Ugh. Jon Stewart does this virtually every night with FOX news. Both parties have talking points. They are usually vapid and meaningless. And they will continue to work, as long as we continue to let them. Sure ... this is ridiculous. But the Republicans do just the same, regularly. And, at least 'pivot' is a relatively neutral word ...
It's not his silly use of the word ("lockbox") that is troubling, it's the obvious failure of this president to accomplish anything as evidenced, in this case, by his repeated, Ross-like pivots.
You know how Ross dealt with it? He cut the couch in half and tried to return it to the store. You know what Ross' result was? I think he got $5 in store credit.
I don't believe the President really can have any direct effect on the economy, at least in a positive way. At best he's a cheerleader. But ... Obama DID accomplish something: he pushed through a healthcare plan that makes things WORSE. The thing I hate most are talking points, and both sides use them ... they make me feel like they think I'm stupid, So, yeah, this is a bad case ... but it's both sides. I vote for presidents primarily for foreign policy and honesty, my number one criteria ... and I think we can probably agree that with the exception of getting Bin Laden ... he is an almost complete failure in both areas.
Darren, define accomplishments? I hate to say it but he is now very accomplished.
Remember I’ve mentioned in many post on RotLC prior to November 2008 anyone who was evaluating B Hussein Obama had to ask, “What had this man done?” and the answer would be not much. In his ten years in the Illinois Senate he authored no major legislation, was a leader on no significant movement, he never held a real job period, much less a leadership/management position.
Fast forward to November 2012. Has he accomplished things, yes, unquestionably? He has tripled the yearly budge deficit, started the country on the road to a single payer health system, nationalized major parts of the auto, energy, banking and housing industries. Thanks to B Hussein Obama we are in overdrive to bankruptcy and in retreat all over the world. He is devastating our military. He has blatantly violated the Constitution without consequence. Hate to say it, those are significant accomplishment. Not necessarily good, but significant.
I can’t remember who said it first, the fact Obama exist is not the real problem. The fact the American people elected, then reelected him is the real disaster.
The difference being that Jon Stewart does this virtually every night with FOX News and President Obama does it virtually every day with the United States. The similarity shrinks to insignificance before the difference - Jon Stewart's is looking for a cheap laugh from his none-too-discerning audience and President Obama's trying, with a rising level of hysteria, to try to reclaim the unearned expectations that got him elected.
As for the similarity between the parties, what else would you expect? It's a representative form of government, political parties have to represent the electorate and the electorate's all of one species. There's just going to be a lot of overlap.
Obviously though the parties can't be identical or there'd be no need for the parties and probably not for politics. It's those differences, like the irresponsible self-absorption that leads to such conceits as anthropogenic global warming politics in the absence evidence, that provide an indication of the pivot about which those differences revolve.
One party is representative of people who are less interested in evidence then they are in striking the pose that they're morally elevated and intellectual weighty. That self-absorption leads to a rejection of consideration of consequences or the possibility of being wrong. The other party's representative of people who don't place a great enough value on their conceits to have a need to ignore consequences.
Inevitably though those represented by the party that caters to delusions of superiority runs into a brick wall and that leads to a variety of tactics to avoid coming to grips with the presence of a brick wall. Pivoting, i.e. changing the subject, is just one of those tactics.
Max, a president certainly can have more negative impact on an economy than a positive one--and not just through legislation, which he can only sign--but this one's impact over the last 5+ years is obvious.
I think you just restated my point ... so, cool. Obamacare is the worst thing to happen to our economy in my lifetime, and I doubt there will be a worse one. But still -- the President doesn't get to do anything, directly, with the economy. The real problem is congress. And ... Bush didn't do a great job either, if you want to apply that standard.
allen, I disagree with you about Stewart. He is fair, funny, and almost like a pit bull. He destroyed Sebelius on his show ... he is absolutely not there for the cheap laugh, although sometimes they are there. As to your description of parties ... you're obviously biased. And while I don't entirely disagree, the problem is that we have only two parties. I like chocolate, I like vanilla ... but I also like strawberry. And definitely pistachio. And coffee. Those three never make it to the discussion.
I've watched Stewart a couple of times and as near as I can tell his comedic instincts seem to run to mugging for the camera and inviting the audience to be as achingly clever as Stewart is by sharing some tediously scatological or insulting reference about someone who isn't cool enough to be invited to sit at the same lunch table as the other, cool kids.
Dismantling Sebelius couldn't have been much of a chore. She's the "manager" who couldn't be bothered to look at her primary product over a three year period so whatever marvels she performed previous to joining the administration, those faculties departed soon after.
With regard to the political parties, of course I'm biased. But then I'm biased in favor of fresh milk over sour, a car that starts reliably over one that doesn't and a political party which is disinclined to embrace the worst in human nature over the party more inclined to do so.
I also prefer the two-party system, with its inherent disorderliness that arises from the inability of the party to coerce its membership, to the parliamentary system which subordinates the individual representatives to the party's will. The two party system, with it's lack of a means to enforce the will of the leadership, much more closely recapitulates the representative form of government then does the parliamentary system.
There's always a struggle for control between the leadership and the membership and the two party system levels the playing field. A leadership that's too far out of touch with the electorate leads the party off a cliff which undercuts the authority of the leadership and pretty soon you've got new leadership and a new, hopefully more successful, direction for the party.
So to use your metaphor, there are only two flavors of ice cream and if you choose one you're stuck with it for two, four or six years before you can change your mind.
Go ahead, take your time before you make your decision.
Stewart leans left, no bones about it. And ye Sebelius was an easy target. But there are a lot of journalist who don't proclaim their Liberalism who would have given her a hall pass. Stewart hammered her. He's also been tough on Obama. Stewart is much more than a smirky guy ... although I totally understand why a casual viewer would think that. My problem with a two party system is that neither flavor is good. Maybe you can pick the chocolate chunks out of ...either one, but overall, not good. And they have no incentive to improve, because incumbents get re-elected until they die.
11 comments:
Ugh. Jon Stewart does this virtually every night with FOX news. Both parties have talking points. They are usually vapid and meaningless. And they will continue to work, as long as we continue to let them. Sure ... this is ridiculous. But the Republicans do just the same, regularly. And, at least 'pivot' is a relatively neutral word ...
It's not his silly use of the word ("lockbox") that is troubling, it's the obvious failure of this president to accomplish anything as evidenced, in this case, by his repeated, Ross-like pivots.
You know how Ross dealt with it? He cut the couch in half and tried to return it to the store. You know what Ross' result was? I think he got $5 in store credit.
Ross at least got $5 back.
I don't believe the President really can have any direct effect on the economy, at least in a positive way. At best he's a cheerleader. But ... Obama DID accomplish something: he pushed through a healthcare plan that makes things WORSE. The thing I hate most are talking points, and both sides use them ... they make me feel like they think I'm stupid, So, yeah, this is a bad case ... but it's both sides.
I vote for presidents primarily for foreign policy and honesty, my number one criteria ... and I think we can probably agree that with the exception of getting Bin Laden ... he is an almost complete failure in both areas.
Darren, define accomplishments? I hate to say it but he is now very accomplished.
Remember I’ve mentioned in many post on RotLC prior to November 2008 anyone who was evaluating B Hussein Obama had to ask, “What had this man done?” and the answer would be not much. In his ten years in the Illinois Senate he authored no major legislation, was a leader on no significant movement, he never held a real job period, much less a leadership/management position.
Fast forward to November 2012. Has he accomplished things, yes, unquestionably? He has tripled the yearly budge deficit, started the country on the road to a single payer health system, nationalized major parts of the auto, energy, banking and housing industries. Thanks to B Hussein Obama we are in overdrive to bankruptcy and in retreat all over the world. He is devastating our military. He has blatantly violated the Constitution without consequence. Hate to say it, those are significant accomplishment. Not necessarily good, but significant.
I can’t remember who said it first, the fact Obama exist is not the real problem. The fact the American people elected, then reelected him is the real disaster.
The difference being that Jon Stewart does this virtually every night with FOX News and President Obama does it virtually every day with the United States. The similarity shrinks to insignificance before the difference - Jon Stewart's is looking for a cheap laugh from his none-too-discerning audience and President Obama's trying, with a rising level of hysteria, to try to reclaim the unearned expectations that got him elected.
As for the similarity between the parties, what else would you expect? It's a representative form of government, political parties have to represent the electorate and the electorate's all of one species. There's just going to be a lot of overlap.
Obviously though the parties can't be identical or there'd be no need for the parties and probably not for politics. It's those differences, like the irresponsible self-absorption that leads to such conceits as anthropogenic global warming politics in the absence evidence, that provide an indication of the pivot about which those differences revolve.
One party is representative of people who are less interested in evidence then they are in striking the pose that they're morally elevated and intellectual weighty. That self-absorption leads to a rejection of consideration of consequences or the possibility of being wrong. The other party's representative of people who don't place a great enough value on their conceits to have a need to ignore consequences.
Inevitably though those represented by the party that caters to delusions of superiority runs into a brick wall and that leads to a variety of tactics to avoid coming to grips with the presence of a brick wall. Pivoting, i.e. changing the subject, is just one of those tactics.
Max, a president certainly can have more negative impact on an economy than a positive one--and not just through legislation, which he can only sign--but this one's impact over the last 5+ years is obvious.
I think you just restated my point ... so, cool. Obamacare is the worst thing to happen to our economy in my lifetime, and I doubt there will be a worse one. But still -- the President doesn't get to do anything, directly, with the economy. The real problem is congress. And ... Bush didn't do a great job either, if you want to apply that standard.
allen, I disagree with you about Stewart. He is fair, funny, and almost like a pit bull. He destroyed Sebelius on his show ... he is absolutely not there for the cheap laugh, although sometimes they are there. As to your description of parties ... you're obviously biased. And while I don't entirely disagree, the problem is that we have only two parties. I like chocolate, I like vanilla ... but I also like strawberry. And definitely pistachio. And coffee. Those three never make it to the discussion.
For the most part, President Bush stayed out of the way. This president dives in and mucks up everything he touches. He's like a reverse King Midas.
I've watched Stewart a couple of times and as near as I can tell his comedic instincts seem to run to mugging for the camera and inviting the audience to be as achingly clever as Stewart is by sharing some tediously scatological or insulting reference about someone who isn't cool enough to be invited to sit at the same lunch table as the other, cool kids.
Dismantling Sebelius couldn't have been much of a chore. She's the "manager" who couldn't be bothered to look at her primary product over a three year period so whatever marvels she performed previous to joining the administration, those faculties departed soon after.
With regard to the political parties, of course I'm biased. But then I'm biased in favor of fresh milk over sour, a car that starts reliably over one that doesn't and a political party which is disinclined to embrace the worst in human nature over the party more inclined to do so.
I also prefer the two-party system, with its inherent disorderliness that arises from the inability of the party to coerce its membership, to the parliamentary system which subordinates the individual representatives to the party's will. The two party system, with it's lack of a means to enforce the will of the leadership, much more closely recapitulates the representative form of government then does the parliamentary system.
There's always a struggle for control between the leadership and the membership and the two party system levels the playing field. A leadership that's too far out of touch with the electorate leads the party off a cliff which undercuts the authority of the leadership and pretty soon you've got new leadership and a new, hopefully more successful, direction for the party.
So to use your metaphor, there are only two flavors of ice cream and if you choose one you're stuck with it for two, four or six years before you can change your mind.
Go ahead, take your time before you make your decision.
Stewart leans left, no bones about it. And ye Sebelius was an easy target. But there are a lot of journalist who don't proclaim their Liberalism who would have given her a hall pass. Stewart hammered her. He's also been tough on Obama. Stewart is much more than a smirky guy ... although I totally understand why a casual viewer would think that.
My problem with a two party system is that neither flavor is good. Maybe you can pick the chocolate chunks out of ...either one, but overall, not good. And they have no incentive to improve, because incumbents get re-elected until they die.
Post a Comment