We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Wednesday, October 9. 2013
He uses the purchase of a house as the basis of negotiation, and compares the current shutdown to a potential buyer threatening to burn down the house being negotiated. This is not only extreme, but wrong. Clearly, he's never negotiated the purchase of a home.
A better comparison is to picture the potential buyer saying "I don't like the price you're asking, because there is an oil tank buried in the back and it may start seeping and destroying the ground soon. I would prefer that you have that tank removed. In the meantime, I'm willing to buy the house at this significantly reduced price." At that point, Harry Reid (the seller) replies, "No you don't have the right to ask to remove that tank and the alternative offer you've made is not under consideration. I choose to no longer speak with you. Come back when you're realistic with a 'clean offer' on the house and just forget about getting rid of that tank. I've grown to love that tank, and you should too. I'd rather see the whole thing fall apart than speak with you."
President Obama Explains the Shutdown
Yesterday, eight days into the Republican government shutdown, President Obama spoke from the White House about the need for Republicans in Congress to stop threatening another recession just to sabotage Obamacare, stop demanding ransom just for doing their jobs, and just vote to reopen the government. He talked about the toll this shutdown is already taking on our country and the economy, and warned against the dire consequences of a default if Congress doesn’t act to prevent an economic shutdown.
Keeping the government running and paying the nation’s bills aren’t bargaining chips or a matter of negotiation – they’re a fundamental part of Congress’s job. Here’s how the President put it yesterday:
As the President has made clear -- and the press has reported -- the government could be reopened, today, with the votes of reasonable Republicans and Democrats if Tea Party Republicans would allow a simple yes-or-no vote on a Senate-passed compromise bill to fund the United States government. It’s time for Congress to just vote and end this government shutdown now.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Consider the essence of Community Organizing; You stir up (agitate) a bunch of people to think that some big (deep pocketed) organization or business (like a bank or large corporation) is oppressing them, and that the large business owes them something. It is really a form of extortion; bullying and intimidation taken to an art form. If the large business does not comply with the "demands," the organized group makes all kinds of fuss, and stomps around making ugly gestures and comments until the business (or government group) gives in just to stop the drain on their goodwill and finances (for legal defense and mitigating PR.) Whether the business was actually doing the accused oppression is immaterial, it is the emotional perception of the self-designated "oppressed group" that counts. People are rewarded for making a fuss. Pavlov tells us that we will get more of the behaviors we reward.
This is what Mr. O learned, knows, and practices. It is what got him where he is. And it is the only path he can follow that keeps the adulation of the base intact. And we know that he can't do without the adulation.
Sorry to be the spelling police, but it's "Mr. 0" not "Mr.O"
If you're alluding to the concept of Mr. 0 as "zero," I accept your point, though I think his performance has been less than zero, more detrimental to the nation than beneficial. Consider Mr. "O" a gentle way of saying he is just an occupant, not a leader.
It is Congress's job to decide which "bills"--actually expenses in running the government--it chooses to authorize the Executive branch to pay. At any time, and by any means, Congress can decide NOT to authorize the expenditure of funds. It can do so by an affirmative vote or it can decide not to pay the government's "bills" by not taking a vote. That's the way things work. If the President thinks Congress is delinquent in its responsibilities, he can take the matter to the Supreme Court and the Court can decide the case on 14th A grounds (which is not to say that he can unilaterally spend money Congress has not approved by merely asserting the XIVth A without going to court).
Here's a better analogy:
"It's like when you look at your credit card statement and discover your irresponsible adult son, Jr., has run up another $5,000 on your credit card, all the while staying in your home and getting free room and board. When you tell him, I am not going to pay your credit card bills any more and you have to get a job and pay the rent, he doesn't have the right to say he's going to burn your house down and if you won't let him charge as much as he wants on the card, kill you and his mother."
He really is a community organizer with absolutely no business negotiation skills... and unfortunately it appears his ego prevents more savvy operatives from intervening. Who but a community organizer expects the other side to cave on the promise of a good negotiation after all the cards are played?
Here's the solution. Give them one week to agree on something, or they all get fired.
How about: "give them one week to agree on something or Obummer gets fired"?
How about we just fire the whole lot of them and start over?
Clearly, he's never negotiated the purchase of a home.
Clearly he's never done anything worth any kind of merit at all - including his time as a State Senator, US Senator and President.
He has no background in anything. The "Smartest President EVAH!!" doesn't even have an elementary grasp of labor history or even the history of the country he leads. He's never practiced law in which one elementary legal skill is negotiation. He has a total and complete misunderstanding of the role of President and the role of Congress. What makes this worse, is that the people he has surrounding him have the same complete lack of understanding outside their own sphere of influence.
Let's all give thanks that finally, finally he has been marginalized and the American citizenry is waking up to the fact that we're being "led" by a moron.
Since Obama has never faced any meaningful consequences for being deceitful, I'm not expecting him to stop being deceitful anytime soon.
The cabal behind President LastNameUnknown was clever, deceitful, and ruthless enough to steal two Presidential elections. They succeeded with the full support and complicity of corporate media and with the criminal manipulation of the election system by government employees in the DOJ, IRS, FEC, SEIU, and in many other agencies and taxpayer funded groups (acorn). America has been operating outside The Constitution, and this must be set aright, with lots of people going to prison. Personally, I'd prefer they face the fate of traitors before a dangling rope, or a firing squad, or a guillotine, or, oh hell, just turn 'em over to me and I'll think of something appropriate.
OK Lenin, you got it. Just kidding, I think.
It's a sop to our pride and security to believe that the last two elections were stolen. While hardly models of the democratic ideal, nevertheless, more millions of "voters" went to the polls to cast a ballot (or two or three...now stop that!) for a two-thirds term US Senator with no other measurable experience.
Did it occur to you that Barak-Barry-Hussein-Soetoeo-Obama is nothing more than a diversion? It's the proven ability to elect a unknown, illegitimate, coffee colored, light-weight as the President of the United States that's the issue. It proves a depth and fineness of control that will continue to win over any and all conservative and centrist politicians in future elections. And the longer their control of media and the schools continues, the worse it will get.
Don't worry about WhatshisName, worry about the guy in the voting booth next to you. Thanks to him, you and I are more likely to get locked up than someone from Acorn.
HA! All true.
When Obama was elected, I pointed out to my Democratic friends, with great joy, that clearly the previous 2 elections could not have been rigged. If Obama can win, then how can those have been rigged?
OH the HUE and CRY! He's so wonderful, people LOVE him, there was no contest, the Republicans TRIED to fix it but he's just THAT GOOD.
Yet, 4 years later, in a much more closely contested election, it still couldn't be 'fixed' by Republicans.
It's odd that anyone thinks these things are 'fixed'.
It's true the media plumps for Democrats automatically. There are no questions. And that gives Democrats a 5-8 point advantage in each election. But honestly, the fact Republicans get elected anywhere shows how tenuous the grasp of the media is.
There are no assured endings. Karl Rove tried to create that, and David Axelrod is doing the same. People are too smart to let that happen.
But by the same token, as you point out, people are too stupid to think clearly about what they are always voting for. Let's call it a wash and say if you have better marketing, you're going to win.
We see this every day. Ever been involved in a group where you have to choose a leader? Who gets chosen? The most intelligent or the most qualified? No. The most POPULAR.
Elections are nothing more than "hey, that guy is alright. I want to have a beer with him. He'll treat me right, maybe even pick up the tab" types of events. Obama is picking up a hefty tab. But payback is a bitch. A real mother. His payback? Wow, it's gonna be a doozy.
It's taken Clinton quite a bit of time for people to forget his transgressions, but many people have. His ratings are higher now than when he was president. Carter, too (though lately he's been dropping). Nixon resurrected himself.
But Obama is going to have some rough sledding by the time he's done. Just my thoughts....I could be wrong. Don't think I am.
The elections are absolutely "fixed". It only takes 4 or 5 key states and in those states it only takes 2 or 3 key counties or in some cases key cities. It is actually easy to do but requires a few things to make it possible: 1. No ID required. 2. Vote by mail. 3. Extended voting.
I have a liberal friend who volunteered for the Democrat party in a key city. He was their three days before the election to learn the routes from pickup points to polling places. On election day he would meet a "handler" who had 6-10 homeless people in tow. Once in the van the handler would direct him to one of the polling places and hand each bum a card with the name to be used and a short list of people to vote for. Once that vote was done the handler would direct him to the next polling place and give each of the bums a new card with a new name to use to vote. This would go one for about 4-5 voting places and then back to the dropoff site. Then the driver would drive to the next pickup place and do it all over again. He also told me his first orientation meeting involved about 50 drivers who were presumably all doing the same thing on election day. This is how elections are stolen.
If you believe this is meaningful, then fine. We all have 'friends' who did/saw something. I saw a video of someone who claims to have driven from Wisconsin to vote in Ohio. Did they for sure? No idea, not even really interested.
Why? Because how they are 'fixed' really depends on which party you belong to and what you deem acceptable. The poll hawks you describe are akin to the 'fixed' voting booths from Diebold in 2004. Which is more meaningful? I'd say the amount of rigging that goes on is substantial on both sides, to the point of not being able to tell in any meaningful way whether or not this is useful.
In a heavily Democratic region, rigging is superfluous. What is more interesting is whether a county, such as Cuyahoga in Ohio, had more voters than those registered, as some suggest happened. However, the reports (available online) clearly say this did not occur. In fact, what's interesting is that while Cuyahoga was the difference maker in Ohio for Obama, his vote differential fell significantly to the prior election. Were they just not as good 4 years later at getting fake voters to the polls?
Even more interesting is that the vote totals for Cuyahoga are consistent with the previous (2004) election. Yet this is one county which was regularly claimed to be 'fixed' by the Democratic Party.
I look at it like this. A good (very good) friend of mine works at Belmont with the horse trainers. When I asked him if Woody Stephens 'fixed' races, he chuckled. "Well, yeah, he goes in with the black bag every now and then." I'll be honest, I made money when he told me if Woody was headed in - I'd head over to OTB and place my bet. But not all these 'fixed' races resulted in winnings for me. In fact, one which I bet heavily on was a loss that I still wish I'd been more careful about.
Point is, during our discussion about fixing races, I said to him "as long as you don't know how the races is being fixed, the betting structure remains unchanged - you don't know who it's being fixed in favor of, and you don't know which trainer is better at fixing the race to give his horse the edge." He agreed.
The same holds true in elections.
Consider the epic Seabiscuit race against War Admiral. If you know anything about horses, you know the race was rigged (albeit in very small ways) to favor the underdog Seabiscuit. The trainer stole the starting bell and replaced it with one Seabiscuit was familiar with. He walked the track constantly, so he could pick the very best route. He got into the head of War Admiral and realized the horse, having never been tested, could potentially break if pushed to its limits if it was forced to come from behind. All these things worked.
War Admiral's trainer was so profoundly convinced of his horse's superiority he didn't do the kind of work Seabiscuit's did to win.
Was anything Seabiscuit did illegal? Maybe the bell, but that's questionable. But the point is had War Admiral's team done similar work, perhaps the outcome of that particular race would have been different.
Are the elections "fixed"? Again - it all depends on what you consider to be "fixing" and what's important to you.
Me? I think democracy is, in essence, a sham. The two-party system is designed to route people into narrow frames of thinking so they only choose between two very similar candidates who may have more personality differences than actual differences in belief. It's an abbatoir of thought and action, by creating misdirection and fear.
A third party candidate can be more legit than the two who the media says are important. But he will never see the light of day in any meaningful way. So yeah, the elections are fixed, but not the way you think and not in a particular way to yield a predetermined outcome perfectly each and every time - except if you want the outcome to be a Democrat or Republican.
I do understand your point. I know this man and I believe him. He was actually kind of confessing to me and was ashamed for having participated. He did not (would not) volunteer to help in the 2012 election because this nasty business turned him off.
I don't know if the Republicans have any organized election cheating, I doubt it. Some local Republicans might cheat in local elections but for the most part they simply don't have the same kind of support groups the Democrats have to accomplish it. Maybe they need a conservative ACORN or unions to do their dirty work for them.
Where I grew up (Boston) stealing elections was the norm and it was 100% the Democrats doing it. I do think it is naive to not know and understand the extent that the Democrats are cheating. It is far more then simply working harder. I do consider voting in the name of dead people or people who have choosen not to register is, well, dishonest and yeah, that's "fixing" an election.