I think I might actually agree with isadore on some of his points.

This feels...strange.

That's funny Pants, because I agree (or rather, cannot deny) with some of CC's points also! Talking about some of the mess that the democrats in power got us in.

This is an opinion piece, but it includes actual quotes. The whole article itself presents links to where they got their quotes.

Opinion: Bill Clinton Says Democrats Resisted Standards For Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac

[INDENT]

[INDENT]Chris Cuomo, ABC News: A little surprising for you to hear the Democrats saying, "This came out of nowhere, this is all about the Republicans. We had nothing to do with this." Nancy Pelosi saying it. She signed the '99 Gramm Bill. She knew what was going on with the SEC. They're all sophisticated people. Is that playing politics in this situation?
Bill Clinton: Well, maybe everybody does that a little bit. I think the responsibility the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.[/INDENT]

His comments about McCain and the debates might not have been overly surprising, but what has caught many people's attention is how Clinton is placing much, not all, of the blame for the financial crisis on Democrats, especially this close to the presidential election

[/INDENT]

I'm watching and listening to all of this and what I'm seeing are the folks who strongly opposed Obama from the very start on here doing the same thing now, in hopes that the numbers drop and "their boy" (or girl), Palin? unseats the socialist, communist, radical, non-citizen, community organizer, not really Black, slow to react against BP, and the list goes on and on and on. One might refer to this as sort of a shotgun approach, with Obama's detractors hoping that if enough is tossed on the pile once again, that their most fervent two wishes occur. One, that the country flounders and their candidates can win, and two, that the country flounders and their candidates will win. (Yes, I repeated the only reason Obama's opponents really have.) It seems to me that the candidates they are currently pushing will not be able to pull this "coup" off and Obama will hold serve as the economic numbers get better. Even when they do, and it seems to be more often these days, the other side immediately jumps on board to explain it isn't really the President's doing and just you wait and see what happens sometime out in the blurry and vague future when all of this prosperity causes the country to go directly to hell in a handbaslket. I think it's the desparate effort of people who simply don't like the President to discredit and minimize what he has done and attempt to ramp up the value of people like Bobby Jindall and Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney and others who shared the visions of previous administrations who I believe need to step up to the plate and accept some of the responsibility for the disaster that greeted the current Administration when it took power. 46-50 percent is a very respectable poll number when one realizes some of the new methods of solving the economic mess that Obama and his folks began. Those numbers only have to maintain themselves and improve slightly and there will be a second Obama Administration. If Ron Paul is in the mix, the Democrats will have an even easier time.

Swamp Fox;388337 wrote:It seems to me that the candidates they are currently pushing will not be able to pull this "coup" off and Obama will hold serve as the economic numbers get better.

It's been 18 months and counting. Unemployment is still at 10% despite the Anointed One's promise that spending $780 Billion of taxpayer dollars would keep unemployment below 8%. Wall Street numbers are up and down and the European Union is coming apart at the seams. I'm not overly optimistic about the economic numbers getting better any time soon.

Swamp Fox;388337 wrote:Even when they do, and it seems to be more often these days, the other side immediately jumps on board to explain it isn't really the President's doing and just you wait and see what happens sometime out in the blurry and vague future when all of this prosperity causes the country to go directly to hell in a handbaslket.

I agree. The left did the same under Reagan and "W." Politics as usual.

Swamp Fox;388337 wrote:I think it's the desparate effort of people who simply don't like the President to discredit and minimize what he has done and attempt to ramp up the value of people like Bobby Jindall and Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney and others who shared the visions of previous administrations who I believe need to step up to the plate and accept some of the responsibility for the disaster that greeted the current Administration when it took power.

Good grief. The Dems own this economic malaise lock, stock, and barrel....period. But it's good to see you are towing the party line by pointing the finger at the past while failing to lead this nation into the future.

Swamp Fox;388337 wrote:46-50 percent is a very respectable poll number when one realizes some of the new methods of solving the economic mess that Obama and his folks began. Those numbers only have to maintain themselves and improve slightly and there will be a second Obama Administration. If Ron Paul is in the mix, the Democrats will have an even easier time.

Those numbers have been going steadily downhill with no end in sight. Let's hope things do turn around for our country's sake despite the insane government spending spree being led by this administration and the socialist-controlled Congress. If they do then BHO's a lock on a second term. If not and the Republicans can find someone out of the ashes of their own stupid meltdown to show the way, then BHO's a one termer.

But I will agree that if Paul runs as an independent, things could get ugly for the Republicans even if the economy continues to tank.

This next fiscal year looms big for BHO & Co. as well as the Republicans.

Swamp Fox;388337 wrote:I think it's the desparate effort of people who simply don't like the President to discredit and minimize what he has done

Just another point of view about the above point you make, Swamp:

I didn't vote for Obama, but I didn't have a strong dislike for him.

Obama and his administration and the democrats in our Congress have been the ones that have done themselves in. They are the ones that made me strongly dislike Obama, his administration, and the dems in power (pelosi, reid, charlie wilson, etc.)

- we've got a worthless government health insurance bill that will not do anything promised, except bring us a step closer to single payer. Hell, even liberal supportists of Obama hate this law
- Obama really just played "eeny meeny miney mo" in picking his administration. There can be no rational explanation for some of his picks and their shenanigans, unless they were EXACTLY who he wanted to best represent his views. If nobody knows the crackpots of which I speak just let me know, there's a list of'em for sure. But, here's a gimme: Van Jones; here's another one: R. Emmanuel
- Arizona law debacle. 'Nuff said. This includes his actions, or lack thereof, with Chalderon
- Obama hasn't changed anything except he has given us a timeline for exiting Iraq, it is still government/politics as usual

So, in my mind, I can hardly fathom why somebody/anybody can't figure out why he's not the golden boy of ideological fantasies of many. And with the hijinx committed, can anybody really fault those who pick them apart??

Now, there might be some things that have been done or tentatively started, but that's not in this conversation. People can be happy all they want with those things that have been accomplished or are in the process of being accomplished.

I would like to know your thoughts on what I listed!

ccrunner609;388061 wrote:and we all know that Clinton wasnt doing shit but jerking it to Monica

Riiiight. Post 1998:
Only North Korea
Mid East Peace
START II
Start of war on terror (Air strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan)
Operation Desert Fox
Kosovo


Also, not anyone can beat Obama. Many lefties were saying the same in 2004 with W. and Kerry just completely screwed it up.

ptown_trojans_1;388390 wrote:Riiiight. Post 1998:
Also, not anyone can beat Obama. Many lefties were saying the same in 2004 with W. and Kerry just completely screwed it up.

Does that mean that the democrats, themselves, can beat the democrats? That implies that the republicans will have to do very little!

ptown_trojans_1;388390 wrote:Riiiight. Post 1998:
Only North Korea FAIL
Mid East Peace Never has been and never will be peace in the Middle East.
START II I'll get back to you on this one.
Start of war on terror (Air strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan) Nothing serious. Sissified political moves at best.
Operation Desert Fox You mean Clinton's relatively weak attempt to motivate the Iraqis to overthrow Saddam Hussein and rid the country of WMD's? The same WMD's that Bush got reamed by the left because he lied to them about the presence of WMD's?
Kosovo Well....OK. Iguess if Clinton got a boulevard named after him I'll give credit where it's due.


Also, not anyone can beat Obama. Many lefties were saying the same in 2004 with W. and Kerry just completely screwed it up.

Lefties are more prone to screwing things up but I see your point.

See above......

CenterBHSFan;388431 wrote:Does that mean that the democrats, themselves, can beat the democrats? That implies that the republicans will have to do very little!

but luckily for the President the Republicans IF THEY DO WELL IN THE 2010 ELECTION will start to do the things that will make Obama a two term President

isadore;388442 wrote:but luckily for the President the Republicans IF THEY DO WELL IN THE 2010 ELECTION will start to do the things that will make Obama a two term President

True. The Republicans messed up badly by spending and behaving like Democrats when they had control of Congress. Let's hope they've learned a lesson.

CenterBHSFan;388382 wrote:Just another point of view about the above point you make, Swamp:

I didn't vote for Obama, but I didn't have a strong dislike for him.

Obama and his administration and the democrats in our Congress have been the ones that have done themselves in. They are the ones that made me strongly dislike Obama, his administration, and the dems in power (pelosi, reid, charlie wilson, etc.)

- we've got a worthless government health insurance bill that will not do anything promised, except bring us a step closer to single payer. Hell, even liberal supportists of Obama hate this law
- Obama really just played "eeny meeny miney mo" in picking his administration. There can be no rational explanation for some of his picks and their shenanigans, unless they were EXACTLY who he wanted to best represent his views. If nobody knows the crackpots of which I speak just let me know, there's a list of'em for sure. But, here's a gimme: Van Jones; here's another one: R. Emmanuel
- Arizona law debacle. 'Nuff said. This includes his actions, or lack thereof, with Chalderon
- Obama hasn't changed anything except he has given us a timeline for exiting Iraq, it is still government/politics as usual

So, in my mind, I can hardly fathom why somebody/anybody can't figure out why he's not the golden boy of ideological fantasies of many. And with the hijinx committed, can anybody really fault those who pick them apart??

Now, there might be some things that have been done or tentatively started, but that's not in this conversation. People can be happy all they want with those things that have been accomplished or are in the process of being accomplished.

I would like to know your thoughts on what I listed!

I sure hope we get single payer health system, that would be nice.
As to his picks, I realize Rahm does not have the great personal charm and high ethical standards of Karl Rove, but the likes of saint karl so seldom come our way. then we can look a few of the many quality picks of the Bush administration, the administration who put the capital C in Cronyism with Harriet Meirs and Michael "You are doing a great job, Brownie" Brown. But how about those two really outstanding picks Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld. Hell when Bush actually did make a good pick, Robert Gates, Obama kept him. There were so few, they should be rewarded.
Whatever border problems there are El Bushito's 8 years only made them worse.
In Afghanistan, Obama committed 30,000 more troops and has been doing pretty good job of droning taliban and al qaeda to death.

^^^

Actually John Roberts was a homerun pick, and Obama voted against him.

Manhattan Buckeye;388465 wrote:^^^

Actually John Roberts was a homerun pick, and Obama voted against him.

yeh he's right there with Roger Taney

isadore;388464 wrote:I sure hope we get single payer health system, that would be nice.

The Canadian and European governments at least are beginning to wonder if it's so nice.

isadore;388464 wrote:As to his picks, I realize Rahm does not have the great personal charm and high ethical standards of Karl Rove, but the likes of saint karl so seldom come our way. then we can look a few of the many quality picks of the Bush administration, the administration who put the capital C in Cronyism with Harriet Meirs and Michael "You are doing a great job, Brownie" Brown. But how about those two really outstanding picks Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld. Hell when Bush actually did make a good pick, Robert Gates, Obama kept him. There were so few, they should be rewarded.

It took 8 years for Bush to establish his cronies. It only took BHO 18 months to do so. I'll give credit where it's due.

isadore;388464 wrote:Whatever border problems there are El Bushito's 8 years only made them worse.

True. I never understood Bush's decision to largely ignore the Mexican border issue. Seems BHO is equally content to let the states take matters into their own hands.

isadore;388464 wrote:In Afghanistan, Obama committed 30,000 more troops and has been doing pretty good job of droning taliban and al qaeda to death.

But wait a minute....didn't the Anointed One promise the anti-war left that he'd withdraw all American troops from the region (particularly Iraq) within months of his taking office? 18 months later we're still entrenched in Iraq and escalating the Afghanistan efforts (rightfully so by the way). I'm absolutely fine with "droning" al qaeda to death but why aren't you lefties marching in front of the White House and insisting BHO live up to his promises?

The hypocrisy of the left never fails to amaze and entertain me.

isadore;388479 wrote:yeh he's right there with Roger Taney

Was that remotely serious, or was it anti-Catholic bigotry (and I'm not Catholic)?

Was that serious?

John Roberts was summa and magna at Harvard and HLS, and in his time affirmative action didn't play into law review or honors. He was an appeals clerk and a SCOTUS clerk, he spent time in government and also ran the appellate division at Hogan and Hartson. Unlike our "Constitutional scholar" president, he actually argued cases in front of SCOTUS - dozens of them.

Roberts is without a doubt the most qualified candidate ever nominated to SCOTUS in my lifetime, certainly more so than Kagan (who I think should be confirmed). NO Democrat should have opposed his nomination.

believer;388481 wrote:The Canadian and European governments at least are beginning to wonder if it's so nice.



It took 8 years for Bush to establish his cronies. It only took BHO 18 months to do so. I'll give credit where it's due.




True. I never understood Bush's decision to largely ignore the Mexican border issue. Seems BHO is equally content to let the states take matters into their own hands.



But wait a minute....didn't the Anointed One promise the anti-war left that he'd withdraw all American troops from the region (particularly Iraq) within months of his taking office? 18 months later we're still entrenched in Iraq and escalating the Afghanistan efforts (rightfully so by the way). I'm absolutely fine with "droning" al qaeda to death but why aren't you lefties marching in front of the White House and insisting BHO live up to his promises?

The hypocrisy of the left never fails to amaze and entertain me.

I sure hope to have the life span and see the infant mortality rate found in the advanced nations with government run health care system
Of course Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove were there from the get go as were so many others, who would be rewarded by practice of cronyism
As soon as Bush got to town he had government jobs for Harriet, Michael and Alberto Gonzalez. And then each because of their great talents were able to rise within the government to areas of even greater incompetence.
Throughout the 2008 campaign Obama pushed for a stronger effort in Afghanistan and winding down in Iraq which we are in the process of doing.

Manhattan Buckeye;388489 wrote:Was that remotely serious, or was it anti-Catholic bigotry (and I'm not Catholic)?

Was that serious?

John Roberts was summa and magna at Harvard and HLS, and in his time affirmative action didn't play into law review or honors. He was an appeals clerk and a SCOTUS clerk, he spent time in government and also ran the appellate division at Hogan and Hartson. Unlike our "Constitutional scholar" president, he actually argued cases in front of SCOTUS - dozens of them.

Roberts is without a doubt the most qualified candidate ever nominated to SCOTUS in my lifetime, certainly more so than Kagan (who I think should be confirmed). NO Democrat should have opposed his nomination.

gosh
Roger Taney has practiced law for 35 years, had served as US Secretary of the Treasury. Maryland Attorney General and US Attorney General and lead the court in the worst decision made in the history of the United States Supreme Court. I wish more whigs would have opposed his nomination.

Which has what to do with John Roberts? That is really one of the weirdest comments I've seen here. Do you really think Roberts was unqualified for SCOTUS? Do you have a point? If so I'm dying to know what it is. Is there a particular Roberts opinion you find objectionable? It would be strange because during his tenure with the DC Circuit it was nothing short of amazing how he was able to get unanimous opinions with few dissents. He's done a pretty good job with SCOTUS in delivering unanimous opinions even with justices of various political philosophies. Why the comparison? Do you have a point?

no I just like writing about Roger Taney

Actually John Roberts was a homerun pick, and Obama voted against him.

That is very subjective. It is still quite argueable if it was a "homerun" pick. If it is solely based on qualifications then Taney was a homerun pick. If getting support for a decision is the basis. Well good old roger was successful in getting one non slave holding northern justice to vote for the dred scott decision, was that a good thing.
It seems like alot of the major decisions of the Roger's court are 5-4

FairwoodKing;387400 wrote:I like Obama and I will vote for him again in 2012. He has spent most of the past 18 months cleaning up Bush's messes.

What messes is he still cleaning up? He has created many of his own messes that the next president will have to clean up.

Strapping Young Lad;387460 wrote:Yes I too am tired of the President of the U.S. of Freaking A. sounding like a buffoon. We need someone eloquent like dubbya in there. IMO, Obama gives the world the impresssion that all Americans are dumb jackasses.

Being able to speak eloquently doesn't neccessarily equal intelligence or knowledge on an issue.

isadore;387636 wrote:BP has done plenty to criminalize itself despite the sympathy and support from rand paul.

LOL, why is Rand Paul being brought into this discussion? Your ability to deviate away from the conversation is quite extraordinary.

isadore;387820 wrote:gosh really
well that was the Clinton who had lost the fight over healthcare and had the blackhawk done debacle.
in June, 1994 Clinton ratings as President varies between 44 to 49% and by September that year they would be at 39% and by November in the low 40s and that was with a prosperous economy.
Obama's so far this June have been between 44 t0 48%

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/popularity.php

I think comparing the election of '96 to the election of '12 are apples to automobiles. It's not even remotely a good comparison. There are so many factors that go in to determining why Obama may or may not get re-elected.

Yes, Clinton's approval rating was similar to Obama's current approval rating, but the economies are in complete different situations, we are fighting a two front battle, the world economy is in much worse shape, tensions are very high in the ME, etc.

It is completely different situations. I'm not saying Obama won't get re-elected, but to use Clinton's re-election as an example of why Obama will get re-elected is pretty ridiculous.

isadore;388495 wrote:I sure hope to have the life span and see the infant mortality rate found in the advanced nations with government run health care system
Of course Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove were there from the get go as were so many others, who would be rewarded by practice of cronyism
As soon as Bush got to town he had government jobs for Harriet, Michael and Alberto Gonzalez. And then each because of their great talents were able to rise within the government to areas of even greater incompetence.

Political leaders have rewarded their cronies with political power since the dawn of time. The centralization and greater concentration of that power over larger amounts of people make these types of "crony" appointments so much more dangerous. You unwittingly make one helluva argument against a single payer government run health care system.

I think comparing the election of '96 to the election of '12 are apples to automobiles. It's not even remotely a good comparison. There are so many factors that go in to determining why Obama may or may not get re-elected.

Yes, Clinton's approval rating was similar to Obama's current approval rating, but the economies are in complete different situations, we are fighting a two front battle, the world economy is in much worse shape, tensions are very high in the ME, etc.

It is completely different situations. I'm not saying Obama won't get re-elected, but to use Clinton's re-election as an example of why Obama will get re-elected is pretty ridiculous.

gosh how could the situations be in anyway analogous? Two relatively young democratic presidents with little or no experience in national government or foreign affairs.
two administrations given enormous increases in the national debt produced by previous Republican administrations, two administrations with favorability problems produced by fights to pass health care reform, two administrations fighting the war against Islamic threats internally first towers bombing february, 1993 and criticism of its conduct of external fighting blackhawk down incident, October 3 and 4th.
Given the point that Clinton did have a much better economic situation it would seem to be a definite positive point for the political future of Obama that his approval rating is where it is.

majorspark;388559 wrote:Political leaders have rewarded their cronies with political power since the dawn of time. The centralization and greater concentration of that power over larger amounts of people make these types of "crony" appointments so much more dangerous. You unwittingly make one helluva argument against a single payer government run health care system.

cronyism is greatest at the local and state goverment level. george brought his cronyism with him from his business and texas state government experiences.

isadore;388588 wrote:cronyism is greatest at the local and state goverment level.

Got anything to back that up? Whether it is true are not is not the point. It exists at all levels of government as well as the private sector.

My point is that it has the potential to be most harmful to the most number of people is at the federal leve,l where its affects are felt by 300 plus million people.

isadore;388588 wrote:george brought his cronyism with him from his business and texas state government experiences.

Another good argument against a single payer health care system administered by the federal government. Like George Bush, any Chief executive or federal congressman can bring his/her cronies from their state government. They can use their influence to get them appointed powerful positions in the new Federal Health Care Administration, and they can rule over all 300 plus million Americans health care needs. Sounds great.

Center, I will respond to your comments about the Democrats in power shortly. I respect your opinions and there is some merit in what you say. I'm not a person who believes any one person has the magic answers that will extricate our nation from the mess we found ourselves in. It's just too tempting to get into an argument that attacks all Republicans and ignores the excesses of the current Party in power so I will think about it first and then get back. I still come from very strong Republican roots and every now and then it shows up in what I say. I just believe that in the last several years I have grown increasingly more agitated by what I see the Republican "position" becoming and I just can't, in good conscience, continue to support something that I simply don't believe is the best thing for our country and it's people. I would tell you that I believe that the "new" Republican position is not even close to a majority opinion and is only hurting the Republican party's future because we already are a minority party in thjs country and pretty much always have been. There are literally millions of Americans that have no health insurance or woefully inadequate health protection. This to me is criminal. When my party says we should throw out everything that the new Administration has done in the area of health care and "start over", this appears to me to be an avoidance strategy to avoid providing health care to millions and help elect the anti health care people again in 2010 and 2012. The Republican Party, at least the ultra conservative wing, reminds me of an era that we should never return to and hopefully the American people will reject their tactics. We have spent billions and billions on producing weapons with nuclear capability and these folks historically have supported such projects. I am simply saying that if we are going to subsidize nuclear weapons that sit in their unopened crates and become obsolete, we should be willing to spend money on our people who are suffering and need help. If we are going to argue "Socialism" we might as well get something of value for our money. I think hard working unprotected Americans are certainly as deserving as crated weapons we never use. I'm sorry about this one topic rant Center, but my party just doesn't seem to care about people any longer. I'll let it go for the moment but this is why myself and a lot of folks like me have changed political allegiance.