Visitors' civil comments encouraged.
John Edwards: Politician
Last year, The National Enquirer staked out the Beverly Hills Hilton and caught John Edwards visiting his former campaign worker/ mistress and her young child. In pursuit of the story, reporters chased him down a stairwell into a washroom, where he reportedly tried to hide out; his whimpering could be heard through the door. After denying the affair for months, Edwards finally admitted it on national television in a special Nightline Mea culpa.
Early this month, the same paper reported that a federal grand jury is probing whether the former Democratic presidential candidate broke campaign finance laws through payments to his mistress. It also disclosed that the FBI and the IRS were involved in the investigation. Other news sources have confirmed that a federal grand jury is investigating John Edwards and the possibility that his presidential campaign funds were misused to pay off his mistress, Rielle Hunter.
Grand jury proceedings are conducted under a veil of secrecy, and lawyers involved in these proceedings are liable for criminal prosecution if they discuss them publicly or with members of the press. As a result of these rules, US Attorney George Holding was quoted as saying he "was not going to confirm or deny any investigation" regarding Edwards. However, a Federal grand jury did convene on Wednesday in Raleigh, North Carolina. Washington DC sources have confirmed that four former Edwards’ campaign workers recently received secret subpoenas to testify in Raleigh, NC. One of the workers has already contacted a lawyer.
Raleigh attorney Wade Smith, who is a former mentor and long-time Edwards’ friend refused to comment on whether he was representing Edwards. "I'm at a place where I cannot make any comment to confirm or deny. I can't say anything,” he said. “It's possible, at some later point, I can."
This story plays out as Elizabeth and John (“I believe in the sanctity of marriage”) Edwards live separate lives. News outlets have reported that John Edwards finally confessed to his wife of many years what most of the country suspected, namely, he is the father of Hunter’s child. Elizabeth Edwards is reportedly fighting stage IV breast cancer as she cares for the couple’s two younger children. She is to appear on Oprah May 11th.
To be fair, John Edwards has denied paying his mistress Rielle Hunter or campaign staffer Andrew Young (who was once fingered as the father of Hunter’s child) from the campaign war chest. In a twist of fate, before he died last year, longtime supporter Fred Baron claimed that he personally paid for Young and Hunter to escape media attention by moving them to California.
The thing I remember most about John Edwards’ campaign is his supporters, Americans who bought his message of societal change. They clung to the belief that he was the real thing and that he would work to make their lives better. They always seemed like decent good folk who deserved a break. They didn’t seem to have any money to spare, but somehow they deprived themselves and found it for him. In hindsight, it seems fair to say they were tooled.
Edwards calls himself the “son of a millworker,” but his slickness belies his family roots. There are two Americas. There is the America where people try to play by the rules, and then there is the America where most of our politicians live. There is a chasm between the two filled with lies and deceit; there is no bridge.
______________________________________________________________________________
These publications were used for this diary:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/politics/story/640203.html
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/john_edwards_grand_jury_convenes/celebrity/66455
http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/John+Edwards+(Politician)
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/04/03/edwards/
- BJinAmerica's blog
- Login or register to post comments
-
what to think about Edwards. This whole episode reminds me way too much of the Republicans' witch hunt for the Clintons.
I was an Edwards supporter. My Iowa caucus vote went to Edwards. I heard and saw much from John Edwards that I liked and respected.
I have always believed that what someone did with their private life was their business and no one else's. If Bill Clinton had simply said, "None of your damn business" I think the course of our country might have been much different.
Does Edwards get any credit for not totally abandoning Rielle Hunter and her child? I mean, after all he didn't have to jeopardize his candidacy by visiting them. Something in his makeup caused him to risk it all to see them. That kind of human involvement gets my attention.
In the case of Edwards, the money doesn't concern me much. They've been digging for months to find proof of payoffs from campaign funds and so far there's nothing. If they do find something, so what? A few sheckels to support a child pales in comparison to billions of payoffs to bankers.
For me, it comes down to two salient points. One, Edwards cheated on his wife. Big deal. Two, he did it while she was fighting cancer. Somehow, that is a much bigger deal here.
Bottom line: John Edwards is a flawed man, just like seemingly every other politician in the country. He's still ten times better than the joner we chose over him.
GONE FISHING
I could care less about where he puts his talleywhacker and even less that it was during Elizabeth's cancer fight. This is just another example of what the Republican's have done to politics. And yes I blame them 100% for turning the private lives of public officials into tabloid material. You do realize that the press used to have the un-written rule for where their pens and cameras would go?
But about JRE. What pisses me off more than the cheating or under the table payoffs. The fact that our politicians are no longer allowed a private life, private pacts, private loves.
Does it not cross anyone's mind that Elizabeth may have known and even encouraged her husband? That maybe she is more pissed about the celebrity than the act? It's the same thing I felt during the treament of Bill Clinton and Hillary.
I've known wealthy people, and yes it tends to be among the upper class, that have separate bedrooms. It is I think very common for hugely busy and successful couples to treat their marriage as not only a bond of love but a true partnership in every business sense. Their priorities are the reverse of most normal people and I see nothing wrong with that. Putting career first is what allows these people to have such awesome down time with the family.
I think that many of the wives/husbands of politicians know, even encourage the extra curricular activities, it's blowing the cover that royally pissed them off.
Civil Discourse - ERA - A Mother President - Women's Rights - Primary Reform
I think you do not speak for Elizabeth Edwards; she is not as you say ok with it. Moreover, John Edwards did it to himself. He paraded his wife and family every chance he had. He invited the public in and in we went. (Too bad, he couldn't keep his pants zipped.)
I remember how Edwards and Obama played tag team during their debate with Hillary. Unfortunately, Edwards is a lot of pretty packaging with very little substance.
This man can dish it out; now he'll have to learn to take it.
Just conjecture on my part. sorry if I didn't say it right
Civil Discourse - ERA - A Mother President - Women's Rights - Primary Reform
it was the good and decent people who supported Edwards during the 2004 election that made me give him a pass when I worked on the Kerry campaign. I voted for the Kerry/Edwards ticket. In that election, he didn't even carry his own state.
This time around, I almost gave him a pass again, because of his wife, Elizabeth. (Early on, I thought if this smart and capable woman loves him there must be something I'm missing.) However, despite the loving wife & family and the marketing used to sell him, in the end I could not vote the phoney, narcissistic man I feel he is.
His treatment of Hillary during the debates sealed the deal; it was dismissive as if she wasn't worthy of consideration. (This from a man who could not carry his own state in 2004.)
I was an Edwards supporter too, creeper.
I like Edwards, even now. I believe he is a genuine person, but he is deeply flawed, and I'm dismayed he cheated on the lovely Elizabeth for any reason whatsoever (just as I was dismayed when Bill Clinton was revealed to have cheated on Hillary Clinton many, many, many times).
Edwards would've been accountable, damn it. Which Obama is not.
The biggest mistake Edwards made, besides cheating on Elizabeth (his main advisor and best friend), was that he backed Obama. H should not have done that; he should've thrown his support to Hillary Clinton. That would've helped him in the long run, even if the nomination had still ended up stolen from her.
There's no excuse for this, DNC. You screwed the pooch; time to pay the piper.
Being from NC, I have always had a special interest in Edwards. I remember when he won the U.S. Senate seat. We had a little TV in the Opticians workroom, and I was watching the news the day he won. I thought to myself that this guy is the "total package." He's got looks, smarts, success, a great wife and beautiful children. If he doesn't screw this up somehow, there is no telling how far he will go. So much for that.
I realize that politicians are people like everyone else. I also know that men tend to use the wrong head to think with, quite often, in their lives. But I also subscribe to that old expression....to whom much is given, much is expected. If you have character issues or problems with your personal life, perhaps politics isn't the vocation for you. You all know that I practically worship Bill Clinton, and NH, I envy you so much for having had the honor of meeting the man. I was angry at the constant coverage of the Lewinsky mess. I wanted him, instead of pointing his finger and denying it to the cameras, to say nothing at all. I will admit that I was disappointed in him for having gotten himself into it in the first place. I thought he was much too intelligent to let his libido get the best of him. Wrong again. I am disappointed in Edwards because his behavior was just so "typical." I think Elizabeth probably thought he was being faithful, but we will never know for sure about that. It is amazing what a woman will put up wih out of a man she loves. Once you've been cheated on by a man, I think you take on a less than forgiving opinion about this sort of thing. Hence, the way I feel.
Yes, the press reports on things that they never would have many years ago. We are living in a different time, though, and if you are going to be in the public eye, you had better resign yourself to constant scrutiny. Right or wrong, that is just the way it is. In his defense, Edwards is a human being, and we all have feet of clay at times. It has always angered me that many in the media talked about how wealthy he is, like it is some kind of sin. He earned every penny of the money he has made. He didn't inherit it or steal it or come by it dishonetly in any way. He is a brilliant lawyer. In spite of his shortcomings, he is an extremely intelligent, and I think, genuinely caring and empathetic person. In short, he gives a damn, which is more than I can say for the current resident of the Oval Office.
I met them all, well all except the One, and they all spew BS from the time they wake up until bed time. Except Dennis and that is exactly why he'll go nowhere higher in American politics.
When I took this photo at the 100 Club Dinner, Elizabeth and Dennis were sitting in the audience, eating with the rest of us. People would just sit down and chat like neighbors.
Civil Discourse - ERA - A Mother President - Women's Rights - Primary Reform
He definitely is a genuine man. And we'd be better off with him than with Obama, for sure. (I still think we'd be best off with Hillary Clinton, mind.)
There's no excuse for this, DNC. You screwed the pooch; time to pay the piper.
You said: "But I also subscribe to that old expression....to whom much is given, much is expected."
Exactly, Kim. Why am I suppose to accept it's ok for a candidate who wants to be POTUS to slink around with some tootsie while he has a family at home? (The family that is always troted out for the campaign pictures to prove that he is a good husband and parent.) It is an issue of character.
The response that always sends me over the deep end: "Well, he is good looking and you know men will be men." Being a man makes it ok? What happens when it's a woman? Answer, it's not ok, because the POTUS is the leader of our country and, like it or not, often defines us a people,
Yes, BJ, I know politicians are human and therefore prone to mistakes like anyone esle. There are some mistakes that I can dismiss and some that I can't. I do think we should be able to expect more from our public servants, within reason, that is. There is a quote, I can't remember who said it just now but it goes something like this: "Character is more easily kept than retrieved."
Character is everything in politics and in life. If you never had any to begin with, then you are in bad shape. If you lose it, you spend a lifetime trying to get it back. Everyone always looks at you with a question mark after that.
. . . was that he simply aimed too high. And that's why I think if he'd bowed out and immediately backed Hillary Clinton, or at least had backed her by April (when she was rallying and Obama was clearly on the ropes), we'd all be better off, JRE included. (In a Hillary Clinton administration, JRE would have a job unless he really did divert campaign money to his mistress. I think he had to have been smarter than that, though; he'd never have made the money he did as a lawyer and patient-rights advocate if he was prone to that sort of financial impropriety.)
That being said, when JRE was revealed to have cheated on Elizabeth Edwards, I was very saddened and even shocked. I thought if anyone in politics had a great marriage, it was the two of them -- and it was shown not to be the case.
If Elizabeth Edwards ever wanted to run for anything -- if her health allowed, mind -- I'd be right there for her. I believe she has the cojones and the smarts to do a great job, which is why _she_ backed Hillary!
There's no excuse for this, DNC. You screwed the pooch; time to pay the piper.
You said: "If Elizabeth Edwards ever wanted to run for anything -- if her health allowed, mind -- I'd be right there for her. I believe she has the cojones and the smarts to do a great job, which is why _she_ backed Hillary!"
I agree I think Elizabeth Edwards is the real thing. She is smart, articulate and caring, and I believe she would be a great candidate. I hope she has a miracle, and we hear that she is well.
Agree with you, Kim. I was an Edwards supporter. Not excusing his behavior but if you had lost your 16-yr old son, and then found out your wife had incurable cancer, who knows how crazy one could get. Frankly, I think he was "acting out". The man is carrying alot of sorrow.
John Edwards lied to everyone in his campaign about this affair. He betrayed his family, but more importantly in some ways, he betrayed his supporters by convincing them they should nominate him for President. He campaigned for the nomination, all the while knowing that this affair was a ticking time bomb that was guaranteed--GUARANTEED--to explode the moment he got the nomination.
What would have happened then? The Democratic Party would have lost the election, and given the Republicans a 12-year lease on the White House instead of just the last 8. And our country would be screwed for at least a generation.
Of course, that probably doesn't matter much to a lot of the folks at Partizane, who voted for the Republican nominee anyway. Why they did that, I will never understand.
Suffice to say I find debates about the merits of Edwards' candidacy on this site about as sincere as a Democratic Party discussion on the merits of Giuliani's candidacy, and "what could have been".
The same reason I got from many during the Democratic Primary.
McCain was not Obama.
During the 18 months of the NH Primary the #1 single reason I got from dems for their choice of Obama, "He isn't Hillary".
You can deny the Anyone But Clinton meme all you want but then bots do believe in fairy tales.
Civil Discourse - ERA - A Mother President - Women's Rights - Primary Reform
You tell 'em NH!
McCain was not Obama.
Yes, and Bush was not Kerry or Gore, and Dole was not Clinton. There are profound ideological differences between the parties, which clearly from your professional history in politics you were quite aware of. I respect your and all the PUMAs' vote.
What I don't respect is the refusal to accept the policy implications of voting for the Republican Party ticket. Lower taxes for the wealthy, lower services for everyone else, the end of Roe v Wade, the continuation of the global gag rule, NO on Ledbetter, theocratic intrusion into private lives, constutional bans on gay marriage, permanent war. THAT is what you voted for when you voted McCain-Palin.
You weren't just voting for some loveable old war hero with oodles of "integrity"--you were voting for the policies he and his political movement wanted implemented. You can say you don't support those policies, and I'll believe you. That, in fact, is what makes your vote all the more bizarre to me.
But, it was your vote, and I respect it. Just own it.
Is the fact that the most devisive candidat in history has caused me to throw out any ideals I had and become a one issue voter. If the candidate is not a woman, I don't vote for them. If they are a woman, I do.
Civil Discourse - ERA - A Mother President - Women's Rights - Primary Reform
Is the fact that the most devisive candidat in history
Only divisive between the parties, one of which (the GOP) has shrunk in size, become marginalized and is almost totally irrelevant at this point. The broad majority of Americans support the president consistenty in 60-65%+ range. Bush was far more divisive, a 51-percenter who was only interested in peeling off just enough support to hammer down the most radical and reactionary of policies.
has caused me to throw out any ideals I had and become a one issue voter.
I really hope that changes one day. There are so many other issues that need your voice, not just the one.
If the candidate is not a woman, I don't vote for them. If they are a woman, I do.
In all seriousness, what will you do if you are presented with two candidates who aren't women? Not vote at all?
Obama divided the democratic party. Never in my memory have so many loyal dems refused to accept the dictates of the party. Yes, most of Hillary's 18 million sucked it up and voted dem but many many of the activists did not. It is the democratic party that will be begging come 2012 and hopefully they offer a better choice than the greatest con man in history.
Civil Discourse - ERA - A Mother President - Women's Rights - Primary Reform
the greatest con man in history.
This is what bothers me so much. Why does the hyperbole have to get so extreme? The "greatest con man in history"? Really? All because he defeated Hillary in a primary by what you consider to be unfair and illegitimate means?
Bigger than Adolf Hitler? Bigger then Josef Stalin? Bigger than Richard Nixon? Bigger than Savanarola? Cotton Mather? Jim Jones? Joseph Smith? Joe McCarthy?
Oh wait. You must have read this article:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/international_con_man_barack_obama
Now I understand
Yes I do consider him a con. A con does not have to be evil but since you bring up Hitler. Many have noticed the similarities in career path. Not that Obama is Hitler.
Both were community organizers. Both had no real life management experience before taking over their party. They are both career politicians who got ahead through deceit and lies.
Civil Discourse - ERA - A Mother President - Women's Rights - Primary Reform
"Yes I do consider him a con."
Fine, but that's quite different than "the greatest con in history".
Yes, NH, and like Obama, Adolf Hilter offered people "hope and change." They didn't get any hope but they did get change. It just wasn't the kind of change they counted on. The similaries between them are uncanny. Two unknowns who thought that they were somehow destined for greatness come to power of a great nation. Obama certainly is not Hilter. Nobody should ever be compared to Hitler, in regard to the horrible crimes against humanity that he inflicted. The man was evil personified. The similarities in their rise to power just can't be ignored, though.
Yes, NH, and like Obama, Adolf Hilter offered people "hope and change."
ALL politicians "offer people 'hope and change'". ALL OF THEM. Ronald Reagan offered hope and change. Bill Clinton offered hope and change. I don't see you comparing them to Adolf Hitler.
That and good oratory is where the similarities end.
Any further comparison is not only ridiculous, but offensive to the victims of Adolf Hiter's horrifying legacy of brutality.
It is also a staggering failure of historical perspective and imagination that the only person anti-Obamas seem capable of comparing him to is Adolf Hitler. How about starting off with non-anti-Semitic, non-genocidal maniacs first, and work your way up from there?
Layla, did you actually read my reply? This is what I said: Obama certainly is not Hilter. Nobody should ever be compared to Hitler, in regard to the horrible crimes against humanity that he inflicted. The man was evil personified.
I wasn't talking about Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton. I was comparing Obama's rise to power to Hitler's. Nothing more, nothing less. Don't accuse me of doing something I didn't do. I have Jewish relatives and am extremely sensitive to the horrors Jews suffered under him. Hilter was an equal opportunity sadist and murderer, though. He allowed the physically and mentally disabled to be experimented on and murdered, too. I was born with a physical disability, so I don't think I need to explain to you how I really feel about him. I find your accusation to be without merit and extremely offensive.
How about if I compare Obama to the person he is acting like the most these days....G.W. Bush. So come on Layla, I am here to play. Take your best shot.
" I find your accusation to be without merit and extremely offensive"
Nice jujitsu. Say something offensive, act offended when you're called on it.
"So come on Layla, I am here to play."
Unfortunately for all of us, this isn't a game.
Well Layla, if you think what I said is offensive, then I think that your reading comprehension skills need some work. BTW, don’t you know what “here to play” means? It’s an expression for crying out loud, and it has nothing to do with a game. Since you’ve brought it up, though....isn't it a game that you are engaging in, coming here to this site just to piss in everyone's cornflakes? You almost never agree with anything anyone here says, so why do you come? What’s your pay-off? I think you enjoy our brand of intelligent repartee, instead of the inane ramblings of commentors on some other sites that come to mind.
The one who thinks this is a game is Obama. He is more interested in the parties and celebrity of being President than the actual work at hand. What was accomplished by his very expensive and lavish trip to Europe except parties, dinners and smoozing with heads of state and foreign dignitaries. Gee, did anybody agree to help us out in Afghanistan? Did anyone go for his economic stimulus plan over there? Don't think so. Wonder what it cost the taxpayers of this country for him to make that trip....and for what...nada that's what.
"You almost never agree with anything anyone here says, so why do you come? What’s your pay-off?"
That's an excellent question. I've been searching since the primaries ended to find some sort of dialogue with my onetime-fellow Democratic friends-turned PUMAs. Partizane is the only PUMA site that doesn't ban me, so I come here to have this dialogue.
"I think you enjoy our brand of intelligent repartee, instead of the inane ramblings of commentors on some other sites that come to mind."
You've got that right. Down-the-line Obama blogs bore me, right-wing blogs disgust me, and all the other PUMA blogs won't have me. Partizane is my only real home online.
He is more interested in the parties and celebrity of being President than the actual work at hand.
I just really believe that's an unserious way of looking at what the president is doing. Attack his policies if you disagree with them, but the idea that in the 21st century the President of the United States, by the very nature of the job, isn't working hard is just silly. Anyone who looks at his schedule knows the man is working himself to the bone. This meme that he's "partying" too much, this comes from the same folks who also said he didn't entertain Gordon Brown properly enough. Give me a break.
I also think that there is a misconception here about what constitutes "work" in the modern presidency. Obama's job is to be the public face and salesman of his policies. It isn't to be cooped up and invisible in the Oval Office 24/7, signing papers, reading treaties, having meetings and yelling at people on the phone all day. He should (and does) do a good bit of that too, sure, but his real job is to sell his plan to the American people, and keep them on his side.
The very fact that the opposition attacks him for his time in the media selling these proposals proves my point. They know that the more time and effort he spends communicating his agenda, the more successful he will be getting it implemented. And so they want to try to stop him by pushing this "he's not working" nonsense. That's not going to happen.
how to not get these skinny columns of text. maybe if I turn off the other junk when reading a post?
hmmm. into the guts I go again.
Civil Discourse - ERA - A Mother President - Women's Rights - Primary Reform
"Anyone who looks at his schedule knows the man is working himself to the bone."
Interesting....do you work in the West Wing, or are you part of the press corp that follows Obama's every move? Aside from that, you don't have anymore idea what he's doing at any one time than any of us do. The campaign is over. It shouldn't be necessary to keep trying to "sell" his policies. It is time to get busy, and yes, I do expect him to sit behind that wonderful desk in the Oval Office and work and work and work and work some more. Being President is very much about the tedious paperwork, the endless reading, the neverending meetings and perhaps, doing some of the things he promised. I thought Bush had excuse after excuse not to be in the White House, but Obama may have him beat.
I will be the first to applaud him when he does something I agree with. I very much like Dr.Margaret Hamburg, the new commissioner of the FDA that Obama appointed recently. I am glad that he is giving women positions, instead of maintaining the "good old boys" club. I am excited about the prospect of his getting the EPA up to speed and dumping Bush's bad policies towards the environment. I am glad that science is finally making a comeback. What I need to see from him is real conviction and guts, though. He needs to stop worrying about his image and the polls so much. Obama is much too thinned skinned. Look at how he let Rush Limbaugh get to him. Rush is a blowhard on the radio for heaven's sake. What is Obama going to do when he is challenged by the leader of another country? Is he going to start whining and have the DNC put up billboards complaining about them, too? He is good at saying whatever he thinks the person/persons he is with at the time wants to hear. All politicians do this to a certain degree, but I think he is in overdrive. If you promise it, at least "try" to do it. I admire people who do what is right and don't worry about what happens to them as a result. It is often hard to find people in politics that possess this characteristic, but they do exist.
"Interesting....do you work in the West Wing, or are you part of the press corp that follows Obama's every move? Aside from that, you don't have anymore idea what he's doing at any one time than any of us do."
Fine, then I'll look forward to no longer reading posts from you about how Obama isn't doing anything but partying, as you admit you have no idea what he's actually doing day-to-day.
"The campaign is over. It shouldn't be necessary to keep trying to "sell" his policies."
Who do you think is actually going to make his policies law? That would be the Congress, a mass of hundreds of conflicting personalities and agendas, all with their own interests, none of which purely align with Obama's. Yes, it is quite necessary to "keep trying to 'sell' his policies" to this fractious herd of cats. He is selling them to Congress, and on a separate track, he is selling them to the public, so that they will put additional pressure on their local representatives to vote with the president. That 's legislative politics 101. The campaign in that sense is never over.
"It is time to get busy, and yes, I do expect him to sit behind that wonderful desk in the Oval Office and work and work and work and work some more."
As I explained earlier, we simply have a disagreement about what the real "work" of a modern, media-dominated American presidency really is.
"Being President is very much about the tedious paperwork, the endless reading, the neverending meetings and perhaps, doing some of the things he promised."
Not the paperwork part, but yes, as I already said, the reading and meetings are a PART of the presidency. Not the whole thing. You're describing the position like the president is the world's most powerful office manager, poring over TPS reports all day and night. It's not like that. As far as the promises go, you bet--his feet should be held to the fire on every one of them.
"He needs to stop worrying about his image and the polls so much."
The day he does that is the day his presidency effectively ends. I can see why the folks at Partizane are so encouraging of that!
"Obama is much too thinned skinned. Look at how he let Rush Limbaugh get to him. Rush is a blowhard on the radio for heaven's sake."
I think you may have missed the point of the Rush Limbaugh kerfuffle. Rush didn't "get" to Obama. Obama picked the enemy he wanted--Rush--instead of mild-mannered Mitch McConnell or John Boehner. Bloated, drug-addicted, bigoted, sexist, xenophobic hater Rush Limbaugh is now defined in the public's mind as the opposite of Obama. That's the choice Obama has set up for the American public: supporting the Democrats is supporting the cool, likeable, friendly, calm President Obama; supporting the GOP is supporting the loudmouth bigot Rush Limbaugh. It's not a hard choice to make for the vast majority of American voters.
You know, I seldom post anything about Obama, and never about, how did you put it..."how Obama isn't doing anything but partying." Posting and commenting are two very different things. My posts are mainly about women, women candidates, women’s issues, topics in the news, and science and nature with some fun stuff thrown in. This month I am trying to post mainly about environmentally related issues. You know exactly what you read in the major news sources and on blogs, same as I or anyone else. If you think that you have some special insight or the inside track on the daily activities of the President then that‘s just fabulous. I’m so happy for you. Perhaps you could give us an hourly play by play of his activities next week. We’d all be interested in that, I’m sure.
Politicians who are obsessed with image and polls almost always make decisions based on self-interest and not the people’s interests. Since you seem to be confused about something…Rush is a radio shock jock. He’s not the head of the GOP. Michael Steele is. Obama has been obsessed with Rush for a long time now. It is ridiculous. If someone isn’t a threat then you ignore them. He must feel awfully threatened by this "bloated, drug addicted, bigoted, sexist, xenophobic hater." OMG, it is too pathetic.
I have never engaged you before now, because I chose not to. Today, I decided that it might be fun. Thanks for providing me with so much entertainment. I will say that it is amazing just what interesting tidbits of information you can glean from a person when you allow them some leeway and let them get “comfortable.”
"You know, I seldom post anything about Obama, and never about, how did you put it..."how Obama isn't doing anything but partying." Posting and commenting are two very different things."
I guess I should have used the word "comment" instead of "post". I interachange them regularly. My bad.
"If you think that you have some special insight or the inside track on the daily activities of the President then that‘s just fabulous. I’m so happy for you."
No, I just read his public schedule.
"you seem to be confused about something…Rush is a radio shock jock. He’s not the head of the GOP. Michael Steele is. Obama has been obsessed with Rush for a long time now. It is ridiculous. If someone isn’t a threat then you ignore them."
Like I already said, you've missed the point about why Rush was targeted. And your statement "If someone isn’t a threat then you ignore them" REALLY misses the point. In politics, if someone IS a threat, you ignore them. You don't bring them up to your level, you don't give them media exposure.
That's why Obama doesn't engage McConnell, Boehner, or Steele--he wants them to have as little exposure as possible. Someone like Rush, who isn't a threat because he isn't an elected offical, and is so marginalized by his history of bigoted rhetoric, is perfectly geared for a profile-RAISING. Rush thinks he's the leader of his Party--let's tell everyone he's right. There goes that "bloated, drug addicted, bigoted, sexist, xenophobic hater" head of the Republican Party. That'll do WONDERS for the GOP politically!
as this diary goes on.
Perhaps they'd be strengthened if you could provide some documentation for the opinions you spout. If you're having trouble getting links up here, I recommend this diary
http://www.partizane.com/node/1003
While personal opinions are respected here, facts are even more so. Back up some of your claims if you can.
Oh, and paperwork is indeed a huge part of being president. Twisting Kim's post to make it appear as though the president is doing double-entry bookkeeping wasn't even close to a civil response.
GONE FISHING
Thanks for having my back, creeper.
The irony of you posting a comment where you attack me for not providing hyperlinks to support my conclusions, all the while not including any of your own (save a link explaining how to post hyperlinks!) in the very same comment, is not lost on me.
Twisting Kim's post to make it appear as though the president is doing double-entry bookkeeping wasn't even close to a civil response.
Pot, meet Kettle...
and none for you.
I'll make you a promise. Any time I forget a link to a contention I've made, you just speak up and I'll provide one. It would be nice if you would confine your requests to new information, not old stuff (like Obama sitting in an America-hating church for years) that's already been well-documented, since it appears that I'm going to have to provide the links for both of us.
GONE FISHING
A couple of other things.
I have frequently said and probably pissed off some people, that I support much of what his Oliness is doing on the home front. At least as far as huge investments in infrastructure and a hopeful return of some well needed regulations for all industries.
I will openly support what I find good and point out the faults. Lining his and Geithner's buddies pockets with billions is simply, the worst financial crap shoot ever.
Second. Thank you for helping us keep up an open discussion among those who have differences.
Civil Discourse - ERA - A Mother President - Women's Rights - Primary Reform
I have frequently said and probably pissed off some people, that I support much of what his Oliness is doing on the home front. At least as far as huge investments in infrastructure and a hopeful return of some well needed regulations for all industries.
That's good to hear.
I will openly support what I find good and point out the faults. Lining his and Geithner's buddies pockets with billions is simply, the worst financial crap shoot ever.
Geithner makes me sick. Obama could end up gambling away his whole presidency on that a$$hole.
Second. Thank you for helping us keep up an open discussion among those who have differences.
Thanks, Hamp. I appreciate that. Partizane is consistently the most civil discussion board I've found on the web (no small feat), and I think that is owed to your leadership on that issue.
You assume that having had George W. Bush leave office with an approval rating of roughly 25%, the Republican party would continue merrily on its way with the same policies that brought them such disfavor.
John McCain is not George W. Bush. He is a far cry from George W. Bush, which actually caused him some problems with his own party. He was certainly a heluva lot better man than Barack Obama.
GONE FISHING
You assume that having had George W. Bush leave office with an approval rating of roughly 25%, the Republican party would continue merrily on its way with the same policies that brought them such disfavor.
I can only trust the platform the Republican candidate ran on, which was a clone of Bush policies from the last 8 years. I can also only assume that the fact that the GOP is now behaving the exact same way it did over the last 8 years--only lacking in power--is strong evidence that they would behave the same way if they had power.
He was certainly a heluva lot better man than Barack Obama.
Oh yeah, can you believe how that jerk Obama treated his poor wife, the woman who waited patiently for him through 5 years of captivity and a horribly disfiguring car accident, only to be rewarded by Obama when he returned with disgust over her appearance, a swarm of infidelities, and finally divorce for a newer, younger, healthier, sexier, much richer heiress who ended up becoming the 2nd Mrs. Obama.
Oh wait, sorry, that was the other guy. The "better man" you mentioned.
Better than the man who swore to filibuster against FISA and then voted for it. Better than the man who made a huge spash of overturning the ban on federal funding for stem cell research and then forgot to include it in his budget. Better than the man who has remained silent for four days while an American captain remains hostage to African pirates. Better than the man who denigrated his own country in front of all Europe and bowed to a two-bit king. Better than the man who bribed American bankers with $165 milliion to accept government payoffs of almost a trillion. Better than the man who ballyhooed the spending on infrastructure in his massive bailout bill, only to allow it a total of 4% of the funding. Better than the man who has yet to prove to me that he is constitutionally eligible to live in the White House. Better than the man who wants to plow another eighty-three billion of our dollars into Iraq and Afghanistan.
Oh, forget it. There isn't enough space in this editor.
GONE FISHING
Excellent retort creeper!
Hey, I thought you were fishing!
Better than the man who swore to filibuster against FISA and then voted for it.
Let me start by saying that that flip-flop was deeply disappointing on many levels. It is also important to add that these comparisons do not exist in a vacuum, creeper. If you're going to trash Obama for flipping on FISA, I would hope you would also have the candor to admit that your hero John McCain was also fully supportive of the legislation, even if he couldn't find the time to make the vote that day.
Better than the man who made a huge spash of overturning the ban on federal funding for abortion and then forgot to include it in his budget.
Maybe that isn't the first battle he wants to fight. Maybe that isn't the first battle he should fight. Maybe going after bigger ticket consensus items like universal health care is more important right now. I would certainly rather have universal health care this year than federally financed abortions. There are priorities, even though it is so easy to nitpick at every single thing Obama has not yet accomplished in his epic 3-month old presidency.
Better than the man who has remained silent for four days while an American captain remains hostage to African pirates.
You have absolutely no idea what they are doing behind the scenes to free that man. There is nothing Obama could say publicly that would help the situation at all. But it's an easy cheap shot, so go for it.
Better than the man who denigrated his own country in front of all Europe and bowed to a two-bit king.
Oh, what utter nonsense. Obama did not "denigrate his own country in front of all Europe". He denigrated the horror show administration of the last 8 years who destroyed our relations with Europe and most of the rest of the world. It was an extremely necessary thing to say. The only people who are sincerely upset by that are the people who really liked the last 8 years. I'm surprised to see you in that company.
"Better than the man who bribed American bankers with $165 milliion to accept government payoffs of almost a trillion. "
Oh, wow that's interesting. I had no idea Obama was president of AIG last year when those bonuses were assigned. Wow, that guy's a multitasker! And how's your logic work anyway? Obama magically assigned $165 million of bonuses to AIG employees, in return for...giving them another trillion? And how do you go from the $165 million paid directly to AIG, to the $1 trillion figure? AIG has only received about $170 billion in bailout money.
"Better than the man who ballyhooed the spending on infrastructure in his massive bailout bill, only to allow it a total of 4% of the funding."
Yeah, this is a good comparison with John McCain's failings. Guy who ditched his disabled wife for a younger, prettier, wealthier heiress: fine by you. Guy who limited infrastructural spending in his bailout bill: Scum Of The Earth.
"Better than the man who has yet to prove to me that he is constitutionally eligible to live in the White House."
Not even worth addressing.
Better than the man who wants to plow another eighty-three billion of our dollars into Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, you make a comparison in a vacuum. You're disgusted by Obama being forced to spend extra money to draw down in Iraq, and escalate in Afghanistan--two wars he did not start, one of which he strenuously opposed. Yet you have not a word of criticism for the man you voted for, the biggest cheerleader of the Iraq invasion second only to George W. Bush: Sen. John McCain.
>"Better than the man who has yet to prove to me that he is constitutionally eligible to live in the White House."
>Not even worth addressing.
I love it. You CAN'T address it, so you deem it not worth addressing.
You have got to do better than that, man.
One more time, Layla, ORIGINAL Certificate of Live Birth.
Like this one:
images.google.com/imgres
Oh, and here's another linky for you. It's to a story about how Congress figures this is a big enough problem to warrant legislation.
http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/news/lone_republican/index.php/2009/03...
Now, tell me one good reason why Barack Obama would fight in court to keep from having to produce his ORIGINAL Certificate of Live Birth proving that he is eligible for the office of president. Just one. I'll settle. C'mon, Layla...you can do it.
No, no, no...You keep going back to that fresh new document plastered all over the internet that says his birth is "on record". I want the original record. The real record. The one that gives date and time of birth, parents' names, hospital, length, weight and delivering physician.
The one John McCain produced.
Oh, I went fishing. Didn't catch a thing. Spent the whole afternoon sitting in the boat, wondering how an obviously intelligent person like you could keep arguing this issue. Thanks for entertaining me. The fish certainly didn't.
GONE FISHING
This endless back-and-forth is why the original isn't released. Because it never ends with people who will never accept the birth certificate to be real.
How exactly would the original be produced in such a way to the public that everyone who needed "verification" of it would get that opportunity? Would it be passed around in a gigantic circle somewhere where all the thousands of conspiracy theorists from around the world could gather--say, the plains of Kansas? We're talking about authenticating an original. That means checking the paper, checking the enbossing, the seal, the lettering, all those fun things the conspirators have been poring over for months. And how would there be any consensus among these people? And who would be the official judge of its authenticity? You? Andy Martin? Alan Keyes? Larry Sinclair? You know, people who have a vested interest in proving that the certificate is fake? Yeah, that's a really objective way to analyze its "authenticity".
No, the real reason the conspirators clamor for "the original" isn't to verify it, but to make a whole fresh set of new claims about how fake it is. It will never end. And so the Obamas decided to stop feeding the beast. A copy has been placed on the Internet. Hawaii has verified the authenticity of the original. That's all you're getting. Sorry.
You've just helped this thread break the elusive 100 comments threshold.
I may have to drink to that tonight.
Now for real.
Don't suppose you ever heard my theory of election 2008?
I first wrote about this before the first primary, before Obama had declared he was running. Part 2 is obviously newer
I firmly believe that the behind the scenes bosses of the GOP wanted to lose in 2008.
They understood how truly FUBAR the situation was both in Iraq and the economy. The economy that only Hillary worried about in the debates by the way. Their goal was to lose, let a Democrat take the eventual blame for what they started then reclaim the WH in 2012.
But they had a problem. They had spent the previous 15 years defaming and dehumanizing the person who they thought was the natural choice to lead the Democrats one day. But she fought them with more guts than they had ever imagined and was set to take the democratic nomination. That they couldn't allow because they know she actually had the brains and work ethic to fix things and leave them out in the cold for many many years.
What to do about Hillary? Throw the backing of their wall street boys and their corporate owned media behind the new kid from Chicago. He was already running a great rock and roll the college campuses campaign, you know free concerts by popular bands that would bring in thousands to see him ;- ) Like I said he's running a great popularity contest but they, the big guys, need assurances that he won't fizzle so they pull out the media and wall street guns.
They win by losing, get their guy in the WH and sit back and wait for him to fail as programmed.
Civil Discourse - ERA - A Mother President - Women's Rights - Primary Reform
You've just helped this thread break the elusive 100 comments threshold.
I sincerely consider it an honor! Now where's my prize?
Don't suppose you ever heard my theory of election 2008?
I firmly believe that the behind the scenes bosses of the GOP wanted to lose in 2008.
I have heard this theory before, mainly on PUMA sites. It's an interesting and entertaining one!
Sure, the GOP may have wanted to lose in 2008, but that kind of ignores the fact that they were going to lose anyway. After eight years of Bush-Cheney, the Democrats could probably have nominated anyone on their slate save Dennis Kucinich, and they would have won. This theory that they planned all of this before even the primaries began is interesting. Do you really think the GOP assumed as far back as 2 years ago that a black guy named Barack Hussein Obama, just 4 years into his first Senate term, was a lock to win the general election? LOL!
Also, how does this theory explain Operation Chaos?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show#Operation_Chaos
I think it's always a bad idea to assign history to vast, paradoxical conspiracies like this one. I go with Occam's Razor: the explanation that offers the fewest assumptions is usually the correct one. Barack Obama won the nomination because he captured more money, slightly more followers, outorganized and outmanuveured the Clintons. Barack Obama became president because he was a highly skilled politician running against an extremely unpopular incumbent party. That explanation takes into account the obvious contemporary history of the past political contest, makes the fewest assumptions, and makes the most sense.
I also understand that your theory focuses more on the primary season than the general. But could the GOP really have predicted that Florida and Michigan Dems were going to hold primaries ahead of schedule? That the DNC would actually sanction those parties and cut the votes in half? That both Obama and Edwards would swamp Hillary in Iowa? That Hillary Clinton--fundraiser extraordinaire--would actually run out of money by the end of January 2008? That Obama could possibly have survived the Rev. Wright scandal, which the GOP themselves hammered him over? (during the primaries, not so much the general). That Obama could possibly have survived "Bittergate" (an episode the GOP did hammer him on throughout the primaries and general).
So many assumptions, too many variables.
Better than the man who has remained silent for four days while an American captain remains hostage to African pirates.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/world/africa/13pirates.html?hp
The captain of an American cargo ship held hostage by armed Somali pirates was rescued on Sunday by United States Navy personnel, who killed three of his captors, government and shipping officials said.
It would be refreshing to see you say something nice about President Obama's engineering of this rescue by the U.S. Navy. Maybe you'll even retract your criticism from a few hours ago of how he was handling this. I won't hold my breath, but I will hold out hope.
Obama "engineered" this? I'll bet the United States Navy would love to hear that.
Layla, what's your hangup on McCain's treatment of his wife? I realize it was pretty despicable but what bearing does that have on his experience and capabilities?
GONE FISHING
Obama "engineered" this? I'll bet the United States Navy would love to hear that.
You've just rendered your criticism of Obama's silence on this issue meaningless. If it's fair to criticize the commander-in-chief for how he's handling military operations, it's only fair to give him credit when those military operations are successful.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/12/official-obama-granted-use-of-appropriate-force-to-rescue-captain/
The successes, however, you couldn't care less about. For you, what was once an outrage ("Better than the man who has remained silent for four days while an American captain remains hostage to African pirates") is now just a big ole MOVING ON.
"Layla, what's your hangup on McCain's treatment of his wife? I realize it was pretty despicable but what bearing does that have on his experience and capabilities?"
You're the one who started this discussion on personal behavior with your comment that McCain was "certainly a heluva lot better man than Barack Obama." I wasn't interested in the personal discussion, but since you started it, I felt the need to answer it. McCain's personal history speaks for itself. So does Barack Obama's. Obama never treated his wife and family in the despicably selfish way McCain did (remember, they already had children together). Make of that what you will, but don't lecture me about what a "better man" John McCain is.
"President Obama granted two separate requests from the Defense Department to go forward with a military operation to rescue Captain Richard Phillips, an administration official tells CNN.
You claim Obama "engineered" this release. Then you post a quote saying the DOD did it, with Obama's permission.
I have got to get a copy of the new Obama dictionary. Maybe it will explain to me how saying "Yes" to a request from the military constitutes "engineering" a rescue. Heck, maybe it will even include a picture of Barack Obama poring over a strategy board "engineering" the rescue of Richard Phillips.
I am beginning to develop some sympathy for you, Layla. You're too bright to deny the realities of an Obama presidency for long. I hope when the scales fall from your eyes it's not as painful for you as it has been for those of us who could see the man for what he was all along.
But I resent this from you: "The successes, however, you couldn't care less about." Another flat statement of opinion with no qualification. You do this constantly...claim to know what is in our minds and then build your argument based on what you think. That we are as civil in our responses as we are is probably why you keep coming back here.
{sigh} And I'd provide links for several of those flat statements but since you wrote them to begin with I figure you can probably find them.
GONE FISHING
I love Hampy's Ignore button.
If a bot amuses or interest you, go ahead and engage him/her. If not, Ignore!
Partizane rules!
I've never used the "ignore" button. It's a point of pride here that all opinions are welcome, so long as they're stated civily. That doesn't mean I can't ignore a poster anyway. It's probably time to do that with Layla. Trying to carry on a discourse with someone who simply ignores any part of the conversation he can't refute is a waste of time.
GONE FISHING
I have got to get a copy of the new Obama dictionary. Maybe it will explain to me how saying "Yes" to a request from the military constitutes "engineering" a rescue.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/engineered
"engineered: to guide the course of"
The commander in chief guides the course of what his military commanders are allowed to. Had Obama not given instruction to his Naval commanders in the field, Richard Phillips would not be free today, and would very likely be dead. This is how it goes: military commanders develop a plan of action, the commander-in-chief makes the final decision to approve, amend, or deny the plan. The choice rests entirely with him or her. Therefore, when the results come in as resoundingly positive as they did yesterday, the commander-in-chief can certainly take much (though certainly not all, or even most) of the credit.
But I resent this from you: "The successes, however, you couldn't care less about." Another flat statement of opinion with no qualification.
Yesterday, you mocked Obama for not having done enough yet to free this man. Today, as a result of President Obama's decisions, he is free, but of course, you are unable to acknowledge the success. Therefore, it is a pretty easy thing to determine that you do not care about Obama's successes, only his failures. This isn't merely "opinion": you provide mountains of evidence for that sentiment every day here at Partizane. I do find it odd that you "resent" the fact that I point this out. I mean, isn't your loathing of President Obama a badge of honor for you?
Here's a link for you:
An Early Military Victory for Obama
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/12/AR2009041203002.html?hpid=topnews
Civility is about to go out the window here. I do not suffer liars lightly.
You wrote:
"Yesterday, you mocked Obama for not having done enough yet to free this man."
Another lie. Knock it off, Layla. I did not mock Obama for not doing enough to free this man. I suggested that a few words from him to the rest of the country would be preferable to his total silence.
My exact words: "Better than the man who has remained silent for four days while an American captain remains hostage to African pirates."
Given Barack Obama's total lack of any military experience whatsoever, he'd be the last man I'd credit with the ability to "engineer" the rescue of an American citizen.
GONE FISHING
"Civility is about to go out the window here. I do not suffer liars lightly."
"My exact words: "Better than the man who has remained silent for four days while an American captain remains hostage to African pirates."
Oh, let's all calm down, shall we? I did not lie. Though perhaps I misinterpreted what you originally said. I took your original statement to mean that you did not believe Barack Obama was doing enough to save Captain Phillips. I see now that you only meant you were discouraged that The One was not providing any of his noted magical oratory to lift our hearts. You can see how I might be confused to see such a sentiment come from you.
Given Barack Obama's total lack of any military experience whatsoever, he'd be the last man I'd credit with the ability to "engineer" the rescue of an American citizen.
And yet he did. And had Hillary Clinton executed the same rescue, her critics could have made the same pointless jab at her that you have at Obama: that somehow the rescue didn't count because of her "total lack of any military experience whatsoever". And who can forget how the right-wing savaged Bill Clinton over his "total lack of any military experience whatsoever" through both terms of his presidency. It's disheartening to see you take use of their smear tactics. Disheartening, but less and less surprising.
>I did not lie. Though perhaps I misinterpreted what you originally said.
Oh, my dog, thank you! I needed that laugh.
GONE FISHING
Oh, my dog, thank you! I needed that laugh.
I should have clarified that to "unintentionally misinterpreted." And it was unintentional. And I'd really appreciate it if you'd stop calling me a liar every 5 seconds. It's uncivil, and it's untrue.
McCain has openly admitted more times than I can remember, that cheating on his first wife was his greatest moral failure. While I can't condone infidelity, I was not privy to their private lives. If he was a total schmuck, I don't think she would be able to remain friends with him to this day. She said this in an interview, "He's a good guy. We are still friends. He is the best man for president." I really like Sen. McCain. He is not your average Republican. Did you know that he supports stem cell research and that he, unlike most Republicans, thinks that global warming is a real problem and should be addressed in a serious way? He got slammed for that one again and again. I heard him say it myself during a Senate hearing. The man railed against the torture at Abu Gharaib. Being someone who spent 5 plus years being tortured in ways we cannot imagine, he would never have allowed this miserable practice to go on as Bush did. I am pro-choice, so I can't agree with his stance on abortion, but then I don't agree with everything anyone subscribes to in either party.
Hillary was my ultimate choice for POTUS, and it is my hope that she runs again. If my choice was between Obama and McCain again, though, I would choose McCain again in a heartbeat.
If he was a total schmuck, I don't think she would be able to remain friends with him to this day.
Of course she doesn't trash him in public. As a condition of their divorce settlement, he pays all of her bills, and she leaves him alone.
Hillary was my ultimate choice for POTUS, and it is my hope that she runs again. If my choice was between Obama and McCain again, though, I would choose McCain again in a heartbeat.
If McCain is the choice you would make again, then your reasons for voting for Hillary had nothing to do with the policies Hillary has fought for her whole life, and everything to do with a deeply personal loathing of Barack Obama.
Layla, I find it so amazing that you seem to be privy to so much intimate knowledge about the private lives of everyone we discuss. Since you say that there was a agreement between Carol and John that she doesn’t, as you say “trash him in public” then you must have personal inside knowledge of what went on during the divorce mediation. I think that it’s fabulous that you have the knowledge of the universe at your fingertips.
“If McCain is the choice you would make again, then your reasons for voting for Hillary had nothing to do with the policies Hillary has fought for her whole life, and everything to do with a deeply personal loathing of Barack Obama.”
I have no idea how you came to this conclusion from what I said, but that is your problem, not mine. You shouldn’t make assumptions about me or anyone else. You know what happens when you assume, don’t you?
Layla, are you really interested in having a civil discussion, or do you just want to engage in a “pissing contest?” You seem to be incapable of interpreting something you read the way is written. I don’t have a problem saying exactly what I mean, so maybe you just have a problem understanding what I mean. You are twisting and spinning all our comments, and you should know that “obot spin” doesn’t fly here.
You shouldn’t make assumptions about me or anyone else.
I am not making any assumptions. I am taking the words that you publish here, and I am responding to them with a lot of thought, analysis, sincere opinion, and personal effort. I am sorry if you don't like the reactions the things you write create.
Layla, are you really interested in having a civil discussion, or do you just want to engage in a “pissing contest?” You seem to be incapable of interpreting something you read the way is written. I don’t have a problem saying exactly what I mean, so maybe you just have a problem understanding what I mean. You are twisting and spinning all our comments, and you should know that “obot spin” doesn’t fly here.
I would only hope that you would consider that "the way" something "is written" can be interpreted and viewed in many different ways. I understand exactly what you mean, but that understanding is through my frame of reference, not yours. You seem to want me to comment on your words the way you would, rather than the way I would.
P.S.: The word "Obot" is a non sequitur, and a shortcut around thinking. Try harder.
BINGO! Give that man a cheroot. For almost two years I supported Barack Obama. During that time I studied his history at some length. That was no mean feat, given all the sealed records...themselves a window into the man's compulsion for secrecy. I definitely arrived at at a "deeply personal loathing". That loathing is reinforced daily by Obama's actions and your "sic transit gloria Barry" mentality.
Nothing less than a deeply personal loathing could possibly have made me vote for a Republican.
Now, I'm going to stand back and wait for you to hurl the charge of "racism". Having acknowledged my loathing as "deeply personal" I expect that will follow next.
Oh, and that divorce settlement whereby you claim John McCain pays all of Carol's bills? You lied.
http://www.usvetdsp.com/mcaindiv.htm
"The Arizona senator agreed to give her their furnishings, 1,325 a month in alimony, $300 in child support He also agreed to pay an additional $500 monthely if she couldn't find a job."
Since the kids are long since grown, the most Carol McCain could collect under that settlement now would be $1,825 a month. I doubt that pays "all of her bills."
Did you think you could get away with making that claim and nobody would go looking for the truth?
GONE FISHING
Now, I'm going to stand back and wait for you to hurl the charge of "racism".
You're going to be waiting an awful long time. It ain't happenin'.
Oh, and that divorce settlement whereby you claim John McCain pays all of Carol's bills? You lied.
No I didn't. As you yourself point out, she's taking up to $1,825 a month from McCain. That's enough to pay rent and utilities. In other words: HER BILLS.
Also, to this word "lie" that you are so casual with. A lie is a provable and intentional untruth. And yet, you yourself wrote "I doubt that pays 'all of her bills.' " Not, "I know it doesn't", but "I doubt". So it's not a lie, because you don't know what Carol needs to pay her bills, how much they are, etc.
I haven't called you a liar, even though I dispute many of your premises, and often find the information you use to support them suspect or incomplete. I'd appreciate it if you would return the same kindness. You often speak of the civility of Partizane. Calling someone a "liar" when you simply disagree with them doesn't meet that standard.
Granted, the younger John McCain, I never would've even considered for one second as a potential POTUS. He made a big mistake there; the way he divorced her was awful, IMO.
Cindy McCain, though, isn't easy to live with from what she has said; she's had an addiction to prescription painkillers, has had at least one and possibly two strokes, and certainly has aged faster than most 54-year-old heiresses. She also seems to have learned from her mistakes, though, and does seem to have a rich and interesting personal history -- someone who lives her values and has come out the better thereby.
None of us are perfect, Layla. I wish we all were, but I suppose that's one of the reasons we're all here -- to learn by our mistakes and hopefully improve upon them.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone in the PUMA community say that Obama is anything less than a devoted husband and family man; my own late husband met Obama and liked him (in 2004), but felt Obama would've been POTUS in 2012, or 2016 -- not this early.
I, personally, believe that Obama needed more time on the national scene and that his inexperience is showing when he puts someone like Geithner into a responsible post. (I do think Obama's done a few things right. Just not enough of 'em. And I hate the Wall Street bailouts with a passion.)
There's no excuse for this, DNC. You screwed the pooch; time to pay the piper.
I didn't. Neither did I vote for Obama.
What I did is, I evaluated the candidates and picked the best one for me. Which was the Green Party candidate (and former Dem) Cynthia McKinney; she, too, is flawed, but she had the right values, smarts, and also had the best shot of actually changing things for the better had she attained the office.
That anyone in the Obama Administration would dare call _me_ of all people a "domestic terrorist" because I voted third party is outright insane. (Not just asinine. Insane.)
There's no excuse for this, DNC. You screwed the pooch; time to pay the piper.
"And our country would be screwed for at least a generation."
Hey Layla, so that couldn't possibly happen under Obama, huh? LMAO.....
Hey Layla, so that couldn't possibly happen under Obama, huh?
All I'm saying is, I vote for Democrats. You guys vote for Republicans. For some reason, that's a really touchy fact to bring up here.
Layla, I am an Independent. I used to be a Democrat, but switched my affiliation about two years ago. I now vote for the person, not the party, but still vote for Democrats. You don't have any idea who I voted for, but I will tell you that, yes, I did vote for McCain. He was the better choice for this country between the two of them. Hillary was my choice for POTUS, but she got the shaft from the DNC. Obama is wrong for this country. He is ill prepared for what he will be facing as POTUS. It is becoming painfully obvious that he is a backslider when it comes to keeping all those promises he made. Oh yes, he lifted the ban on stem cell research but didn't release federal funding for it. What was the point then? He should have already reversed the "conscience" rule, but he is dragging his feet in doing it, and I doubt he change it in a way that is any real benefit to women. How much longer are we going to be in Iraq? I just read that he isn't going to be able to keep to that timetable he promised. I know these things can't be making you happy either.
Being President means making tough decisions that take courage and conviction. You can't worry about how you look in the polls or whether everyone loves you or not. Being President means doing what is good for the people of instead of what benefits you and your cronies. You are an Obama supporter, so I know I will not change your mind, but you will not change mine either. As someone who regularly posts here and comments here on Partizane, I still welcome your comments. This site is one of the few that doesn't ban those with dissenting opinions. Everyone can contribute to the larger discussion, no matter their personal beliefs.
Being President means making tough decisions that take courage and conviction. You can't worry about how you look in the polls or whether everyone loves you or not. Being President means doing what is good for the people of instead of what benefits you and your cronies.
You and I don't disagree on that.
As someone who regularly posts here and comments here on Partizane, I still welcome your comments. This site is one of the few that doesn't ban those with dissenting opinions. Everyone can contribute to the larger discussion, no matter their personal beliefs.
I sincerely appreciate that.
and understand that protest votes do not equal life long love of the gop
Civil Discourse - ERA - A Mother President - Women's Rights - Primary Reform
I second that!
Because some of us protest-voted for McCain in 2008, that means we're all evil Republicans whose arguments, no matter how painfully obviously correct and logical, can be totally dismissed. Decades of Democratic voting are completely erased by this one vote according to you.
Suuuuuurrrrrrreeeeee.
Well I'll tell you something, Layla. Your arguments are weaker than dishwater. And that means I am totally dismissing you, no matter who you voted for.
Because some of us protest-voted for McCain in 2008, that means we're all evil Republicans whose arguments, no matter how painfully obviously correct and logical, can be totally dismissed. Decades of Democratic voting are completely erased by this one vote according to you.
You're the ones who have continuously bragged about how dead and gone the Democratic Party is to you. Excuse me for taking you at your word.
You're also the ones who have conspicuously silent regarding:
--Obama signing Ledbetter
--Obama ending the global gag rule
--Obama including a $600 billion+ down payment for universal health care in this year's budget
--Obama ending the USA's torture program
--Obama closing the external CIA prisons
--Obama's marvelous choice of Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, and her command push for EFCA
--Obama marvelous choice of Dawn Johnsen to run the Office of Legal Counsel
--Obama's marvelous choice of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to run HHS
And it's not even been three months.
If you really are (onetime) lifelong Democrats, but can't support this president, can't you at least support progressive policies when you see them? Paul Krugman seems to personally loathe Obama, yet even he makes a point to always praise the progressive moves the administration makes. As he wrote of Obama's budget:
"Fears that Mr. Obama would sacrifice progressive priorities in his budget plans, and satisfy himself with fiddling around the edges of the tax system, have now been banished." "These new priorities are laid out in a document whose clarity and plausibility seem almost incredible to those of us who grew accustomed to reading Bush-era budgets, which insulted our intelligence on every page. This is budgeting we can believe in."
I think he shows a good example of how to play loyal opposition.
If I had all day I'd post links refuting everything on your list, but I've got to go fishing instead. For the time being, I'll start with the first item. Here's the LIST of diaries here on Ledbetter.
http://www.partizane.com/search/node/ledbetter
Ledbetter was covered well here, including the fact that Paycheck Fairness was NOT part of it.
Once more we're looking at one of your posts that's long on opinion and totally lacking in any supporting information.
But you know what? I'm glad to see you back here anyway. I missed you.
GONE FISHING
Thanks for proving me wrong about Partizane's coverage of Ledbetter. I got that one wrong.
Now what about the rest of my list?
Good to see you again, too, Creeper. Enjoy your day out fishing!
You said: "He campaigned for the nomination, all the while knowing that this affair was a ticking time bomb that was guaranteed--GUARANTEED--to explode the moment he got the nomination."
It's true, the Repubs would have been all over it. However, it would never have gone that far, because the Dems knew about it during the campaign. The Obama campaign used him and would have easily thrown Edwards to the wolves if he had been viewed as a serious threat.
Anyone who thinks David Axelrod would have allowed him to win the nomination has no idea how down and dirty Illinois politics can become. The Ryan/Obama matchup for Obama's Senate run is an example of what would have happened.
Ryan was a bright young Harvard lawyer, who had taught in a Chicago school, because (the story went) he wanted to payback society for all he had been given. Ryan was leading in the polls, until his sealed divorce records were mysteriosly released to the public by Chicago papers. (The wife had revealed in court proceedings that he wanted kinky sex.) The papers gave it front page status, and Ryan was forced to withdraw. Thus, the Keyes/ Obama matchup. The rest is history.
Layla, I am an Independent; I have issues with both parties.
It's true, the Repubs would have been all over it. However, it would never have gone that far, because the Dems knew about it during the campaign. The Obama campaign used him and would have easily thrown Edwards to the wolves if he had been viewed as a serious threat.
You say "The Obama campaign used him". I don't recall Barack Obama forcing John Edwards into the race. I also don't recall the Obama campaign forcing the National Enquirer to stake out Rielle Hunter's hotel room. All of those events happened organically, independent of the Obamas.
I think it's fair to say that Edwards ended up helping Obama in the early debates simply because Hillary was the frontrunner, and so everyone needed to knock her out to have a shot at winning. But that's not "ganging up", that's just politics. At that level, it's a tough, tough game. No one understands that better than Hillary Clinton, believe me.
Anyone who thinks David Axelrod would have allowed him to win the nomination has no idea how down and dirty Illinois politics can become.
I actually know David Axelrod personally. It's funny how much the PUMAsphere has built him up as this Rove-like bogeyman. He's quite different than you think. We're lucky to have him in the Oval Office debates, a deeply progressive voice countering plutocrats like Geithner and Summers.
Ryan was a bright young Harvard lawyer, who had taught in a Chicago school, because (the story went) he wanted to payback society for all he had been given. Ryan was leading in the polls, until his sealed divorce records were mysteriosly released to the public by Chicago papers. (The wife had revealed in court proceedings that he wanted kinky sex.) The papers gave it front page status, and Ryan was forced to withdraw. Thus, the Keyes/ Obama matchup. The rest is history.
Yes, I know all about the Ryan story. Show me any evidence whatsoever that Axelrod had something to do with those papers going unsealed. I'll wait.
"Show me any evidence whatsoever that Axelrod had something to do with those papers going unsealed."
Are you kidding????
Are you kidding????
Like I said, show me the evidence.
it's what the dkos bots always used.
People as good as Axelrod do not leave evidence. Asking us to come up with any is crap.
Civil Discourse - ERA - A Mother President - Women's Rights - Primary Reform
it's what the dkos bots always used.
People as good as Axelrod do not leave evidence. Asking us to come up with any is crap.
I'm really having a hard time believing my eyes. Just imagine, Hamp, if you read this kind of statement on a pro-Obama site, how you'd feel, and what kind of blistering response you'd provide to such a shockingly non-existent standard of proof.
So much for that whole "innocent until proven guilty" idea, huh? Let's just go with wholly unsubstantiated, emotionally-pleasing assertions, and call it a day.
This also undermines the whole point of blaming Axelrod for the Ryan scandal. If nothing can be proved, then why should anyone believe Axelrod had anything to do with it? It's a wash. You might as well say there is no such thing as the Truth.
Hey, I heard that Sarah Palin isn't really Trig's mother. Yeah, I read it on the INTERNET, so I know it's true. What...you want proof before you go believing something crazy-sounding like that? Gosh, that's what people like you "always use". Asking me to "come up with any is crap".
and don't put word in my mouth.
I consider Axelrod a brilliant practitioner of his art and probably the best student of Karl Rove.
He took the art of framing to new levels and quite frankly as a marketer I applaud him for it.
Civil Discourse - ERA - A Mother President - Women's Rights - Primary Reform
"and don't put word in my mouth."
I didn't put any words in your mouth. I used your very own words to make my point. You said asking someone to produce evidence to support their assertions is "crap". I pointed out how self-rationalizing and dangerously ambiguous such a standard is. The least you could say is "I see your point. Maybe the offering of evidence is actually kind of important."
We weren't "conspicuously silent" about Obama signing Ledbetter. This is what I posted that day and many people posted positive comments in response.
Maybe, just maybe, you don't really know all there is to us.
Maybe, just maybe, we don't really know all there is to you.
That's terrific. I'm glad I was proven wrong on that point. Thanks for digging that up and pointing that out to me.
Still waiting for the Axelrod evidence...
is in the vault with Obama's original birth certificate and his Occidental College records. The University of Illinois records (as well as those explaining why Michelle Obama surrendered her law license) are probably with them.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88746
GONE FISHING
That's an entertaining link to your favorite conspiracy theory. Now where's the Axelrod evidence?
Keep calling it "conspiracy theory".
In the meantime, explain to me why Barack Obama got a pass on the same document that was demanded from John McCain.
McCain showed us his. Maybe Barry doesn't have one.
I'm serving you fair warning...I'm going to keep whining about that ORIGINAL Certificate of Birth until Barack Obama produces it. You can call it "conspiracy theory" from now till breakfast. Until I see that BC, I'll keep asking for it.
GONE FISHING
I'm serving you fair warning...I'm going to keep whining about that ORIGINAL Certificate of Birth until Barack Obama produces it. You can call it "conspiracy theory" from now till breakfast. Until I see that BC, I'll keep asking for it.
My only advice to you is this, creeper. Even though I disagree with most of them, you have many substantive, policy-oriented disagreements with the Obama administration, The COLB isn't one of them. The more you push the COLB along with your other policy disagreements, the more that conspiracy theory colors all of the complaints with the same weirdo, aluminum--foil-hat, fact-free brush. People will tune out, because the whole story is completely insane.
You'll get a lot more mileage pushing stories that the average American can find remotely plausible. That's free advice for you.
Layla, since you're slamming creeper because she thinks that Obama should have had to actually produce a Certificate of Live Birth for everyone to see, I would like to weigh in...
I turned 50 about two weeks ago. I have in my possession the original birth certificate that was given to my mother before she left the hospital with me way back in 1959. During my 50 years on this Earth, I have had to produce said birth certificate quite often for various reasons. If you live in this country you will be expected to produce this document at some point in your life. I have never met anyone that had a problem doing this. If you lose your birth certificate you can obtain a copy quite easily. If Obama has a valid COLB that identifies him as a natural born citizen of this country, than what is the problem producing it for the public to see and extinguish all the "conspiracy theories" as you call them? I think anyone running for President should have to do this without question, period. The fact that there is so much secrecy about this and that he absolutely refuses to produce it, is what is fueling the fire. Somebody saying one exists isn't the same as everyone actually seeing that it exists. You yourself are constantly asking for "proof" or "evidence" from everyone here to prove their points, so it looks like you would be the first one to demand that Obama should have had to provide us with his COLB.
I have in my possession the original birth certificate that was given to my mother before she left the hospital with me way back in 1959. During my 50 years on this Earth, I have had to produce said birth certificate quite often for various reasons. If you live in this country you will be expected to produce this document at some point in your life.
Yes, I have the same hospital-issued birth certificate the state of KY provided me when I was born some 31 yrs ago. I took it to the NY State DMV several yrs ago (after I moved here) to get my license renewed. They told me it was worthless, other than for sentimental value. All that they wanted to see was a state-issued birth certificate, not a hospital-issued certificate. I ordered one off the internet from the government of the commonwealth of KY.
My point is only that every state has its own standards for identification validation, so your personal experience, or mine, really has no bearing on President Obama's situation.
If Obama has a valid COLB that identifies him as a natural born citizen of this country, than what is the problem producing it for the public to see and extinguish all the "conspiracy theories" as you call them?
But he has. It just hasn't been accepted by those who are never going to accept it. Read the following links if you're actually interested in the truth about the birth certificate nonsense.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
I must say that arrogance is not a trait that is usually exhibited by a woman, but I guess you learn something new everyday. This nonsense you are spouting about your birth certificate is totally irrelevant, and you are hedging the real issue here. Some photoshopped crap, that a Obama supporting website, like Dkos puts up, is worthless and is no proof whatsoever. Factcheck.org is part of the Annenberg Foundation. Enough said. Snopes.com....you have got to be kidding. These are your "credible" sources for Obama's COLB? You didn't answer my question. Do you not think that a man that is running for the highes office of this country should have to prove that he is a natural born citizen of this country? McCain provided his along with hundreds of pages of medical records. Obama provided no COLB and one page from a recent physical, which is also worthless. You can pay a doctor in a one time visit to say just about anything. The Constitution requires that the President be a natural born citizen, and it is just the prinicple of the thing. You tell me when that official copy of that COLB was sent from the State of Hawaii and presented as proof?
I must say that arrogance is not a trait that is usually exhibited by a woman, but I guess you learn something new everyday.
I'll ignore your example and refrain from the name-calling. I will add that my experience has been different than yours. I've known many arrogant women!
You didn't answer my question.
Actually, yes, I already did. But you're not going to take yes for an answer, are you?
It is pointless and counterproductive to resort to name calling, so I never do it. Arrogance is a trait, not a name and it isn't common to women, no matter you may say. Can you tell me why you always start your reply with the first line of the comment you are replying to? Is this some sort of secret tactic? Anyway, it's kind of annoying. No, you haven't answered my question, and it is obvious that you don't have a credible answer, so I won't bother to ask anymore. Perhaps you are really not interested in knowing the truth yourself. Anyway, it's been a blast, but it's time to go. Ciao!
It is pointless and counterproductive to resort to name calling, so I never do it. Arrogance is a trait, not a name and it isn't common to women, no matter you may say.
Oh, I see. I must have misunderstood. When you wrote the following:
I must say that arrogance is not a trait that is usually exhibited by a woman, but I guess you learn something new everyday
I concluded that by describing arrogance as one of my traits, you were calling me arrogant. Goodness knows how I arrived at that one.
Can you tell me why you always start your reply with the first line of the comment you are replying to? Is this some sort of secret tactic? Anyway, it's kind of annoying.
You mean why do I quote back what people have written so that they know specifically what I'm replying to? I consider it helpful to my fellow commenters. So often people reply to each other, only it's hard to tell or remember what they're replying to without scrolling up and up endlessly to find the original statement. Sorry it's annoying to you. I don't think I'm going to change my style, however.
You hung around a long time, Layla, just so you could have the last word, didn't you? I guess that is a bot tactic, though. I found out that the breakdown of everyone's comment into quotes when you reply is essentially something the bots did back during the campaign. Where you one of the paid bots back then, by the way? Everyone uses a line or two from a comment sometimes, but not every time. I think everyone can figure out what you are referring to without it, but have at it, if it helps you to keep up with your thoughts.
I have read some read countless comments and replies from Obama supporters at other sites that used really vile language and called people filthy names. It's totally unnecessary and juvenile. Since you seem to think that arrogance is an offensive name, then I will apologize to you. I don't engage in that sort of thing, but if it offended you, I will retract it. Keep in mind, though, that you are being treated very well here, and I'm sure know that, even if you might not want to admit it. We are all adults here, have a good command of the English language and have no need of resorting to the nasty or filthy language used by Obama supporters at many sites. We have all been subjected to this kind of terrible treatment at other sites. We were lucky to find a wonderful home here at Partizane.
"You hung around a long time, Layla, just so you could have the last word, didn't you? I guess that is a bot tactic, though."
It's kind of odd that you would say that, since there you are, replying to my "last word".
I don't engage in that sort of thing, but if it offended you, I will retract it.
I wasn't offended. I was just pointing it out. But thanks for your consideration, anyway.
"We are all adults here, have a good command of the English language and have no need of resorting to the nasty or filthy language used by Obama supporters at many sites. We have all been subjected to this kind of terrible treatment at other sites. We were lucky to find a wonderful home here at Partizane. "
I agree about Partizane. I would also like to add that I have kept my comments as free of any nasty or filthy language as your own.
was the way he and Obama teamed up to deny Hillary the nomination.
I believe that once Edwards realized he couldn't win because his affair was going to come to light, he figured he would hook his wagon to Obama in hopes of becoming rehabilitated eventually. (Reportedly he wanted AG or VP.) Remember that both he and Obama voluntarily removed themselves from the Michigan ballot in order to invalidate that election and make it possible for Hillary's delegates and votes to be arbitrarily stolen and awarded to Obama on 5/31/08.
Oh, and in 2006, the DNC re-allocated delegates, heavily weighting them to favor caucuses (which are completely un-representative of the general election and always will be) for the first time ever. That is how (including the FL and MI fraud, of course) Obama kept ending up even with Hillary in delegates despite her winning almost every large blue state primary.
The game was rigged a long time ago, by the National Party - I would say, since prior to 2004, when they asked the brand-new Senator from Illinois to give the Convention speech. Why in the world would they do that? Does it make any sense at all, if you think about it? No one knew who Barack Obama was. He had literally done NOTHING as a part-time State Senator. Emil Jones had to pad Obama's resume at the end of his term, adding his name to other Senators' bills and accomplishments. He voted "present" more than he took a stand on anything. His district was worse off than when he arrived. And let's not forget his deep involvement with criminals such as Tony Rezko, William Ayers, Bernardine Dorhn, and Rod Blagojevich. In short, he veered from "unremarkable" to "machine politician" to "a total failure." And yet, he was pushed and promoted by the Democratic Party as their new Messiah.
John Edwards is a part and parcel of this fraud - in fact, one of the key parts, IMHO. I was a supporter at one point, but now I have nothing but contempt for the man as a politician and as a human being.
With Edwards, it is always about him; he is the center of his universe. For that reason, he can be viewed as the poster boy for what is wrong with American politics, namely our politicians. They promise to serve, but they serve themselves.
I think the people who shoved Barack Obama down the nation's collective throat knew exactly who he was...a man with no record who would do their bidding without reservations; a man who could be bought and paid for with unlimited campaign contributions, a private basketball court, a 747 and his own personal chef.
See: Bailouts, Executive Bonuses, FISA
My favorite teacher in high school was my English teacher. Mr. Hlubek had been teaching for longer than anyone could count and he didn't really teach just English. He taught everything...from English to math to history to Latin. One of the phrases he used often in referring to us, his students, was the Latin "tabula rasa"..."blank slate." Baback Obama is a tabula rasa...a blank slate on which his supporters compose their own version of him. He is all things to all people. That is his greatest attribute.
GONE FISHING
vote for Obama because of people like you and the fact that I think he's a sleazebag and too much like Bush. The whole Chicago operation has taken over the party.
You said: "The whole Chicago operation has taken over the party."
Yes, it has, and politicians like Edwards made it happen.
What's with the "people like you" reference? BJ didn't deserve that. Explain yourself, please.
GONE FISHING
I think s/he was referring to Layla. Layla is the one hardcore Obama supporter here.
on the other hand, if s/he was talking to me, it is a hoot, since we know where I am on Obama and Chicago politics. ( Then Ga#6 would be a good example of what happens when people post and run.)
It appeared that Ga6th comment was to the original post.
Sorry, Ga6th. My mistake.
GONE FISHING