Obama 'Man of the Year', another Time cover photo

He stands somewhat shorter, having won 4 million fewer votes and two fewer states than in 2008. But his 5 million-vote margin of victory out of 129 million ballots cast shocked experts in both parties.

He untied Ohio’s knotty heartland politics, picked the Republican lock on Florida Cubans and won Paul Ryan’s hometown of Janesville, Wis. (Those last two data points especially caught the President’s interest.)

He will take the oath on Jan. 20 as the first Democrat in more than 75 years to get a majority of the popular vote twice. Only five other Presidents have done that in all of U.S. history.

[There are many reasons we won, but] the biggest by far are the nation’s changing demographics and Obama’s unique ability to capitalize on them.

On the issues, Obama did not fare quite as well. While 51% of voters in exit polls in 2008 said they wanted the government to do more, only 43% said so in 2012, and Obamacare still polls badly.

But Obama doesn’t see his legacy in terms of an ideological imprint, like Ronald Reagan’s claim that “government is the problem” or Bill Clinton’s admonition that the “era of Big Government is over.” He says he just wants smarter government and a set of results that he can claim as he leaves office in early 2017: “That we had steered this ship of state so that we once again had an economy that worked for everybody, that we had laid the foundation for broad-based prosperity and that internationally we had created the framework for continued American leadership in the world throughout the 21st century.” Recent history and current headlines suggest he will fall short of achieving all those goals.

[Part of how he won was a bold inspection of voters.] For months on end, two or three nights a week, Simas and his team secretly gathered voters in rented rooms across the swing states, eight at a time, the men separated from the women. The Obamans poked at their guinea pigs’ animal spirits, asked for confessions and played word-association games.

While Romney tried to focus on Obama’s weak economic record, Obama made his race about confidence. The most important poll question in Chicago was, Which candidate is looking out for voters like you? “What we saw these undecided voters doing for literally a year,” Simas says, “looking at two very different people outside fundamental message, tactics and strategy, is, they were making a very trust-based assessment between Obama and Romney.”

This became the through line of the brutal and at times unfair Obama attacks on Romney — the cracks about car elevators, the specious mention of his potentially felonious Securities and Exchange Commission filings, the false claim that he supported an abortion ban without a rape exception, the endless harping on a Swiss bank account once held in his wife’s name. It all spoke to a central message built around trust: One man, despite his failures, had voters like you in mind. The other man, by contrast, knew how to make a lot of money for people you will never meet.

Read more: http://poy.time.com/2012/12/19/person-of-the-year-barack-obama/#ixzz2FVdnvadX

Just some notables from the article proclaiming Obama the Man of the Year. An honor he earned, whether I like him or not.

I just hope his arrogance, and his never-say-when campaign attitude doesn't fully cloud America's vision with his self-centered, messianic leftist desires. And there's a good chance it won't, because America is most divided when people such as him are crass, unreasonable and self-interested in their leadership and vote-getting tactics. Not on color, party or economic situation -- despite what his friends and allies want us to believe.

Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous

Those changes keep... not happening. Pelosi to seek minority leader. Again.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, who has served as the highest-ranking female politician in American history, will stay on as the top Democrat in the House during the coming 113th Congress.

Read article: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57549554/pelosi-to-stay-on-as-minority-le...

Yeah, because, you know, it's do as I say, not as I do in Washington. That is exactly what the mob rule vote attained, it looks like.

- jR

Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous

LaTourette may have no idea what the Tea Party actually is, but he's right on a few things

Politico, CNN and a Republican who slams the Tea Party are letting us know what the 2014 and 2016 election efforts are going to be like. 

Republican Rep. Steve LaTourette slammed the Tea Party on Thursday and said the GOP needs to start acting like a national party.

“There’s a one-word phrase we use in Ohio for that: ‘crap,’” LaTourette said on CNN’s “Starting Point,” when asked whether he bought a Tea Party leader’s line that that group is the nation’s “last best hope” to “restore America’s founding principles.”

Is this a media fail, or a congressman's fail, or both? 

Thanks for helping liberal media, the statists and the Republican status quo marginalize the real Tea Party movement, LaTourette. Care to clarify your comments, or are you a part of the GOP's underwhelming status quo and your goal was achieved?

It is going to be a long haul to achieve these things: limiting government, clearly regarding the Constitution, controlling gov costs, limiting regulations so they are not unfairly limiting private commerce, assuring social security and the like survive without being abused by government, and reducing taxes on everyone.

Those, quite simply, are the TEA PARTY MOVEMENT INTERESTS. Everything else people connect to the Tea Party is "crap."

Most of the article (linked below), and so much of LaTourette's comments, are "CRAP." I haven't determined if the Politico piece is a good (or a selective) sample of the congressman's entire commentary on the CNN show, or what the congressman's history with Tea Party comments is, just so that's out in the open. No matter the context, though, this part is right on: 

LaTourette says there are "controversial Republicans who cast the whole party in a 'nutty' light..."

“We have the right message on the finances,” LaTourette continued, but added, “We have to get out of people’s lives, get out of people’s bedrooms, and we have to be a national party…or else we’re going to lose.”

That's right! But I harshly disagree that these are Tea Party activists. The really, truly grass roots Tea Partiers believe very simple things that have gotten "crapped all over" by Republican stalwarts and those fixated on social issues such as gay rights (forget marriage, call it gay rights and they fight it, and they are wrongly roped in with the Tea Party), anti-abortion activists, Christian-only ethics, severe anti-Muslims (not just against extremist Muslims), a variety of conspiracy theorists (birthers, for instance), and more. These social and paranoia issues are not the issues of Tea Partiers, even if they hold views in some of those areas.

Somehow, the effort to connect the Tea Party with extreme morality nannies and the like has worked. That's "crap." The Tea Party is not a frigging grab bag of Republicans, or social conservatives, or conservative Christians. LaTourette, were he not an ignoramus, ought to know that. Where or not he does, I don't know, I don't follow the man. But he just made an ass of himself on CNN and Poltico, as far as I can tell. 

The real Tea Party is "nutty" only to partisan Democrats, leftists or those who believe the U.S. Constitution is an outdated document (and Tea Party is well-misrepresented by many eager-beaver leftist media people). 

The truly problematic Republicans are ignorant, poorly informed and insular, including science-deficient, Bible-fixated ones. I do not mean devout Christians, but people who are quite obviously ignorantly fixated on a juvenile doctrine based on the Bible and spending way too much time talking about the Bible and not real life matters, like how the human body actually works.

These are NOT the Tea Party. Akin is not the Tea Party. Akin was the poster boy for the ugly Republicans this time around, and I was cringing at anyone who went out of their way to support him after his rape-physiology comments that were a throwback to early 1900s.

Allen West is a Tea Party Republican -- some think he's evil or whatever. Well, snap out of it. He's a solid guy. He lost, sadly, because we need less politically motivated wusses, and more real men in Congress. But South Florida instead has now got Patrick Murphy: daddy's boy.

Some want us to believe, like LaTourette would seem to, that "Tea Party" is the label for weirdo, ignorant political views. If ignorant equals Tea Partier, then here's a Tea Party member: Harry Reid. His comments on Obama being a well-spoken, light-skinned Negro were as old-man, out-of-date, white elitist stupid as it gets. But look where he is: Leading the Senate as a Democrat! But we know he's not a Tea Party member, don't we? 

(And, while I'm on Republican oddities, uh... Santorum? Lose the damned sweater vest! This isn't a Bible convention, this is national politics, and you looked like a choir nerd!) 

Read the whole piece I've quoted at Politico: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83571.html#ixzz2BebOd5OZ

If you value the ideals of the actual Tea Party, then prevent the movement being roped in with all sorts of issues, and with fake activist groups who are out for themselves, not the real Tea Party ideals.

Don't do what LaTourette has done. 

- jR

Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous

NYT: Hey! What about Philly, look at Florida's voting!

https://plus.google.com/115570647318488518806/posts/7r9whwtKfkp

Again New Yorkers make hay out of Florida voting, as if there's nothing going on just down the road in Philadelphia -- several things -- that make Palm Beach 2000 seem tame.

Where's their blogging and coverage of that? Must still be on the copy editors' desk, huh? FAIL, NYT!

-jR

Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous

Election monitoring would forever be one-sided, if Philly Dems had their way

Curious that they didn't lead this piece with the local aspect. Or, not curious, stupid. At the very end of an article about the major political parties lawyering up for election day, from Philly.com:

Teams of lawyers for Obama, Romney get ready for Election Day
http://articles.philly.com/2012-11-05/news/34931643_1_top-lawyer-legal-team-p...

In Pennsylvania, Republicans and Democrats battled for months over the state's voter-ID law, which Commonwealth Court Judge Robert E. Simpson Jr. blocked after concluding there wasn't enough time for voters who needed specially issued state identification to obtain it.

More prosaic perhaps, but just as important, has been a long-running effort by Republican lawyers in Philadelphia to win appointment of hundreds of Republican election inspectors in districts where there had been none.

Linda Kerns, a Center City lawyer who volunteers for the state Republican Party, said "You need eyes and ears from both parties to make sure the law is being followed."

Hit the link above to read the whole article.

- jR

Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous

A spot to track the Philly horseplay on election day: PoliticPA

Like 2008, but worse: polling places in Philly places of shame

Since there were already a lot of problems being reported in Philadelphia the day before Election Day, it comes as no surprise that Election Day itself is a bounty of problems with the polls open for less than three hours. “It’s looking like a messy election,” says Zack Stalberg, president and CEO of the non-partisan election watchdog group Committee of Seventy. That organization reports the following as of 9:35 a.m.:

Election Court is dealing with a host of minority (Republican) inspectors being denied access to their polling places in Philadelphia.

The New Black Panthers are back. They’re reportedly at the polling place at 11th and Germantown Streets.*

There are “You need a photo ID to vote” signs at a number of polling places. Seventy has asked the City Commissioners to have Judges of Elections take those signs down immediately. We’re also hearing that judges of election at at least two other polling places have been telling voters they need a photo ID to vote. You don’t need a photo ID to vote today in Pennsylvania, though elections officials are supposed to ask you if you have one.

A polling place at 7th and Cayoga Streets – in the city’s Latino area – has numerous voters who do not speak English – and reportedly no interpreter in sight.

* As I reported earlier this morning, the New Black Panthers are also on the 1200 block of Fairmount Avenue.

Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous

BET: They have an excuse, but this is a bit much

Economy:
President Obama came to office during a time when the economy was in steep decline. He pushed for bailout loans to auto manufacturers, allowing the industry to bypass a total collapse and saving more than 1.4 million jobs. Despite all his efforts, the economy continues to struggle.

via bet.com: http://www.bet.com/news/features/vote-2012/candidates/barack-obama.html

See also the Mitt Romney items: http://www.bet.com/news/features/vote-2012/candidates/mitt-romney.html

-jR

BET: telling it like it is! LOL. Might have been nice if they mentioned that the economy might have been better if he had actually inspired a FOCUS on it instead of divisive politicking, Obamacare passage, and other things that were going to be better served, ultimately, by an immediate and targeted focus on the economy. But he didn't focus on the economy. And, thus, no one could focus on the economy. He focused on being a political change agent. He focused on speeches with lots of "I" in them.

Compare the Obama nuggets (first link) to those regarding Romney (second link). The briefs offered are laughably sycophantic for Obama, and the others are always dragging Romney down. They target Romney's record and what he says on the stump, while they, mostly myopically, soft-paw Obama on his record as president. As if Obama's words and deeds had never been contrary.

While this is the Black Entertainment TV network, I could give them a pass for bias. But they aren't alone, and they are way too generous to Obama and his record. I think it would be ridiculous to try to believe that they are biased toward Obama only because he is black. They are biased for him because he is liberal, black and against controlling the explosion of government that is going to drag us all down. Because that is what is easy: keep taxing a successful minority and avoid dealing with the waste in government. Easy.

Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous

Debbie Wassie-Schu clueless and snotty about the Obama 'Kill List'

On 29 May 2012, the New York Times published a remarkable 6,000-word story on its front page about what it termed President Obama's "kill list". It detailed the president's personal role in deciding which individuals will end up being targeted for assassination by the CIA based on Obama's secret, unchecked decree that they are "terrorists" and deserve to die.

Based on interviews with "three dozen of his current and former advisers", the Times' Jo Becker and Scott Shane provided extraordinary detail about Obama's actions, including how he "por[es] over terrorist suspects' biographies on what one official calls the macabre 'baseball cards'" and how he "insist[s] on approving every new name on an expanding 'kill list'". At a weekly White House meeting dubbed "Terror Tuesdays", Obama then decides who will die without a whiff of due process, transparency or oversight. It was this process that resulted in the death of US citizen Anwar Awlaki in Yemen, and then two weeks later, the killing of his 16-year-old American son, Abdulrahman, by drone.

The Times "kill list" story made a huge impact and was widely discussed and condemned by media figures, politicians, analysts, and commentators. Among other outlets, the New York Times itself harshly editorialized against Obama's program in an editorial entitled "Too Much Power For a President", denouncing the revelations as "very troubling" and argued: "No one in that position should be able to unilaterally order the killing of American citizens or foreigners located far from a battlefield - depriving Americans of their due-process rights - without the consent of someone outside his political inner circle."

That Obama has a "kill list" has been known since January, 2010, and has been widely reported and discussed in every major American newspaper since April 2010. A major controversy over chronic White House leaks often featured complaints about this article (New York Times, 5 June 2012: "Senators to Open Inquiry Into 'Kill List' and Iran Security Leaks"). The Attorney General, Eric Holder, gave a major speech defending it.

But Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Democratic Congresswoman from Florida and the Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, does not know about any of this. She has never heard of any of it. She has managed to remain completely ignorant about the fact that President Obama has asserted and exercised the power to secretly place human beings, including US citizens, on his "kill list" and then order the CIA to extinguish their lives.

Just marvel at this stunning, completely inexcusable two-minute display of wholesale ignorance by this elected official and DNC chair. Here she is after the second presidential debate being asked by Luke Rudkowski of We Are Change about the "kill list" and whether Romney should be trusted with this power. She doesn't defend the "kill list". She doesn't criticize it. She makes clear that she has never heard of it and then contemptuously treats Rudkowski like he is some sort of frivolous joke for thinking that it is real:

Anyone who observes politics closely has a very low bar of expectations. It's almost inevitable to become cynical - even jaded - about just how inept and inane top Washington officials are. Still, even processing this through those lowly standards, I just find this staggering. Staggering and repellent. This is an elected official in Congress, the body that the Constitution designed to impose checks on the president's abuses of power, and she does not have the foggiest idea what is happening in the White House, and obviously does not care in the slightest, because the person doing it is part of the party she leads.

One expects corrupt partisan loyalty from people like Wasserman Schultz, eager to excuse anything and everything a Democratic president does. That's a total abdication of her duty as a member of Congress, but that's par for the course. But one does not expect this level of ignorance, the ability to stay entirely unaware of one of the most extremist powers a president has claimed in US history, trumpeted on the front-page of the New York Times and virtually everywhere else.

The paragraph that makes it all worth it is that last one (condensed by me here):

"One expects corrupt partisan loyalty ... but one does not expect this level of ignorance, the ability to stay entirely unaware of one of the most extremist powers a president has claimed in US history...."

DWS is kinda FOS. No room for open-minded facts.

- jR

Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous

Obama exposed himself as using Benghazi for politics in 2nd debate: 'Please proceed, Governor'

Obama was helped in setting up one of his best put-down speeches of the second debate, thanks to moderator Candy Crowley's chiming in when Obama refused to speak. This portion of a Washington Times Communities blog post by Henry D'Andrea makes the point I hope anyone can agree to, at least silently (liberals and Obamasexuals, maybe not):
"...an audience member asked the president, "We were sitting around talking about Libya, and we were reading and became aware of reports that the State Department refused extra security for our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, prior to the attacks that killed four Americans. Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?"

Obama gave a lengthy response which never addressed the question. During his rebuttal Romney said, “I think it’s interesting, the president just said something which is that the day after the attack, he went into the Rose Garden and said that this is was an act of terror?

"It was not a spontaneous demonstration; is that what you’re saying?” 

“Please proceed, governor,” Obama replied. 

Romney looked at him with consternation as the president didn’t say whether he called the Libya attack an act of terrorism on September 12. " 

-----

As we all have heard, moderator Candy Crowley stepped in and muddled things since Romney was trying to outline the facts and Obama refused to chime in as Romney was seeking confirmation. For me this action by the seasoned (thus someone who ought to have known better) CNN host was the most disappointing part of the debate, not considering omissions and a few obvious attempts to demonize Romney. The candidates had their low moments, but this involvement ruined the debate. People will, however, simply make of it what they wish, facts and order of events need not affect them. If they are of a certain stubborn mind to begin with. 

Importantly, you could extend Crowley's offense to Obama as well: He could have easily confirmed the order of things -- or just stuck with the spin, rather than voting present on it at that stage in the debate -- when given the chance by Romney. When Obama said, "Please proceed, Governor," I think it's clear that Obama was counting on a lead-in, from Romney, to what proved to be a prepared, over-the-top campaign cheap shot minutes later. 

Here's how: I believe Obama was hoping Romney was going to take more of a cheap shot at him on the Benghazi affair, or at least talk about it in a way that didn't include requesting a clarification from Obama. The President didn't get the lead-in he might have preferred, since Romney sought clarification from Obama of some of the what-where-when of the Benghazi attack. We heard a request for agreement by Romney, and Obama's "Please proceed, Governor." Yes, please proceed, without my confirming anything, because I have a great diatribe prepared once you're finished setting me up for it. 

Obama was interested in giving one of his prepared gotcha attacks, to take some heat off of himself. Since Obama is well informed about speaking -- much more informed than he is about economics, military matters, security, and the varied threats from Muslim extremists -- he fashioned the debate himself to get to his prepared outrage. It happened to be in part thanks to Crowley's feckless assistance.

Obama gave what I believe was a well-prepared rant about his being insulted by any suggestion that he or his Administration was lackadaisical about the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three former military men. He used it, it just wasn't as perfectly set-up as it could have been, because Romney wasn't taking a cheap shot. There must have been some slight disappointment about Romney's taking a higher road in the Obama camp.

Watch the Benghazi attack portion from the second debate again, and consider Obama's chess game, holding the complete facts like cherished pieces and moving forward all of his self-protecting rhetorical pieces -- his pawns. Ironically, I should add, because he tried to refute any idea that he was making political hay of Benghazi, when it seems, no matter how he feels about it, that he has been doing exactly that, and in the debate did it once again. 

I think it's a clear effort to make a political game of the Benghazi event, using games to put his own failings on the back burner by trying to suggest his opponent is making it political, not he. 

This intentional, political gaming by Obama with the facts of Benghazi -- and his embarrassing handling of it -- is similar to a child claiming his little sister was at fault for his being grounded for a broken cookie jar because she pointed out to the parents that he had broken the jar. It's childish head games.

Obama had no humility regarding the Benghazi attack and his errors in handling that event while his fundraising trips were not taking a break. Obama was not interested in admitting the facts of his unseemly preference to campaigning over being the president. He went to a fundraiser in Las Vegas and onto TV shows in the attack's immediate aftermath. 

Fact is, Obama was not admitting to a direct challenge to the United States, treating it as an upswelling of a popular demonstration. For many days. He didn't want the Arab Spring to turn so cold. But it did. He's doing clean-up now, attempting to throw his shame on his political foe. How could the president ever be convinced that a shoulder-fired missile might have been part of a popular demonstration? Is there such a thing as a sudden, unplanned militant action? I don't think so. 

Obama is trying to make political hay of the Benghazi deaths. Romney has pointed out what was done wrong, if he is doing anything with this event. Mostly detached, guilt-ridden and fanatical masses are taking Obama's bait to attack Romney unreasonably for Benghazi, when they should be wondering why Obama kept avoiding the use of the word "terror" connected directly to the Benghazi attack.

Obama cares about our embassies and the Americans serving in them, I'd imagine, but he seems to be equally interested in using the event to his political advantage.

I wonder if the folks at that Las Vegas fund-raising event that followed the Benghazi attack felt like Obama cared about them? Or, at least, that he cared about their money? I think they should have felt honored by his desire for campaign cash. 

-----

Read more of the Wash. Times blog: Candy Crowley gets it wrong: Obama never called Benghazi a ‘terror attack’ in Rose Garden speech | http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/conscience-conservative/2...
Follow them: @wtcommunities on Twitter

---

- jR @airfarceone on Twitter

The Joker assaults 'Kid' Congressman

The POLITICO piece noting broad Twitter reaction to Joe "Chuckles" Biden's jocularity at the VP debate Thursday, Oct. 11, 2012: Vice President Joe Biden and Rep. Paul Ryan were the two candidates on stage at Thursday’s vice presidential debate, but a third character emerged: Joe Biden’s laugh, which didn’t escape the notice of tweeting politicos. (And led, of course, to at least three satirical Twitter accounts: Laughing Joe Biden, Biden Smirk, and yet another Laughing Joe Biden.)

Weekly Standard’s Mark Hemingway: “Joe Biden’s laughing through talking about Iran sanctions?”

Washington Examiner’s Philip Klein: “Biden’s strategy seems to be to laugh at Ryan constantly. Will it work to infantalize Ryan, or backfire like Gore sighing?”

ABC’s Rick Klein: “Biden on verge of breaking down in laughter when Ryan talks.”

Former Eric Cantor staffer Brad Dayspring: “Joe Biden needs to realize this isn’t a Senate Foreign Relations Hearing. His laughter and condescending attitude is a disaster.”

Radio host Neal Boortz: “Looking like Biden’s gameplan is to laugh his way through this.”

Townhall.com’s Guy Benson: “Will Biden laugh his ass off at the terrible economy, too?”

Movie critic Roger Ebert: “Joe! Stop smiling and laughing!”

Washington Times’ Emily Miller: “Biden laughing when he disagrees with Ryan is so annoying. Like a child in time out.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82313.html#ixzz295qQXO4V

Funny, Twitter generally burst with reactions that Biden's grinning, laughing and general condescending attitude at the table was distracting at best, certainly awkward, and even disturbing.

Yet, Politico's own Roger Simon was all jolly over the weird display of hyena-like aggression (verging on rabid-like, too): "Biden smirked, sneered, and openly laughed at many of Ryan’s responses. It could have looked rude, but Biden made it look tough.

"After all, Biden was the 69-year-old defender and Ryan was the 42-year-old challenger. But by the end of the evening, Joltin’ Joe had done real damage to his opponent." (Read Simon's adoring piece: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82323.html#ixzz295ssBwhL )

"FORWARD" THIS, Obama-Biden folks: I hear Biden's up for playing an aging Joker in the next Batman movie reboot. I wonder who should be Two-Face? The Riddler? Catwoman might be Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (not meant in a sexy way, I assure you). Hmm, I see a parody coming on... David Zucker, are you reading this?

-jR

Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous

No fashion sense: Think Progress

Think Progress is a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. The Center for American Progress Action Fund is a nonpartisan organization.

ThinkProgress was voted “Best Liberal Blog” in the 2006 Weblog Awards and chosen as an Official Honoree in the 2009 and 2012 Webby awards. It was also named best blog of 2008 by The Sidney Hillman Foundation, receiving an award for journalism excellence. In 2009, ThinkProgress was named a “Gold Award Winner” by the International Academy of Visual Arts.

Without your generous support, we cannot do the work that we do. Please consider donating

Editors

via thinkprogress.org

I noticed one thing on the "About" page for ThinkProgress that really impacted me. Sadly, it wasn't the impressive education credentials of much of the staff. A third of the staff have no concept of fashion. Also, they need a photographer who isn't blind to re-take some of the head shots. Have a look, seriously! If you don't agree, then tell me. I'd love to hear your views contrary to my claim.

I don't read ThinkProgress because, like the work of those doofuses at MoveOn.org, it's often one-quarter truths dressed up with the typical leftist bitterness against anyone who disagrees with their party line. Despite being what I have been led to believe was the "liberal" equivalent of Breitbart.com, along with Media Matters, this site typically offers what only the most off-the-rails "conservative" sites and newsletters can offer by comparison. (And no, Occupy activists and socialists living in mommy's attic, I am not talking about Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Get back to your video games, cheese snacks and Huff-and-Puff Post comments, now, and leave reality to those who actually live in it.)

Is fashion the most important thing in the world? No. Is having a vague sense of self-awareness a hint that someone has a clue? Uh, yeah.

Heck, consider Glamour Shots, kids. Certainly cannot hurt to go too far the other way with the staff photos. Oh, and "nonpartisan" my seat warmer.

- jR

Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous

No fashion sense: Think Progress

Think Progress is a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. The Center for American Progress Action Fund is a nonpartisan organization.

ThinkProgress was voted “Best Liberal Blog” in the 2006 Weblog Awards and chosen as an Official Honoree in the 2009 and 2012 Webby awards. It was also named best blog of 2008 by The Sidney Hillman Foundation, receiving an award for journalism excellence. In 2009, ThinkProgress was named a “Gold Award Winner” by the International Academy of Visual Arts.

Without your generous support, we cannot do the work that we do. Please consider donating

Editors

via thinkprogress.org

I noticed one thing on the "About" page for ThinkProgress that really impacted me. Sadly, it wasn't the impressive education credentials of much of the staff. A third of the staff have no concept of fashion. Also, they need a photographer who isn't blind to re-take some of the head shots. Have a look, seriously! If you don't agree, then tell me. I'd love to hear your views contrary to my claim.

I don't read ThinkProgress because, like the work of those doofuses at MoveOn.org, it's often one-quarter truths dressed up with the typical leftist bitterness against anyone who disagrees with their party line. Despite being what I have been led to believe was the "liberal" equivalent of Breitbart.com, along with Media Matters, this site typically offers what only the most off-the-rails "conservative" sites and newsletters can offer by comparison. (And no, Occupy activists and socialists living in mommy's attic, I am not talking about Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Get back to your video games, cheese snacks and Huff-and-Puff Post comments, now, and leave reality to those who actually live in it.)

Is fashion the most important thing in the world? No. Is having a vague sense of self-awareness a hint that someone has a clue? Uh, yeah.

Heck, consider Glamour Shots, kids. Certainly cannot hurt to go too far the other way with the staff photos. Oh, and "nonpartisan" my seat warmer.

- jR

Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous

JFK's red line versus Obama's long rope

Israel's Prime Minister Ben Netanyahu:
In an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press, said it was important to communicate to Iran that there is a line that it cannot cross, and added that president John F. Kennedy set a similar red line in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis that did not bring about war, as some had warned, but “actually pushed war back and probably purchased decades of peace with the Soviet Union.”
...
“This is a country that denies the Holocaust, promises to wipe out Israel, is engaged in terror throughout the world.
It’s like Timothy McVeigh walking into a shop in Oklahoma City and saying ‘I'd like to tend my garden. I would like to buy some fertilizer.’ ‘How much do you want?’ ‘Oh, I don’t know, 20,000 pounds.’ “Come on, we know that they’re working towards a weapon,” the prime minister said. “It’s not something that we surmise. We have absolute certainty about that.”
Netanyahu’s arguments, however, did not convince the administration.
via http://www.jpost.com
http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=285467

Netanyahu didn't convince this administration? There's a shock.

- jR







Andrew Cohen: Obama is right to ignore Netanyahu (Ottawa Citizen)

In the Jewish calendar, the interlude between Rosh Hashanah (the New Year) and Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) is called the Days of Awe. During these 10 days, Jews reflect on themselves and their faith.

Like observant Jews everywhere, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will consider his conduct over the last year and seek forgiveness for his transgressions. He will have much to contemplate. Before the Days of Awe, Netanyahu had his Days of Audacity.

That’s audacity as in effrontery, not boldness. Netanyahu’s cardinal sin is interfering in the domestic politics of the United States, Israel’s friend, ally and benefactor, in a manner that is disingenuous, ungrateful and irresponsible.

Twice this month, Netanyahu has told the United States, publicly, to give Iran an ultimatum on its nuclear program. It should draw “a red line” that Iran cannot cross, he says. “Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don’t have a moral right to place a red line before Israel,” he told a news conference this month.

His point: that if America is not going to set limits on the Iranians and nuclear weapons, it has no right to tell Israel what to do.

As if those dense Americans didn’t recognize themselves as “the international community,” Netanyahu later went on American television to drive home the point.

Let’s get beyond the coded conversation. The prime minister is saying that President Barack Obama is unreliable. He does this as the president seeks re-election against a Republican who attacks him for being soft on Iran and hard on Israel, who claims Obama is “throwing Israel under the bus.”

It is very simple and very dangerous, Netanyahu’s game. In portraying Obama as weak, he plays to the Republican canard that on Israel — as in events in Libya and Egypt — the president has no backbone.

This is beyond audacity. It is chutzpah.

No wonder Obama is snubbing Netanyahu when he visits the United Nations this week. He resents Netanyahu’s megaphone diplomacy, which tries to drag the U.S. into a premature, preventive war, as well as his ingratitude for America’s magnanimous financial and military support of Israel.

For months, Netanyahu has been warning that Iran is getting the bomb, a refrain from him and other alarmists we have heard for 20 years. In his messianic view of himself and Jewish history, Israel has no choice but to strike first.

Netanyahu continues to argue this amid growing opposition in Israel, particularly among influential insiders, such as Meir Dagan, who ran Mossad. Read Dagan’s assessment of Iran in the New Yorker, and see the emptiness — and recklessness — of Netanyahu’s declarations on Iran.

It was madness to speak of hitting Iran in January, when Netanyahu began his new season of sabre-rattling, and it is madness now. Attacking Iran isn’t about weak-kneed morality. It is about hard-headed practicality.

And practically speaking, it just doesn’t add up.

No credible intelligence suggests that Israel has the ability to destroy Iran’s capacity to make a nuclear bomb. It can delay it, yes, for six to 24 months.

So there's a big shock. A dithering academic fluff-maker finds it important to defend the campaigner-in-chief, the radical-inspired, duck-and-cover, lead-from-behind Progressive borne of academia, President Barack Obama. As if he needs defending. Poor Obama, all he's got is the world's biggest bully pulpit from which be may mislead the world, nothing more. Well, there is that nagging left-leaning TV and print media that dotes on him, not to mention all the surrogates who sustain this largest head among figureheads.

Yet, a Canadian professor is coming to poor little Barry's defense against that overbearing master of mean, Bibi of tiny little Israel. That harbinger of threats to the world from Europe to Asia, that radical theocracy run by... oh wait. I'm talking about Iran. What the hell is this Canadian school marm's honey doing? Is he meshugenah?! He's defending Obama's rejection of personal talks with Bibi?

Yes, let's not rattle sabres at Iran, that might get them riled up. We can't have that. They're such a peaceful nation. Well, after Obama essentially ignored that people's uprising in Iran, which the totalitarian theocracy violently held down, that is. They've been peaceful since then, huh? Well, except for shipping arms to Syria. They've been. No, no I'm wrong, Iran isn't worth our attention.

Israel is, however. Just not according to one Jewish-Canadian academic fluff-maker. And the ladies on "The View." You're in good company there, Mr. Cohen!

Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous

The 9/11 v. 2.0 excuse: Obama almost admits to reality, but it should be too late for that

MIAMI — President Barack Obama said Thursday that extremists used an anti-Islam video as an excuse to assault U.S. interests overseas, including an attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.

The president’s comments came as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton faced questions from members of the House and Senate about the Sept. 11 attack on the consulate in Benghazi in a series of closed-door classified briefings on Capitol Hill.

Republicans have accused the Obama administration of misreading the assault as the outgrowth of widespread demonstrations in the Middle East over the video. They insisted it was a terrorist attack, a term White House spokesman Jay Carney used on Thursday. Obama did not use the phrase.

Read more (via Wash Post, from AP): http://tinyurl.com/obamaexcuse
Obama: Extremists used anti-Islam video as ‘excuse’ for attack against US interests

The White House, from Jay "mouthpiece" Carney to Barack Obama, have been avoiding one thing: admitting the obvious connection between September 11, 2012, deaths in Libya, the 9/11 attacks of 2001, and Obama's misguided foreign policy of pandering and appeasement toward the less civil parts of the Muslim world.

Whether a hawk or a dove, it mystifies me how anyone -- that is, those who actually follow world conflicts and understand bona fide repression of people -- couldn't see that an ambassador died because extremist Muslims hate America and wanted to jab at the open wound of 9/11 because they felt they could get away with it. (That they could get away with it because Obama is a limp leader on the world stage.) I don't see how anyone didn't connect the timing of the widespread American flag burnings and attacks and murders in the Middle East, the coming election, and the fallacy sold to us by the White House and left-wing media of the Arab Spring. But the mass media sure was confident about connecting some crappy film to the violence!

Worst of all, I don't see how the media could play along with the head-covering at the White House and not be cast down as the propaganda wing of the White House. I accept that Obama is a self-absorbed professorial cad with no need to be a real leader, but I expect -- DEMAND -- more from the people who are supposed to report the news, not be a PR firm for the Democratic (really driven by Progressive policy, not democracy) political machine.

It is simple: Obama's clumsy, pandering, unrealistic, classroom pontificating, weak stance on Muslim extremism is at fault for these actions, more than any match (an awful movie) that arsonists (blood-lusting, freedom-hating, hyped-up Muslim radicals) used to set them off.

I wish a relative soft-touch attitude and an occasional drone bombing were enough to help order to overtake chaos in the Middle East, but it cannot. The Obama Administration's relatively hands-off approach to the long-repressive states in which extremism exists, and has now flourished since the supposed Arab Spring, was the cause of 9/11 version 2.0, not the terrible movie (terrible in several ways) on YouTube.

When 9/11 2.0 happened, Obama went to raise money in Las Vegas, avoided a personal White House visit with Netanyahu (maybe only to keep the Israeli leader from also meeting publicly with Romney in the same visit?), and had time to sit and chat with a fake pirate. Oh yeah, and David Letterman. What did he say about the events happening in the Middle East? That a movie was to blame.

Huh?

Heck, Obama even had his State Dept. produce and run ads in Pakistan asserting the obvious fact that the U.S. Government does not run Hollywood and all wack-jobs who make weird, bad, insulting, anti-Muslim movies. With Obama's deep financial and political connections to the left in Hollywood and all of entertainment, I guess he had to make it clear that Hollywood and the White House are not officially attached?

Anybody in Pakistan who isn't well-versed on America could reasonably assume that Obama and far left Hollywood, and thus all U.S. film making, was under his supervision.

Rather than sell, for $35, U.S. flags defaced by his campaign's "O" logo, Obama would be more sincere if he changed the "O" for Obama logo to a one-finger salute graphic for how he's approaching his job while he campaigns to keep that job. I don't know what the symbol for "abdication of responsibility" is, so that's the best I can come up with.

Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous

Another reminder of the actual Obama childhood: far from the simple upbringing conveyed at the DNC

First lady Michelle Obama told the Democratic National Convention that "Barack and I were both raised by families who didn't have much in the way of money or material possessions."
It is a claim the president has repeated in his books, on the speech-making circuit and in countless media interviews. By his account, he grew up in a broken home with a single mom, struggled for years as a child in an impoverished Third World country and then was raised by his grandparents in difficult circumstances.
The facts aren't nearly so clear-cut.
...
In 1971, his mother sent young Obama back to Hawaii, where his grandmother, Madelyn, known as Toots, would become one of the first female vice presidents of a Honolulu bank. His grandfather was in sales.
Obama's grandparents moved the same year into Punahou Circle Apartments, a sleek new 10-story apartment building just five blocks from the private Punahou School, which Obama would attend from 1971 to 1979.
Obama explains in "Dreams from My Father" that his admission to Punahou began "the start of something grand, an elevation in the family status that they took great pains to let everyone know."
To his credit, Obama did not downplay Punahou's upscale status, noting in his autobiography that it "had grown into a prestigious prep school, an incubator for island elites. Its reputation had helped sway my mother in her decision to send me back to the States."
Obama also admitted in the book that his grandfather pulled strings to get him into the school. "There was a long waiting list, and I was considered only because of the intervention of Gramps's boss, who was an alumnus."
...
In his recent book "Barack Obama: The Story," Washington Post reporter David Maraniss said the future chief executive often smoked marijuana with prep school friends, rolling up the car windows to seek "total absorption," or "TA." They called themselves the "Choom Gang."
Edward Shanahan, a retired newspaper journalist who now edits downstreet.net and makes no effort to conceal his admiration for Obama, retraced his Hawaii years shortly after the president was elected.
Shanahan wrote that Obama lived in a "well-off neighborhood near the University of Hawaii where Barry, as he was known, resided in a comfortable home with his mother and her parents before she took him to Indonesia."
Sanahan said "our tour ended up on the lush, exquisitely maintained and altogether inviting campus of Punahou School, which we can imagine was a place of great comfort for Obama."
Tellingly, Obama has never lived in a black neighborhood. ...

Reporting for this special report by Richard Pollock, Examiner staff writer.
Next: Chapter II: The myth of the rock-star professor
via washingtonexaminer.com

The cult of personality is all Obama and his campaign is living off of. That, and every kind of attack possible against Romney, Ryan and anyone who disagrees with Obama or his policies as president. A telling bit from the Examiner story is this:

"In Indonesia, the family's circumstances improved dramatically. According to Obama in his autobiography "Dreams from My Father," Lolo's brother-in-law was "making millions as a high official in the national oil company." It was through this brother-in-law that Obama's stepfather got a coveted job as a government relations officer with the Union Oil Co. "

It is no surprise to me, but to Obama supporters, or any who oppose conservative views, this has got to be a shock. Those who see, by virtue of the evidence, Obama to be the ultra-Progressive, Constitution-marginalizing, far left change agent that he engages the worlds as, this is useful information. Calmly, sincerely remind those who think Obama is from simple roots, and meager means that he isn't, and since they ought to wonder why he was portrayed as such by his own wife, tell them why: he is not a leader for all, but a leader for change we don't need. And he'll mislead anyone he can to achieve the ends of hard ideologues such as himself. Such as his father.

Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous

The 'darkest hour' is at hand!

Media_httpihuffpostco_kucds

Your spin is AMAZING! Stop it, I'm dizzy!!

Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous

Forbes token lefty: Republicans don't care about the poor because they take care of more poor

Media_httpblogsimages_cudvn
Per "UPDATE: My old friend, Jon Vein, brings to my attention the greatest irony of all – the states with the greatest number of Americans who don’t pay federal income taxes …lean Republican."
So, what you're saying is, it turns out that areas which lean Republican do, in fact, take better care of people who can't, for whatever reason, do as much for themselves as others?
Oh no, that cannot be what you're saying. What you're saying is that people who vote Republican don't pay their taxes! Right? They are also not into donating to the needy (not), or being charitable (not), or encouraging people to succeed (not), or ...
Thanks for pointing out all the spots on those who wish to push for individual liberty and effort over government pandering and suck-up-itude. That would be the Republicans, right?
Clown.

Bloomberg: Occupy and Tea Party folks are useful idiots; don't know who they're useful to, though

Media_httpnyopolitick_hezgh

Bloomberg, or the Occupy and Tea Party movements, which he considers pretty much the same thing:
"Both are groups of people who think that we’re going in the wrong direction,” Mr. Bloomberg continued. “They may not have answers as to where to go, or their answers may be not-too-smart and not work and not be practical or whatever, but they are people who are not happy and they want to protest. Which is the American way, there’s nothing wrong with that. The trick is to not listen to people who have irrational ways to deal with the problems.”

To whoever screwed up the Tea Party to the degree that this elitist big city blowhard thinks it is similar to Occupy: thank you. If I find you, I will kick your dumb ass.

Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous

A ruse and another ruse: Egyptian admits involvement with anti-Islam movie

Deception, distraction and abuse of the ignorant. That is what the Arab World attacks on United States diplomatic properties are. 

It keeps getting more and more deceptive. The facts of these violent events have little to do with the movie. The movie makers are part of the story, as is the ludicrous, mocking film. But it is just a match that is sparked by an existing fire. 

Now, it seems the creator of the almost unseen 2011 movie that was used to provoke Muslim extremist violence, who poses as an outspoken Jew from Israel, is not only an agitator, but a multilevel fake. It seems the filmmaker is not Jewish or an Israeli, while it does appear he has been living in Southern California.  

This might lower excitement for this series of violent events for those who embrace Antisemitism or simply dislike or hate Israel (the only real democracy in the Middle East). Such types were no doubt thrilled (even if just a little) that an outspoken Jew provoked attacks on U.S. properties. I cannot accept that these actions against the United States were even provoked by a movie, but by deep-seated hatred for anything non-Muslim. The provocation was an irrational, religiously charged rage that was looking for an excuse -- not a reason -- to commit heinous acts of violence against the United States. The movie was the match. That's all. 

I find it ironic that American leaders, and well-placed journalists, were tripping over themselves going after this foul movie for its bigotry. The acts of violence were secondary! Obama, Clinton, stop chastising the match for the fire and chastise the ones who threw that match. The filmmaker didn't throw the match: Muslim extremist leaders did. It's the same old story that is not discussed openly: Some, obsessed with political correctness and less inclined to reality as it sits in front of us, are more concerned with the excuses radicals give for their actions, rather than the reasons for their offensive behavior.  

This revelation of the filmmaker's roots changes very little. As a proponent of allowing even unreasonable free speech, I blame the death and destruction on those who provoked them directly: their extremist leaders. I don't believe people should be permitted to say anything at all -- literally ANYTHING --  based on the freedom of speech. I do believe in allowing idiots to speak out, act up and misbehave, short of truly threatening and cruel words and behavior. 

See, my appreciation for free speech extends to "moron sonar." I encourage all sorts of idiots to speak out, while I regret that they might influence others too dumb to see how dumb the morons are. The words of morons ping, like sonar, and thereby make me aware of stupid by what stupid expresses (be it spoken, written or otherwise demonstrated). 

The broad news media often exhaust me, obviously.

With the violent events happening under the supposed provocation of a crass movie, I am already cringing at how slow everyone is at recognizing just how well these extremists are playing guilt-ridden, spoiled, First Worlders, the Americans.

Egyptian admits involvement with anti-Islam film, Jewish connection seems unlikely (JTA - Jewish & Israel News)

He’s not a Jew.
 
At least, that’s the latest on the man behind the anti-Islam film, "Innocence of Muslims," that has fueled attacks on U.S. diplomatic installations in Libya, Egypt and Yemen, leaving the U.S. ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, dead.

The filmmaker appears to be an Egyptian Christian rather than an Israeli Jew, as he had claimed in interviews.

 
The Associated Press tracked down an Egyptian Coptic Christian living in Southern California who admitted to involvement with the film’s logistics, and whose middle name and known aliases closely resemble the apparently fake name – Sam Bacile – used by the filmmaker.

Read the article: http://www.jta.org/news/article/2012/09/13/3106901/egyptian-admits-involvement-with-anti-islam-film-jewish-connection-seems-unlikely

Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous

The DNC Takes a Pass On National Security

Fred Thompson, the former US Senator from Tennessee, reminds me that Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts might act like he knows foreign policy, and might have claimed the same of Obama in a speech at the DNC, but Kerry is foolish -- or easily fooled -- where dictators are concerned.
Thompson writes in a recent message for Grassroots Action that Kerry is "the man who looked into the soul of Syrian thug, Bashar al-Assad, and claimed to know him as a reformer."
I'd forgotten this highly specious moment in American foreign policy. (I am informed by Thompson's messages from time to time, but am especially appreciative in this instance.)
It's one thing to try to be diplomatic, Sen. Kerry, but quite another to be a blind advocate for a longtime dictator as a reformer, when little suggests he was anything like it. This statement by Kerry was not long before the crackdown in Syria.
This is a time when such comments should come back and haunt you, Senator. And President Obama. Instead, I needed to be reminded if it by an email. If the news media were doing a really good job of covering the conventions, these words would have been haunting Kerry immediately after his speech at the DNC.
Please, let them haunt him, and Obama, now, with no end in sight of the violence in Syria, and the Arab Spring becoming the Muslim murder Spree in Libya.
Let us see to it that Obama leaves the White House, to become a figurehead for a university or launch an international nonprofit, and stay mostly outside of blatant politicking.
Haven't we had enough of his divisive, self-serving politics? I think we have.
I know Obama has failed us in foreign policy, evidenced by his generally passive encouragement of the so-called Arab Spring, but not reacting to the disaster that Syria has become, and being just another vote in the UN with regard to Iran's threat. He is not going to reasonable lengths to sway extremist trends. Now, Libya and Egypt are hotbeds of hate for America, and what will happen in response? Condolences and a return to dictatorships?
Obama: change you should be leavin'. Get on it now. We cannot have four more years of this passivity.

- jR









Wow, are the liberals' superpowers really getting good!

Media_httpww1politicu_aazxr

You have to read the, uhh, logic (is that the word, no, I am at a loss) used in this attack on Mitt Romney from these lost minds.

My comment, in reaction to one especially bizarre portion:
Wow! My head is spinning. It’s like you’re in one universe, and I am in the other one. You wrote that YOU KNEW WHAT MITT WAS THINKING when he said he mentioned the military, that he didn’t REALLY mean the soliders? Gimme a break. I guess everyone needs to wear tinfoil helmets so your supernatural powers cannot determine what we think, too? Amateurs. You’re so dumb you have to demonize your philosophical opponents at every turn, but you’re the caring ones. You’re brilliant. Logical, Reasoned. Stable! Wow.

Every once in a while, I wander far from where it's safe in some semblance of reality, and find places such as PoliticsUSA. It's wrong, but I still do it.

Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous

Wow. They care, so they can demonize like a path of angry angels

Media_httpww1politicu_isfxb

You have to read the, uhh, logic (is that the word, no, I am at a loss) used in this attack on Mitt Romney from these lost minds.

My comment, in reaction to one especially bizarre portion:
Wow! My head is spinning. It’s like you’re in one universe, and I am in the other one. You wrote that YOU KNEW WHAT MITT WAS THINKING when he said he mentioned the military, that he didn’t REALLY mean the soliders? Gimme a break. I guess everyone needs to wear tinfoil helmets so your supernatural powers cannot determine what we think, too? Amateurs. You’re so dumb you have to demonize your philosophical opponents at every turn, but you’re the caring ones. You’re brilliant. Logical, Reasoned. Stable! Wow.

Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous

Wow. They care, so they can demonize like a path of angry angels

Media_httpww1politicu_lswiz

You have to read the, uhh, logic (is that the word, no, I am at a loss) used in this attack on Mitt Romney from these lost minds.

My comment, in reaction to one especially bizarre portion:
Wow! My head is spinning. It’s like you’re in one universe, and I am in the other one. You wrote that YOU KNEW WHAT MITT WAS THINKING when he said he mentioned the military, that he didn’t REALLY mean the soliders? Gimme a break. I guess everyone needs to wear tinfoil helmets so your supernatural powers cannot determine what we think, too? Amateurs. You’re so dumb you have to demonize your philosophical opponents at every turn, but you’re the caring ones. You’re brilliant. Logical, Reasoned. Stable! Wow.

Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous

DNC blind mice ask what confusion? What division? Villaigairosa: 'I didn't see confusion'

Media_httpiusatodayne_fokmb

Republicans and others are roasting Democrats over the platform, first for leaving out God and Jerusalem, then for restoring them during what appeared to be a chaotic scene on the convention floor. Many delegates in the half-empty hall booed the changes.

Said Villaraigosa: "I didn't see confusion."

And these are folks insisting that GOP practices repetitious lying to convince people of their unreality? Unreal!

Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous

Rape is rape, except when it's done by a liberal artiste

CORDES

Updated at 3:30 p.m ET

(CBS News) Republican Rep. Todd Akin on Monday apologized for the controversial remarks he made over the weekend about abortion and rape, but he said he has no plans to drop out of the Missouri Senate race despite building pressure from within the GOP.

"What I said was ill-conceived, and it was wrong," Akin said on former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's radio show Monday. "I really just want to apologize to those that I've hurt."

Akin's apology came as President Obama suggested the Republican's remarks illustrated the broad differences between Democrats and Republicans on issues like health care and reproductive rights.

"Rape is rape," Mr. Obama told reporters at the daily White House briefing Monday. "And the idea that we should be parsing and qualifying and slicing what types of rape we're talking about doesn't make sense to the American people and certainly doesn't make sense to me."

Mr. Obama added that Akin's remarks underscore "why we shouldn't have a bunch of politicians, a majority of whom are men, making health care decisions on behalf of women."

The president acknowledged that his GOP rival Mitt Romney and other Republicans have distanced themselves from Akin's statements. However, he said, "The underlying notion that we should be making decisions on behalf of women for their health care decisions, or qualifying 'forcible rape' versus 'non-forcible rape' -- those are broader issues....between me and the other party."

The controversy started after Akin, a six-term Missouri conservative now running against Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill, was asked in a local interview on Sunday whether he would support abortions for women who have been raped.

"It seems to me first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare," Akin said in the interview. "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down," Akin said of a rape victim's chances of becoming pregnant.

Romney abortion view overrides Ryan in Akin response
Romney, Scott Brown rebuke Akin's rape comments
Mo. Rep. Todd Akin: Rape rarely leads to pregnancy

Romney called the remarks "inexcusable," while some Republican senators like Scott Brown of Massachusetts and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin called for him to drop out of the Senate race.

Some liberals tried to tie other Republicans to Akin's comments, noting that Romney's running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, co-sponsored an abortion-related bill with Akin that would have limited federal funding for abortions to victims of forcible rape," rather than just rape. The FBI's definition of rape is known as "forcible rape," and it is used to distinguish between statutory rape and other kinds of rape.

Huckabee asked Akin whether he was talking about "forcible rape" when he used the term "legitimate rape."

"I was talking about forcible rape, and it was absolutely the wrong word," Akin said.

Akin said he understands that women can become pregnant from rape. "I didn't mean to imply that wasn't the case," he said. "That does happen."

While Akin acknowledged he made a "very, very serious error," he added that he's not dropping out of the Senate race.

"I don't know that I'm the only person in public office who suffered from foot-in-mouth disease," he said. "I feel just as strongly as ever that my background and ability will be a big asset in replacing Claire McCaskill... Just because someone makes a mistake doesn't make them useless."

Later in the day, Akin wrote on Twitter, "I am in this race to win. We need a conservative Senate." His Twitter message also included a link to his fundraising page.

As the Washington Post notes, the Republican Party can't force Akin to drop out of the race, but he could voluntarily resign by 5 p.m. Tuesday, or he could withdraw from the race by court order by Sept. 25.

In spite of Akin's insistence that he'll stay in the race, the pressure Monday continued to build against him. The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) told Akin Monday it would no longer financially support his Senate bid if he chose to stay in the race, a GOP source told CBS News.

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the NRSC, said in a public statement that Akin's comments were "wrong, offensive, and indefensible," though he stopped short of explicitly calling on him to exit the race.

"I recognize that this is a difficult time for him, but over the next twenty-four hours, Congressman Akin should carefully consider what is best for him, his family, the Republican Party, and the values that he cares about and has fought for throughout his career in public service," Cornyn said.

Meanwhile, the Karl Rove-backed super PAC American Crossroads confirmed to CBS News that it is pulling its ads from Missouri. "The act speaks for itself," Crossroads said to CBS regarding its decision to pull its ads.

The editors of the conservative magazine the National Review wrote Monday that it was time for Akin to step aside.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell also called Akin's comments "totally inexcusable."

"What he said is just flat wrong in addition to being wildly offensive to any victim of sexual abuse," McConnell said in a statement. "Although Representative Akin has apologized, I believe he should take time with his family to consider whether this statement will prevent him from effectively representing our party in this critical election."


Remember when that master of relevant social commentary, Whoopi Goldberg, said that what Roman Polanski did to a young teenager in the 1970s wasn't "rape rape"? I won't say she is as vital to anyone as this Akin dude, but, really, where was THIS sort of broad shock across the media then?!

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57496599-503544/akin-apologizes-for-ra...

Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous

Rape is rape, except when it's done by a liberal artiste

Media_httpiicomcomcnw_fqgsw

Remember when that master of relevant social commentary, Whoopi Goldberg, said that what Roman Polanski did to a young teenager in the 1970s wasn't "rape rape"? I won't say she is as vital to anyone as this Akin dude, but, really, where was THIS sort of broad shock across the media then?!

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57496599-503544/akin-apologizes-for-ra...

Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous

Who is he?

In this July 14, 2012, file photo, President Barack Obama holds a campaign rally in a downpour at the historic Walkerton Tavern & Gardens in Glen Allen, Va. Nearly four years after Barack Obama was elected to the most powerful office in the most powerful country in the world, the question remains: Who is he? This is a man who seemed to come out of nowhere. He had served seven years in the Illinois state Senate, and less than four years in the U.S. Senate _ a meager political resume, augmented by a stirring speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

In this July 14, 2012, file photo, President Barack Obama holds a campaign rally in a downpour at the historic Walkerton Tavern & Gardens in Glen Allen, Va. Nearly four years after Barack Obama was elected to the most powerful office in the most powerful country in the world, the question remains: Who is he? This is a man who seemed to come out of nowhere. He had served seven years in the Illinois state Senate, and less than four years in the U.S. Senate _ a meager political resume, augmented by a stirring speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

Nearly four years after Barack Obama was elected to the most powerful office in the most powerful country in the world, the question remains: Who is he?

He seemed to come out of nowhere. He had served seven years in the Illinois Senate, and less than four years in the U.S. Senate — a meager political resume, augmented by a stirring speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

His was an exotic story, at least by the standards of the 42 white men who preceded him in office. Son of a black African and white Kansan, born in Hawaii, raised there and in Indonesia, he was something new, and America seemed ready for him. He won almost 9.5 million votes more than John McCain.

And yet, "there was the feeling that we knew less than we needed to know" about our new president, says Janny Scott, author of "A Singular Woman," a biography of Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama's mother. "He didn't fit a comfortable template."

Four years have passed. We have watched Obama as commander in chief, waging wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — and we have seen him accept the Nobel Peace Prize. We have seen him grapple with a dismal economy and a relentless opposition. We have been spectators to a grueling fight over health care from which he emerged victorious — if only just barely. All of this in the glare of a fierce and unyielding media spotlight.

By now, we should have a fix on the man who is asking for a second term.

But still we ask: Who is Barack Obama?

___

On the last night of April in 2011, Obama put on his black tie for the annual White House Correspondents' Association dinner at the Washington Hilton. Obama was in good form that night; he congratulated Donald Trump, then considering a run for the Republican nomination, on his recent decision to fire actor Gary Busey on "Celebrity Apprentice."

"These are the kinds of decisions that would keep me up at night," Obama said, to peals of laughter. "Well-handled, sir. Well-handled."

What his audience didn't realize — what few people knew at that moment — was that Obama had, just hours before, given the go-ahead for the mission that would claim the life of America's Public Enemy No. 1, Osama bin Laden. It was a huge gamble, perhaps the biggest of Obama's presidency.

"If that failed, it really would have been a political disaster," says historian Robert Dallek, who has written books on presidents from Franklin Roosevelt to Ronald Reagan. "It would have been reminiscent of Jimmy Carter and the helicopter going down in the Iranian desert" in an ill-starred effort to rescue American hostages from Tehran.

If Obama was nervous, he kept it hidden. In fact, he played nine holes of golf the next morning, before returning to the White House to monitor the unfolding mission during what he later described as "the longest 40 minutes of my life."

It was retired Air Force Chief of Staff Tony McPeak, an Obama supporter, who first called him "No-Drama Obama" during the 2008 campaign. The nickname stuck, perhaps because sang-froid is central to Obama's personality.

"That measured approach to everything characterizes a lot of what he has done," says David M. Kennedy, Pulitzer Prize-winning historian. "It's kind of remarkable how he has stayed in character, as if he were the calm, cool grown-up in the room."

This has not always worked in his favor; he has frustrated supporters who say he does not express righteous anger when he should.

Kennedy recalls that in 1936, when FDR was running for his second term, he declared the start of the second New Deal — and pronounced himself ready to take on the many, moneyed powers aligned against him: "They are unanimous in their hate for me — and I welcome their hatred."

Obama, Kennedy says, is "temperamentally incapable" of taking that kind of stand. "It's just not in his bloodstream."

___

His education in Java, the main island of Indonesia, taught him not to show his emotions, author Scott says, and the story of his life with (and without) Ann Dunham explains a lot about her son.

Not that everyone believes the Obama story.

Drive along Interstate 78, near Fredericksburg, and you'll see a billboard in the gentle, rolling hills of the Pennsylvania Dutch Country. It bears just five words: "Where's the real birth certificate?" ''Real" is in red, the rest in black.

The name "Barack Obama" is nowhere to be found, but there is no mistaking the message. More than a year after the White House released copies of the birth certificate on file in Hawaii, a conservative website still questions whether the president is an American.

The "birthers" are easy to marginalize; a Gallup poll in 2011 found that only 13 percent of Americans believed Obama was probably or definitely born in another country. But how to account for a recent Pew Research Center poll that found that only 49 percent knew Obama is a Christian? Perhaps it's just that his name sounds unusual to many American ears.

The fact is, as certified by the state of Hawaii, Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu. His birth certificate lists his mother's race as "Caucasian" and his father as "African." In June of the next year, his father — a brilliant economist from Kenya — would leave his young family to study at Harvard. He would never return.

His son would tell the story in his own memoir, "Dreams from My Father," and it would be retold — with additions and amendments — by others, including Scott, New Yorker editor David Remnick and Washington Post writer David Maraniss. The outlines basically remain the same:

— How he spent his youth alternately in the care of his grandparents in Hawaii and his mother, who moved to Indonesia and a short-lived marriage to a geologist there. In Indonesia he would eat dog and snake; in Hawaii he would sample marijuana, and sample it some more.

—How he went on to Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard Law, and along the way struggled to come to terms with his identity as a black man of mixed heritage in a white society. Genevieve Cook, a girlfriend of Obama's from New York, told Maraniss how "he felt like an impostor. Because he was so white. There was hardly a black bone in his body." And that she would later realize that, "in his own quest to resolve his ambivalence about black and white, it became very, very clear to me that he needed to go black."

—How he ended up in Chicago as a community organizer, working on the South Side. In doing so, he would credit his mother and her work in Indonesia as his inspiration.

Much has been made of the omissions and inaccuracies found by Obama's biographers in his memoir. For example, Obama did not identify Cook, and would acknowledge later that he conflated her with another girlfriend. Some of Obama's opponents saw these discrepancies as evidence of slickness, or even con-artistry.

In her research, Scott found that Ann Dunham did not lack health insurance when she was dying of cancer, as her son would claim in pressing for his health care overhaul. Instead, she lacked disability insurance that would have paid other expenses.

"I don't see these things as an indictable offense," Scott says, chalking it up to a "failure of memory."

___

It is instructive that Obama, now 51, brought his own personal narrative — his most powerful weapon — to the health care fight. It is the signal achievement of his first term, but it came at great cost: time and energy and political capital in the midst of a raging recession.

"The president is an intellectually ambitious man who is temperamentally cautious," says Sean Wilentz, a professor of history at Princeton.

For health care, he was all in.

"I don't think a system is working when small businesses are gouged and 15,000 Americans are losing coverage every single day; when premiums have doubled and out-of-pocket costs have exploded and they're poised to do so again," Obama told a gathering of Republican lawmakers in 2010. "I mean, to be fair, the status quo is working for the insurance industry, but it's not working for the American people. It's not working for our federal budget. It needs to change."

The Republicans did not agree, and though his party had control of the House for the first two years of his presidency, Obama had to compromise again and again to ensure that he could hold on to every Democratic vote in the Senate, because he needed every vote.

In 2008, Obama offered the promise of a post-partisan age. That glimmering vision died in the debate over health care.

All along the way, Obama encountered lock-step opposition from Republicans. The most dramatic example, perhaps, was last summer's confrontation over raising the debt ceiling, in which the country came perilously close to defaulting on its obligations. Obama thought he had reached a "grand bargain" with House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, to cut spending and raise revenues, but then Boehner walked away. The Republicans insist they never neared an agreement.

Some opponents have charged that Obama was advancing socialism. His government did take over much of the auto industry for a time, seeing General Motors and Chrysler through bankruptcy. He did press for stronger regulation of the financial industry in the wake of the crisis that launched the Great Recession, and like most Democratic administrations his government is generally more bullish on regulation than are Republicans.

But daunted by the challenge of winning congressional approval, he sought a smaller stimulus than many thought necessary. His efforts to protect homeowners threatened with foreclosure have come up short. And surprisingly few bankers — but no high-level executives of major banks — are in jail on charges related to the financial crisis.

___

So he's not a socialist. In some ways, it's easiest to define Obama by what he's not.

He is clearly not a pacifist, though he was elected on a pledge to end the Iraq War, and he did.

But he also sent men to kill bin Laden. He helped engineer the international campaign that ended the life and regime of Libya's Moammar Gadhafi. He decimated the leadership of al-Qaida, cutting them down from above with a drove of drones.

And he escalated the war in Afghanistan, threading the needle between generals who wanted an even larger force and his own vice president, Joe Biden, who wanted to pull troops out. In his book, "Obama's Wars," Bob Woodward describes a president who is deeply involved in planning, one who recoiled when military leaders tried to convince him that his only real option was to send 40,000 troops with an open-ended commitment.

"I'm not going to make a commitment that leaves my successor with more troops than I inherited in Afghanistan," Obama said.

In the end, he decided to send 30,000 more troops immediately, and to begin to withdraw them in July 2011.

He would later tell Woodward that he was too young to be burdened with "the baggage that arose out of the dispute of the Vietnam War" — he didn't feel any adversarial relationship with the military, or "a hawk/dove kind of thing."

Nor was he worried about defeat. "I think about it not so much in the classic, do you lose a war on my watch? Or win a war on a president's watch? I think about it more in terms of, do you successfully prosecute a strategy that results in the country being stronger rather than weaker at the end of it."

This is a man, remember, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, before he had even served a year in office. When he was informed of the award, he seemed abashed, describing himself as "surprised" and "deeply humbled."

When he accepted the prize, though, he gave an acceptance speech like no other. First, he noted the irony of accepting a peace prize even as he was commander in chief of a military waging two wars. Then, he went on to explain that, while he revered Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., he could not follow their example in every way.

"I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaida's leaders to lay down their arms. ...

"And yet this truth must coexist with another — that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier's courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause, to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such."

___

The Oslo speech was widely praised. It was an exception in that way; in his first term, Barack Obama rarely delivered the kinds of extraordinary speeches that sent him to the White House in the first place. Instead, he offered well-written, logical addresses that were rarely memorable. The irony: Elected as a master communicator, he is sometimes criticized for failing to use his skills to enlist the public in his causes, like health care reform.

"Most people thought he would let his rhetoric do the work for him," says Douglas Brinkley, a historian whose books include biographies of Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.

But "he hasn't told his story well enough," Brinkley says. Obama himself has said as much: "The mistake of my first term — couple of years — was thinking that this job was just about getting the policy right," he told CBS' Charlie Rose last month. "But the nature of this office is also to tell a story to the American people."

Many thought that in electing Obama, Americans had chosen a president who would be bold and steadfast in pressing his agenda. Instead, he has drawn criticism from both the right and the left for being too coy, too willing to step back and let others lead.

"Instead of drawing clear lines and putting forward detailed proposals," conservative columnist Ross Douthat wrote in The New York Times after the debt ceiling fiasco, "the president has played Mr. Compromise — ceding ground to Republicans here, sermonizing about Tea Party intransigence and Washington gridlock there, and fleshing out his preferred approach reluctantly, if at all."

All agree that he does work hard, and is truly engaged by his work. CBS Radio's Mark Knoller keeps track of presidents' comings and goings. This past May, he said Obama had spent all or part of 54 days at the Camp David presidential retreat in Maryland. At the same point in his first term, George W. Bush had been there for all or part of 256 days.

This is not to say that Obama is averse to regular-guy moments of fun — say, a quick trip to a burger joint with the vice president. He startled an audience at a fundraiser at Harlem's Apollo Theater by breaking into a few bars of Al Green's "Let's Stay Together."

But the informal Obama is not necessarily convincing. When white police Sgt. James Crowley arrested black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates as he tried to get into his own home and charged him with disorderly conduct, Obama said Crowley had "acted stupidly." (He later would say the phrase was ill-chosen.) To settle the issue, Obama held a "beer summit," inviting Gates and Crowley to come to the White House for a few brewskies. The event was lampooned: "This could be trouble, because the last time Obama got a few beers in him, he bought General Motors," said comedian Conan O'Brien.

Mostly, he remains a dignified and graceful figure — graying, like many of his predecessors, under the weight of office. He is, at heart, a dad, and Brinkley thinks that is one of the reasons his popularity ratings remain high.

"His strongest suit may be in the end that he is such a tremendous husband, a tremendous father," says Brinkley. "Even his mother-in-law lives in the White House."

There's also first lady Michelle Obama; and 11-year-old Sasha and 14-year-old Malia; and there is Bo, the Portuguese water dog the girls were promised as a reward for leaving Chicago to move to the executive mansion.

Obama's fatherly impulses have surfaced at many of the most painful moments of the past four years. When he visited the victims of the shootings in Aurora, Colo., and their survivors, he said he was doing so as a "father and as a husband." And after the killing of a black teenager, Trayvon Martin, by neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman in Sanford, Fla., Obama spoke not only of his feelings as a parent, but as a man who understood firsthand the possible consequences of skin color:

"If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon."

No other president could have said those words.

  • Email this to a friend

  • Comments » 139

    Former_Hoosier writes:

    But his college transcripts ....

    blue2golf writes:

    Another puff piece from the A.P. This item belongs in the "Parade" insert, or on Entertainment Tonight. It does not belong in the news section.

    vidalia writes:

    I voted for hope and change and instead I got a dope and pain.

    tommyromo writes:

    yes the media lied and got a "blank slate elected".....now the media lies to get a slate full of failures elected.....not this time AP......

    poolshark47 writes:

    in response to tommyromo:

    yes the media lied and got a "blank slate elected".....now the media lies to get a slate full of failures elected.....not this time AP......

    Amen.

    Ace__Dad writes:

    Excellent article.

    Anyone voted into office 4 years ago would continue to struggle with the world economy the way it is, regardless of political party.

    Having lived 12 of my 56 years in the Washington DC metroplex I have a little better understanding of the challenges of national leadership, bipartisan support, and trying to bridge the gap between the extremists on the left side and the extremists on the right side. Not sure you could have done a better job.

    So, when faced with voting for Barrack Obama or Mitt Romney, Obama is the easy choice.

    For those of you still looking for a birth certificate.......who cares?

    Ace__Dad writes:

    in response to tommyromo:

    yes the media lied and got a "blank slate elected".....now the media lies to get a slate full of failures elected.....not this time AP......

    Are you a sheep? Do you have your own mind? Can you read? Can you do your own research? Can you listen to differing opinions and develop your own? As I said to my class on Friday after a two hour discusion on the Role of the Media in the Military: only an idiot blames the media for the citizens' decision.

    Ace__Dad writes:

    in response to vidalia:

    I voted for hope and change and instead I got a dope and pain.

    Define hope. Define change. I bet you are not smart enough to operationalize, describe, or conceptualize either. In other words, you whine.

    Any examples about how your life is worse off in the last 4 years?

    Ace__Dad writes:

    in response to blue2golf:

    Another puff piece from the A.P. This item belongs in the "Parade" insert, or on Entertainment Tonight. It does not belong in the news section.

    Must be rough not to be able to discuss both sides of the same coin?

    The article provided the good, the bad, and the ugly of President Obama and you are not sophisticated enough to reflect upon other positions.

    Re read the article again or have someone read it to you. Excellent, balanced article.

    retiredhomicide writes:

    in response to Ace__Dad:

    Excellent article.

    Anyone voted into office 4 years ago would continue to struggle with the world economy the way it is, regardless of political party.

    Having lived 12 of my 56 years in the Washington DC metroplex I have a little better understanding of the challenges of national leadership, bipartisan support, and trying to bridge the gap between the extremists on the left side and the extremists on the right side. Not sure you could have done a better job.

    So, when faced with voting for Barrack Obama or Mitt Romney, Obama is the easy choice.

    For those of you still looking for a birth certificate.......who cares?

    "For those of you still looking for a birth certificate.......who cares?"

    America cares and so should you. So why was the fake BC posted on the White House website if he was really born where he said? Why does he have a forged Selective Service registration card? Why does he have a Connecticut social security number? Why is he refusing to release his college transcripts/records? The questions continue to go unanswered.

    tommyromo writes:

    in response to Ace__Dad:

    Are you a sheep? Do you have your own mind? Can you read? Can you do your own research? Can you listen to differing opinions and develop your own? As I said to my class on Friday after a two hour discusion on the Role of the Media in the Military: only an idiot blames the media for the citizens' decision.

    i stand by my post.....the media did elect the idiot with their lies and half truths......why you may ask i know this because after 4 years obama is a disaster......now with the facts accounted for only a racist fool would defend little barry now......

    Ace__Dad writes:

    in response to tommyromo:

    i stand by my post.....the media did elect the idiot with their lies and half truths......why you may ask i know this because after 4 years obama is a disaster......now with the facts accounted for only a racist fool would defend little barry now......

    The media informs.

    Citizens vote.

    Losers whine about the results of the vote.

    Ace__Dad writes:

    in response to retiredhomicide:

    "For those of you still looking for a birth certificate.......who cares?"

    America cares and so should you. So why was the fake BC posted on the White House website if he was really born where he said? Why does he have a forged Selective Service registration card? Why does he have a Connecticut social security number? Why is he refusing to release his college transcripts/records? The questions continue to go unanswered.

    "America cares and so should you."

    No, RH, most Americans do not care. About 12% of the populace is concerned. Get over it already.

    "So why was the fake BC posted on the White House website if he was really born where he said?"

    Just like the fake homicide investigation documents you signed? Be careful about allegations when you do not have first hand knowledge. The allegations become Urban Legends.

    "Why does he have a forged Selective Service registration card?"

    Similiar to the forged crime lab report you submitted when you were in active service? Again, be careful about subjects when you do not have first hand knowledge.

    "Why does he have a Connecticut social security number?"

    Who cares? Is the SSN tied to him and his income for the last 30 odd years? Does he have more than one? Get over it already.

    "Why is he refusing to release his college transcripts/records?"

    Not a requirement to run for office or to be elected for office.

    "The questions continue to go unanswered."

    The man was elected President of the United States by the citizens of the United States of America. He was duly installed. In November you get the chance to vote for his opponent, Mitt Romney. Vote and stop the whining.

    Mandrake writes:

    Obama has accomplished much during his first term. He could have done even more if he wouldn't have spent the first couple of years trying to appease those who hate him. He wasted valuable time and a willing congress trying to reach out to those who call him a Kenyan. I think he will get another shot, a second term. If so, he will probably also have a less obstructionist congress and our country can again move forward.

    He has shown our country has a ways to go before truly being the United States of America again. We are currently a fractured amalgamation of states.

    tommyromo writes:

    in response to Ace__Dad:

    The media informs.

    Citizens vote.

    Losers whine about the results of the vote.

    sorry media does not inform any more....do your own research ace..... it is called the internet....citizens do vote sometimes non citizens vote the libs bread and butter..........losers so far america is the loser under this failure......whine wrong again ace......it is called work and get out the truth......why is little barry not running on his record....because he is jimmy carter on steroids all over......

    NOT_MY_NAME writes:

    in response to Ace__Dad:

    The media informs.

    Citizens vote.

    Losers whine about the results of the vote.

    I take it you're going to vote for OBAMA.

    NOT_MY_NAME writes:

    in response to Mandrake:

    Obama has accomplished much during his first term. He could have done even more if he wouldn't have spent the first couple of years trying to appease those who hate him. He wasted valuable time and a willing congress trying to reach out to those who call him a Kenyan. I think he will get another shot, a second term. If so, he will probably also have a less obstructionist congress and our country can again move forward.

    He has shown our country has a ways to go before truly being the United States of America again. We are currently a fractured amalgamation of states.

    Wow now you think Obama is going to get re-elected. A few weeks ago he was a shoo in.

    tommyromo writes:

    in response to NOT_MY_NAME:

    I take it you're going to vote for OBAMA.

    16000000000000 in debt....our credit rating down graded for the first time in history.......over 8% unemployment for 42 straight months.....gas prices skyrocketing......food prices skyrocketing.....and ace who calls himself a teacher is still backing obama.....wow.......

    retiredhomicide writes:

    in response to Ace__Dad:

    "America cares and so should you."

    No, RH, most Americans do not care. About 12% of the populace is concerned. Get over it already.

    "So why was the fake BC posted on the White House website if he was really born where he said?"

    Just like the fake homicide investigation documents you signed? Be careful about allegations when you do not have first hand knowledge. The allegations become Urban Legends.

    "Why does he have a forged Selective Service registration card?"

    Similiar to the forged crime lab report you submitted when you were in active service? Again, be careful about subjects when you do not have first hand knowledge.

    "Why does he have a Connecticut social security number?"

    Who cares? Is the SSN tied to him and his income for the last 30 odd years? Does he have more than one? Get over it already.

    "Why is he refusing to release his college transcripts/records?"

    Not a requirement to run for office or to be elected for office.

    "The questions continue to go unanswered."

    The man was elected President of the United States by the citizens of the United States of America. He was duly installed. In November you get the chance to vote for his opponent, Mitt Romney. Vote and stop the whining.

    Not one question was answered.

    retiredhomicide writes:

    in response to tommyromo:

    16000000000000 in debt....our credit rating down graded for the first time in history.......over 8% unemployment for 42 straight months.....gas prices skyrocketing......food prices skyrocketing.....and ace who calls himself a teacher is still backing obama.....wow.......

    Why bite the hand that feeds you.

    fedupoldvet writes:

    Still, he is by far a much better choice than Ryan/Rmoney....Just like 4 years ago with McCain/ Palin...

    And if you'll ponder it a few minutes...I'll bet YOU are better off now than you were 4 years ago...

    Ace__Dad writes:

    in response to tommyromo:

    sorry media does not inform any more....do your own research ace..... it is called the internet....citizens do vote sometimes non citizens vote the libs bread and butter..........losers so far america is the loser under this failure......whine wrong again ace......it is called work and get out the truth......why is little barry not running on his record....because he is jimmy carter on steroids all over......

    "sorry media does not inform any more....do your own research ace....."

    It does if you watch Fox News and MSNBC. I do.

    It does if you read the Washington Post (Liberal), Washington Times (Conservative) each day. I do.

    "sometimes non citizens vote the libs bread and butter.........."

    These so called non-citizens who vote (they do not) also work (1)in agricultural industries; (2) food service jobs; (3) the housing industry: and (4) do many other jobs to keep this country humming.

    "losers so far america is the loser under this failure"

    This comment makes no sense.

    "...whine wrong again ace......it is called work and get out the truth......why is little barry not running on his record....because he is jimmy carter on steroids all over......"

    History will determine how well or poorly President Obama performed, not biased idiots. I am not calling you a biased idiot ;)

    Ace__Dad writes:

    in response to NOT_MY_NAME:

    I take it you're going to vote for OBAMA.

    I will, as long as Mitt Romney is the Republican nominee. The Conservatives could have done so much better.

    Ace__Dad writes:

    in response to tommyromo:

    16000000000000 in debt....our credit rating down graded for the first time in history.......over 8% unemployment for 42 straight months.....gas prices skyrocketing......food prices skyrocketing.....and ace who calls himself a teacher is still backing obama.....wow.......

    Yup.

    Why?

    Because if Senator McCain would have been elected 4 years ago we would still have the same problems. Are you familiar with positive correlation? You extremists (both Democrats and Republicans) believe the POTUS directly controls and influences economic outcome. He does not. The POTUS can only do so much to deal with an international economic malaise or a domestic depression or recession. Again, we are going through a down cycle and if Jesus Christ was President (no disrespect meant) we were in for bad times.

    If Senator McCain would have been elected President, then the extremist from the Democratic party would be on this site pissing on his name.

    It is ok to disagree with an opposing party's platoform or policies. I got it. Both sides have taken this too far.

    Ace__Dad writes:

    in response to retiredhomicide:

    Not one question was answered.

    RH, you were xitch slapped with my response and you are not sophisticated enough to know it.

    blue2golf writes:

    in response to Ace__Dad:

    Must be rough not to be able to discuss both sides of the same coin?

    The article provided the good, the bad, and the ugly of President Obama and you are not sophisticated enough to reflect upon other positions.

    Re read the article again or have someone read it to you. Excellent, balanced article.

    A little tart today are we? No need to have someone read this article for me, nor do I need a lecture transmitted from the alternate reality you inhabit.

    I say it again, this worship piece belongs somewhere else, "O" magazine prehaps.

    Ace__Dad writes:

    in response to retiredhomicide:

    Why bite the hand that feeds you.

    RH, I have worked since I was the age of 16. I continue to work today. I paid 34K in federal taxes last year and some of that money probably went to Americans who are less fortunate than me, and that is ok.

    You are a retired cop who receives a pension, like me, from a governement entity. Your pension comes from a combination of your deductions during your law enforcement career, Indiana state taxes, and federal taxes. In other words, you are retired today because American citizens, rich and poor, black and white, paid taxes to supplement your retirement.

    So, do not bite the hand that feeds YOU.

    Ace__Dad writes:

    in response to fedupoldvet:

    Still, he is by far a much better choice than Ryan/Rmoney....Just like 4 years ago with McCain/ Palin...

    And if you'll ponder it a few minutes...I'll bet YOU are better off now than you were 4 years ago...

    You get it.

    The Republican Party has not figured out how to find a moderate Conservative who can appeal to the average American. I thought John McCain would have been a pretty good President. No way can I see Mitt Romney as POTUS. But if elected, I will support him.

    dveatch writes:

    in response to Ace__Dad:

    The media informs.

    Citizens vote.

    Losers whine about the results of the vote.

    Lol. If you want to call what the media did during Obmamas presidential campaign "vetting" I can understand the things you post.

    dveatch writes:

    in response to Ace__Dad:

    Yup.

    Why?

    Because if Senator McCain would have been elected 4 years ago we would still have the same problems. Are you familiar with positive correlation? You extremists (both Democrats and Republicans) believe the POTUS directly controls and influences economic outcome. He does not. The POTUS can only do so much to deal with an international economic malaise or a domestic depression or recession. Again, we are going through a down cycle and if Jesus Christ was President (no disrespect meant) we were in for bad times.

    If Senator McCain would have been elected President, then the extremist from the Democratic party would be on this site pissing on his name.

    It is ok to disagree with an opposing party's platoform or policies. I got it. Both sides have taken this too far.

    Oh I dunno. Obmama seems to have gotten the knack of wielding executive orders. So if he can issue those directing selective enforcement of immigration laws, I see nothing that would stop him from issuing one that influences our economy.

    Ace__Dad writes:

    in response to dveatch:

    Lol. If you want to call what the media did during Obmamas presidential campaign "vetting" I can understand the things you post.

    Our founding fathers only wanted land owners and the educated to vote because they believed the average citizen not to be well-informed enough and that is one reason we have an electorial system. That was an era when farmers, ranchers, and Americans in faraway corners did not have access to information.

    Today we have too much information, misinformation, false information, and malinformation and the electorate is not sure what to belive. The internet worsens our ability to know the truth.

    So, again, the media informs. Read and listen from different sources and one can form his own opinion. Too many of us, both Conservatives and Liberals, spend too much time wallowing in our own bias.

    Ace__Dad writes:

    in response to blue2golf:

    A little tart today are we? No need to have someone read this article for me, nor do I need a lecture transmitted from the alternate reality you inhabit.

    I say it again, this worship piece belongs somewhere else, "O" magazine prehaps.

    Fair response.

    I take back my "tart."

    We will disagree.

    Now, I need for you to come back with a link of a better article that talks to the good, the bad, and the ugly of President Obama. Do you have one, or are you a whiner?

    Ace__Dad writes:

    in response to dveatch:

    Oh I dunno. Obmama seems to have gotten the knack of wielding executive orders. So if he can issue those directing selective enforcement of immigration laws, I see nothing that would stop him from issuing one that influences our economy.

    You are correct in that President Obama has over-indulged in Executive Orders. We agree.

    However, it is one thing to issue an Executive Order that tells a department what to do. It is another to try to directly influence the economy. So, you disagree with his policy decisions on the economy? I understand.

    If you were POTUS, what 3-5 policy decisions would you try to push through Congress to improve our economy: jobs, housing, education opportunity, medical access, etc, etc.

    Most Americans do not have frickin clue to how our government works. They simply whine when they are not doing well.

    seditious writes:

    in response to retiredhomicide:

    Not one question was answered.

    Sorry, but i don't believe you're retired homicide, or there are many innocent people in prison because of you.

    If you were an investigator you can easily find the answers to you idiotic questions.

    To Obama's college transcripts: By the way, why won't Mitt Romney won't release his?

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/...

    As to Obama's SSN.
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/...

    Selective Service Card

    http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archiv...

    I really hope the Innocence Project investigates your work.

    http://www.innocenceproject.org/

    Ace__Dad writes:

    in response to seditious:

    Sorry, but i don't believe you're retired homicide, or there are many innocent people in prison because of you.

    If you were an investigator you can easily find the answers to you idiotic questions.

    To Obama's college transcripts: By the way, why won't Mitt Romney won't release his?

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/...

    As to Obama's SSN.
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/...

    Selective Service Card

    http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archiv...

    I really hope the Innocence Project investigates your work.

    http://www.innocenceproject.org/

    I do believe he is a former police officer and retired homicide investigator. However, unlike a true investigator, RH only looks at one side of the situation and is not willing, at least on this site, to explore other ideas.

    Thanks for the legwork.

    seditious writes:

    in response to Ace__Dad:

    I do believe he is a former police officer and retired homicide investigator. However, unlike a true investigator, RH only looks at one side of the situation and is not willing, at least on this site, to explore other ideas.

    Thanks for the legwork.

    If that's true, then he most likely planted evidence to get convictions just like he does in his posts. A good investigator looks at more than one side of an investigation.

    coltslarry1 writes:

    in response to Ace__Dad:

    Yup.

    Why?

    Because if Senator McCain would have been elected 4 years ago we would still have the same problems. Are you familiar with positive correlation? You extremists (both Democrats and Republicans) believe the POTUS directly controls and influences economic outcome. He does not. The POTUS can only do so much to deal with an international economic malaise or a domestic depression or recession. Again, we are going through a down cycle and if Jesus Christ was President (no disrespect meant) we were in for bad times.

    If Senator McCain would have been elected President, then the extremist from the Democratic party would be on this site pissing on his name.

    It is ok to disagree with an opposing party's platoform or policies. I got it. Both sides have taken this too far.

    Thank you, The world as it realy is.

    retiredhomicide writes:

    in response to seditious:

    Sorry, but i don't believe you're retired homicide, or there are many innocent people in prison because of you.

    If you were an investigator you can easily find the answers to you idiotic questions.

    To Obama's college transcripts: By the way, why won't Mitt Romney won't release his?

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/...

    As to Obama's SSN.
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/...

    Selective Service Card

    http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archiv...

    I really hope the Innocence Project investigates your work.

    http://www.innocenceproject.org/

    I can care less what you believe about me. I looked at your links. Nothing was debunked. My earlier questions still remain unanswered. Fake BC on the WH website. Selective Service registration card with an 80 for year date. US government only uses a 4 digit year. And the 80 was an inverted 08. It is quite obvious. Your link still doesn't explain the Connecticut SSN. He never lived there, there was no reason to mail it to a Connecticut address.

    retiredhomicide writes:

    in response to seditious:

    If that's true, then he most likely planted evidence to get convictions just like he does in his posts. A good investigator looks at more than one side of an investigation.

    Name one case I ever planted evidence on? If not you are just blowing hot air.

    retiredhomicide writes:

    in response to Ace__Dad:

    I do believe he is a former police officer and retired homicide investigator. However, unlike a true investigator, RH only looks at one side of the situation and is not willing, at least on this site, to explore other ideas.

    Thanks for the legwork.

    I am sure you could teach me a lot about a true investigator with you serving on those mean streets of Ft. Sill. A true investigator can spot a fraud in a heartbeat. Much like the one we have in the White House.

    Mandrake writes:

    in response to retiredhomicide:

    Name one case I ever planted evidence on? If not you are just blowing hot air.

    I've known a couple of folks who have worked murder cases for EPD. I have a good idea of what they'd think of your screen name. I have other friends who are current officers. I've never read a thing in any of your posts to indicate you were ever a police officer. I don't believe you were.

    Anyone can claim to be anything here and often do.

    You birther claims and other unproven and specious charges against President Obama cry out for proof. Strong charges demand strong proof. Put it up.

    tommyromo writes:

    in response to retiredhomicide:

    I am sure you could teach me a lot about a true investigator with you serving on those mean streets of Ft. Sill. A true investigator can spot a fraud in a heartbeat. Much like the one we have in the White House.

    rh this is lib mental disorder.....if you do not agree with them......you do not research you only look at one side of situation......they are predictable.....because.....drum roll......they have to lie because only 25% of the population believe in their spread the wealth marxist ways.....

    retiredhomicide writes:

    in response to Mandrake:

    I've known a couple of folks who have worked murder cases for EPD. I have a good idea of what they'd think of your screen name. I have other friends who are current officers. I've never read a thing in any of your posts to indicate you were ever a police officer. I don't believe you were.

    Anyone can claim to be anything here and often do.

    You birther claims and other unproven and specious charges against President Obama cry out for proof. Strong charges demand strong proof. Put it up.

    Again I can care less what you think of me or believe. I have already posted the proof on here many times. And in fact it is a common belief among the law enforcement community that Obama is a fraud. If you don't believe me ask the folks that you claim to know that have worked murder cases.

    Rally2012-2013 writes:

    in response to Mandrake:

    I've known a couple of folks who have worked murder cases for EPD. I have a good idea of what they'd think of your screen name. I have other friends who are current officers. I've never read a thing in any of your posts to indicate you were ever a police officer. I don't believe you were.

    Anyone can claim to be anything here and often do.

    You birther claims and other unproven and specious charges against President Obama cry out for proof. Strong charges demand strong proof. Put it up.

    Attacking another poster I see. You just can’t act like an adult can you? I know the broken Dreams of Your Messiah has to be painful, but pull yourself together.

    seditious writes:

    in response to retiredhomicide:

    Again I can care less what you think of me or believe. I have already posted the proof on here many times. And in fact it is a common belief among the law enforcement community that Obama is a fraud. If you don't believe me ask the folks that you claim to know that have worked murder cases.

    I still don't believe you. Anyway here is what FOX News said about Obama, but we all know they lie, because Canada won't even let them broadcast there.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/...

    http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news...

    Mandrake writes:

    in response to Rally2012-2013:

    Attacking another poster I see. You just can’t act like an adult can you? I know the broken Dreams of Your Messiah has to be painful, but pull yourself together.

    Aw man, that hurts barron[sic].

    Stop acting like a child. You've been here basically embarrassing yourself for days now. It is getting comical. Almost time for you to give great ponder to growing up and possibly even getting a job.

    Your constant abuse of other posters here won't pay the bills if you ever ascend those cellar stairs and strike out on your own. I suspect you know Obama does have a record to run on and it's not too bad. You're probably looking at another four years of it.

    I'll be here to help shepherd you through. Offering advice when needed and correction as necessary.

    Rally2012-2013 writes:

    (This comment was removed by the site staff.)

    tommyromo writes:

    in response to Rally2012-2013:

    (This comment was removed by the site staff.)

    wow rally you have the truth facts and intellect to destroy these obama zombies.......like catching fish in a barrel.....lol

    IndianaEnoch writes:

    in response to Ace__Dad:

    Our founding fathers only wanted land owners and the educated to vote because they believed the average citizen not to be well-informed enough and that is one reason we have an electorial system. That was an era when farmers, ranchers, and Americans in faraway corners did not have access to information.

    Today we have too much information, misinformation, false information, and malinformation and the electorate is not sure what to belive. The internet worsens our ability to know the truth.

    So, again, the media informs. Read and listen from different sources and one can form his own opinion. Too many of us, both Conservatives and Liberals, spend too much time wallowing in our own bias.

    I think the problem with media and the intellectual level of our debates is that they have the depth of a bumper sticker. The internet is bumper stickers we shout at each other.

    I don't mind a media bias as long as they are honest about it. The CP is honest about their bias. If it wasn't, then we would be seeing more on the real problem's facing us, our national debt. If more people understood it, then Obama's birth certificate and Romney's taxes would not sell advertising time for the media.

    Obama does not get the problem and is therefore making it worse. I doubt Romney can make it better, and I have to keep reminding myself that we are not electing Ryan for president. I just hope by listening to Ryan that Romney has an ah-ha moment.

    The electoral college addresses the problem of state power over federal. Few understand that when we vote for president we are not electing him/her. The states elect the president. If we did not have the electoral college, fly over territory would be ignored for larger populations.

    IndianaEnoch writes:

    in response to Ace__Dad:

    Excellent article.

    Anyone voted into office 4 years ago would continue to struggle with the world economy the way it is, regardless of political party.

    Having lived 12 of my 56 years in the Washington DC metroplex I have a little better understanding of the challenges of national leadership, bipartisan support, and trying to bridge the gap between the extremists on the left side and the extremists on the right side. Not sure you could have done a better job.

    So, when faced with voting for Barrack Obama or Mitt Romney, Obama is the easy choice.

    For those of you still looking for a birth certificate.......who cares?

    Twelve years in the metroplex? Sorry my friend, I fear that experience may have harmed you more than helped you. :)

    Share your thoughts

    Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.

    "By now, we should have a fix on the man who is asking for a second term.

    But still we ask: Who is Barack Obama?"

    And we will continue to do so, because he's got the cover of an awful lot of modern American liberal protectors. So, why keep him? He's made every promise that proved alternate to his actions, short of only a few. And Obamacare was, essentially, a surprise off the path of his campaign. Little wonder we still don't get who this guy is.

    Except a likeably former president.

    Posted via email from Like, Totally Political Dude! - posterous