Originally Posted by KaiserD2

OK, Tristan--but if Obama were an Australian could he become PM? I will be very interested in your answer.

Yes

I can't see why not

Although to become the PM you need to be elected to a House of Represenatives Seat, then rise up the ranks of the parliamentry parliament to become leader of the party and if that party is in opposition win enough seats in an election to become the government.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Lastly, on another election front, here is a terrific interview with Thomas Frank, who has written a new book, and who is saying many things similar to what I have been saying here. His take on the Tea Party and how Obama has blown it is very sophisticated. I already posted it on The Revolution Will Not be Televised but no one seems to be paying attention there.

I have just read that article and I found it quite enlightening. I could realistically see a Republican President and Congress in 2013.

Regarding Obamabots--I don't know anyone, literally, who feels genuinely enthusiastic about him at this point, and that might doom him. One of the most difficult decisions I'll have to make this year is whether to make phone calls on his behalf again. I just don't know how I would try to convince an unemployed Pennsylvanian to vote for him this year.

Thank you very much for giving me a 'view from the street' so to speak.

Originally Posted by Tristan

I would agree with you fully on that assessment of Obama supporters in general.

The view in a lot of countries outside the USA (Especially Europe and Oceania) is that Obama is quite sane in comparison to well every Republican running for the nomination. By Australian standards the political positions which the Republican nominees are advocating are pretty much restricted to minor Christian Conservative parties which get between 1-4% of the vote in elections. They are really that out there on the "loony right" from an Australian viewpoint.

If Australia was a US state it would have voted at least 80% for Obama in the 2008 election, if not more.

I think you are exactly right and, if anything, Austrailia is to the right of most other countries.

Originally Posted by Deb C

If those who think that just voting will change things, I have a bridge to sell them. (and it is over the muddy Mississippi)

I keep pointing out though, that the reverse is also true in a way. The system cannot be changed without votes, except by revolution (which is a pipe dream, or tilting at windmills, and no doubt there are some don quixotes at Occupy). Conversely, the right politicians can be persuaded to act correctly within the system that we already have. And the fact is, too many Republicans are in office, and they are always the wrong politicians to have in office if we want to change the system. Voting is, unfortunately, necessary-- if not sufficient.

I dunno how many times I need to point out these things......

Originally Posted by Mikebert

No kidding. My question is why is the GOP base, who are obviously not crazy about Romney going to nominate him?

That's easy Mike. They have no other viable candidates. Unless you can find a demi-god like Ronald Reagan, very few politicians are able to peddle crazy right-wing agendas and still be viable candidates.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

here is a terrific interview with Thomas Frank, who has written a new book, and who is saying many things similar to what I have been saying here. His take on the Tea Party and how Obama has blown it is very sophisticated.

He's got a great take on things.

I think that the conservative idea of revolting against the ruling class by holding up the market as an ideal is completely backwards. There is a ruling class in this country. But the notion that the free market is an act of rebellion against it seems pretty fanciful. I can say it stronger than that. It is absolutely preposterous.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I think you are exactly right and, if anything, Austrailia is to the right of most other countries.

That is debatable, our political class is so different from the voting public in general. For instance; between 60-70% of Australians support same sex marriage. But yet both major parties federally promised at the last federal election they would not introduce legislation to recognize same sex marriage.

Not to mention 11% of the voters voted for a political party (Australian Greens) which would be considered communist by some Americans. We have a genuine "left" in Australia, however it is marginalized politically.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Lastly, on another election front, here is a terrific interview with Thomas Frank, who has written a new book, and who is saying many things similar to what I have been saying here. His take on the Tea Party and how Obama has blown it is very sophisticated. I already posted it on The Revolution Will Not be Televised but no one seems to be paying attention there.

More reflection on this: If you look at many things in his first term, Obama has pretty much given us the same Presidential leadership as we would have seen in a third GWBush term, with a few exceptions like DADT and healthcare. Considering his background -- anti-war and community activism, who could have seen this coming?

Is the answer, maybe Neil Howe could have seen it coming? Doesn't this strongly make the case that generations and their attributes have far more to do with the direction of the country than the leaders do? Thoughts?

Originally Posted by TeddyR

More reflection on this: If you look at many things in his first term, Obama has pretty much given us the same Presidential leadership as we would have seen in a third GWBush term, with a few exceptions like DADT and healthcare. Considering his background -- anti-war and community activism, who could have seen this coming?

Is the answer, maybe Neil Howe could have seen it coming? Doesn't this strongly make the case that generations and their attributes have far more to do with the direction of the country than the leaders do? Thoughts?

That's a good point. Almost all politiians are Dominant Followers, so the environment tends to define not only what they can do but what they are willing to attempt. There are rare exceptions to that rule, but Obama is centainly not one of them.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

More reflection on this: If you look at many things in his first term, Obama has pretty much given us the same Presidential leadership as we would have seen in a third GWBush term, with a few exceptions like DADT and healthcare. Considering his background -- anti-war and community activism, who could have seen this coming?

Is the answer, maybe Neil Howe could have seen it coming? Doesn't this strongly make the case that generations and their attributes have far more to do with the direction of the country than the leaders do? Thoughts?

Reality is that President Obama inherited the mess that Dubya left behind -- two nasty wars, much anti-American sentiment that Dubya inspired, and a nasty and dangerous economic downturn. Such shapes what is possible. So does political reality, which makes a huge difference between 2010 and 2011.

As I see it, the assassination of Osama bin Laden well fits the style of a Reactive generation. It is an ambush analogous to a Lost-era gangland hit in Capone-era Chicago or the FBI (the director was the Lost J. Edgar Hoover) elimination of John Dillinger. Of course President Obama thought of pragmatic concerns-- like leaving behind no body to become the focus of a shrine to terrorism. Necessity can trump ideals.

What you see is nothing new. Who was more a supporter of capitalist profit, power, and privilege than George W. Bush, good buddy of bigwigs at Enron Corporation? Yet in the wake of the 2008 financial collapse, nobody in American history signed off on so many nationalizations of failing enterprises. George W. Bush became by default the most socialist President that we ever had. People who had no warlike tendencies before becoming President have ended up waging war. Former generals at times become the ones to establish a lasting peace by stopping the revenge-seeking at the end of hostilities. Just think of Douglas MacArthur as the effective regent of Japan -- no looting of the Japanese economy, no degradation of Japanese culture, and effective measures to revive the inchoate and suppressed democratic tendencies in Japan from before the years of thug rule.

In any event, character matters greatly. Barack Obama so far seems to show many Reactive virtues -- the salesman's knack for figuring out what others most want (good for politics and diplomacy), a tendency to strip away baroque excess to simplify procedures, and a chilly rationality. This is still new to American life, at least among people who have always (Silent and Boom) seen Barack Obama's generation as juniors not fully to be trusted. He obviously takes some getting used to. But at that he has few Reactive vices. If he has hurt feelings, he seems to keep them suppressed. He isn't greedy and materialistic. If he offers no new morality he at least picks and chooses from Boomer moralities to the extent that they are useful. He is a stickler for process and procedure... much like the sort of Reactive military leader most effective as a commander of soldiers, sailors, and flyers. He respects the intellect as a source of solutions.

Boom and Silent liberals would have as big trouble with a conservative from Generation X as Boom and Silent conservatives have with Barack Obama -- as is shown with Sarah Palin, whose political faults are far more egregious.. But say what you want -- Barack Obama seems to act more like a composite of the two last Reactive Presidents that we had -- and those two (Truman and Eisenhower) were fine Presidents -- than like any of the GI or boomer Presidents that we have had. He is definitely not a "third term of Dubya" (someone like Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, or Rick Santorum would fit the bill for that -- and they are Boomers).

Originally Posted by Tristan

That is debatable, our political class is so different from the voting public in general. For instance; between 60-70% of Australians support same sex marriage. But yet both major parties federally promised at the last federal election they would not introduce legislation to recognize same sex marriage.

Sounds familiar to this American...

Not to mention 11% of the voters voted for a political party (Australian Greens) which would be considered communist by some Americans. We have a genuine "left" in Australia, however it is marginalized politically.

Glad to see the Greens do well in Austrailia!

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Reality is that President Obama inherited the mess that Dubya left behind -- two nasty wars, much anti-American sentiment that Dubya inspired, and a nasty and dangerous economic downturn. Such shapes what is possible. So does political reality, which makes a huge difference between 2010 and 2011.

As I see it, the assassination of Osama bin Laden well fits the style of a Reactive generation. It is an ambush analogous to a Lost-era gangland hit in Capone-era Chicago or the FBI (the director was the Lost J. Edgar Hoover) elimination of John Dillinger. Of course President Obama thought of pragmatic concerns-- like leaving behind no body to become the focus of a shrine to terrorism. Necessity can trump ideals.

What you see is nothing new. Who was more a supporter of capitalist profit, power, and privilege than George W. Bush, good buddy of bigwigs at Enron Corporation? Yet in the wake of the 2008 financial collapse, nobody in American history signed off on so many nationalizations of failing enterprises. George W. Bush became by default the most socialist President that we ever had. People who had no warlike tendencies before becoming President have ended up waging war. Former generals at times become the ones to establish a lasting peace by stopping the revenge-seeking at the end of hostilities. Just think of Douglas MacArthur as the effective regent of Japan -- no looting of the Japanese economy, no degradation of Japanese culture, and effective measures to revive the inchoate and suppressed democratic tendencies in Japan from before the years of thug rule.

In any event, character matters greatly. Barack Obama so far seems to show many Reactive virtues -- the salesman's knack for figuring out what others most want (good for politics and diplomacy), a tendency to strip away baroque excess to simplify procedures, and a chilly rationality. This is still new to American life, at least among people who have always (Silent and Boom) seen Barack Obama's generation as juniors not fully to be trusted. He obviously takes some getting used to. But at that he has few Reactive vices. If he has hurt feelings, he seems to keep them suppressed. He isn't greedy and materialistic. If he offers no new morality he at least picks and chooses from Boomer moralities to the extent that they are useful. He is a stickler for process and procedure... much like the sort of Reactive military leader most effective as a commander of soldiers, sailors, and flyers. He respects the intellect as a source of solutions.

Boom and Silent liberals would have as big trouble with a conservative from Generation X as Boom and Silent conservatives have with Barack Obama -- as is shown with Sarah Palin, whose political faults are far more egregious.. But say what you want -- Barack Obama seems to act more like a composite of the two last Reactive Presidents that we had -- and those two (Truman and Eisenhower) were fine Presidents -- than like any of the GI or boomer Presidents that we have had. He is definitely not a "third term of Dubya" (someone like Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, or Rick Santorum would fit the bill for that -- and they are Boomers).

I have said that Obama wants to be Eisenhower, e.g. "our Sputnik moment." (Boy, did that one ever take off!) And they evoke the same concerns. It drove many people crazy that nothing seemed to bother Ike, nothing kept him away from the golf course or skeet shooting range. Kennan, whom I quoted about him in Amerian Tragedy, said, "this was a man who, given the high office he occupied, might have done a great deal more than he did." Sound familiar?

Though they let Ron Paul leads over other candidates in Iowa this time, it’s only a trick. When more and more people show their support to an honest politician that rarely seen these days, the rulers have to compromise a little bit. Otherwise the rigging and suppressing is too evident. However, Ron Paul has no chance because this country is controlled by the tyrants. They will have plots and tricks to rig the election. Watch and notice, you will see finally how corruptive this country is.

Quote:

Just look at how 'successful' Ron Paul was against John McCain and Mitt Romney in his bid for the 2008 nomination. He led all kinds of gallup and straw polls, he even led the way in raising funds via internet campaigning...yet how much success did he have in securing the nomination?

You will have a president obedient to the rulers such like idiot Bush. Or an incompetent one like Obama. None will work for the people.

So far it looks close to a 3-way tie between the crazy libertarian, the crazy Catholic fundamentalist, and the boring Mormon. In short, a great night for Democrats! I must say, if Perry and Bachmann drop out, Santorum could be sitting fairly pretty. If Romney can't manage a quarter of the Iowa vote. . .he's in trouble.

"Waiting for the results of the #iacaucus is like waiting at the airport for someone you don't know, don't care about, and believe is deranged."
.......... Robert Reich

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

To begin with, I watched her Senate testimony and I do not remember everything that you listed above. I italicized a couple of things that I definitely do not remember. I also remember the infamous line, "Some one left a pubic hair on my coke."

None of this prevented them from maintaining a cordial relationship both during and after her service under his leadership and indeed she did not hesitate to ask him for a recommendation, which he supplied.

I would agree that he acted like a jerk, but I've seen lots of people act like jerks in lots of workplaces, and I am not convinced that acting like a jerk by making sexual references should necessarily be treated any differently. Make no mistake, as I said before, using your position to extort sex is a serious crime. But he didn't do that. So yes, I think current law has gone much too far, as have campus regulations, for instance those that claim that any sex with a drunken woman is rape because she couldn't have consented.

Stealing from the company is also 'being a jerk'... but it is the quickest thing to get one fired when detected.

Sexual harassment is not only 'jerk' behavior -- it puts company assets at extreme risk through lawsuits. Any employee of any entity has the duty to do nothing that could get his company sued.

Southern Evangelicals hate Mormons, and will not vote for one in the primary, especially a Mormon who is a "Damn Yankee", So Mittens will not get the nomination, IMO

Santorum's "Google Problem" will kill him in the general election.

Ron Paul will drive away northern moderates in the general election.



The GOP is screwed.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I have said that Obama wants to be Eisenhower, e.g. "our Sputnik moment." (Boy, did that one ever take off!) And they evoke the same concerns. It drove many people crazy that nothing seemed to bother Ike, nothing kept him away from the golf course or skeet shooting range. Kennan, whom I quoted about him in Amerian Tragedy, said, "this was a man who, given the high office he occupied, might have done a great deal more than he did." Sound familiar?

If the Republicans take hold of one House or the other throughout his Presidency, then the best that President Obama can hope to be is the predecessor of someone like Andrew Cuomo, who will see a large Senate majority. Stopping the Dubya-era rot (as I call it, the Degeneracy) is quite an achievement.

Eisenhower did some things right -- important things. He got an armistice to the war in Korea. He federalized the Arkansas National Guard when Governor Faubus tried to use it to nullify a decision of the US Supreme Court. He let Senator McCarthy implode. His only offense was to cave in to National Fruit Company on Guatemala to let a corrupt business turn what might have been a country with a progressive (and non-Communist) government into a fief of a giant American corporation.

President Obama was one of the most activist Presidents that we ever had -- for two years. We can all be sure that the Big Money wants him out of the Presidency and the Hard Right to control Congress so that America can become a "Christian and Corporate State" with first-world productivity and third-world wages. That is what the 2012 election is about in a nutshell, right?

No, I do not think that I am exaggerating. I look at a corporate leadership devoid of any obvious virtues other than brainpower, the willingness of powerful people to find seams in the Constitution, and the great power of unelected lobbyists to allow as undemocratic a political order as the Soviet Union under Brezhnev. One light of liberalism is extinguished in political life after another to be replaced by someone who represents corporate power. Elections become a sham, 'news' media all resemble FoX News unless you get antenna-based TV along the Canadian or Mexican border, and Constitutional mischief becomes possible. Indefinitely? Sure -- until a violent revolution or until the system is thoroughly defeated in war. Neither is pretty. In the meantime, "Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia", the chocolate ration has just been increased while it has been reduced, and Room 101 has significance other than the kindergarten at Jefferson Elementary School. And, yes, even Jefferson can be perverted into a rationale for authoritarian government.

Actually, pbrower, "the chocolate ration has just been increased while it has been reduced," has already happened. Go down to the nearest candy counter and look at the size of the chocolate bars - and check to see of any of them are blaring "New! Improved!" or whatever.

I do know a "pint" of orange juice is now either 15 ounces or 14.5.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

So far it looks close to a 3-way tie between the crazy libertarian, the crazy Catholic fundamentalist, and the boring Mormon. In short, a great night for Democrats! I must say, if Perry and Bachmann drop out, Santorum could be sitting fairly pretty. If Romney can't manage a quarter of the Iowa vote. . .he's in trouble.

I just checked out the Iowa caucus results on Fox News and I agree with you assessment about Romney.

Also I get a feeling that after this Rick Santorum's stocks will continue to rise, enough to get him the Republican nomination. Given he is a Roman Catholic it would have been unimaginable for evangelicals to support him say fifty years ago.

Originally Posted by Tristan

I just checked out the Iowa caucus results on Fox News and I agree with you assessment about Romney.

Also I get a feeling that after this Rick Santorum's stocks will continue to rise, enough to get him the Republican nomination. Given he is a Roman Catholic it would have been unimaginable for evangelicals to support him say fifty years ago.

Tristan, Iowa is often a poor indicator for the GOP of who will be the nominee. It serves more to eliminate some of the bottom feeders than to shine a light on the eventual winner.

Next Tuesday with the NH primary, the race really gets underway.

Sweater Vest doesn't have the muscle to win in NH, SC, etc....I'm not sure he'd win a primary in his home state of PA.

Romney will win the nomination. Bank on it.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Actually, pbrower, "the chocolate ration has just been increased while it has been reduced," has already happened. Go down to the nearest candy counter and look at the size of the chocolate bars - and check to see of any of them are blaring "New! Improved!" or whatever.

I do know a "pint" of orange juice is now either 15 ounces or 14.5.

Pepsi now had "SPECIAL NEW SIZE" 1.5L bottles that are the same price as the 2L ones.

Will Santorum be the new flavor of the month?

Bolded did not win nomination

2008 – Mike Huckabee (34%), Mitt Romney (25%), Fred Thompson (13%), John McCain (13%), Ron Paul (10%), Rudy Giuliani (4%), and Duncan Hunter (1%)

2004 – George W. Bush (unopposed)

2000 – George W. Bush (41%), Steve Forbes (31%), Alan Keyes (14%), Gary Bauer (9%), John McCain (5%), and Orrin Hatch (1%)

1996 – Bob Dole (26%), Pat Buchanan (23%), Lamar Alexander (18%), Steve Forbes (10%), Phil Gramm (9%), Alan Keyes (7%), Richard Lugar (4%), and Morry Taylor (1%)

1992 – George H. W. Bush (unopposed)

1988 – Bob Dole (37%), Pat Robertson (25%), George H. W. Bush (19%), Jack Kemp (11%), and Pete DuPont (7%)

1984 – Ronald Reagan (unopposed)

1980 – George H. W. Bush (32%), Ronald Reagan (30%), Howard Baker (15%), John Connally (9%), Phil Crane (7%), John B. Anderson (4%), and Bob Dole (2%)

1976 – Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan

Source: Wikipedia

Taking out 1976 as a push, and unopposed years, Iowa is only right 40% of the time.

I think I just heard Rick Perry dropping out from the other room.