Get a brain, morans!…has never been a more appropriate saying.
BTW…I’m not sure *exactly* how this isn’t treason, per se. It does appear to be trying to give comfort to our enemies, as it were. Assuring them, that Obama will leave office is Constitutionally required.
Not sure if they get that the Constitution *also* has the President as the one *NEGOTIATING TREATIES* and not the Senate.
As these idiots note, it is the Senate’s job to confirm them…not negotiate them. Step off idiots, your allegiance to and subsequent subservience to Netanyahu has been noted.
“What the president, president’s campaign did was focus on certain members of his base coalition, give them extraordinary financial gifts from the government, and then work very aggressively to turn them out to vote,” Romney said in the afternoon call, according to audio aired on ABC News.
Romney, who lost to Obama by 126 electoral votes, said the president courted voters by offering policies — some of them this election year — that appealed to key constituencies.
“With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest, was a big gift,” Romney said, according to The New York Times. “Free contraceptives were very big with young college-aged women,” he continued. “And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents’ plan, and that was a big gift to young people. They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008.” The president’s health care reform plan, he added, also brought out support from African Americans and Hispanic voters.
“You can imagine for somebody making $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000 a year, being told you’re now going to get free health care, particularly if you don’t have it, getting free health care worth, what, $10,000 per family, in perpetuity, I mean, this is huge,” he said. “Likewise with Hispanic voters, free health care was a big plus. But in addition with regards to Hispanic voters, the amnesty for children of illegals, the so-called Dream Act kids, was a huge plus for that voting group.”
Looks like Romney being “completely wrong” about his comments on the 47% were themselves completely wrong. The sad fact here is that I don’t think Romney gets that his “I’ll give you a 20% tax cut that doesn’t affect the deficit” was his own cynical attempt at “buying” the electorate….by advocating policies he thought were right for the country.
This GOP notion that the entirety of the Obama electorate, or even a sizable portion of it, just wants free stuff,is what is costing the GOP support. It’s a foolish notion, based on bloviating talkers on the radio, that was never based on any objective reality. It’s always been a subjectiveopinion. And a fairly unpopular one.
I think the thing that threw the GOP pollsters and faithful off was the this notion that the U.S. is a “conservative” nation (based on polls like this). They think that because twice as many people self-identify as “conservative”, they are therefore going to be Republicans. But when asked to self-identify, we find a greater number of people find themselves to be Democrats.
This is the GOP-Disconnect. Yes, many more Americans consider themselves to be conservative rather than liberal. But we also find more Americans consider themselves to be Democrats than Republicans.
Conclusion…Republicans assuming all Democrats are liberals is just flat out wrong. Republicans assuming all Democratic voters are just poor commies wanting free stuff are just wrong.
Until the GOP (and more importantly, their loudest media representatives) can come to terms with this disconnect, expect more “candid” comments like the ones Romney made…it’s what the GOP faithful truly believe…and it’s just not true.
I was recently going about my daily business when I was confronted on the Facebook with the following chart…
Taking these raw numbers without any context leaves a bit to be desired on the “providing insight” part of statistical analysis.
During the ensuing discussion, I noted a couple of things…first that 5 months remain in Obama’s first term. At the current roughly 200K-job/mo pace we are gaining, that’s another 1M on his tally. As we’ll see in a moment, looking at *how* these numbers came about can be quite enlightening.
We’re going to start with Jimmy Carter. In the following analysis, we are calling the inaugural month the first one they are responsible for, going through December of their last year. A quick comparison shows this to be very close to how Veronique de Rugy of the Mercatus Center* did the original chart.
Non Farm Employment under Carter, Seasonally Adjusted, 1977-1980
From here you can see something that will be a consistent theme in the following analysis…a stagnant job market causing issues for a sitting President. Employment peaked in March, 1980, having moving little since the previous summer. The long, hot year and rising unemployment was too much for voters, and a change was made.
Enter the Reagan…
Total Employment Reagan, Seasonally Adjusted, 1981-1988. One can see how Reagan faced initial skepticism, but has gained long-term respect.
Here we see Carter’s “malaise” lasting well into 1983. The lowpoint in unemployment, to Reagan’s great fortune, came late in 1982. By the time the election rolled around in 1984, everything appeared to be on track. Employment continued to expand throughout the rest of his term. Then we had to pay for it, and the business cycle shifted again.
Total Employment, Bush the Elder, Seasonally Adjusted, 1989-1992. Here we see Bush the elder’s problem, employment peaking two and half years prior to the election.
Bush the Elder saw the peak of the Reagan “what’s debt?” economic expansion, and watched as nearly 2M jobs evaporated after peaking in Jun of ’90. Economic recovery in job form came only in the last few months before the 1992 election, not nearly enough to stop the new kid on the block from stealing heart and minds and electoral votes.
Next we get to *see* what the longest and largest and most stable economic expansion in U.S. history like…in bar graph form.
Total Employment, Clinton, Seasonally Adjusted, 1993-2000. It really is pretty impressive, standing there all big and growing like that, Mr. President.
Like all the other graphs, I’ve marked the low and high point in employment during Clinton’s term. That’s how it’s done, folks. Really can’t ask for more. Well…maybe a bit less disgracing the Office of the President. He did, however, get impeached for that. Not sure if it was the peace and prosperity or the blowjob that got him impeached, but something sure made the Republicans mad. It didn’t stick in the Senate, but did doom his VP.
Regardless, after so much peace and prosperity, we decided it was time for a change. And oh what a change it was.
Total Employment, Bush the Lesser, Seasonally Adjusted, 2001-2008. Bush was all over the map. First losing 3M jobs, then finding 9M building houses, then losing 4M in a year after the bust.
Oh George. What can we do about this one. If you want to see what a bursting real estate bubble looks like? Click on that one. First we see the extended era of peace end on 9/11. Then we see the prosperity depart as we marched to war, hitting the low employment point just as the mission in Iraq was “accomplished.” Then we went on an easy-credit mortgage-fueled home-building binge, topping out with the greatest number of working Americans ever reported, 138,023,000 in January 2008.
By the end of 2008, 4M of those jobs had disappeared, and the Great Recession wasn’t nearly done.
Total Employment, Obama, Seasonally Adjusted, 2009-2012. Here we see the second half the Great Recession, with 4M more jobs going away in Obama’s first year. Since then there’s been a steady grind upwards, as we work to recover lost ground.
And this brings us up to the present data (Jul 2012). Here we see the graphic and dramatic employment results of the Great Recession. Four Million Jobs gone in the first year, reaching Obama’s lowpoint in February of 2010. Since then (as the “failed” Stimulus package was implemented) we’ve seen steady employment gains over the intervening two years, finally within grasping distance of where from we started.
To wrap the whole thing together…here’s the whole thing together…
Total_Employment_1977_2012. All of it. Together.
Here we see each and every year laid out side by side. Now longer term business cycles become more apparent, and we see the huge dip created by the crash of 2008.
All in all I wanted to provide this analysis because I found the original chart to be so incredibly lacking in context as to be misleading.
* the Mercatus Project is funded (to a noticeable degree) by the Koch Bros, who have used some of the $100M they pledged to unseat the current President producing graphs like this…which don’t tell the whole story. Often telling so little of the story, they might as well be lying.
Taking these raw numbers without any context leaves a bit to be desired on the “providing insight” part of statistical analysis.
AUSTIN — Rick Perry’s dismal showing in the presidential contest has plunged his approval among Texans to its lowest level in a decade, and more than half say in a new poll that he should not seek re-election as governor.
The poll by The Dallas Morning News shows that Perry now has a lower job approval rating in his home state than President Barack Obama, despite the GOP’s domination in Texas. Many also say that Perry damaged Texas’ image with his stumbles as a presidential candidate.
During the Iowa stops, he tested an update of his standard campaign speech, incorporating the new economic policy he proposed last week. In it, Romney pledges to cut $500 billion from the federal deficit in his first four years in office.
In Davenport, he listed the National Endowment of the Arts, National Endowment for Humanities, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and Amtrak as programs that may be cut or eliminated under a Romney administration.
“I think it’s time for programs that we like but we simply can’t afford to be stopped or to be cut back and make it on their own,” he said, prompting applause. “And I’m going to do that.”
Every one does understand that “cutting spending” translates to “firing people”, right?
Looks like 2012 is shaping up to be a contest between a venture capitalist and a community organizer.
For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his own works; for that is his portion: for who shall bring him to see what shall be after him?
That’s some pretty good Bible, eh? It’s the next verse after the Byrds sing.
One of the big problems facing our country now is the internal division in the choice of directions to go. This causes a problem, as in times of crisis NOT ACTING is an act, and it is an act that can cause many more problems than acting (even if that act turns out to be foolish). And BTW, we are face more than just an economic crisis. That’s a big one, but there’s a few more coming along in the next little bit that we still need to deal with (social security and the retiring boomers, the global climate change that simply refuses to act like isn’t solid science, a global war on cave-dwellers wondering why they keep getting bombed (and the few people who run the show who know), and some others, that’s just off the of the head.)
So there’s a bunch of stuff, big stuff, going on. Quite frankly, it would take a “Messiah” to see us through this thing. I think we are pretty lucky to have the team at the top we do, but I have no illusions about super-powers in human beings. Obama is mortal, and will make mistakes. He already has, and has owned up to them. This is a useful trait for a leader, IMHO. Particularly one faced with as much, as quickly, as Barry.
So anyway, I voted for the guy, so I’m going with it. The problem with the opposition here is that there is no sense, yet, that we need to act, and soon. There is some soul-searching that is headed right back to the same place we spent 20 of the last 28 years. We are seeing more generally empty rhetoric about “fiscal conservatism” which, after 20 years of watching it, seems to be cutting taxes, and increasing spending. The only question is about which spending to increase.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. congressional Republicans, having vowed to return to the conservative ideals of limited government, denounced President Barack Obama’s $3.55 trillion budget on Thursday as excessive and misdirected.
—
“I have serious concerns with this budget, which demands hard-working American families and job creators turn over more of their hard-earned money to the government to pay for unprecedented spending increases,” said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell.
Umm, I’m sorry, but the only people getting a tax increase are the rich. And it’s not even a tax increase, it’s letting Bush’s tax cuts (the ones he made to pay for the war…wait…what?) lapse. Only in the rhetorical realm does a temporary decrease expiring equal “OMG, HE’S RAISING THE TAXES ON THE RICH?! Honey, do we clear a quarter million a year?” [From the other room comes laughter. Loud, continuous laughter].
“Hard-working” and “hard-earned” money, no doubt. However, I have yet to see anyone who makes that money simply by standing there and working hard. Most people who clear that kind of dough on a regular basis worked on Wall Street. Ya’ll remember them, right? Hard-working, no doubt…but working hard at what?
My building is currently being torn apart and rebuilt (long story, involving rotting wood and water), and there are 100 or so hard workers out there each day, firing up the powertools the second the clock strikes eight. They are earning hard money, and they get to keep every bit of it (many of whom quickly send it south, but that’s another story). Under the tax plan as I am aware of it, it is the workers on main street that get the help, and the folks with deep ties to Wall Street (either through direct action, banking work, or just having assloads of money to give to investment bankers) get to pay for it.
O.k., sorry, got off on a rant there about deregulating the credit industry and how we can try to fix the country. The whole derugulation kick used to be part of the “fiscal conservative” model, for some reason, but now it’s been dropped…I think.
Regardless, let’s continue with the reaction…
“I think we just ought to admit we’re broke. We can’t continue to pile debt on the backs of our kids and grandkids,” said House Republican Leader John Boehner.
I’m sorry, what? Where was this attitude when it was Repbulicans spending like mad on a war? And cutting taxes to pay for it? I mean, I hate to sound like a broken record here, but we’ve been running huge deficits for a while now, and it was the Republicans pushing it.
“The budget outline shows a half-hearted attempt to reduce the trillion-dollar deficits we face, largely through more tax hikes that will only hurt the economy, when it should take this opportunity to exercise aggressive spending restraint,” said Gregg, the top Republican on the Budget Committee.
Right! No money for Americans, but we’ll spend like drunken sailors on killing folks. Unfortunately, “aggressive spending restraint” isn’t what gets an economy moving. The economy is money moving around, people busy, buying, selling, shipping, making things happen. Not spending slows things down and sometimes they stop.
This is why I brought up the Byrds and the Economic Apocalypse. We really are that close, folks. We need to be working together here to get this thing re-started. Even the “fiscal conservative” Democrats realize that.
A group of 49 fiscally conservative House Democrats, whose commitment to deficit reduction has at times put some of them at odds with Obama’s economic program, hailed Obama’s budget for presenting what they called an honest fiscal picture.
“To begin to set our nation back on the right fiscal track, we must first understand and acknowledge how big of a hole we are in,” said Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, a leader of the Democratic “Blue Dog” Coalition.
And we’re in a damn, big, hole.
Reuters nails it on the head with this next statement.
Republicans have long touted themselves as champions of limited government, but surrendered that claim in approving a series of big-deficit budgets during the administration of Obama’s predecessor, Republican George W. Bush.
We got big government left, right, and center with Bush. And somehow that spending was o.k. One thing Obama is doing that Bush did not (and part of the reason the Wars are going to cost us so much) is putting the War Budget in the actual budget. Bush went through a special spending rigamarole that added another $150,000,000,000 or so a year on the ole company credit card. It’s a big part of our big hole.
The problem with military spending, and it is a problem, is that at the end of the day you end up burning that million dollar missile. Every loss of life is tragic and I don’t mean to downplay that side, at all, but we train the ever-living shit out of our soldiers. We have the best trained army in the world, no doubt, and each loss has a human side and an economic one. Sorry to be cold, and I’m trying not to be, but the cost of war is dramatic and not over when the guns stop shooting.
We’ve had a time for war, and now is a time for peace, and rebuilding. It’s a time for coming together. We can argue about it in a few years, if we are still talking, and have not become the Beasts of Ecclesiastes.
And just a quick primer, for those that don’t follow human nature…it’s a beast when things gets rough. If you can feel it at the top, trust me…they feel it at the bottom, multiplied be each economic ladder you move down. It’s kind of a primal thing actually.
Luckily, we can vote on things and don’t have to settle them in the schoolyard like they did in the old days. The votes, BTW, have already been cast. Trust me, my internet friends…those not on this wondrous network, have been feeling the pangs of the economic downturn since it first happened (generations ago), are about ready to burst. There’s a lot of them, and they have hope now that change is on the way.
Let’s keep it that way, and keep the beasts at the gate. Republicans shoud be like canyon water now, giving, fast, and learning. Going with the flow a bit, but always remembering that during a downpour, it doesn’t pay to be ice. The time for a change in course will come, but not next week, and not even next year.
There comes a time for everything, and given the economic and political situation, Obama is now a juggernaut. It’d be best to get out of the way for a bit. Rick Perry, I’m looking at you and your hair.
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama singled out Texas on Friday as a state that could lose out under the newly enacted $797 billion economic stimulus package because Gov. Rick Perry hasn’t totally ruled out rejecting some funds.
That’s what they call a pimp slap on K Street. Obama wields the bully pulpit, and he actually knows where that term came from. Watch yo’self.
A’hem…
The huge stimulus bill includes a provision that allows legislatures to override governors and accept funding even if a governor objects.
“I haven’t spoken to the governor about it, but I hope that all Texans, regardless of politics, will make sure we maximize the use of federal funds available to the benefit of our taxpayers,” said Houston Mayor Bill White, a Democrat.
And that, boys and girls, is why the thing is 1,000 pages long. The long arm of the pimp slap, in legislative reality.
I put together this little video the other day to try and make a point. During the video I hold up a particular book that talks about, generally, some of the stuff I am gettting at in the video. Here’s the vid…
After I had created the video (which I recorded on Valentine’s Day) I was reading a bit about someone who is hated because of her name. She, too, mentioned the book I held up during the video, which leads to the second half of this post.
Here’s what AP observed…(the person, not the media organization). Let’s start with the connection to my video (and the random book I spied while making it). From the narrator…
When Alexandra Pelosi made the Emmy-winning documentary “Journeys With George” in 2000, about her 18 months on the campaign trail with soon-to-be-President George W. Bush, her mother, Nancy, was not yet speaker of the House, and the name “Pelosi” was not yet an epithet on the lips of Republicans.
Eight years later, Pelosi went back out on the GOP campaign trail and into the lion’s den, in the waning days of John McCain’s failed bid for the White House. In her latest film, “Right America: Feeling Wronged,” which debuts on HBO Monday night, Pelosi attends McCain and Sarah Palin rallies in 28 states and puts her microphone in the faces of some very passionate conservatives. As defeat looms, she watches the Republican base go through a very public grieving process, with most of the stages that psychiatrist Elisabeth Kübler-Ross described — denial, depression and a whole lot of anger — but not very much acceptance. Salon spoke to Pelosi by phone.
And then we get on to the question and answer portion of the article….
Quite a bit surprised by this one. It’s tough to find the right line in a rant like this, but GOM does a very good job.
I can’t vouch for his other work, but this one is very well done. Personally I think Obama is being practical in how to draw down U.S. forces in Iraq. I’m fairly certain he understands that the “surge stragety” for Iraq won’t pay dividends in Afghanistan, and will be settling on another strategy to try and turn the tide in that country.
Oh, and here’s the shoe incident he mentioned…
I wonder if we could all head to the White House and throw our shoes at it. I wonder if Bush would get it then.
That’s probably the first thing I’m going to do once they dedicate his library in my home town (he just bought a house down the street from me).
For some reason that might do the trick, and I think he would finally get it….so….who’s up for a quick trip to D.C.?
—
I’m fairly certain Cheney wouldn’t get it. He would either ignore it or order everyone shot…in the face.
Around the Arab world, if you want to escalate a situation, by saying for example “I’m going to thump you”, add the words “with a shoe” and you’re adding serious insult to the threat of possible injury.
It’s that cultural significance that has added real sting to the assault by an Iraqi journalist against US President George W Bush at a Baghdad news conference.
In Arab culture it’s considered rude even to display the sole of one’s shoe to a fellow human being.
Certainly, crossing one’s legs ankle-on-knee style should never be done in a public place for fear of offending the person next to you.
The sensitivity is related to the fact shoes are considered ritually unclean in the Muslim faith.
In addition to ritual ablutions before prayer, Muslims must take off their shoes to pray, and wearing shoes inside a mosque is forbidden.
There’s a lot of dust in the Middle East, you see, and it gets everywhere…and a lot of camels and other livestock…it’s a cultural tradition with a good bit of common sense behind it, when you think about it.
Seriously, can someone please let him know that he has two choices to fix this problem. Either grow back the fro or get a better background.
It was tough to follow his address as I kept trying to calculate how much spare “change” I could keep in those satellite dishes on the sides of his head.
It has often been said that one of the frustrating things about human interaction is that, said simple, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make them drink.”
I would like to add the following corollary, “A horse drinking rancid water will continue to do so, if thirsty, no matter how often you point to the shit floating in it.”
In this case the shit floating in the water is Leo Donofrio, who has glamoured a whole bunch of horses that have convinced themselves they are dying of thirst and he has their water.
This metaphor is made real by the blog “Natural Born Citizen” (a play on the Oliver Stone movie “Natural Born Killer”, which is a curious thing to note in and of itself.)
I recently took a few moments out of my day to read his latest diatribe about how he doesn’t understand the Constitution in order to try and help out a little. As with many right-wing nutters, Donofrio doesn’t have the strength of conviction to deal with simple arguments that invalidate his thesis. As with many right-wing nutters (particularly of the blogging world), he attempts to make it look like this is not the case by simply refusing to publish counter-arguments [UPDATE: he finally posted my comment after editorializing in them, my response to that is below].
For example, if you were to read the thread entitled …
…as of this morning you would not see the following comment, by yours truly. This is despite the fact that later comments have both been posted and commented on in length.
As one could clearly see that the argument posted (Leo’s) is easily and quickly invalidated by the comment posted (Mine) it would behoove Mr. Donofrio to avoid such situtations. Hence the point of the “comment awaiting moderation” tag on my comment that none of y’all can see on the thread itself (which is why I took the timestamped screen shot). It sits in the queue, and the horses keep drinking, and get sicker and sicker in their stomachs.
As mentioned in another place, the base of his argument is that British citizenship laws trumps U.S. citizenship laws. He seems to forget we fought, and won, a war with the British over precisely this issue (i.e. who is subject to British law). Our Constitution is very clear about what to do for U.S. citizens when there is an apparent conflict of law with another nation and which takes precedence for citizens in the U.S.
The *really* funny part about this is that he’s trying to use *Scalia* to make a point that some other country’s law trump the U.S.’s, which is something that Scalia would find almost as objectionable as gay marriage (Scalia is not such a big fan of the gays getting hitched and he ABSOLUTELY HATES the idea that “international law” would ever trump U.S. law…the crux of Donofrio’s argument).
Funny stuff, and a very precise and exact example of “blognitive dissonance” (that is, removing comments that invalidate one’s argument in order to maintain a seemingly coherent, unanimous, thread).
——-
Oh, and Leo, the reason why everyone is calling you and your supporters racist is, well…you do know what the fourteenth amendment fixed, right? And you do know how many people, up to at least the 1950’s, and in Congress, had no problems talking about the inadequacies of the “nigger race” (video evidence).
When the point of the argument is to try and keep one of “those people” from assuming the top office in the land (after a free and fair election), I hope you can see how people think they see right through your hand waving, and understand your real purpose here.
——-
UPDATE: He responded and agreed that his argument was absurd and frivolous. Woot! I’ll post my response here as well, since it is going to to take too long for him to try and think up a response to the following (which is what he does before posting alternative opinions by editing those comments).
[Leo Donofrio: The law doesn’t recognize the absurd or frivolous. In the case above, there would be no basis in Jus Soli or Jus Sanguinis for the Chinese citizenship. Obama was a citizen – by blood descent – of Great Britain not by an absurd hyopothetical.]
No he wasn’t. You clearly state that..
—
When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children. (Emphasis added.)
—
You even added emphasis that it is BRITISH LAW that you are using to make your argument. In the hypothetical Chinese case, all they would have to do is have a “one drop of blood” rule and it is the exact same thing.
BTW, my point is exactly what you said. The concept that British or Chinese law would trump U.S. law is so absurd it keeps getting tossed out of court. Thank for you confirming my point.
—
[LD. The Treatise was written in 1758 and was the way of the world. The Constitution was ratified in 1788 and the original intent of the phrase is explained in The Laws of Nations. The treatise as cited would appeal to an originalist like Justice Scalia, who referred Cort’s case to the full Court. Scalia just recently used The Laws of Nations in the Heller case where he wrote the opinion of the Court. Obviously, somebody like Justice Ginsberg probably wouldn’t be influenced by the Laws of Nations as to this issue. ]
—
Yes, I know the world was very sexist in 1758. It was also very racist. That was the point of the Fourteenth Amendment, if you’ll recall, to try and address the direct issue of how people treated former slaves.
Your lack of clarification or real argumentation seems to mean that you agree that a gender-neutral test is fine, and so Obama wins again.
Scalia, BTW, hates using other country’s laws to interpret the Constitution. I don’t see him agreeing with your contention that British Law somehow trumps U.S. law in the context of citizenship.
UPDATE2: Like I said, blognitive dissonance. The above comment has been excised from the conversation. I’ll try again.
UPDATE3: He’s got no answer for the above argument. Which is why he’s not going to understand (again) why nobody will let him argue this crap in court.
WASHINGTON – Massachusetts Sens. John Kerry and Edward Kennedy are praising Democratic colleague Hillary Rodham Clinton’s nomination to be secretary of state.
Kerry said in a statement Monday that Clinton’s “remarkable intellect” would help restore America’s alliances across the globe and advance President-elect Barack Obama’s foreign policy agenda.
Kerry had been mentioned as a possible secretary of state choice. As incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he will host Clinton’s confirmation hearing.
I’m glad to see Obama follow through on his “team of rivals” promise from the election. With this and the potential nomination of the current SecDef to the same position, and Larry Summers on economics, he’s proven himself to be very mainstream in his selections for positions of power.
Sadly, those who thought he was going to fill his cabinet with his homies from the hood will probably continue to say stupid things, and miss that he actually is trying to follow in the footsteps of Lincoln.
It wasn’t just words, it would seem.
Now….that’s about all there is to do now, as he’s still not the President Proper, but this should calm a whole lot of nerves. And I love the thought of all the PUMA-idiots having to not only eat their words, but shit them out, grill ’em up, and eat ’em again.
The misogyny, sexism and gay-bashing by Democrats that occurred in the 2008 election cycle is an open sore that will not heal. The leadership of the Democratic Left increasingly proved itself to be a misogynistic and anti-gay coalition. The words are “progressive”. The actions contradict the words. We know actions speak louder than words.
I think we all know now who the “open sore who will not heal” is.
I wonder if they’ll see this “action” and come on back down to Earth with the rest of us. For some reason, I seriously doubt it. When you’ve thrown your hat this far into the ring, it’s hard to back down even when you know you are wrong. (see: Republicans on Iraq circa 2004).
NOTE: title joke isn’t mine, but funny nonetheless.
Robot Pirate Ninja 