This is somewhat off topic, but. . .please look at this clip and tell me it wasn't more of an honor to be a US citizen half a century ago than it is today.

Originally Posted by James50

One other comment about the Peacemaker. The strength of this type is exactly what I am hoping for from the new "super" committee dealing with the budget. I would love to see a grand bargain. I don't see how it can happen on a committee with lots of confrontational leaders.

James50

I do hope that these people take their responsibilities seriously and work earnestly to get us a real budget instead of these farcical "continuing resolutions" that only serve to give gasbags an opportunity to break wind every few months. The Federal government costs money to operate and real people depend on the jobs they do. If you don't feel like paying for something work to get rid of it, but refusing to fund work in progress is very destructive and actually a waste of money already invested.

I keep telling people this. Obama does not govern like a Boomer, particularly a 1946 entitled Boomer. Obama is an Xer and that style and temperament is something most of us are not quite used to.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

It is not "well known." He was heavily involved when it really mattered. He spent hours meeting with Congressional leaders over the debt ceiling issue.

He has a different temperament than our last two Presidents -- much less quick to anger and (compared to Bush especially) much less hasty in his decision making. Don't mistake that for sloth. I would call it deliberation. I would call it thoughtfulness.

I voted for Obama and can say I am unhappy with style more than substance. He seems too cool and detached. While this may seem like a disadvantage now, his term isn't done. In fact, I think he ends up with a second term. Before his time in office is done, events may conspire to make his style something we need. I like the way he handled the Benny Laden situation. Remember he made the call, against most advisors suggestions, of inserting special ops rather than floating a drone.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Feel free to push for a Constitutional amendment to change the legal qualifications for the office. I think these are really stupid things to say, but stupid isn't a legal bar to holding political office.

Yes, and he is proud of not being a Boomer. As for being a peacemaker, peacemaking is great when the war is over. Our war, however, is still going on.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

I keep telling people this. Obama does not govern like a Boomer, particularly a 1946 entitled Boomer. Obama is an Xer and that style and temperament is something most of us are not quite used to.

According to Licthman 9 of his 13 keys have turned in the president favor.
Those of us who have read his book know that the incumbant party needs at least 8 of the 13 keys to hold the White House.

EDIT: Licthman first used his keys in 1981 to predict Reagans 1984 reelection. Keep in mind that Reagan was dealing with a severe recession at the time. He has predicted every election since correctly. 7 out of 7. It is a link worth a look.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Hey, I was only nineteen at the time and I knew Reagan's economic plan was horseshit. But how does one go all the way back there and knock the Great Communicator off his perch? Does one paint him as malicious? Incompetent? Or simply misled?

Myself I still look upon his perch as an unfortunate accident of history, an injustice that needs correcting, and so on. It doesn't matter how long he's been on the pedestal. And to me the last 30 years have been almost like a blank page, thus no years at all, precisely because of his influence. At some point the myth needs to be exploded, and people need to understand how we got here. I agree, it probably isn't the best tactic to mention him too much in a campaign today, but doing it sometimes seems right (of course, I myself do it more than sometimes, but I'm not campaigning). He is a sacred cow to some people, and he needs desperately to be debunked. Many people (like Weave, JDG and JPT here) think the way they do, primarily because they think Reagan's presidency was good for the country, and they believed in what he said. Or perhaps they grew up with him and don't know any better times. The record needs to be corrected, and we don't need any more airports or anything else named after the creep.

Originally Posted by Odin

Type 3 = the Acheiver
Type 4 = The Individualist

Type 4: non-conformist romantic

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I don't think there's any question that race has a great deal to do with many people's reaction to Barack Obama even though they are Republicans anyway. Tom Coburn's rather amazing remark that I quoted some time back was an excellent example--that Obama liked programs that promoted dependency, because as an African American male he had benefited so much from them. Silly, but true.

That said, Obama is becoming harder and harder to like and believe in every day. If he were Captain Smith on the Titanic he'd be assuring us all that we would safely reach New York only 24 hours late. . .I'm sorry, but I can't help it.

He really needs to develop some spunk and give up on his kumbaya approach of let's all get along and I can fix Washington. He needs to draw some lines and make the choices clear. If he can't be the captain, and navigate the ship toward the left, then we may all go down with the ship.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

OK, let's have some fun.;

This is the latest quote from Michele Bachmann:

"“I don’t know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians. We’ve had an earthquake; we’ve had a hurricane. He said, ‘Are you going to start listening to me here?’ Listen to the American people because the American people are roaring right now. They know government is on a morbid obesity diet and we’ve got to rein in the spending.”

In my opinion, this statement should disqualify its author as a candidate for President. The United States cannot remain the United States if Presidents can claim that God favors their particular policies against the other party. In addition, I do not want anyone in the White House who believes that the deity is orchestrating events in the natural world to send us a message.

Does anyone disagree?

Mother Nature is certainly sending a message about the way we have been treating Her. Bachmann is leading the charge among those who deliberately and willfully refuse to hear the message.

Originally Posted by Galen

Actually he has been largely continuing the policies of his predecessor so you can't even reasonably he is cleaning up the mess that he found. Not to mention that the left seems strangely silent on the wars now that one of their guys is in the White House. Here is the a Libertarian take on the progressive opposition to the only anti-war candidate running for president this year. I guess the wars and the spending required by them really isn't that important.

It is important. Most Democrats and progressives are still opposed to the wars. In congress iirc the Republicans were the ones who most heavily voted to continue them. Not Ron Paul of course.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

Well, 9 points, but a bit meaningless 15 months before the next election. It's no surprise the Republicans are more excited about the prospects of 2012 than the Dems though.

But I'm curious how it went from a 2 points GOP lead the week ending 8-7, to a 9 point lead now. Likely the news this month of us possibly entering another recession could have been it.

And the Rasmussen poll is always skewed about 5 points to the right.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

This is roughly what happened after the panic of 1873, although it took three more elections for the Democrats to regain the White House (the 1876 election was stolen and the 1880 one was very close.) But the point is, these big electoral swings had no impact on anything that was happening, and the same, I'm inclined to believe, will be the case this time.

There is no parallel between now and the Gilded Age. The Democrats did not represent the common or working man at all until the later 1890s (W J Bryan). The closeness of presidential elections in the 1880s reflected at most the former blue/grey division, or perhaps the inadequacy or the sameness of the candidates. In those days the candidates stood mostly for themselves; i.e. who was the better of the two non-entities running.

An addendum to some of my recent predictions. Remember I had predicted that the repression of the Arab Spring, which I predicted here would make the revolution more difficult and violent in the actual Spring, would loosen at this time (this month, August), because the planetary tensions are decreasing (specifically, Saturn moving out of its opposition and square to the revolutionary planets Uranus and Pluto, thus holding back the revolutionary forces, for those interested). Things have heated up recently too due to the Mars angles to these three planets (as I foresaw, but didn't write). Another philosopher-astrologer Dr. Richard Tarnas has written in his book Cosmos and Psyche that the times when Saturn and Pluto are at angles to each other are times of reactionary power. Sometimes, as in the last 2 years, and in the mid-1960s, the progressive (Uranus-Pluto) and reactionary (Saturn-Pluto) trends overlap. I have also said, for other (astrological) reasons, that however unlikely it appears now, the economy may improve just enough starting in February to allow Obama's re-election.

The upshot is, with the Libya revolt ending, gas prices are already moderating, and will moderate more, and this will help the economy to recover. Remember, they spiked in the Spring ostensibly due to the Libyan revolt, and that was the trigger for the economic slowdown this year that is hurting Obama. Obama should also get some credit for helping to resolve this Libyan revolution, though that may be a stretch for parochial American voters. But also this means that the lessening repression, and the consequent greater opening for the progressive trends, applies to the USA as well as to North Africa. The Tea Party is the repressive, reactionary force in America, while Obama represents the progressive trend that put him in office. The Tea Party (due to its actions) is losing popularity along with Obama now, and soon (if I am correct) it will lose more popularity than Obama.

Originally Posted by James50

It is important to understand that no type has a monopoly on the truth. Its more like each of us has 1/9 of the truth. Each of us has a role to play.

James50

And no person can be described as totally one type or another, no matter which typing system you use.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Maybe, but I was looking more at what is relevant in the here and now; that is, in this saeculum. My experience is limited by my age and skewed by a California upbringing, but I remember the Howard Jarvis stuff all too well, and that was the first real memories I have of a large-scale "tax revolt" in my recollection. (This was before Reagan became president and it didn't really get started until a couple of years *after* Reagan left as California governor.)

Reagan represented a reactionary trend that had been growing since 1964, when he was also its chief spokesman. It didn't have to win the presidency and congress in 1980; even though the conservative and anti-tax trend was rising in the late 1970s, it could have been defeated at the polls, and needn't have taken over the country for 30 years and counting, as it has. It happened only because Reagan was a charming TV star, and Carter was not, and because Carter was beset with tough problems he was unable to deal with very well. Once Reagan was elected, it was easier for him to sway the country to his perspective, and to deceive people that things were getting better for them in 1984. Reaganomics and trickle-down would not have become orthodox American politics today, if not for Reagan; both in 1964, and in 1980.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

This is one big difference between the right and the left, I think. When the right doesn't *fully* get their way, they are still more likely to show up on Election Day and vote for the Republican candidate even if they hold their nose and call him a "RINO". When the left doesn't get their preferred candidate, they sulk and stay home in larger numbers, helping to elect someone even worse in their eyes.

Thus there's an irony: In terms of rhetoric, the Republicans talk more radically and the Democrats talk more pragmatically ... but come Election Day the Republican core voters are more pragmatic (in showing up to vote for the "lesser of two evils") and the Democratic voters are more "radical" in their refusal to vote for a moderate Democratic candidate.

RINOs vs. DINOs

True, although one could also say, Republicans always have a conservative to vote for, and Democrats never have a liberal to vote for.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Yes, and he is proud of not being a Boomer. As for being a peacemaker, peacemaking is great when the war is over. Our war, however, is still going on.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

I keep telling people this. Obama does not govern like a Boomer, particularly a 1946 entitled Boomer. Obama is an Xer and that style and temperament is something most of us are not quite used to.

Correction: He's proud of being an Xer, not of not being a Boomer.

And yet still, you don't get it. This is EXACTLY the time to be a peacemaker (if in fact that is what he's being) because this is a civil war. You don't have to raise everyone's blood pressure to be a good leader. That makes them dig in their heels harder. And I like that about Obama; when I see him (unlike a number of Boomers both past and present in Washington) my blood pressure doesn't go up.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

He really needs to develop some spunk and give up on his kumbaya approach of let's all get along and I can fix Washington. He needs to draw some lines and make the choices clear. If he can't be the captain, and navigate the ship toward the left, then we may all go down with the ship.

Oh, I feel my blood pressure going up...

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Correction: He's proud of being an Xer, not of not being a Boomer.

And yet still, you don't get it. This is EXACTLY the time to be a peacemaker (if in fact that is what he's being) because this is a civil war. You don't have to raise everyone's blood pressure to be a good leader. That makes them dig in their heels harder. And I like that about Obama; when I see him (unlike a number of Boomers both past and present in Washington) my blood pressure doesn't go up.

One can have a good temperament, and still not rule by caving in to the opposition too often, as he seems to be doing. He will accomplish nothing for the country by doing that, though he may help his reelection chances (Clinton being his model instead of Truman, in that case). To be an actual leader though, he needs to get the country behind him for a course of action that will actually solve problems. Being a progressive, I think giving the rich and the powerful more leeway and less regulation will only make our current problems worse. The real solutions now are progressive ones. The model for being a "peacemaker" in a time when the nation is on the verge of civil war might be Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan....

If Obama can be persuasive without being confrontational, more power to him-- if it works. But even if done in a cool and temperate way, he needs to challenge the country and the opposition. He needs to be like Kennedy and inspire the nation toward another course. Kennedy should be his model, not Clinton. He needs to ask the people to take on the challenges of our time. That is different from proposing policies that he thinks will get him reelected or that the current congress will approve of. He needs to raise our heartbeat in a positive way.

Originally Posted by James50

One other comment about the Peacemaker. The strength of this type is exactly what I am hoping for from the new "super" committee dealing with the budget. I would love to see a grand bargain. I don't see how it can happen on a committee with lots of confrontational leaders.

James50

A grand bargain on that issue would be a grandiose nothing. Our real deficit is our jobs deficit. The committee is not charged with solving that, but with ignoring that. It will either fail, or Sen Baucus will cave in for another Republican victory, which will be one more disaster that will further fuel the depression.

I think Obama's ideals seem to be more about how we go about political procedure more than what we do. It's funny because that is really one of the major things that I got from his 2008 campaign. I did expect more from him as far as ending wars, but that's about it. Other than that I don't see how anyone can see him as being a deceiver, because he is acting exactly like he said he would.

@Summerinthefall. I totally agree with you and am happy we agree on something.

Originally Posted by Galen

More like the modern progressive evolved from the movement that started at the start of the twentieth century and still shares much of the same worldview. It never occurs to Odin to ask what his beliefs evolved from in order to understand what is happening now.

Or maybe I just don't agree with your assumptions.

Originally Posted by James50

The person who campaigned seem to promise that nothing would stand in his way. His most grandiose statement was the famous one the day he secured the Democratic nomination:



That does not sound like a peacemaker but a transformer.

James50

God, that quote makes me so miss Candidate Obama. WTF happened to him?

Originally Posted by pizal81

I think Obama's ideals seem to be more about how we go about political procedure more than what we do. It's funny because that is really one of the major things that I got from his 2008 campaign. I did expect more from him as far as ending wars, but that's about it. Other than that I don't see how anyone can see him as being a deceiver, because he is acting exactly like he said he would.

@Summerinthefall. I totally agree with you and am happy we agree on something.

I'm facebook friends with Deb C (who I think has left the forum...where is Amy, btw??? Have to check on that, too) and she posted this on her page about Obama.
http://www.creators.com/opinion/davi...zarro-fdr.html

Originally Posted by James50

If you are talking about tax revolts, you may as well go all the way back to the Boston Tea Party. In some respects, the country was founded on tax revolt. It has always been a strong undercurrent in our politics.

James50

The Boston tea Party was NOT a tax revolt, it was a protest about representation in Parliament. It wasn't the taxes themselves they were complaining about, it was the colonies' lack of say.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

But notice the use of "we" throughout. He fully recognizes it's not a one-man show.

This is why I get so fed up with the lefties who've gone off to sulk in a corner when they should be out writing letters to the editor, helping people register to vote, doing volunteer work, and keeping their eyes on the prize. It is NOT only about one person who happens to be the president of the United States.

I will never forgive the Right for their hatchet job against ACORN.