Support NeoGAF

[reilo]

Re: who thinks Obama has a "bad hand"

Are you implying that I think Obama has a "bad hand"?

Did you even read my posts? I implicitly stated that Obama's opposition think that Obama has a "bad hand" and thus they try to attack him on it. Hence my point that Obama is extremely capable of turning any perceived "bad hand" into a net positive.

 

[Learn2read]

Haha what? If the photo's get leaked the US has no ownership of that debate anymore. It may hurt the Republicans more than the Democrats but it'lll hurt the country more than either party if they get leaked instead of the US owning up to them.

There's more at stake with those photo's than Republicans and Democrats, there's the entire worlds perception of the United States. Obama is part of the government now, while American voters may look at policy issues as Republican or Democrat the rest of the world sees them as US policies. If Obama holds them to his chest hoping they'll leak just to damn the Republicans more the rest of the world wont see it that way, they'll see it as Obama covering for US policy.

Obama has enough political capital in the US anyways, especially on this issue, so your take on the "plan" as far as I can see it is both bad for the United States as a whole and idiotic.

Yes really. I can forgive an idiot for not being a great man, I can't forgive a great man for not doing great.

The best way for Obama to change how the world sees US policies is to change US policies. I assume that they feel releasing the photos officially (which I think he should've done) is that it would've turned into a political shitstorm about the actual act of releasing those photos, rather than attention being paid to their contents which would go a long way to building unarguable consensus that these policies have to stop.

 

[mAcOdIn]

Yeah no.


For what it's worth my take on this whole thing is if somebody has been posting second after second over the last 6 years about the abuses in Iraq then they probably have the right to be posting that they are upset about Obama on this issue. If they haven't it strikes me as pure hypocrisy. Not really aimed at you since I haven't analyzed your posting history but just saying in general.

Wasn't necessarily aimed at abuses in Iraq but at Obama as a whole.

If he's a political super genius then he better be the best President ever, in reality I don't think he's a political super genius. Karl Rove was always mentioned as some kind of super genius and honestly I never saw it that way nor did the administration of the last 8 years accomplish greatness.

I think it's just natural to superimpose this type of calculating intellect onto crushing victories or defeats to just make sense of it all. If you're losing bad it's because the "bad guys" have a great mind at work for them and if you're winning it's because you have a great mind working for you. In truth I think they're all about as smart as each other just that political situations change that allow their ideology to prosper or fail in different degrees.

 

[Stoney Mason]

The best way for Obama to change how the world sees US policies is to change US policies. I assume that they feel releasing the photos officially (which I think he should've done) is that it would've turned into a political shitstorm about the actual act of releasing those photos, rather than attention being paid to their contents which would go a long way to building unarguable consensus that these policies have to stop.

The more even more important issue is that the American people will judge Obama based on how he conducts his policy and what happens and how he responds to things on his watch. They will not judge him on the failings of the Bush administration. They will judge him on what he does or doesn't do.

 

[APF]

Are you implying that I think Obama has a "bad hand"?

Uhh, did I reply to you? No? Then WTF is your problem?

 

[APF]

I still don't see how Obama really benefits from these pictures being leaked rather than publicly released. By standing against their publication, Obama does assert some measure of ownership on the issue--and certainly he owns the matter of being in Iraq, the matter of holding detainees from the greater WOT, etc. It's very hard for me to imagine Obama would want to accept the damage from their release (not political damage, which is a dumb filter from which to view global events) in order to gain some marginal advantage re: waterboarding when he doesn't need any advantage here because he's the CiC, instead of taking advantage of "coming clean" as a country. That outcome will be too messy to think of as purposeful or managed, which is why I feel Obama is going with his gut re: what he feels will be best for the security of the soldiers under his charge, and not trying to manipulate some grand strategy.

 

[PantherLotus]

Wasn't necessarily aimed at abuses in Iraq but at Obama as a whole.

If he's a political super genius then he better be the best President ever, in reality I don't think he's a political super genius. Karl Rove was always mentioned as some kind of super genius and honestly I never saw it that way nor did the administration of the last 8 years accomplish greatness.

I think it's just natural to superimpose this type of calculating intellect onto crushing victories or defeats to just make sense of it all. If you're losing bad it's because the "bad guys" have a great mind at work for them and if you're winning it's because you have a great mind working for you. In truth I think they're all about as smart as each other just that political situations change that allow their ideology to prosper or fail in different degrees.

This is well stated.

BUT

I would argue that the current Republican strategy (ie, Michael Steele/Michelle Bachman) is anything but "just as smart." It's silly and we know it. It's not not working because of the political climate, it's not working because it's a bad philosophy.

 

[Stoney Mason]

Wasn't necessarily aimed at abuses in Iraq but at Obama as a whole.

If he's a political super genius then he better be the best President ever, in reality I don't think he's a political super genius. Karl Rove was always mentioned as some kind of super genius and honestly I never saw it that way nor did the administration of the last 8 years accomplish greatness.

I think it's just natural to superimpose this type of calculating intellect onto crushing victories or defeats to just make sense of it all. If you're losing bad it's because the "bad guys" have a great mind at work for them and if you're winning it's because you have a great mind working for you. In truth I think they're all about as smart as each other just that political situations change that allow their ideology to prosper or fail in different degrees.

All that stuff is political gamesmanship. People and history decide who were the political genuises or not. It is nearly impossible to call it as its happening because people live their lives. It's like talking sports and arguing who is the best team or best player. People do it. But it's pointless because history will sort all that out anyway. All that is going on now is working the ref.

 

[FoneBone]

Check out Obama's response to LGBT protesters yesterday:


http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...ong-the-stars/?scp=2&sq=beverly hilton&st=cse

Shades of Bush with this delivery. Absolutely shameful.

I know I'm playing devil's advocate, but how is it self-evident that Obama actually knew to what the sign was referring?

 

[PantherLotus]

I still don't see how Obama really benefits from these pictures being leaked rather than publicly released. By standing against their publication, Obama does assert some measure of ownership on the issue--and certainly he owns the matter of being in Iraq, the matter of holding detainees from the greater WOT, etc.

It's very hard for me to imagine Obama would want to accept the damage from their release (not political damage, which is a dumb filter from which to view global events) in order to gain some marginal advantage re: waterboarding when he doesn't need any advantage here because he's the CiC, instead of taking advantage of "coming clean" as a country.

That outcome will be too messy to think of as purposeful or managed, which is why I feel Obama is going with his gut re: what he feels will be best for the security of the soldiers under his charge, and not trying to manipulate some grand strategy.

It should be noted that whoever stated the pictures would be "leaked" as part of Obama's genius super-strategy didn't mean or shouldn't have said "leaked."

I was implying earlier that he would be forced to release them vis a vis the court system, not through some British tabloid. And that his "hand being forced" (which is apparently an appropriate turn of phrase today) would benefit him politically more than releasing them outright.


Also: would you mind breaking up your text a little? You're making fine points but will they'd be more likely read if my eye can catch a break here and there.

 

[besada]

The more even more important issue is that the American people will judge Obama based on how he conducts his policy and what happens and how he responds to things on his watch. They will not judge him on the failings of the Bush administration. They will judge him on what he does or doesn't do.

Some of them are perfectly willing to judge him on how much of Bush administration policy he carries forward, though. Sitting around and ignoring previous bad policy counts against him. Blaming Bush for Bush's failure is fine with me, but when Obama lets those failures ride because he's too scared to start a fuss over them, they become a problem for Obama.

This is true of DADT, indefinite prisoner detention, and his new found desire (in contradiction of his earlier policy) to hide the abuse photos from Abu Ghraib. He doesn't get to blame Bush in perpetuity while refusing to take action to fix the problems.

The thing about winning is that you become responsible, even for the failures of the previous administration, so long as you don't rectify them.

 

[reilo]

Uhh, did I reply to you? No? Then WTF is your problem?

Re: who thinks Obama has a "bad hand"

Not only did you use the internet verbiage "Re:" (meaning, REPLY), but you also quoted a phrase ("bad hand") that I started and only I used in this current line of discussion.

So, if you aren't talking about me, then who the fuck else?

 

[Learn2read]

I think, honestly, it's partly the (supposedly) sexual nature of these photos that they're scared about. Americans are de-sensitized to violence, but the idea that they alot of the country might see them as peddling rape porn for political gain scares them.

I think they'd rather they just get out there and maybe take a hit for the hypocrisy of not releasing them, and use the outrage over the photos themselves to enact stronger changes.

 

[Stoney Mason]

Some of them are perfectly willing to judge him on how much of Bush administration policy he carries forward, though. Sitting around and ignoring previous bad policy counts against him. Blaming Bush for Bush's failure is fine with me, but when Obama lets those failures ride because he's too scared to start a fuss over them, they become a problem for Obama.

This is true of DADT, indefinite prisoner detention, and his new found desire (in contradiction of his earlier policy) to hide the abuse photos from Abu Ghraib. He doesn't get to blame Bush in perpetuity while refusing to take action to fix the problems.

The thing about winning is that you become responsible, even for the failures of the previous administration, so long as you don't rectify them.

From the perspective of a hardcore liberal or somebody who views those issues in the context of their top issue that is correct. What I am saying is that neither of these issues are for the mass of people the top issues. That doesn't mean he should shirk them or that I agree with his current position. It means the American People as a large group care about a few very specific issues and anybody who wants to get re-elected works on those issues first and foremost and slowly slides in the secondary issues as he goes along without having them overshadow the major issues.

 

[speculawyer]

I know I'm playing devil's advocate, but how is it self-evident that Obama actually knew to what the sign was referring?

Yeah that was what I was wondering. If you can prove he really knew what they were protesting about then that was a crass statement . . . but if someone just says "Keep your promise" . . . how are you supposed to react?

 

[mAcOdIn]

The best way for Obama to change how the world sees US policies is to change US policies. I assume that they feel releasing the photos officially (which I think he should've done) is that it would've turned into a political shitstorm about the actual act of releasing those photos, rather than attention being paid to their contents which would go a long way to building unarguable consensus that these policies have to stop.

I agree with you in the sense that that's what would happen in the US, but my argument is that I believe that this is something that transcends American politics and is more of an international concern and as such we have an international responsibility to treat it as such. It affects a lot of things, our stance on torture on the last administration affected Canadians, Afghans, Iraqis, it concerns the state of international treaties it's much bigger than Republicans or Democrats. In the states it would of course be seen as that, nothing I can do about that unfortunately, but the world is not so red and blue. Do we separate UK policy by the Tory's or whomever is in power? No we just see it as UK policy. So to the world by Obama holding these close to his chest he is now part of the problem and if they are leaked his side of the story will no longer matter, but if he releases them himself he can own and frame the debate as he likes. By allowing them to get leaked all that would happen then is damage control on the part of the US, we would have no say in how the debate moves and we'll always be responding and not setting the pace.

This is well stated.

BUT

I would argue that the current Republican strategy (ie, Michael Steele/Michelle Bachman) is anything but "just as smart." It's silly and we know it. It's not not working because of the political climate, it's not working because it's a bad philosophy.

Fair enough, Michael Steele and Michelle Bachman I will concede are not that smart in any political climate.

 

[PantherLotus]

The Face Of The Sotomayor Opposition
By Brian Beutler - May 28, 2009, 1:28PM

If your only source of news was cable television, you might think that the Senate was gearing up for an historic fight over a Supreme Court hopeful so out of the mainstream that it might be worth questioning the sanity of the President who nominated her.

The reality on the Hill is much less exciting than that. Most Republicans, I'm sure, don't really care for Sonia Sotomayor, but they're nonetheless preparing themselves for her eventual confirmation. And, for the most part, they're actually pretty sanguine about it.

Not so in the land of conservative activism. For weeks, members of a number of co-ordinated groups have been trying desperately to assure anyone in earshot that, by replacing one moderately liberal Justice with another, slightly more liberal Justice, Obama will ruin the country.

The most prominent face of this campaign is the legal counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network, Wendy E. Long.

Long has a long history on the right. After graduating from Northwestern University School of Law, she clerked for Second Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Ralph Winters, and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

In 2005 she began advocating for conservative judges and justices, seemingly to great effect. But that, of course, changed when President Bush gave way to President Obama. On the eve of his election, she warned, gravely that, if Obama were to win the election, "[w]e'd see things like a constitutional right to same-sex 'marriage,' a constitutional right to federal taxpayer funding of abortion."

We'd likely see a so-called constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide and to human cloning. [References to God] would come out of the Pledge of Allegiance and perhaps off our currency and every other public place [...] so we may wake up, but it would be too late -- because once Barack Obama has a chance to appoint a majority of a Supreme Court, then decisions like those would be out of the hands of voters for certainly a generation and perhaps longer.​

After Obama's inauguration, she got out in front, arguing against his first judicial pick--David Hamilton, nominated to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals--who now faces a tough road ahead in the Senate.

But she really kicked into high gear when Justice David Souter announced his retirement. That day, she and other activists, led a conference call to co-ordinate messaging on Obama's coming nominee, whoever it ended up being. "One thing to keep in mind is that the left and media will say this doesn't really matter -- Obama will just replace a liberal with a liberal," Long said. "It's a conservative court. We need to push back against that immediately."

It's hard to know whether her goal was to squash the nomination, or to rile the base and add to activist coffers or a combination of the two. But either way, she didn't get word out to her group that they should ditch the language on their website, left over from the Roberts and Alito fights, calling on senators to give Court nominees up or down votes, and, somewhat ironically, to abandon "fear and smear strategies."​

 

[besada]

It means the American People as a large group care about a few very specific issues and anybody who wants to get re-elected works on those issues first and foremost and slowly slides in the secondary issues as he goes along without having them overshadow the major issues.

I don't disagree with a minor caveat. It's the hardcore politicos that do the campaigning and money-raising. A politician has to walk a fine line between keeping the masses happy and pleasing the political minded, because when it's time for th campaign you need the political minded to do your campaigning for you.

You piss off places like DailyKos and HuffPo at your own risk, because they act as standard bearers for your message to the masses.

 

[speculawyer]

Karl Rove was always mentioned as some kind of super genius and honestly I never saw it that way nor did the administration of the last 8 years accomplish greatness.

I think people feel Rove was a genius only in getting Bush elected twice, I don't think anyone thinks Rove knows squat about actually governing. Gechnically, he was in control of some domestic policy during Katrina so he deserves some blame for one of the Bush administration biggest failures.

The fact that Rove got a dumb guy that sucked at public speaking and had policies that were counter-productive for most average Americans elected twice sure does point to some genius . . . sick twisted genius but still genius.

 

[APF]

Not only did you use the internet verbiage "Re:" (meaning, REPLY), but you also quoted a phrase ("bad hand") that I started and only I used in this current line of discussion.

So, if you aren't talking about me, then who the fuck else?

Not everything in this world is about you. mckmas8808's reply, that I quoted, was re: my question, which had to do with "who thinks Obama has a 'bad hand.'" Of course you're a moron, so you can't follow simple concepts like this.

 

[Stoney Mason]

I think people feel Rove was a genius only in getting Bush elected twice, I don't think anyone thinks Rove knows squat about actually governing. Gechnically, he was in control of some domestic policy during Katrina so he deserves some blame for one of the Bush administration biggest failures.

The fact that Rove got a dumb guy that sucked at public speaking and had policies that were counter-productive for most average Americans elected twice sure does point to some genius . . . sick twisted genius but still genius.

The Rove as a genius thing was simply Republican chest thumping after winning an election. Based on this the winnning side produces a "genius" every time they win an election. The only difference was that the Rove embraced the mythology.

 

[PantherLotus]

Not everything in this world is about you. mckmas8808's reply, that I quoted, was re: my question, which had to do with "who thinks Obama has a 'bad hand.'" Of course you're a moron, so you can't follow simple concepts like this.

No need for ad hominem attacks!

 

[scorcho]

i think APF's feistier whenever it's an overcast day in the city.

 

[PantherLotus]

i think APF's feistier whenever it's an overcast day in the city.

I wanted to use the sad dog meme but didn't bother.

 

[reilo]

Not everything in this world is about you. mckmas8808's reply, that I quoted, was re: my question, which had to do with "who thinks Obama has a 'bad hand.'" Of course you're a moron, so you can't follow simple concepts like this.

Heh.

Of course your standard reply to anybody that questions your unmatched intellectualism (aka bullshit) is to call them a "moron." Instead of actually participating in the real discussion, you divert to vague references and ad-hominems and completely ignore the actual principles and merits of a post.

So if you feel intellectually superior right now, then hats off to you, because believe me, you aren't hurting any feelings here with your bullshit.

Maybe one of these days you will actually participate in a discussion and stop with the bullshit shtick of yours instead of being that loud-assed kid in the back of the room throwing paper airplanes with penis drawings on them at the front of the class.

 

[mAcOdIn]

The Rove as a genius thing was simply Republican chest thumping after winning an election. Based on this the winnning side produces a "genius" every time they win an election. The only difference was that the Rove embraced the mythology.

I think people feel Rove was a genius only in getting Bush elected twice, I don't think anyone thinks Rove knows squat about actually governing. Gechnically, he was in control of some domestic policy during Katrina so he deserves some blame for one of the Bush administration biggest failures.

The fact that Rove got a dumb guy that sucked at public speaking and had policies that were counter-productive for most average Americans elected twice sure does point to some genius . . . sick twisted genius but still genius.

I disagree with this. I was not active here posting around 2004 so I don't know what the consensus around these parts as to Rove's part in the Republican party were, but everywhere I was he was a boogyman who had his hands in everything. That's of course anecdotal evidence however.

 

[APF]

I was implying earlier that he would be forced to release them vis a vis the court system, not through some British tabloid. And that his "hand being forced" (which is apparently an appropriate turn of phrase today) would benefit him politically more than releasing them outright.

Fair enough, but I still think (and this comes back to what was underlying my, "folks read PoliGAF too much" comment) what you're suggesting is bad strategy overall. While you might be focused on control of the day-to-day messaging, Obama is the President and needs to think globally, where in this case the stakes are much higher. Obama stands to gain some microscopic benefit with some folks in the military--I guess?--by standing against their publication, but binds himself to the previous administration on an issue he should be standing far away from if global political advantage is his goal. The stakes are simply too high there for him not to be acting on his honest beliefs. I think he's genuinely struggling through difficult questions, not deviously manipulating current events for dubious levels of domestic gain.

Also: would you mind breaking up your text a little? You're making fine points but will they'd be more likely read if my eye can catch a break here and there.

np... uhh maybe starting next post though


reilo: you're randomly attacking me for no reason, while I'm having honest and fruitful conversation with other posters. Who is the villain in this situation?

 

[PantherLotus]

I'm not going to diminish Rove's intelligence like the other guys above. He was pretty adept at framing issues and having a singular message about being a patriot. That message went off track when all these 'patriots' started making lots of huge blunders.

 

[APF]

i think APF's feistier whenever it's an overcast day in the city.

I hear it's nicer out than it looks.

 

[PhoenixDark]

The Rove as a genius thing was simply Republican chest thumping after winning an election. Based on this the winnning side produces a "genius" every time they win an election. The only difference was that the Rove embraced the mythology.

He had a genius strategy. Too bad (for him) it produced short term success. And in a decade or two there will be another GOP strategist using this genius, divide-and-conquer strategy at the right time, once again to short term success

 

[Stoney Mason]

I disagree with this. I was not active here posting around 2004 so I don't know what the consensus around these parts as to Rove's part in the Republican party were, but everywhere I was he was a boogyman who had his hands in everything. That's of course anecdotal evidence however.

I do think he was very involved at the policy level with Bush and he was certainly a target for a lot of liberal anger but that was mainly because he embraced the I'm a genuis role and the "I'm the crazy intelligent puppetmaster" personae.

Nobody likes to get beat and then have it rubbed in their face.

It's same way Republicans currently demonzine Rahm Emmanuel. Because he is the pitbull face. Axelrod and Plouffe are in the Rove positions but they are not as in your face as Rove was so they get far less heat.

 

[mckmas8808]

:lol

Wow you really are a joke character.

Obama campaigned that he was a "fierce advocate" for gay equality and promised to overturn DADT and DOMA. And now as people are thrown out of the military every day for being gay and as marriage equality heats up, the only comment Obama can make is a Bush-style quip. Fierce advocate, yeah right.

The reality is that Obama is alienating gay voters with this behavior and lack of action.

What's so bad about the joke? Hell I don't even get the joke.

 

[mckmas8808]

I feel for you, I do, but you have to understand that the political climate right now isn't under the right conditions for Obama's administration to make sweeping changes.

Clinton tried when he first got into office and it gave us this DADT bullshit in the first place. It's hard to ask for patience on this issue, but politics is all about seizing the right opportunity..

What was the military policy before DADT?

 

[reilo]

reilo: you're randomly attacking me for no reason, while I'm having honest and fruitful conversation with other posters. Who is the villain in this situation?

Where in the world did I attack you?

Not only did the first instance of any perceived "attack" happen when you said this:

What planet are you living on?

and this to me:

Then WTF is your problem?

Not to mention when you called me an "idiot", but I never as once even attacked you on anything. If you think replying to any of your posts with a counter-argument is considered an "attack", then I don't know what to tell you.

Nowhere did I attack you "randomly" or "unprovoked", all of my posts contained specific counter-arguments to the topic at hand.

 

[Stoney Mason]

He had a genius strategy. Too bad (for him) it produced short term success. And in a decade or two there will be another GOP strategist using this genius, divide-and-conquer strategy at the right time, once again to short term success

Like I said every winner is a genius and every loser is suddenly a moron which is a false divide.

Rove won against how ever much I might like him an untelegenic Al Gore and an untelegenic John Kerry in two of closest elections in American History. This isn't exactly the stuff of legends imo.

I'm not saying he's a fool or overly trying to discredit him but I am saying his reputation is a bit over-blown imo.

 

[besada]

Some news:

G-20 comes to The Pitt. Get your riot gear ready.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/05/67374871/1

UN Human Rights Council congratulates Sri Lanka on obliterating the Tamil Tigers, conveniently forgets to mention the intentional bombing of civilians.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6382331.ece

 

[mAcOdIn]

Like I said every winner is a genius and every loser is suddenly a moron which is a false divide.

Rove won against how ever much I might like him an untelegenic Al Gore and an untelegenic John Kerry in two of closest elections in American History. This isn't exactly the stuff of legends imo.

I'm not saying he's a fool or overly trying to discredit him but I am saying his reputation is a bit over-blown imo.

That I agree with, it's what I was trying to say as well.

 

[PantherLotus]

Fair enough, but I still think (and this comes back to what was underlying my, "folks read PoliGAF too much" comment) what you're suggesting is bad strategy overall. While you might be focused on control of the day-to-day messaging, Obama is the President and needs to think globally, where in this case the stakes are much higher.

Obama stands to gain some microscopic benefit with some folks in the military--I guess?--by standing against their publication, but binds himself to the previous administration on an issue he should be standing far away from if global political advantage is his goal. The stakes are simply too high there for him not to be acting on his honest beliefs. I think he's genuinely struggling through difficult questions, not deviously manipulating current events for dubious levels of domestic gain.

The first thing to note is that I don't think of Obama as a singular entity (or Bush or Clinton for that matter), but rather as a mostly-cohesive unit of strategists, key leaders, and talking heads ("The Obama Administration"). So to say that Obama the individual is focusing on a microscopic bump of approval from the troops when he should be thinking globally might be a bit disingenuous. I think he, the entity, is capable of performing the task of manipulating small details of a particular vision while not obscuring his, the individual's, worldview.

Second, at some point I think the concept of "honest beliefs" goes out the window once elected and once "The Administration" is established. Those honest beliefs were used to craft and weld together that cohesive group, but I don't believe they come into play on a daily basis. It's an effective part of leadership.

Last, I think he can maintain his "honest beliefs" while not acting on them instantly, unlike some would have us believe about Bush. I also believe he can have his administration, strategists, and otherwise do the "dirty work" without sacrificing his overall vision or benevolence. Moreover, I don't believe that the political minutiae of positioning, framing, theater, or one-upsmanship detracts from the long-term goals, but rather is a fluid process of maintaining control wherever possible--and knowing when to seize an opportunity.

 

[APF]

Nowhere did I attack you "randomly" or "unprovoked"

uhh http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=16038702&postcount=1751

 

[mAcOdIn]

uhh http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=16038702&postcount=1751

Is that going to be an attack now? Damn, I better watch myself.

Such spiraling anger out of a mistake lol.

 

[reilo]

uhh http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=16038702&postcount=1751

How in the world is that an "attack" by asking you to clarify whether or not you were talking about me?

:lol

Man, you're reading into something that doesn't exist.

 

[APF]

Second, at some point I think the concept of "honest beliefs" goes out the window once elected and once "The Administration" is established. Those honest beliefs were used to craft and weld together that cohesive group, but I don't believe they come into play on a daily basis. It's an effective part of leadership.

I think your point about having strategists do the "dirty work" is fine, is accurate, but I don't feel that's what we're really talking about here. At a certain point, leadership is about making the best decision out of a series of crappy choices, and that's of course where "honest beliefs" come into play. There's a big difference between choosing to preempt someone's speech, and deciding on actual policy positions with global strategic and national security implications.


Edit: "Man, you're reading into something that doesn't exist." sounds familiar...

 

[charlequin]

What are the lefts talking points on her douche bag ruling?

Do you mean Ricci, where Sotomayor's upholding of the lower court's ruling was specifically in line with the existing caselaw on the topic, or some other "douche bag" ruling of which I have thus far been unaware?

 

[PantherLotus]

Edit: "Man, you're reading into something that doesn't exist." sounds familiar...

You're wrong in this instance. You were not attacked in the linked post and you've continued to antagonize. Just drop it and apologize already. Ain't hard d00d.

 

[PantherLotus]

I think your point about having strategists do the "dirty work" is fine, is accurate, but I don't feel that's what we're really talking about here. At a certain point, leadership is about making the best decision out of a series of crappy choices, and that's of course where "honest beliefs" come into play.

There's a big difference between choosing to preempt someone's speech, and deciding on actual policy positions with global strategic and national security implications.

I think it's possible to do both, and I think the Obama admin is doing exactly that. And well.

 

[PantherLotus]

Truly Can't Help Themselves

Here's your next emerging meme. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Blood & Soil) just went on CNN attacking Sonia Sotomayor for belonging to La Raza which he called a "Latino KKK."

As I said this morning, it's painfully revealing how conservatives simply cannot helping going hard on the race front with Sotomayor or, as David Kurtz just put it, can't help imagining that everyone else is as racist as many of them are.

For those who aren't familiar with it, La Raza is basically a Latino equivalent of B'nai Brith or the NAACP. Garden variety and uncontroversial unless you thinks it's a public safety issue if more than a handful of Mexicans or Puerto Ricans get together in one place at the same time.

There's much more of this coming.

--Josh Marshall​

La Raza sounds so ganglike!

 

[Stoney Mason]

Truly Can't Help Themselves

Here's your next emerging meme. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Blood & Soil) just went on CNN attacking Sonia Sotomayor for belonging to La Raza which he called a "Latino KKK."

As I said this morning, it's painfully revealing how conservatives simply cannot helping going hard on the race front with Sotomayor or, as David Kurtz just put it, can't help imagining that everyone else is as racist as many of them are.

For those who aren't familiar with it, La Raza is basically a Latino equivalent of B'nai Brith or the NAACP. Garden variety and uncontroversial unless you thinks it's a public safety issue if more than a handful of Mexicans or Puerto Ricans get together in one place at the same time.

There's much more of this coming.

--Josh Marshall​

La Raza sounds so ganglike!

Tancredo is awesome because he's batshit insane and he's considered one of the truly conservative dudes whenever one of those rankings come out ranking members of Congress on their conservative credentials. In other words he is the perfect model for the party to become more conservative if you follow that logic.

 

[JayDubya]

La Raza sounds so ganglike!

I know little about the organization; that said, I can remember some of my four years of high school Spanish, and "the race" is kind of worrisome as an introduction to any organization.

 

[speculawyer]

He had a genius strategy. Too bad (for him) it produced short term success. And in a decade or two there will be another GOP strategist using this genius, divide-and-conquer strategy at the right time, once again to short term success

The divide & conquer strategy may work again but they will not be able to use the same groups & issues that Rove did. The demographics are changing . . . a winning strategy based pretty much solely on white christian conservatives isn't going to fly. We are not as white and not as Christian as we were in the past.

 

[speculawyer]

Truly Can't Help Themselves

Here's your next emerging meme. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Blood & Soil) just went on CNN attacking Sonia Sotomayor for belonging to La Raza which he called a "Latino KKK."​

Project much, Mr. xenophobic Tancredo?