33
   

The Democratic Convention

 
 
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2012 10:28 am
@CoastalRat,
CoastalRat wrote:
Kinda the way the dems hated Bush, but that was ok cause Bush was wicked.

From where I sit, it's a whole different kind of hate.

It's opposition for opposition's sake, with no compromise offered or accepted.
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2012 10:42 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:

I don't think there is any notable misunderstanding about the global economy in this country.


You and I probably walk in different circles in society.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2012 10:45 am
@DrewDad,
Sorry Drew, but hatred is hatred. You can try to justify it. You can even make it sound noble. But at the end of the day, it is still hatred simply for having a different set of beliefs about the direction this country should follow and for arguing for those beliefs. And it is disgusting, no matter which side is voicing it.

DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2012 11:03 am
@CoastalRat,
Hatred is hatred, but you can really only judge people by their actions.

If I look at the actions of the GOP during Obama's administration vs. Democrats during Bush's administration, I see vastly different behaviors.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  6  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2012 11:03 am
@CoastalRat,
I hated Bush because he started two unfunded wars and an unfunded drug program, which he hopes would break soc. sec. and because he lowered taxes on the rich while mine went up at the state and county level. Not because he was black.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  5  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2012 11:12 am
@CoastalRat,
Quote:
Sorry Drew, but hatred is hatred. You can try to justify it.

I don't think many of those that hate Obama do so because he has a different set of beliefs. They seem to have gone out of their way to change their beliefs so they don't share any that he has.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  3  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2012 11:49 am
@CoastalRat,
Quote:
Sorry Drew, but hatred is hatred. You can try to justify it. You can even make it sound noble. But at the end of the day, it is still hatred simply for having a different set of beliefs about the direction this country should follow and for arguing for those beliefs

I think very little of the real hatred, and the profound distrust and suspiciousness of Obama, has to do with a differing set of beliefs. Obama's political ideology doesn't differ much from that of other Democrats.

And, I have never before seen any political party openly work to defeat, and discredit, and obstruct, any other President from day one--to be so committed to working to see a Presidency fail from day one. That's not just about differing political ideologies. This is very atypical obstructionism that seems to be motivated by factors other than, or in addition to, differing policies.

Differing political/governing strategies and policies have nothing to do with continuing beliefs that Obama was really born in Kenya, or that he is really a Muslim--and it's not small numbers who believe such things. This is irrational craziness, and suspiciousness, not just hatred. Why don't the saner Republican leaders--particularly Romney and Ryan-- keep forcefully and loudly reiterating that Obama is just as much a "real American" and Christian, and patriot, as they are, instead of letting this festering paranoia simmer beneath the surface, or instead of their throwing a little fuel on that fire, from time to time, just to rev up their loonier voting base.

I disliked George W. Bush intensely, because I vehemently disagreed with him on certain policies, but I did not hate the man, and I still retained my respect for the office of the President, and I still felt he deserved to be regarded with respect as our President, like him or not. I'm not sure that Obama gets that kind of respect all of the time, or enough of the time.

I really think that the hostile/suspicious undercurrent directed at Obama is related to race.
Butrflynet
 
  2  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2012 12:07 pm
Speaking of lies and misrepresentations...

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/rnc-staffer-plays-obama-supporter-in-gop-ad.php

Quote:
Disillusioned Obama Supporter In Romney Ad Is Actually GOP Staffer

Republicans debuted a new ad Thursday in which a frustrated former Obama supporter expresses her disappointment with the president. The only problem: The woman in the video is actually an RNC staffer.

The new ad features Republican National Committee Director of Hispanic Outreach Bettina Inclan, who in the ad purports to be an average woman voter who supported Obama in 2008. She describes her disillusionment with the president in the ad as a romantic relationship gone awry.
...
The RNC says its ad, which first appeared on television Thursday is not dishonest.
...
Inclan began her current RNC post in January 2012, and has worked in Republican politics since well before Obama’s 2008 election. She did Hispanic outreach for Rick Scott’s 2010 Florida gubernatorial race worked on Capitol Hill for Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) and as national executive director of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly.
engineer
 
  3  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2012 01:00 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:

I really think that the hostile/suspicious undercurrent directed at Obama is related to race.

I think it a line of thinking in Republican circles that if they refuse to negotiate with Democrats, Democrats will eventually cave for the good of the country. I think Hillary Clinton would have faced the exact response from the Republicans that the President has.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2012 01:50 pm
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/dnc-day-two-ratings-msnbc-tops-on-cable-abc-on-broadcast_b144670

Quote:
And even with football on NBC, the 10pm hour of the DNC’s night two still topped night two of the RNC a week ago: 20,622,000 vs. 20,049,000


Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  2  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2012 01:59 pm
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/06/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-says-democratic-presidents-top-republ/

Quote:
The Truth-O-Meter Says:

http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Ftom-true.gif

"Since 1961 … our private economy has produced 66 million private-sector jobs. So what's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 (million)."
Bill Clinton on Wednesday, September 5th, 2012 in a speech to the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C.

In 2010, we checked a similar claim from Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., who said that Democratic presidents "have been considerably more effective at creating private-sector jobs." After crunching the numbers back to President Harry Truman, we found that jobs did indeed grow faster under Democratic presidents when adjusted for a president’s years served in office. So we rated the claim True.

Clinton’s claim at the convention was worded differently, so we quickly re-crunched the numbers based on his specifications.

Let’s cut to the chase. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, here are the net increases in private-sector employment under each president, chronologically by party:

Republicans

Richard Nixon: Increase of 7.1 million jobs
Gerald Ford: Increase of 1.3 million jobs
Ronald Reagan: Increase of 14.7 million jobs
George H.W. Bush: Increase of 1.5 million jobs
George W. Bush: Decline of 646,000 jobs

Total: Increase of 23.9 million jobs under Republican presidents

Democrats

John F. Kennedy: Increase of 2.7 million jobs
Lyndon B. Johnson: Increase of 9.5 million jobs
Jimmy Carter: Increase of 9.0 million jobs
Bill Clinton: Increase of 20.8 million jobs
Barack Obama: Increase of 332,000 jobs

Total: Increase of 42.3 million jobs.

So Clinton is right. But we’ll bring up a few points worth noting.

This does not include government jobs

The combination of private-sector jobs and public-sector jobs is a broader measurement of job creation than private-sector alone. But excluding government jobs would presumably hurt Democrats more than Republicans, given the two parties’ historical stances toward the role of government. The fact that Democrats finished so far ahead despite taking government jobs off the table makes it a more impressive accomplishment.

The Democrats didn’t benefit from population growth

For our previous story, Brookings Institution economist Gary Burtless calculated that the U.S. working-age population actually grew slightly faster under Republican presidents, also making the Democratic accomplishment more impressive.

Presidents deserves less credit for the good times and less blame for the bad times

It's a truism of politics that when things go well, the president generally gets too much credit, and when things don't go well, the president usually gets too much blame. Shouldn't the Republican Congress of 1995-2001 get a share of the credit for Clinton's robust job growth? Shouldn't the Democratic House that served under Reagan? Most experts would say yes and yes.

Since we published our previous story, we have changed our policy: We now factor into our ratings whether the politician or party deserves credit or blame for the statistical trend being analyzed. In this item, though, we will not factor in credit or blame, because both parties have had presidents serve during the time we looked at, meaning that both parties would have benefited and suffered in roughly equal proportions.

It’s unclear how much this finding says about our political and economic systems

Job creation for each president depended to a certain extent on timing, external factors and luck. And as Yale political scientist David Mayhew pointed out for our previous story, conclusions drawn from a relatively narrow data set -- in this case, just 12 postwar presidencies -- need to be taken with a grain of salt.
...
Our ruling

Clinton’s figures check out, and they also mirror the broader results we came up with two years ago. Partisans are free to interpret these findings as they wish, but on the numbers, Clinton’s right. We rate his claim True.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2012 02:04 pm
@engineer,
I agree with you, though of course I can't know for sure, that Hillary would have attracted similar levels of supreme disgust, if not pure hatred, couched in other ways. I'm not her biggest fan, but I find her quite competent a lot of the time.

I think much of the stuff thrown at Obama is a kind of developed xenophobia. Same with potential anti Hillary ranting; she is also "other" to many.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  2  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2012 03:44 pm
@engineer,
Really?

Being shouted out and disrespected at the State of the Union Address; Being hung in effigy and in blackface as a pickaninny with watermelons at the whitehouse; Having men openly carrying loaded firearms at your ourdoor rallies with signs about watering the earth with blood; Having a sitting governor berate you with a finger in your face with the whole world watching via reporters; having half - HALF - the opposing sides voters believe you to not be born where you say you are and constantly ask for more proof...

You really think Hillary would have been subjected to the same kind of stuff, huh?
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2012 03:44 pm
@engineer,
Quote:
I think it a line of thinking in Republican circles that if they refuse to negotiate with Democrats, Democrats will eventually cave for the good of the country.

But why would such a recalcitrant attitude develop right now, at this point in time, with this particular Democratic president?

And, it did develop from day one of his presidency-- at a time, 2008, when the entire country was suffering and reeling from a failing economy that was hemorrhaging and losing 600,000--700,000 jobs a month, the housing market had collapsed, banks were failing, the auto industry was teetering, and we were involved in two costly wars. That's the time the Republicans decide not to cooperate "for the good of the country"? I'm not sure I buy that one. Particularly since this Democratic president seems generally open to compromise and negotiation, and that was evident even during the primaries.

I don't know whether Hillary would have encountered the same intractable obstinacy. I preferred Hillary and voted for her in the primary. I still feel she has more leadership ability than Obama, and she certainly had more experience than Obana had prior to the election. I think Hillary would have encountered flack and obstacles from proposing traditional Democratic policies, the normal partisan resistance from the other side, and anomosity from those who dislike the Clintons. But I don't know if it would have gotten as personal in nature, questioning her legitimacy to even be holding the office, as it is with Obama. And I think she would have been able to deal with the resistance more effectively. I think she's a more savvy politician and a stronger leader than Obama. And she wouldn't have had to deal with all the racial insults that snood just pointed out in his last post.

I think Obama's more vulnerable than Hillary would have been, maybe that's why the Republicans started going after him so fast. Not only is race a possible factor, he seems like one of the East coast intellectual elite, another group not popular or trustworthy with the Republicans, or their base. So, on more than one count, the Republicans could emphasize, and try to exploit, his "differentness" or his "outsider" aloofness, and then use it to send a message that this "foreigner" was going to radically change the country, redistribute the wealth, you can't trust him, etc.

I think Obama's been a decent President, a very decent Preident, and I like him on a personal level. I wasn't bowled over by him before he took office, so I'm not among those who feel overly disappointed or let down. I didn't expect him to wave a magic wand and turn the economy around, given the mess he inherited. And I do feel his second term will be better than the first, because the economy will continue to improve, and I hope Obama will be a little bolder. I do think he failed to go directly to the American people often enough, so they really understood the state of the union, and what he was doing, and accomplishing, and what he needed the people to do. In other words, he should have been doing more campaigning all along, and not hesitant about tooting his own horn, because he has accomplished a lot. I think, had he done that, that might have made his re-election battle a little easier.

But Obama has faced an entire Republican party determined to defeat him since day one--and I don't remember any other President having to deal with that.



0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  0  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2012 03:52 pm
@engineer,
Oh, god. The Republicans hated Hillary in 2004.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2012 04:22 pm
@maxdancona,
Of course
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2012 04:31 pm
@firefly,
What former president guarded his past history as if it was a state secret?

What former president was all to happy to be described as being born in Kenya because he expected it would increase his book sales?

Obama was born in Hawaii but he spent a period of his life cultivating an image of Man of The World, because it advanced his personal goals.

Now, from that high seat on your horse, you want to condemn folks who may find his obviously fictional bio born of insane hatred.

0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2012 06:24 pm
@Butrflynet,
Yes, while we are speaking of lies and misrepresentations...


http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/314979/democrat-women-romney-mark-steyn

So, since I saw no outrage from you or even a comment from you when Obama did it, I must wonder why you are even mentioning it now.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2012 06:37 pm
@mysteryman,
Perhaps it's because she didn't know about it?

It's certainly news to me.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2012 06:58 pm
@mysteryman,
From your article:

Quote:
Her accumulated Facebook “likes” over the years testify to her rock-ribbed Republicanism. They include Amy Goodman, MoveOn.org, Bernie Sanders, and a Facebook page called “I Love It When I Wake Up In the Morning and Obama Is President”.


They presume her political leanings by her Facebook likes? In that case, they may think I'm a republican based on some cherry picking of my Facebook likes. Since you are also on Facebook, you know that "liking" something on Facebook doesn't mean you necessarily agree with it. It is a means of being able to track the posts on the page you "liked" by having them appear on your own wall in the news feed. Oh my gosh, she's a reader of political Facebook pages!

Quote:
She’s a registered Democrat, but don’t let that fool you.


Did she recently switch so she could vote in the Democratic primary? Has she been a long-time employee of the party? By the lack of specifics in the article, we don't know.

On the other hand, here's the difference in the articles...

Quote:
The new ad features Republican National Committee Director of Hispanic Outreach Bettina Inclan, ...

Inclan began her current RNC post in January 2012, and has worked in Republican politics since well before Obama’s 2008 election. She did Hispanic outreach for Rick Scott’s 2010 Florida gubernatorial race worked on Capitol Hill for Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) and as national executive director of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly.


Show me some specific detail of her background that ties her directly to the DNC as the article about Inclan does to the RNC and I'll agree with you that they are equally misrepresented ads.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 11/07/2024 at 01:24:04