million, that would be equal to 0.1 percent of its fiscal 2008 budget. The president, peering from beneath his green eyeshade at the secretary of agriculture, might remember this from The Post of Jan. 24:

"Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack . . . learned that his new workplace contains a post office, fitness centers, cafeterias and 6,900 employees. But he remained uncertain about exactly how many employees he supervises nationwide. 'I asked how many employees work at USDA, and nobody really knows,' he said."

The president's $100 million edict actually suggests an insufficiency in the river of federal assistance flowing out of Washington to the deserving poor, as that category is currently understood: incompetent car companies, reckless insurance companies, mismanaged banks, profligate state governments, etc. But political satirists, too, deserve a bailout from a federal government that has turned their material into public policy.

The president has set an example for his Cabinet. He has ladled a trillion or so dollars ("or so" is today's shorthand for "give or take a few hundreds of billions") hither and yon, but while ladling he has, or thinks he has, saved about $15 million by killing, or trying to kill, a tiny program that this year is enabling about 1,715 D.C. children (90 percent black, 9 percent Hispanic) to escape from the District's failing public schools and enroll in private schools.

The District's mayor and school superintendent support the program. But the president has vowed to kill programs that "don't work." He has looked high and low and -- lo and behold -- has found one. By uncanny coincidence, it is detested by the teachers unions that gave approximately four times $15 million to Democratic candidates and liberal causes last year.

Not content with seeing the program set to die after the 2009-10 school year, Education Secretary Arne Duncan (former head of Chicago's school system, which never enrolled an Obama child) gratuitously dashed even the limited hopes of another 200 children and their parents. Duncan, who has sensibly chosen to live with his wife and two children in Virginia rather than in the District, rescinded the scholarships already awarded to those children for the final year of the program, beginning in September. He was, you understand, thinking only of the children and their parents: He would spare them the turmoil of being forced by, well, Duncan and other Democrats to return to terrible public schools after a tantalizing one-year taste of something better. Call that compassionate liberalism.

After Congress debated the program, the Education Department released -- on a Friday afternoon, a news cemetery -- a congressionally mandated study showing that, measured by student improvement and parental satisfaction, the District's program works. The department could not suppress the Heritage Foundation's report that 38 percent of members of Congress sent or are sending their children to private schools.

The Senate voted 58 to 39 to kill the program. Heritage reports that if the senators who have exercised their ability to choose private schools had voted to continue the program that allows less-privileged parents to make that choice for their children, the program would have been preserved.

As the president and his party's legislators are forcing minority children back into public schools, the doors of which would never be darkened by the president's or legislators' children, remember this: We have seen a version of this shabby act before. One reason conservatism came to power in the 1980s was that in the 1970s liberals advertised their hypocrisy by supporting forced busing of other people's children to schools the liberals' children did not attend.

This issue will be back. In a few months, the appropriation bill for the District will come to the floor of the House of Representatives, at which point there will be a furious fight for the children's interests. Then we will learn whether the president and his congressional allies are capable of embarrassment. On the evidence so far, they are not.

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/04/20/williams_obama_dc/

JUAN WILLIAMS: Obama’s Outrageous Sin Against Our Kids
As I watch Washington politics I am not easily given to rage.

Washington politics is a game and selfishness, out-sized egos and corruption are predictable.

But over the last week I find myself in a fury.

The cause of my upset is watching the key civil rights issue of this generation — improving big city public school education — get tossed overboard by political gamesmanship. If there is one goal that deserves to be held above day-to-day partisanship and pettiness of ordinary politics it is the effort to end the scandalous poor level of academic achievement and abysmally high drop-out rates for America’s black and Hispanic students.

This is critical to our nation’s future in terms of workforce preparation to compete in a global economy but also to fulfill the idea of racial equality by providing a real equal opportunity for all young people who are willing to work hard to succeed.

In a politically calculated dance step the Obama team first indicated that they wanted the Opportunity Scholarship Program to continue for students lucky enough to have won one of the vouchers. The five-year school voucher program is scheduled to expire after the school year ending in June 2010. Secretary Duncan said in early March that it didn’t make sense “to take kids out of a school where they’re happy and safe and satisfied and learning…those kids need to stay in their school.”

And all along the administration indicated that pending evidence that this voucher program or any other produces better test scores for students they were willing to fight for it. The president has said that when it comes to better schools he is open to supporting “what works for kids.” That looked like a level playing field on which to evaluate the program and even possibly expanding the program.

But last week Secretary Duncan announced that he will not allow any new students to enter the D.C. voucher program. In fact, he had to take back the government’s offer of scholarships to 200 students who had won a lottery to get into the program starting next year. His rationale is that if the program does not win new funding from Congress then those students might have to go back to public school in a year.

He does not want to give the students a chance for a year in a better school? That does not make sense if the students and their families want that life-line of hope. It does not make sense if there is a real chance that the program might win new funding as parents, educators and politicians rally to undo the “bigotry of low expectations” and open doors of opportunity — wherever they exist — for more low-income students.

And now Secretary Duncan has applied a sly, political check-mate for the D.C. voucher plan.

With no living, breathing students profiting from the program to give it a face and stand and defend it the Congress has little political pressure to put new money into the program. The political pressure will be coming exclusively from the teacher’s unions who oppose the vouchers, just as they oppose No Child Left Behind and charter schools and every other effort at reforming public schools that continue to fail the nation’s most vulnerable young people, low income blacks and Hispanics.

The National Education Association and other teachers’ unions have put millions into Democrats’ congressional campaigns because they oppose Republican efforts to challenge unions on their resistance to school reform and specifically their refusal to support ideas such as performance-based pay for teachers who raise students’ test scores.

By going along with Secretary Duncan’s plan to hollow out the D.C. voucher program this president, who has spoken so passionately about the importance of education, is playing rank politics with the education of poor children. It is an outrage.

This voucher programs is unique in that it takes no money away from the beleaguered District of Columbia Public Schools. Nationwide, the strongest argument from opponents of vouchers is that it drains hard-to-find dollars from public schools that educate the majority of children.

But Congress approved the D.C. plan as an experiment and funded it separately from the D.C. school budget. It is the most generous voucher program in the nation, offering $7,500 per child to help with tuition to a parochial or private school.

With that line of attack off the table, critics of vouchers pointed out that even $7,500 is not enough to pay for the full tuition to private schools where the price of a year’s education can easily go beyond $20,000. But nearly 8,000 students applied for the vouchers. And a quarter of them, 1,714 children, won the lottery and took the money as a ticket out of the D.C. public schools.

The students, almost all of them black and Hispanic, patched together the voucher money with scholarships, other grants and parents willing to make sacrifices to pay their tuition.

What happened, according to a Department of Education study, is that after three years the voucher students scored 3.7 months higher on reading than students who remained in the D.C. schools. In addition, students who came into the D.C. voucher program when it first started had a 19 month advantage in reading after three years in private schools.

It is really upsetting to see that the Heritage Foundation has discoverd that 38 percent of the members of Congress made the choice to put their children in private schools. Of course, Secretary Duncan has said he decided not to live in Washington, D.C. because he did not want his children to go to public schools there. And President Obama, who has no choice but to live in the White House, does not send his two daughters to D.C. public schools, either. They attend a private school, Sidwell Friends, along with two students who got there because of the voucher program.

This reckless dismantling of the D.C. voucher program does not bode well for arguments to come about standards in the effort to reauthorize No Child Left Behind. It does not speak well of the promise of President Obama to be the “Education President,’ who once seemed primed to stand up for all children who want to learn and especially minority children.

And its time for all of us to get outraged about this sin against our children.

However, I do not see this being made a huge deal because it only affects kids in DC. Personally, if I had kids and lacked the resources to choose where my children went to school due to the way our current education system is done I would be up in arms.

Hopefully, I will have children soon and then every PTA member and teachers union reps in my district will know my name, assuming I don't get a promotion.raise before then that will allow me to afford a private school.

 

[Keef]

Some of this countries help programs are corrupt, and some work. That program is obviously one that works. It is no fault of the underprivileged kids or their parents that the DC public school system sucks ass. It's the government's fault the system sucks. So now the government has gone and screwed the system, and on top of that is forcing people to deal with it.

It's only going to make the problem worse very rapidly. All the sudden the DC system will have a large influx of new students, but the same meager budget and curriculum that already doesn't work.

It makes me wish I'd have gone to Alter high school in my area. They're strict, principled, and thorough, and their college acceptance rate for graduates is around 95%. The only public school system in the area that can even try to hold a stick to that is Oakwood, which just happens to be the wealthiest Dayton-area city and only has about 300 kids in their high school.

 

[Solid Lifters]

This woman is insane...

Blame Canada. BLAME CANADA!

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is under fire for what critics see as a string of gaffes, with a small but vocal group of conservatives calling for her to step down.

The outrage continues to build over a report from her department that warned of the danger of right-wing "extremists," and singled out returning war veterans as susceptible to recruitment.

Napolitano expressed regret for the reference to veterans -- but she raised eyebrows again this week when she suggested that the Sept. 11 hijackers entered the United States through Canada, even though the 9/11 Commission determined they came to the United States from overseas.

"I don't know that the secretary understands the depth of the disruption that she's caused," Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, told FOX News on Thursday, referring to the report on extremist threats. "I think the appropriate thing to do is for her to step down and let's move on."

Conservatives made a stern call for her ouster Wednesday night on the House floor.

"Mr. President, fire that woman," said Rep. John Carter, R-Texas, complaining that Napolitano's comments on the controversial report were half-hearted. "To go on television and say your apology to be, 'I'm sorry you were offended by this report,' that's no apology."

Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., also said Napolitano's resignation is in order, and she should be brought before Congress for a hearing.

Napolitano on Thursday acknowledged the criticism and reiterated that the extremist report was "not well written" and should not have been released in that form. She said she would meet with the leadership of the American Legion on Friday over the reference to returning war veterans.

But she rebuffed those who say an apology is not enough.

"That's what they're going to get," Napolitano said.

She also corrected her statements on Canada, admitting that she falsely suggested Sept. 11 terrorists crossed over from Canada. "I knew the minute it came out of my mouth it was wrong," she said.

Napolitano first clarified her comments in a written statement that said: "I know that the September 11th hijackers did not come through Canada to the United States. There are other instances, however, when suspected terrorists have attempted to enter our country from Canada to the United States."

Her explanation was not so clear during the interview Monday with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that sparked the new controversy.

The secretary was asked to elaborate on comments about giving the Mexican and Canadian borders equal treatment, even though Canada is not experiencing a violent drug war.

"Yes, Canada is not Mexico, it doesn't have a drug war going on," she said. "Nonetheless, to the extent that terrorists have come into our country or suspected or known terrorists have entered our country across a border, it's been across the Canadian border. There are real issues there."

Napolitano was asked if she was referring to the Sept. 11 hijackers. She said: "Not just those but others as well."

This angered some Canadian officials, who called such claims an unfortunate "misconception" in media interviews.

The Canadian newspaper The National Post unleashed on Napolitano. One column called the interview a "train wreck." Another questioned how Napolitano could view the Canadian border as a "security threat on par" with Mexico's.

"Ms. Napolitano's brief interview with the CBC this week was confirmation we're dealing with an irrational senior U.S. official who can't differentiate between a secure border linking the world's largest trading partners and one that's a giant sucking sound for jobs going south and what's been described as an 'invasion' of desperate Mexicans illegally sneaking north," the column said.

Such criticism sprung in part from a speech Napolitano delivered last month at the Brookings Institution, in which she said "we shouldn't go light on one (border) and heavy on the other."

"If things are being done on the Mexican border, they should also be done on the Canadian border," she said. "This is one NAFTA, it's one area, it's one continent and there should be some parity there."

She said she intends to "visit myself" the Canadian border this spring or summer.

House Minority Leader John Boehner briefly addressed the criticism over Napolitano on Thursday.

"I think Secretary Napolitano has an awful lot of explaining to do," he said.

 

[Tornado]

People are still pushing that crap even now that most everybody knows it was just a scheme to collect more tax dollars? Really?

 

[Keef]

Obviously she was gonna turn out to be a rotten apple. That was obvious ever since she acquired the crazy last name "Napoliano". Or whatever.

That statement was just as well thought-out as hers. There's no apologizing she can do in my opinion--if it comes out of your mouth that means you were thinking it, and just thinking that Veterans are evil and Canada supports terrorism is despicable. Not even fit for a joke from a comedian.

She should be fired because I don't like her and her name is too similar to one particular French weenie. Speaking of which, parts of Canada speak French...oh god this is a conspiracy.

 

[Tornado]

That guy flipping out on Fox over the torture thing was EPIC. I had to pause and rewind Colbert Report to make sure I wasn't imagining it.

 

[YSSMAN]

That guy flipping out on Fox over the torture thing was EPIC. I had to pause and rewind Colbert Report to make sure I wasn't imagining it.

Shepard Smith? It was epic indeed. He is one of the few people I still like at the network, and I'm saddened by the fact that I can't post the footage here due to the language. He knew he wouldn't get his word in fairly, and he backed out of the discussion completely. Doesn't make him any less-right, however...

 

[Omnis]

Shepard Smith? It was epic indeed. He is one of the few people I still like at the network, and I'm saddened by the fact that I can't post the footage here due to the language. He knew he wouldn't get his word in fairly, and he backed out of the discussion completely. Doesn't make him any less-right, however...

Freedom Watch is so awesome.

Shepard Smith is a total douche though. I don't like him one bit when he's doing his job. Maybe he's playing a role in front of the camera?

 

[Danoff]

Doesn't make him any less-right, however...

No. What makes him less right is his position on the subject. Perhaps we should start a thread on the moral implications of torture.

 

[Tornado]

Wait, what?

Edit: Nevermind. I get you.

 

[Solid Fro]

You know what is more epic than Shepard losing it like a crazed Ron Paul coot?

Obama's Fail List.

HEADLINE: 100 DAYS, 100 MISTAKES FOR BARACK OBAMA

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04252009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/100_days__100_mistakes_166177.htm

1. "Obama criticized pork barrel spending in the form of 'earmarks,' urging changes in the way that Congress adopts the spending proposals. Then he signed a spending bill that contains nearly 9,000 of them, some that members of his own staff shoved in last year when they were still members of Congress. 'Let there be no doubt, this piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business, and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability,' Obama said." -- McClatchy, 3/11

2. "There is no doubt that we've been living beyond our means and we're going to have to make some adjustments." -- Obama during the campaign.

3. This year's budget deficit: $1.5 trillion.

4. Asks his Cabinet to cut costs in their departments by $100 million -- a whopping .0027%!

5. "The White House says the president is unaware of the tea parties." -- ABC News, 4/15



and the list goes on...

 

[ledhed]

Give him time --he is still a puppy he has to grow into his ears yet .

 

[FoolKiller]

Someone, please tell me this genius wasn't hired by President Obama too.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/fir...-apologizes-air-force-photo-op-new-york-city/

White House Official Apologizes for Air Force One Photo Op in New York City
Numerous buildings in lower Manhattan evacuated in a panic during this morning's false alarm.

By Mike Emanuel
FOXNews.com
Monday, April 27, 2009

White House Military Office Director Louis Caldera apologized for any panic caused by a flight mission and photo op that looked like Air Force One and fighter jets heading toward the New York City skyline Monday morning.

Caldera said he approved the mission last week and that federal authorities took the proper steps to notify state and local authorities in New York and New Jersey.

VIDEO: Low-Flying N.Y. Plane a 'Photo Op'

But for people who work in the New York financial district, the event brought back nightmares of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. Numerous buildings in lower Manhattan evacuated in a panic during this morning's false alarm.

"It's clear that the mission created confusion and disruption. I apologize and take responsibility for any distress that flight caused," Caldera said in a White House issued paper statement.

The plane that flew in New York Monday was a version of the Boeing 747 that's called Air Force One when the president is aboard.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg blasted the photo opportunity for being insensitive and showing "poor judgment."

In a brief statement after the flight, the New York Police Department acknowledged it was aware the flight was happening, but claimed the Federal Aviation Administration told them not to talk about it.

"The flight of a VC-25 aircraft and F-16 fighters this morning was authorized by the FAA for the vicinity of the Statue of Liberty with directives to local authorities not to disclose information about it but to direct any inquiries to the FAA Air Traffic Security Coordinator," the statement said.

The aircraft involved in this morning's mission, a VC-25, is the military's version of a Boeing 747, with state-of-the-art communication and electronic equipment. It is a backup plane that is sometimes used as Air Force One to carry the President of the United States.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs was asked several times about the flight during his daily briefing and promised he would try to get back to reporters with some answers.

Here's some video in case anyone missed it:

 

[Solid Fro]

Someone, please tell me this genius wasn't hired by President Obama too.

You beat me to it, FoolKiller.

I believe Caldera was hired by Obama. He served as Secretary of the Army 1998 to January 2001 under the Clinton administration and is now Director of the White House Military Office for Obama.

Here is the best video:



Why the **** is this VC-25A (remember, it's not Air Force One without the President) doing this over New York? How much Carbon Offset do you need to scare half of New York? How much did this stunt cost us, the tax payers?

Did Obama notice one of his planes was missing or what? Either Obama knew or he really doesn't have control of anything.

 

[YSSMAN]

According to the news on the Internet, this was done by Caldera as some kind of promotional photo-op, and while he is taking full responsibility for the problem, it feels like he is diverting responsibility to the state and city officials for not warning the media and the public.

Last week, I approved a mission over New York. I take responsibility for that decision. While federal authorities took the proper steps to notify state and local authorities in New York and New Jersey, it's clear that the mission created confusion and disruption. I apologize and take responsibility for any distress that flight caused.

According to the White House...



...They didn't know about it at all.

Obviously, Bloomberg was mad...



According to the AP:

When told of the flight, President Barack Obama was furious, a White House official said on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations.

=-=-=-=-=

Obviously, there is a lot of crazy stuff going on right now in this country, particularly in the last two days or so, but whoever thought this was a good idea needs to step down.

 

[FoolKiller]

According to the news on the Internet, this was done by Caldera as some kind of promotional photo-op, and while he is taking full responsibility for the problem, it feels like he is diverting responsibility to the state and city officials for not warning the media and the public.

Which is really bad if what Mayor Bloomberg says about the "need to know" status is true.

According to the White House...


...They didn't know about it at all.

Two things here:

1) Caldera works for the White House. Sure, it is nearly impossible to know what all is happening at all times with everyone, but in any professional situation the boss has to take responsibility. Caldera appears to be doing that, but it is his lack of judgment and it cannot go unaddressed. If someone on my staff makes a mistake I am held responsible for the response, or I will be held responsible.

2) Gibbs says he saw news reports but didn't think to see what was going on? Really? The press secretary didn't think any issue like this would come up after he admittedly saw it on TV? I saw it in passing and stopped to see what was going on. No, I don't think Gibbs should keep track of Air Force One, er, VC-25A at all times, but when you see it flying circles over a panicked Manhattan you had better be asking around pretty quick, because it will come up in your next briefing.

Currently I see two staffers not properly doing their jobs. One that should possibly be fired and another that needs a slap on the hand.

Obviously, there is a lot of crazy stuff going on right now in this country, particularly in the last two days or so, but whoever thought this was a good idea needs to step down.

Agreed. It isn't as if they couldn't have made this into a fun event and advertised letting people come see Air Force One in flight. They acted as if the President was actually on board.

 

[YSSMAN]

Agreed. It isn't as if they couldn't have made this into a fun event and advertised letting people come see Air Force One in flight. They acted as if the President was actually on board.

You mean having the F-16 there? I was under the impression that was what they were taking the photographs from.

Still, you make a great point. A lot of people would have went out to see the plane if they knew it was happening, a good event for all the kids no matter who is in office.

=-=-=-=

Side Note:

Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) is now (D-PA)

Seeing as how he is the Senator that I usually identify with most, I guess I need to rethink my tag. I don't think I'm ready to carry a solid "D," but as he points out, the "R" just isn't what it used to be.

 

[Omnis]

You mean having the F-16 there? I was under the impression that was what they were taking the photographs from.

Still, you make a great point. A lot of people would have went out to see the plane if they knew it was happening, a good event for all the kids no matter who is in office.

=-=-=-=

Side Note:

Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) is now (D-PA)

Seeing as how he is the Senator that I usually identify with most, I guess I need to rethink my tag. I don't think I'm ready to carry a solid "D," but as he points out, the "R" just isn't what it used to be.

Good. I hope all the RINOs switch.

 

[FoolKiller]

You mean having the F-16 there? I was under the impression that was what they were taking the photographs from.

No, AFO always has an escort, if I understand correctly, so it is likely part of the shot.

No. I meant the whole only informing people on a need to know basis thing. If the president were on board I could understand not revealing his flight plans publicly, especially where it would be circling around at relatively low speeds and altitudes, but as he wasn't on board I do not see why this info was being kept secret from the public.



Rergarding Specter: Will that even affect the outcome of votes? R and D mean nothing if you vote the opposite of your party a lot.

 

[YSSMAN]

In theory, whatever tag you have near your name means otherwise very little. The party leadership can talk all they want about how they want to keep their party in line and how they can issue threats over it, but when it comes down to it, they're going to let you vote the way you want to as long as it gets you re-elected with your constituency.

Honestly, I think the problem Specter was facing was more about math than anything else. Obviously, the Republican party is not what it used to be, and those who are still in power are catering to an increasingly narrow view of ideals. So, in Specter's case, while he may be a "big tent" and otherwise "progressive" Republican, in a primary, the die-hard Republicans who would be making the decision of who will go to the big show would likely pick a far more "Conservative" (in the Limbaugh sense) candidate that will likely lose in an increasingly Liberal state as it is.

Call it political opportunism if you want, but I think it paints an increasingly bad picture of the GOP as we see it today. In fact, I do hope Omnis is right. Get out the "bad seeds" in the GOP and we could have a feasible party again.

 

[Solid Fro]

...and while he is taking full responsibility for the problem, it feels like he is diverting responsibility to the state and city officials for not warning the media and the public.

Obama has been doing this since January 20th. From bank bonuses to pirates.

...They didn't know about it at all.

I, as a tax payer, don't pay you to not ****ing know! He stands there and tells me about Obama's dog, yet he doesn't know about VC-25A flying around New York for no god damned reason?! Flying around Ground Zero with F-16 escort beyond the pale... people really have ****ing forgot:





And some of you wonder why I have so much "hatred" for Mr. Obama. :shakeshead:

 

[Keef]

I must admit, he has butchered a few traditions and in some situation he seems like a boy who just got himself a fancy new playset. But then, I was too young to pay attention to Bush when he first got elected, so I don't know if playtime is typical of new presidents.

 

[Solid Fro]

If President Bush had "playtime", would that make Obama's or any other President's "playtime" valid? Blaming President Bush is no longer a valid excuse for Obama's mistakes. I remember President Bush being criticized for spending days at Camp David or at his ranch in Crawford. Yet, when Obama jet sets for Hawaii... not a damn peep.

I'm starting to wonder if this is all just one big distraction?

On a side note:

SCARE FORCE ONE COST YOU $328,000... AT LEAST

http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2009/04/28/they-say-it-was-as-training-mission-hhm-the-cost-328000/

Oh, what a day. Pig colds, malfunctioning teleprompters, Democrat's new old white guy, semi chases, news anchors freaking out, planes buzzing New York... I need something to relax:

 

[YSSMAN]

But then, I was too young to pay attention to Bush when he first got elected, so I don't know if playtime is typical of new presidents.

What exactly is "playtime" in reference to, if I may ask? Based on what I'm reading on the plane situation (I assume that's what you're speaking to), it sounds like this was something that was done outside of the actual influence of the President, something that likely wouldn't have happened given his say on the matter. Of course, we can't be completely sure.

I suppose this would be a good place to ask this (for discussion:

Any thoughts on the Obama Administration in the first 100 days?

In general, I'm moderately pleased. I certainly fall more into the category where I like the man, but not all of the policy, which seems fairly typical for most Americans. I would be outright lying if I said that I completely agreed with every position he has taken, and furthermore, that I think he would live up to every expectation that I have. At the very least I'd give him an approval rating of 75% thus far, the main sticking points for me being over the torture issue, some disagreements on spending policies, and continued wishy-washyness on TARP and the Auto Bailout. I commend his foreign policy thus far, particularly following the events with the Pirates, and a warming of relations with Cuba. I think his domestic targets thus far have been decent, and overall have done a good job to (at the very least) inspire confidence, which is arguably more important than any kind of monetary stimuli.

Overall, I remain cautiously optimistic in my view of the Administration and look forward to a (hopefully) productive summer when we try to address heathcare and energy problems later in the year.

 

[Omnis]

Here's the lady who needs to replace Specter. She's christiany, but at least she's not bat:censored: insane like the current crop.

How could you not vote for this lady?

 

[Solid Fro]

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mahatma Gandhi



Mr. President. We can have this intelligent discussion. You can start by explaining this:

 

[YSSMAN]

Here's the lady... How could you not vote for this lady?

I'd consider a vote for a candidate like that given an overall reasonable platform to run on. I guess for me, my big question would be how someone like that would interact with the majority party, and furthermore, what their views would be on some subjects of interest to me. Otherwise, I don't find her stance disagreeable whatsoever if there are real solutions to be made from it.

Problem is, if only 21% of Americans are identifying themselves as Republicans, its an increasingly narrow pool of people who are electing these officials, and furthermore, nominating increasingly unlikely-to-win candidates to contest.

I've been trying to think of a good diagram of how to best illustrate the power dynamics within the GOP right now, but I'm at a loss. As I see it, the Ron Paul-type Republicans (like the lady here) and the moderates are being forced out by the narrow ideology of the current power holders, what I suppose we can call the Bush-ites. If the same trends continue, we're likely to see the GOP taken down to a regional party (at best), and all we'd be left to hope for is some kind of third party to emerge because of it.

 

[Solid Fro]

THE BEST THING YOU'LL SEE ALL WEEK



Just imagine day 200...

 

[Speedy Samurai]

Solid Fro seems to be on some kind of vendetta. Mission from god?