Memo To Obama Bashers: I’m Scared & Angry Too, But Please Back Off
The inevitable piling on the Barack Obama presidency is well underway — and well too prematurely.
Consider that Obama has been in office for not even two thirds of the mythic 100 days by which new presidents are prejudged. Consider that we had been sabotaged by domestic terrorists in the form of the Bush administration and that the damage it wrought will take years to undo. Consider that no president since FDR has inherited as immense an economic crisis, as well as several other crises, including a health-care system on the verge of collapse and two wars.
Obama will have plenty of opportunity to prove that he doesn’t have the chops, let alone the hired guns, to face down these crises.
That spending our way out of a moribund economy is not the right path to recovery.
That raising taxes on the wealthy and beginning to close an income gap that is at the heart of many societal ills is penny wise but pound foolish.
That ridding institutions of toxic assets while keeping current managers is not enough to save the financial system.
That weaning us from our addiction to foreign oil and fossil fuels will not pay off down the road.
That resuscitating a public education system that fails too many of our children is not worth the expense and effort.
That making diplomatic overtures to nations that the previous president bullied will not be a wiser course.
But until then, please back off.
Populist outrage is the flavor of the moment. But look closely at the polls and it is apparent that while this feeling of being terribly wronged is pervasive it is not — much to the dismay of “Just Say No” Republicans — particularly directed at a man who while showing an occasional propensity for having a tin ear has had the keys to the national car for barely two months.
Obama states that he is taking responsibility for the gaffes and missteps on his watch, as well as a whole lot of stuff that he has had the misfortune to inherit, and I believe him. He is treating us as adults and not political playthings in marked contrast to the last eight years, and that feels good amidst all the shock, pain, suffering and recriminations.
The president suggested at week’s end as he met with governors and mayors who are just beginning to receive the initial injection of stimulus money that we need to let off steam and then move on. That may seem like too pat a response, but it is the appropriate one. The AIG bonuses are a pimple on the elephant’s ass and the sooner that Congress and everyone else can get back to dealing with the elephant the better.
It is difficult to comprehend all of the balls that Obama has in the air and the consequences of dropping even one or two of them. But I am trying to remain hopeful while at the same time concede the national pooch may well have been screwed. That while the good old days may never have been as good as we thought, there will be no returning to the prosperity that many of us took for granted.
In fact, like a lot of us I too am scared.
Scared for my children’s future.
Scared for my friends of frail health and limited resources.
And scared for my pension fund.
I continue to believe that because of some extraordinary twists of fate, we have been gifted a president who was teaching constitutional law when the seeds of the crisis were first germinating. And that he is the best person to lead us out of the darkness, certainly more so than John McCain, Hillary Clinton or myriad other old-school pols would have been.
But to blame Obama for what has come before and judge him prematurely for what comes after is grotesque given our dire straits. So in the meantime, please back off. And pray that he — and we — succeed.
Shaun Mullen is a former The Moderate Voice columnist. Over a long career with newspapers, this award-winning editor and reporter covered the Vietnam War, O.J. Simpson trials, Clinton impeachment circus and coming of Osama bin Laden, among many other big stories. He blogs at Kiko’s House.
109 Responses to “Memo To Obama Bashers: I’m Scared & Angry Too, But Please Back Off”
His legacy may well be his opposition the Soviet Union. But, his true legacy is his near bankrupting the United States government with his domestic economic policies.
Brian Doyle
Silver Spring, Md. Who now works for the DHS. Glad he sees nothing wrong with the Obama deificts.
Secondly the Bashing actually started with Reagan not Clinton. The Clinton Bashing was in response to the Reagan bashing and how the Democrats actively tried to have Reagan Impeached for the Iran Contra thing. So what did the GOP do? They tried to impeach Clinton. Then what did the Democrats do? They are trying to get Bush/Cheney executed…….er I mean arrested if they travel abroad. So golly and gee wiz what do you thing the GOP is going to do with Obama?
I have said for quite some time now. This country is pre French Revolution and it is eerily similar in nature leading up to the civil war.
No one around here can remember what came first anymore. The chicken or the egg. Its a lot like the Israeli/Palestinian question. The left hates the right for so long that neither side can remember who started it and really dont care. Its sort of self perpetuating.
I'm not sure when you mistakenly got the impression that I'd declared victory in Afghanistan. I'm also curious as to what you would have called WWII on the day of the Normandy invasion.
With all due respect to the combatants, the most interesting part of this thread is Mullen trying to reincarnate himself as the calm voice of reason.
Given that, tomorrow I get to reincarnate myself as the Easter Bunny.
Was Reagan impeached for Iran Contra?
How many airports and school are named after Raygun.?
We here of Obama as the messiah, but when will we put him on Rushmore?
I hopes Obama survives, or will K-Lo eat him with some Chianti.
CS
Why yes, I have taken a few logic classes.
Your statistical citation on its face proves nothing what so ever. You imply a causative relationship between increased funds and diminished returns. A totally unproved relationship. .You could state that as the amount of electricity use has increased in schools, the quality of education has gone down. It's a logical non sequitor. I think its the light, you think its the money. Totally useless citation from the Rush Limbaugh school of logic.
Obama has said that the rat holes need to be filled about 20 times, but you know, he's kind of busy with other problems that are more pressing like the issues that started this thread.
I an assuming this is for me…
WWII – US involvement starts Dec 7 1941, D Day occurs on June 6, 1944, April 30 1945 Germany surrenders.
Afghanistan ( second or third poorest country in world depending on who is counting ) – US ( largest economy in the world) invades October 7, 2001….. March 23, 2009 – The road goes on and the party never ends…
Che would be laughing his ass off if he was still alive.
The point is not that there's an inverse relationship between educational spending and educational success, it's that there is not a linear relationship and that other unidentified factors are probably playing a role. these factors should be identified and a plan devised, not just throw money at it.
I agree Obama is very busy with the current crisis, which is an excellent reason not to try to solve everything at once.
Jim -
OK, here we go:
LBJ was absolutely eviscerated over Vietnam in general, and the Tet Offensive in particular. The Left and press screamed and protested over Tet, that it was a 'massive loss' by the U.S., when in fact by all military standards it was a complete disaster for North Vietnam. Except, of course, for the total propaganda victory the press and Left handed them, hand-cuffing US policy there, leading to LBJ refusing to run for a second term, and leading to Nixon's election. The irony of that is just mind-boggling to me.
Ford was continually portrayed by the Left and press as a bumbling, uncoordinated, 'accidental' President, of limited intelligence. In fact, he was an accomplished athlete (he turned down offers to play in the NFL), was very articulate, graduated in the top 24% of his class from Yale Law School, and was pushed upon Nixon to replace Agnew by a bi-partisan Congressional coalition due to the great respect he commanded among his peer from both sides of the aisle. you would never guess all that from the usual coverage of him, though.
Carter. Playboy interview. The malaise speech. Iran hostage rescue. Enough said.
Reagan. Christ, where to start. Before he was elected, he was 'just a b-list actor who worked with chimps', his foreign policy would lead to nuclear war, he was so senile he had no idea what day it was. Even now, long after the release of his personal diaries showing the depth of his intellectual and character, the fact that his policies were part of a long-developed and well considered plan and philosophy, despite being proven 100% right about Russia, laying the groundwork for a 20-year economic expansion, returning the feeling that America and Americans were not at the end of their history, the Left and the press continue to portray him negatively, and refuse to give him his due.
Your turn. tell me what of what I just wrote is a lie, or a mis-characterization. You cannot, for the simple fact it is the truth.
Your statistical citation on its face proves nothing what so ever. You imply a causative relationship between increased funds and diminished returns. A totally unproved relationship.
OK, now I'm starting to pull my hair out.
It is not up to me to prove causality, it is up to the people who propose the spending to prove causality of improvement. Otherwise why are we spending it??
I'm not making a positive assertion, you are (or at least I assume you are since you expressed a favorable view of increasing federal education spending.) So where's your proof of causality of improvement in education from that spending? If there really were expenditures which suddenly became gigantic and wiped away any gains from the extra spending, then it is up to you to show this.
Why do you not want to hold the politicians in DC accountable? You seem to take them at face value when they express concern about a problem and throw money at it. If your rationale is actually based on a more thoughtful process of where the money is actually going, I await your explanation to prove me wrong.
Broke his oath of office by violating the Boland Amendment, traded with enemies of the US, armed right wing death squads in Central America.
Just the highlights…
DaGoat
As I increase the amperage, the lights get brighter and quality of education goes down. A linear relationship proves exactly the same thing – nothing.
You leave out way too many variables out of the analysis to make an educated conclusion. This stat was presented as “proof” why money for education was a waste. Obama's specifics for this money are well documented.
Using this stat to criticize an element of the stimulus is classic pseudo science to make a political point. Cheap shot not logically effective.
CS – it is very difficult to do a normalized analysis of spending vs results in education. There are just too many variable, and first and foremost is whether any given school district is seeing an increase in their student population. That of course leads to spending per pupil analysis, but even there there are huge methodology issues to overcome.
Me, I have always favored the metric of % of spending on administrative functions and the number of students per administrative headcount. Both of those tend to provide a pretty accurate negative relationship of probable student proficiencies and results.
Hemm, a nonlinear relationship (or an inverse one) does not prove causality but you're still not addressing my point that the onus of proof belongs on those who propose the spending. Do you wish for all of our legislators to push for increased spending on their pet projects or programs and then expect other people to prove why the money SHOULDN'T be allocated or increased? That makes no sense, and I think you're just ducking the point by making cheap shots at me (saying that I'm making a Rush Limbaugh styled argument) while simultaneously accusing ME of making cheap shots.
Nice double fake there, but can you get back to the actual point?
CS
The point was the money that went into the stimulus was itemized by state, and every portion of those proceeds were set to broad plans. Check the stimulus dot org site for how those funds are being used state by state.
Without proof, the Republicans just say NO without explanation. That's certainly appealing for the minority, it does nothing to solve the problems at hand.
The majority makes the plans, and the minority should bring up proof that those plans won't work. You are not doing that. How many times have I asked the right to specify what you'd do differently, and I never get an answer. Just like this thread, I get a lot of hand ringing and a lot of trepidation that Obama is doing it wrong.
I said that I wanted more infrastructure spending than we got. The Repubs in Congress just wanted tax cuts, no funds for infrastructure was mentioned by Republican leadership. Had they come out saying, “We need more spending for roads, bridges, etc,” I'd have been right behing them. They didn't. The majority put forth a plan, documented it, and made the the process as transparent as it has ever been. If you don't like some of the points, fine. I have a few that I disagree with too. Undefined angst does not qualify.
Remember, you asked if I had taken a logic class, I answered that question in the same vein that it was asked. If that is a cheap shot, consider the starting point. Mark Twain said, “There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics.” If you wish to use them, be prepared to back them up.
Just saying no when the proponents don't explain or justify why the spending should be allocated is again, based on the premise that those who assert a positive have the burden of proof on their side. Obama will often pay lip service to the idea that people resist big government programs because they've seen how badly they've failed in the past but he gives no evidence (other than his rhetoric) that there will be more real accountability now. Given that scenario, it should be no surprise that his political opponents say 'no'.
As someone said earlier- yes, we understand that Obama has other priorities right now rather than going line by line in the budget as he promised- but that just argues for our side of the debate, that most of this stuff should be taken more slowly and deliberately instead of rushing it through. Of course that assumes that the point wasn't to rush it through before anyone could deliberate on it, an assumption of good faith that I'm no longer willing to make.
So why weren't you behind these guys?
Just because the blogosphere wasn't reporting on alternate GOP bills that included infrastructure spending, doesn't make it true that they did not.
For the record, I didn't think this was a great plan either but it was better than what we ended up with.
Breaking News from The New York Times:
Dow Leaps 497 Points on Enthusiasm Over Treasury Plan
Wall Street reignited a two-week rally on Monday, fueled by
the government's plan to help banks remove bad assets from
their books. The government's program would tap money from
the government's $700 billion financial rescue fund and also
involve help from the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation and the participation of private
investors. The Dow Jones industrial average closed up nearly
500 points, or 6.8 percent, and the broader Standard & Poor's
500-stock index rose more than 7 percent. The Nasdaq rose
more than 98 points or 6.7 percent
What a bummer!
But , as someone mentioned on this blog, what goes up must come down.
Yes, there is always hope for those who hope Obama/our economy will fail.
Dont' give up!
CS
i see they specified 114 billion for infrastructure. No much different as they don't include smart grid or research into alternative energies.
Unfortunately, these moderates were blocked by party leaders. Had they come out in discussions with Obama, not the house or senate leadership, they may have had a say in the process. My underlying belief is that neither Dem or Repub leadership wanted anything but partisan politics in this, and that's a real problem.
I believe we would both agree that at least half the problem we face is that any plans have to go through a political process that is maintained to do nothing substantial. Bring moderates together from both parties is the best solution I know to get a plan that is concise and documented.
So why don't you fault Obama and the Democrat leadership for failing to allow the moderates of both parties to come to the table? They're the ones calling the shots. The Blue Dogs (Minnick) also had a scaled down, more targeted proposal but he wasn't allowed to put it forward either.
If Obama really wanted to change the way things are done in Washington and end the bitter partisan divide, shouldn't he have overridden Ms. Nancy on this?
Of course that assumes that the point wasn't to rush it through before anyone could deliberate on it, an assumption of good faith that I'm no longer willing to make.
I think you nail it here, CS. I don't think Obama wants these proposed programs to go through the usual public scrutiny major programs usually undergo. In some cases we don't even know where the money is going yet.
Not surprising considering that the treasury plan is a large cash transfer from the tax-payer to Wall Street.
What did Carville say?
Not surprising considering that the treasury plan is a large cash transfer from the tax-payer to Wall Street.
For once I'm in agreement with you here, DQ. And that's why D.E's cheerleading rings hollow. When you think about the reason that Wall Street likes the plan, that's the same reason the rest of us know we're screwed. If the Dow was starting to rise on healthy investor confidence it would be different. My pessimism has nothing to do with not wanting the economy to improve but everything to do with realism.
I actually think that the stimulus stuff was mainly Congress' wish list but Obama still chose not to block any of it in favor of the moderates' trimmed down package.
And in his budget he did show the same tendency to keep his own wish list intact and set things in motion while his approval ratings were still high. His political capital seems to burn a hole in his pocket.
Once again AR paints assertions with a brush so broad it could paint over Mount Rushmore in one stroke. I'm not going to argue about what happened to LBJ. But perhaps it should be noted that Tet was important because, as Wikipedia notes:
Emphasis mine, of course. As far as Ford is concerned, how much of that really went on in the media? Seriously. Are you sure you don't have it confused with Saturday Night Live? I think that Ford paid for the Watergate hangover, personally, but there was still nothing as vicious as the usual fare from the current right wing machine no matter how hard you try to revise history. And your Reagan worship is really showing big time, AR.
And a bit off topic, DaGoat, but along the same lines of another complaint on process and lack of bipartisanship, is this.
I've said it before but since some people won't have read my previous comments- if Obama and the current Dem Congress want to use a 51 vote strategy they have the right to do so. I'm not whining about minority status- the GOP got what they deserved in that regard. But Obama and Pelosi and Reid can't use these strategies while also complaining about the GOP not coming to the table.
CS
“So why don't you fault Obama and the Democrat leadership for failing to allow the moderates of both parties to come to the table? They're the ones calling the shots.”
My personal opinion on this is based upon a couple theories.
1. My belief system about U.S. politics: We have three parties in our system; Republicans, Democrats, and Lobbyists. Lobbyists make up a sub-set of each of the two other parties, so no matter who is the majority, things like NAFTA, Defense, and Wall Street still get the desired ammount of perks. Health care is one that also controls any solutions to include the embedded, lobby-heavy private industry.
2. Leadership of both parties have gotten their rolls by bending to political forces at the cost of their principals. Maintaining power is their only concern, and both sides really quit concerning themselves with right, wrong, and effective. You see this in Repub leadership not performing their oversight over Bush's fiascos, and with the Dems supporting the Wire tap program that operates without judicial review. That you Miss P.
Obama really believes that change must come to Washington, but his party leadership is every bit the problem as the Republicans. He is also a very savvy politician, so don't think I'm just another Obama cultist.
My personal take on the stimulus was that it was way too small. Infrastructure needs 1.5 Trillion to really fix things. Obama's most maddening trait is his consensus approach, consensus with either party leadership is a devil's bargain. Obama had to accept changes for Snow's Republicans AND the Dems leadership. Bush never had this problem with the Repubs as that leadership made sure their lobbyist's interests were well served.
The problem now, and Obama's opportunity is that so many crisis are occuring at the same time, the lobbyists can't keep up. It's Obama's window of opportunity and he's taking it. Look for both subsets to block as much as they can that hurts their lobbyist's interests. Health care, regulation of the market, and alternative energy are three of thos battle ields.
Mr. Mullen,
I have posted several comments here asking commentators of all stripes to exercise patience. I find this rush to judgment, ill advised, ignorant and probably dangerous.
For the life of me, I cannot grasp how reasonably intelligent humans can simply ignore the fact that this mess took at least 8 years to make and that it's simply ridiculous to imagine anyone could solve any one of these crises in 100 days. Rarely has a US President faced the kind of implacable opposition that Obama has. FDR did, but he had such massive majorities in congress that it did not signify. Oh, and by the way, he didn't have two wars to deal with.
I like Obama, and I voted for him. But, I do not know if he's been successful or not. How could anyone? Really!
Richard York
After all, it's not like Jay Cost is a partisan Republican or anything. CS, you're just citing a Republican opinion piece that criticizes Obama. If in fact you were interested in some honesty you'd have to admit that the overwhelming majority of Republicans have no interest in coming to the table unless all the servings go to them. Since that's true, exactly what strategy is open to any Democrat?
What an astounding thread! 81 comments?!? Gracious! And the vast majority of them going at one another's throats about partisanship and Derangement Syndromes. From otherwise calm people, no less! Wow!
Since I read through all this, I guess I'll toss my two cents in with the rest.
I agree with Shaun's basic premise in the original post: Judging Obama a failure, or suggesting that this is “his” stock market crash / economy is ludicrous — and it's even more insane when one notices that this line started trotting itself out and about in the blogosphere at about Day 45 of Obama's presidency.
*snort*
That said — the knee-jerking from the right about Obama is indeed reminiscent of the reactions from the left about Bush. GW led us down some truly nasty paths, but there were a number of places where his proposals were actually moderate. They might even have gone somewhere, had anyone taken the time to listen to them rather than reacting out of hand. (immigration reform comes to mind here)
Richard:
Thanks for some words of reason (there have been others):
“For the life of me, I cannot grasp how reasonably intelligent humans can simply ignore the fact that this mess took at least 8 years to make and that it's simply ridiculous to imagine anyone could solve any one of these crises in 100 days. Rarely has a US President faced the kind of implacable opposition that Obama has. FDR did, but he had such massive majorities in congress that it did not signify. Oh, and by the way, he didn't have two wars to deal with.
I like Obama, and I voted for him. But, I do not know if he's been successful or not. How could anyone? Really!”
And since both sides seem to have dug their heels in, let me post my last comment to this string starting with my very first comment to Shaun:
“BravoShaun.
I, for one, intend to give our President a few more days—perhaps even half the number of days it took to get us where we are now.”
And concluding with my recent comment to Mikkel in another string:
“Mikkel:
Thanks for your take strictly from a market viewpoint (technical rally, bear market, dead cat's bounce, etc., etc.), and a knowledgeable viewpoint at that..
I, as a non-economist, an an American who wants our economy to recover as soon as possible, am sick and tired at the nay-sayers; those who want this recession to last—or even get worse—strictly for partisan purposes, and so they can say “I told you so.”
Call me naive, or whatever, but that's why you'll have to forgive me if I look at every bit of good news about out economy, no matter how tiny; at every upward move in the market, even if it is a “technical rally”; at every encouraging sign, no matter how fleeting, with the eyes of an optimistic American who wants our President NOT to fail, our economy NOT to tank.
If that's too radical for some, then so be it.
But, Mikkel, thank you for your goodwill and patience.
Dorian”
There you go guys—have at me now
Jim, first of all you consider anyone who isn't liberal to be a partisan Republican and on that basis you dismiss what they say out of hand, so I'm not inclined to care what you think of Jay Cost.
Second, the piece I linked to makes no claims that can't be verified; there is in fact a possibility that the Dems are going to pursue the use of parliamentary procedure to push controversial measures through under the rules of budget legislation which only require 51 votes instead of 60. Here's a non GOP source for you if you dispute that.
Polimom, is there something moderate that I've missed in Obama's bills or policies so far? Tell me where the analogy to Bush on immigration would be.
This is from your own link, of course. Republicans aren't interested in limiting their filibusters to “controversial measures”, either.You refer to moderates from both parties. Sorry, but the Republican moderate is an almost extinct species and none of the remaining ones can be found in the House of Representatives and the remaining ones in the Senate are threatened by their fellow Republicans at least as much as any Democrate.
Killed by the Republican Party in their quest for the SuperDestroyer vote.
Next Moderate Proposal?
Oh, and Cost is just as partisan as I said. Just read his piece for the Weekly Standard. And there are other reasons to question his judgment.
Lucky thing we have good 'ol Moderate Jim, a completely unbiased and neutral observer and commentator, to help us see who and who is not partisan. Because there is no doubt HE isn't biased in the least.
So in conclusion.
We turned to Barak Obama because he pretended to be a moderate. One who claimed he would reach out to the other side. We turned to a politician who claimed he would lead from the center and be a bipartisan voice of reason. Wait did he promise that? Well thats what we all thought but really he didnt promise anything other then to change things in DC.
So the question is. Whats changed??
Jim, those are two perfectly reasonable articles you cited, albeit from a moderate right perspective. I suppose if you surround yourself with the left blogosphere echo chamber all day, every day, and put your fingers in your ears anytime someone expresses a contrarian viewpoint, those contrarians seem like radical, rabid, right wing Republican partisans.
CS, I don't hang out in the left blogosphere. You and AR are just so far to the right you couldn't see the center if you used Hubble. Then you pretend otherwise. I'm sorry, but saying that the Republican party's current far right wing agenda is what they should stick with and make no changes other than how they present it to the public is not moderate right. That's the Limbaugh crowd's opinions. And the moderates in the party aren't the Palin fans that Cost is. They weren't when she was nominated, either.
You and Cost are very similar, actually. Shovel RNC talking points and other far right wing viewpoints over and over again and then try to find some way to toss in a sentence or two to pretend that you didn't really mean to be as hyper-partisan as everything you just wrote. It's a consistent pattern.
AR, I didn't say anything about my stance. I was pointing out, accurately, that for CS to pretend that the sources she was citing had very partisan motivations to criticize Obama. They aren't some kind of independent experts or anything. And as far as your snark attack on me, well, if your posts here reflect your ability to analyze and think, I'm just not really worried about your opinion of me because of the source.
LOL, whatever, Jim. I didn't say you hang out in the left blogosphere, I'm saying that the blogosphere as a whole tilts heavily to the left and the inhabitants of it are compartmentalized. Most 'moderate' websites now serve as the echo chamber and over time are refusing more and more to link to moderate right wing bloggers (you used to see sites like this one having roundups which included people like Jay Cost, Rick Moran, and Ed Morrissey but now you guys act as though their opinions are beyond the pale.)
I'm sure your opinion is that this is because the right became more extreme, but reality shows otherwise- it's your virtual reality that has moved left, not the real live American voters (have you noticed Obama losing traction in the polling of independent voters, for example?)
Your concept of reality is amusing and inaccurate. I stand by my statement of how far to the right you and AR are and this post only reinforces it. You say that you didn't claim I hang out in the left blogosphere yet in a response to me you say:
Are you just hopelessly reality challenged or do you actually just think you can make contradictory statements and not be called on it? This post trying to deny you said what you clearly did say just reinforces my point. Your world is seen through glasses tinted elephant gray and reality is hopelessly twisted and warped by that tinting nowadays.
JIm -
“saying that the Republican party's current far right wing agenda is what they should stick with and make no changes other than how they present it to the public”
Please, find one time I have said anything resembling that. You are so far left that anyone right of Che seems like the radical Right to you.
I am so far from being a far-rightist it is not funny. I could not even think of being involved with the Republican Party – they wouldn't take someone with my 'leftist' views on abortion, drug laws, pornography, religion, creation science, gays, etc.
What I am is much more a radical Libertarian, and a true free-marketer. I also just plain hate the smug far-left such as yourself, that feel that your views make you morally superior. I hate that so much, I take great joy in poking you in the eye with a stick just to see the reactions I get.
And wow, your critique of me and my analytical skills really takes me back to Junior High, because that is the level of that little taunt of yours. And your ability to cite Wikipedia shows your research and rebuttal skills as well.
Go back to the very first comment I made on this thread. I said nothing mean, nothing nasty, just made some general observations on what I was concerned about. Your reaction was immediate and semi-psychotic towards my having an opinion you disagreed with. I think it is time to just no longer respond to any post of yours, and to stop wallowing in the mire you like to create.
And you say you're not a Republican. The quote you refer to wasn't even talking about you. It was precisely what Jay Cost said in the article I linked to and was a continuation of my argument about how much of a far right wing partisan he is. I made no specific reference to one person in my first post except to note that Reagan worshipers have no basis on which to criticize Obama supporters (though I really do think that some of these people have gone way overboard) and that most of what was being posted was the same old Republican attacks with nothing different. Yeah, they're BS too. But you weren't capable of understanding either of those posts, were you? And for someone who is trying to distance himself from the Republicans it's amazing how much your posts attacking liberals and the MSM are just straight from the Republican echo chamber. Even your view of history is identical to theirs, at least as you wrote it in this thread. The Reagan worship really shined through. Yes, you hate, AR. You are a religious fanatic, after all, a member of the First Church of Free Market by your own admission. You have no idea what the left is, if you think that I am that far to the left. But somehow that level of ignorance isn't surprising. You say you're not a member of the right because you're a libertarian? When it comes to economic issues there is nothing further to the right than libertarianism and nothing that rests more on blind faith and sociopathy. So the hatred meme fits in real well.
I have no idea as to what I would have called it, in that I am looking at a historical event with 20/20 hindsight. You could call it a great feat of arms, which it was, a great tragedy which it was, the beginning of the end which it wasn't (that was Stalingrad). My parents, non English speaking children living in occupied Europe on the other hand would have called it a great day, had they known it was happening.
You really should not compare WWII to any other wars the US has participated in during the 20th Century, WWII is the only war in which the US are unequivocally the good guys. If you want to compare it to an American war, compare it to the conquest and occupation of the Philippines.
The problem seems to be that I've challenged the limits of your reading comprehension, Jim. Go back to my quote and realize that the term “left blogosphere” was used as a modifier for “echo chamber”. I tried to clarify that for you in the subsequent comment where I stated that the 'moderate' sites on the blogosphere now serve exclusively as an echo chamber for the sites that are purely left wing. An echo chamber presumes that the sounds originated somewhere else and then are bouncing off in a second location.
I thought it went without saying, DQ, that my point was exactly as you acknowledge, that wars look different in hindsight than they do contemporaneously.
Geez, Jim, I have to say that that last comment of yours to AR could be the entry in a glossary of a Psych textbook for the term “projection”.
You complain that he makes assumptions about you and creates a strawman around you, yet look at his point about your reaction to our initial comments on this thread.
I find it astonishing that you can't see that you constantly react to conservatives in the exact way that you contend that we react to you. If you don't think people should argue against strawmen like 'typical liberals', might it not be appropriate for you to strike from your repertoire the frequent use of “typical Republican” or “the usual Republican BS”, or accusing us of using GOP talking points? I almost never hear that complaint from anyone else here, even from people who have strong disagreements with me. Why is it that you have this caricature of me that no one else seems to see? Other people seem perfectly capable of engaging in actual debate with me instead of , well, how was it you put it? Oh yes, 'hate the strawman you built around me'.
How many wars since WWII look good in hindsight?