Democrats in Disarray

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Among the other Republican candidates Gingrich named as possible 2012 contenders included former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. Also included on Gingrich's list are Govs. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, Mitch Daniels of Indiana, Haley Barbour of Mississippi, Rick Perry of Texas and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. South Dakota Sen. John Thune may also be a potential candidate, Gingrich said.



i'll take a stab at this, altho i'm not a 'righty'. who knows? lol

remember when bill clinton was thought to not have a chance in hell?! i would have to think gingrich has too many skeletons in his closet. i think sarah palin is an idiot, i would never vote for huckabee as i tend to shy away from ultra-religious folks. mitt romney seemed ok, but i just really don't know much about him. i could say the same for the rest of them. as for jindal, he didn't impress many with his response to the president a year ago, i think he's too new to the scene, that he's not ready for that leap.

i just prefer it when one party is in the executive and the other controls the legislative. we seem to get more accomplished that way.

Best three from that list is #1) Newt Gingrich (though I'll probably get crap for that.. I'd vote for him in a second. #2) Mitt Romney #3) Tim Pawlenty

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Best three from that list is #1) Newt Gingrich (though I'll probably get crap for that.. I'd vote for him in a second. #2) Mitt Romney #3) Tim Pawlenty

I think Pawlenty is the sleeper in this group.

[Riot]

Well heck, 'Zig. Interpretation is in the eye of the reader, I guess

If you want to cherry pick partial meaning or half-sentences out of these articles, we can do that:

http://www.slate.com/id/2236708/

how is 'prevented a depression' provable?
and at the time it was passed, it was to keep unemployment from rising above ten percent. whoops as for fixiing health care, that whole bit was prefaced with 'if it passes'-that's not a done deal yet. based on an unprovable thing, and an unfinished one, they're saying he could have a good year-not that he has had one.

Hard to see how you can put that negative spin on an article entitled: "Obama's Brilliant First Year - By January, he will have accomplished more than any first-year president since Franklin Roosevelt." The article points out all the good he had indeed accomplished by November, and how, after healthcare passes, the articles title will be true.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31098.html

i'll have to re-read this, since the first two times i went through it, i didn't see anything obama actually accomplished...but i did see

'To be sure, Obama’s first year accomplishments are more in the realm of creating good inputs to policy rather than achieving good outputs. Results to date have been relatively few..'

"Dick Cheney wrong on Barack Obama slam" - The part you ignored before the above sentence was: "But in fact, Obama has had a solid first year in foreign policy matters. By one measure, comparison with other first-year presidents in modern history, Obama ranks with the three or four best since World War II by my estimation - and I write this as someone who opposed Obama during the Democratic primary process of 2007-2008 largely because of fears at the time that he would not be strong on national security."

http://www.economist.com/opinion/dis...ptextfeature

yeah, this starts out well. i'd cringe if i read this in my eval:
One year on, how well has he done?

Not too badly, by our reckoning

Well, if that is where you stopped reading the evaluation, I'd continue on to read: "Not too badly, by our reckoning. In his first 12 months in office Mr Obama has overseen the stabilising of the economy, is on the point of bringing affordable health care to virtually every American citizen, has ended the era of torture, is robustly prosecuting the war in Afghanistan while gradually disengaging from Iraq; and perhaps more precious than any of these, he has cleared away much of the cloud of hatred and fear through which so much of the world saw the United States during George Bush’s presidency.

More generally, Mr Obama has run a competent, disciplined yet heterodox administration, with few of the snafus that characterised Bill Clinton’s first year. Just as important have been the roads not taken. Mr Obama has resisted the temptation to give in to the populists in his own party and saddle Wall Street with regulations that would choke it. He has eschewed punitive taxation on the entrepreneurs who animate the economy; and he has even, with the notable exception of a boneheaded tariff on cheap Chinese tyres, turned a deaf ear to the siren-song of the protectionists. In short, what’s not to like?"

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by Riot

Well heck, 'Zig. Interpretation is in the eye of the reader, I guess

If you want to cherry pick partial meaning or half-sentences out of these articles, we can do that:



Hard to see how you can put that negative spin on an article entitled: "Obama's Brilliant First Year - By January, he will have accomplished more than any first-year president since Franklin Roosevelt." The article points out all the good he had indeed accomplished by November, and how, after healthcare passes, the articles title will be true.



"Dick Cheney wrong on Barack Obama slam" - The part you ignored before the above sentence was: "But in fact, Obama has had a solid first year in foreign policy matters. By one measure, comparison with other first-year presidents in modern history, Obama ranks with the three or four best since World War II by my estimation - and I write this as someone who opposed Obama during the Democratic primary process of 2007-2008 largely because of fears at the time that he would not be strong on national security."



Well, if that is where you stopped reading the evaluation, I'd continue on to read: "Not too badly, by our reckoning. In his first 12 months in office Mr Obama has overseen the stabilising of the economy, is on the point of bringing affordable health care to virtually every American citizen, has ended the era of torture, is robustly prosecuting the war in Afghanistan while gradually disengaging from Iraq; and perhaps more precious than any of these, he has cleared away much of the cloud of hatred and fear through which so much of the world saw the United States during George Bush’s presidency.

More generally, Mr Obama has run a competent, disciplined yet heterodox administration, with few of the snafus that characterised Bill Clinton’s first year. Just as important have been the roads not taken. Mr Obama has resisted the temptation to give in to the populists in his own party and saddle Wall Street with regulations that would choke it. He has eschewed punitive taxation on the entrepreneurs who animate the economy; and he has even, with the notable exception of a boneheaded tariff on cheap Chinese tyres, turned a deaf ear to the siren-song of the protectionists. In short, what’s not to like?"

Did they mention that he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

Well heck, 'Zig. Interpretation is in the eye of the reader, I guess

If you want to cherry pick partial meaning or half-sentences out of these articles, we can do that:



Hard to see how you can put that negative spin on an article entitled: "Obama's Brilliant First Year - By January, he will have accomplished more than any first-year president since Franklin Roosevelt." The article points out all the good he had indeed accomplished by November, and how, after healthcare passes, the articles title will be true.



"Dick Cheney wrong on Barack Obama slam" - The part you ignored before the above sentence was: "But in fact, Obama has had a solid first year in foreign policy matters. By one measure, comparison with other first-year presidents in modern history, Obama ranks with the three or four best since World War II by my estimation - and I write this as someone who opposed Obama during the Democratic primary process of 2007-2008 largely because of fears at the time that he would not be strong on national security."



Well, if that is where you stopped reading the evaluation, I'd continue on to read: "Not too badly, by our reckoning. In his first 12 months in office Mr Obama has overseen the stabilising of the economy, is on the point of bringing affordable health care to virtually every American citizen, has ended the era of torture, is robustly prosecuting the war in Afghanistan while gradually disengaging from Iraq; and perhaps more precious than any of these, he has cleared away much of the cloud of hatred and fear through which so much of the world saw the United States during George Bush’s presidency.

More generally, Mr Obama has run a competent, disciplined yet heterodox administration, with few of the snafus that characterised Bill Clinton’s first year. Just as important have been the roads not taken. Mr Obama has resisted the temptation to give in to the populists in his own party and saddle Wall Street with regulations that would choke it. He has eschewed punitive taxation on the entrepreneurs who animate the economy; and he has even, with the notable exception of a boneheaded tariff on cheap Chinese tyres, turned a deaf ear to the siren-song of the protectionists. In short, what’s not to like?"

in other words, it's an immeasurable, unprovable bit of opinion there. just like much of what you posted. but not one thing you put up there disproved what i wrote previously. unless i missed where he veered from bush policy on those things i stated?? see, this is what i wrote:

it seems to me that more than anything, it's just continued on from where bush left off. economy still a mess, still talking about more stimulus packages, unemployment still far too high, and two wars still being waged, deficits still rising, housing still a joke. what exactly is it that has been accomplished? what has changed? what's different?


so, what of that list do i have wrong?????

[Riot]

Originally Posted by GBBob

I think Pawlenty is the sleeper in this group.

Mitch Daniels, Indiana.

[Antitrust32]

First off, you cant take anything that slate article said seriously when they were wrong in just that little snippit you put out.. The Spendulous was supposed to save the country from 8% unemployment, not 10%. And it was a total failure.

Also, one of the 3-4 best presidents since WWII??? And you wanted to spin that into one of the best first years ever? LMAO

So according to that writers, OPINION, Obama is in the top 1/3rd of the 12 presidents we have had since WWII.

Basically, according the Liberals, Obama is the Best Prez Evah cause he isnt G W Bush.

[Riot]

First off, you cant take anything that slate article said seriously when they were wrong in just that little snippit you put out.. The Spendulous was supposed to save the country from 8% unemployment, not 10%. And it was a total failure.

Plenty of economists - including McCain's chief campaign economist - think the stimulus worked just fine, doing exactly what it was supposed to, and causing us to stay out of a depression.

Far from "a total failure" in the opinion of many. Thinking of it, I've never seen any economist publically call it a "total failure" - do you know of one? Or is that just your personal opinion?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

Plenty of economists - including McCain's chief campaign economist - think the stimulus worked just fine, doing exactly what it was supposed to, and causing us to stay out of a depression.

Far from "a total failure" in the opinion of many. Thinking of it, I've never seen any economist publically call it a "total failure" - do you know of one? Or is that just your personal opinion?

prove it. prove we'd have been in a depression had that not been passed. my recollection of that bill being pushed was it was to keep unemployment from going past 10%, which it did anyway...in other words, it DIDN'T accomplish what they said it would. and why would adding mccains chief campaign economist somehow give that remark credence? because he's from 'the other side'? i bet i could find other economists who would disagree...but then, I'D be cherry picking....god knows no one else pulls bits out of articles to back their points.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

prove it. prove we'd have been in a depression had that not been passed. my recollection of that bill being pushed was it was to keep unemployment from going past 10%, which it did anyway...in other words, it DIDN'T accomplish what they said it would. and why would adding mccains chief campaign economist somehow give that remark credence? because he's from 'the other side'? i bet i could find other economists who would disagree...but then, I'D be cherry picking....god knows no one else pulls bits out of articles to back their points.

Not to mention the requirements that accompanied the stimlus money for the states that will begin to further bankrupt many of them starting next year. Or the fact that despite the idea that his foreign policy has been so swell there are still guys climbing on airplanes with bombs, Iran is getting closer to having nukes and seems to have sped up the process this year, The Palestinian issue is no better than it was a year ago, Somolia is still a disaster, Putin's tentacles have stretched further, Chavez is still doing his best to destabilize Central and South America and has been hosting Iran dignitaries, China has also cut some troubling deals for oil with Iran and along with Russia serve as their defender in the UN, Pakistan and India are still mortal enemies with nukes, Yemen has emerged as a new terror hotspot, North Korea is still nuclear and old Kim Jung-il is as wild and crazy as ever...

So what exactly was so good again?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i bet i could find other economists who would disagree...but then, I'D be cherry picking....god knows no one else pulls bits out of articles to back their points.

Please do. Post some other economists you can find that disagree, and say the stimulus has been a failure. Especially post any you know of that say the economy would not have been worse without the stimulus - that the stimulus did nothing for the economy.