George Will trashes Republican front-runners

John F · Post by **John F** » Mon Dec 05, 2011 12:59 am

So who does he favor for the Republican presidential nomination, and why? You'd be surprised. But the Republican rank and file appear to have little interest in Will's man.

Romney and Gingrich, from bad to worse
By George F. Will, Published: December 2

Republicans are more conservative than at any time since their 1980 dismay about another floundering president. They are more ideologically homogenous than ever in 156 years of competing for the presidency. They anticipated choosing between Mitt Romney, a conservative of convenience, and a conviction politician to his right. The choice, however, could be between Romney and the least conservative candidate, Newt Gingrich.

Romney’s main objection to contemporary Washington seems to be that he is not administering it. God has 10 commandments, Woodrow Wilson had 14 points, Heinz had 57 varieties, but Romney’s economic platform has 59 planks — 56 more than necessary if you have low taxes, free trade and fewer regulatory burdens. Still, his conservatism-as-managerialism would be a marked improvement upon today’s bewildered liberalism.

Gingrich, however, embodies the vanity and rapacity that make modern Washington repulsive. And there is his anti-conservative confidence that he has a comprehensive explanation of, and plan to perfect, everything.

Granted, his grandiose rhetoric celebrating his “transformative” self is entertaining: Recently he compared his revival of his campaign to Sam Walton’s and Ray Kroc’s creations of Wal-Mart and McDonald’s, two of America’s largest private-sector employers. There is almost artistic vulgarity in Gingrich’s unrepented role as a hired larynx for interests profiting from such government follies as ethanol and cheap mortgages. His Olympian sense of exemption from standards and logic allowed him, fresh from pocketing $1.6 million from Freddie Mac (for services as a “historian”), to say, “If you want to put people in jail,” look at “the politicians who profited from” Washington’s environment.

His temperament — intellectual hubris distilled — makes him blown about by gusts of enthusiasm for intellectual fads, from 1990s futurism to “Lean Six Sigma” today. On Election Eve 1994, he said a disturbed South Carolina mother drowning her children “vividly reminds” Americans “how sick the society is getting, and how much we need to change things. . . . The only way you get change is to vote Republican.” Compare this grotesque opportunism — tarted up as sociology — with his devious recasting of it in a letter to the Nov. 18, 1994, Wall Street Journal (http://bit.ly/vFbjAk). And remember his recent swoon over the theory that “Kenyan, anti-colonial” thinking explains Barack Obama.

Gingrich, who would have made a marvelous Marxist, believes everything is related to everything else and only he understands how. Conservatism, in contrast, is both cause and effect of modesty about understanding society’s complexities, controlling its trajectory and improving upon its spontaneous order. Conservatism inoculates against the hubristic volatility that Gingrich exemplifies and Genesis deplores: “Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel.”

Obama is running as Harry Truman did in 1948, against Congress, but Republicans need not supply the real key to Truman’s success — Tom Dewey. Confident that Truman was unelectable, Republicans nominated New York’s chilly governor, whose virtues of experience and steadiness were vitiated by one fact: Voters disliked him. Before settling for Romney, conservatives should reconsider two candidates who stumbled early on.

Rick Perry (disclosure: my wife, Mari Will, advises him) has been disappointing in debates. They test nothing pertinent to presidential duties but have become absurdly important. Perry’s political assets remain his Texas record and Southwestern zest for disliking Washington and Wall Street simultaneously and equally.

Jon Huntsman inexplicably chose to debut as the Republican for people who rather dislike Republicans, but his program is the most conservative. He endorses Paul Ryan’s budget and entitlement reforms. (Gingrich denounced Ryan’s Medicare reform as “right-wing social engineering.”) Huntsman would privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Gingrich’s benefactor). Huntsman would end double taxation on investment by eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends. (Romney would eliminate them only for people earning less than $200,000, who currently pay just 9.3 percent of them.) Huntsman’s thorough opposition to corporate welfare includes farm subsidies. (Romney has justified them as national security measures — food security, somehow threatened. Gingrich says opponents of ethanol subsidies are “big-city” people hostile to farmers.) Huntsman considers No Child Left Behind, the semi-nationalization of primary and secondary education, “an unmitigated disaster.” (Romney and Gingrich support it. Gingrich has endorsed a national curriculum.) Between Ron Paul’s isolationism and the faintly variant bellicosities of the other six candidates stands Huntsman’s conservative foreign policy, skeptically nuanced about America’s need or ability to control many distant developments.

Romney might not be a Dewey. Gingrich might stop being (as Churchill said of John Foster Dulles) a bull who carries his own china shop around with him. But both are too risky to anoint today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

lennygoran · Post by **lennygoran** » Mon Dec 05, 2011 6:02 am

>Rick Perry ...Jon Huntsman <

Perry is definitely out in my book--I'd be willing to give Huntsman another look. Regards, Len [former Republican]

John F · Post by **John F** » Mon Dec 05, 2011 6:27 am

If today's Republicans thought more as you do, we'd have less to worry about. Except that I believe none of the Republican candidates will be able to defeat the President, so maybe there isn't so much to worry about after all, on that score at least.

rwetmore · Post by **rwetmore** » Mon Dec 05, 2011 6:31 pm

Len,

We need to get together before the election. I might be able to get you to back as a Republican.

Edit: Might I ask what was the main issue that caused you to defect? Is it the taxes on the wealthy?

rwetmore · Post by **rwetmore** » Mon Dec 05, 2011 6:34 pm

Who does Will think should be the nominee? Perry?

John F · Post by **John F** » Mon Dec 05, 2011 6:42 pm

Will speaks for himself.

rwetmore · Post by **rwetmore** » Mon Dec 05, 2011 6:49 pm

John F wrote:Will speaks for himself.

He doesn't really say. Or did I not read between the lines?

John F · Post by **John F** » Mon Dec 05, 2011 6:53 pm

What Will says in the article is:

Rick Perry (disclosure: my wife, Mari Will, advises him) has been disappointing in debates. They test nothing pertinent to presidential duties but have become absurdly important. Perry’s political assets remain his Texas record and Southwestern zest for disliking Washington and Wall Street simultaneously and equally.

Infer from this what you please. What else Will may think, or may have said elsewhere, I neither know nor care.

lennygoran · Post by **lennygoran** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 6:40 am

>Is it the taxes on the wealthy?<

Yes the completely unreasonable demand of the Republicans to continue the income tax cuts for the wealthy in order to extend it for the whole country. The way mainstream Republicans have let themselve be held hostage by the Tea Party and the pledge man Grover Norquist. Regards, Len

lennygoran · Post by **lennygoran** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 6:43 am

> Or did I not read between the lines?<

He says this:

"Before settling for Romney, conservatives should reconsider two candidates who stumbled early on."

He then goes on to discuss Perry and Huntsman. Regards, Len

John F · Post by **John F** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 7:25 am

Another rock-ribbed right-winger of the Washington Post's editorial page lets fly at Newt Gingrich, the same day the Post's poll shows him leading in Iowa - for the moment:

Posted at 04:55 PM ET, 12/05/2011
Newt Gingrich and the unknown unknowns
By Jennifer Rubin

At some point, this Newtonian episode is going to wind up in a campaign ad. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in an online interview that she would share what she knows about Newt Gingrich from her days on the ethics committee that eventually meted out a record $300,000 fine. (“I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year,” Pelosi told Talking Points Memo. “A thousand pages of his stuff.”) Gingrich was outraged that she should reveal the facts about which he was investigated, contrary to a system designed to afford members of Congress the maximum protection. He blustered that this would be a “fundamental [Gingrich’s favorite word] violation of the rules of the House.”

Wait a minute. Why hasn’t Gingrich released all this information? And by the way, where is the promised disclosure about all his post-speakership lobbying, er . . . historical consulting? Why hasn’t he turned over his contracts, revealed his clients and told us how much he pulled down from which clients? His spokesman said at one point that the campaign would.

In this regard, both the mainstream and conservative media have fallen down on the job. Gingrich is never pressed in interviews or debates about his lack of disclosure. Many conservative blog and talk shows are uninterested in vetting Gingrich’s record so they don’t make a fuss over it either. (This comes after they made a federal case in 2008 out of then-candidate Barack Obama’s refusal to release his college grades.)

But this is one of the central dangers posed by Gingrich’s candidacy: Lots of people who worked on congressional committees, at special interest groups and for him in one capacity or another have plenty of details about what he has done over the years. It is the unknown unknowns, as Donald Rumsfeld put it, that are the most dangerous.

Herman Cain spent months skating by, aware there were oodles of ladies willing and able to step forward and create problems. How many problem stories with much more reliable witnesses are waiting to pop out for Gingrich, should he get the nomination? He is at the mercy of such people. The party, if it selects him, would be at the mercy of such people.

And yet Gingrich’s approach has been “mum’s the word.” It’s all “confidential,” he said of his deal with Freddie Mac. You can only imagine what else is out there, ready for the Obama hit squad to reveal. And I bet they won’t need to “crowdsource” to get it; people will be lined up around the block to tell their Gingrich tales.

John F · Post by **John F** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:09 am

For what it's worth, I suspect Will's and Rubin's real problem with Gingrich is that he isn't far enough to the right, that he doesn't toe the Tea Party Line. (Cf. his view on illegal immigration.) Will surprisingly finds what he's looking for in Jon Huntsman, whom non-Republicans or at least this non-Republican had thought was the least extreme of the current Republican crop. But if the polls are right, Republican voters don't agree with Will; pumping up and shooting down one candidate after another, they seem to be consistently uninterested in Huntsman.

lennygoran · Post by **lennygoran** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:20 am

>But if the polls are right, Republican voters don't agree with Will; pumping up and shooting down one candidate after another, they seem to be consistently uninterested in Huntsman.<

He was on the Today Show--I was impressed--not afraid to criticize the Trump/Newt circus act, indicate Romney's flip flops and Romney's failure to even say if he'll be there for Trump--he could be the only Republican I could support but I'll have to read more about his views. Regards, Len

rwetmore · Post by **rwetmore** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 6:51 pm

lennygoran wrote:Yes the completely unreasonable demand of the Republicans to continue the income tax cuts for the wealthy in order to extend it for the whole country. The way mainstream Republicans have let themselve be held hostage by the Tea Party and the pledge man Grover Norquist. Regards, Len

I understand your view on this particular issue, but you seem to be using awfully harsh language here to describe the Tea Party. The elected Tea Party representatives just did precisly what they publicly campaigned on doing. The voters put them in office and they kept their word on taxes. This is exactly the way an elected represenative democracy is supposed to work. That this is seen as being disfunctional, outlandish or some kind of societal 'problem' by so many is quite disturbing to me, frankly.

Do you know that Obama broke virtually every campaign promise he made? That in many instances he ended up doing the exactly opposite of what he said he would or wouldn't do? Does this not bother you? Or cause any mistrust?

Here's another question I suggest might want to ponder before you vote next November. Why can't the democratic/liberal political establishment campaign on what they want to do (nationalized health care, cap and trade, higher taxes, reduced military spending, amnesty for illegal immigrants, etc.), run on it, get elected and successfully advance the agenda?

rwetmore · Post by **rwetmore** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 7:37 pm

John F wrote:Will surprisingly finds what he's looking for in Jon Huntsman, whom non-Republicans or at least this non-Republican had thought was the least extreme of the current Republican crop. But if the polls are right, Republican voters don't agree with Will; pumping up and shooting down one candidate after another, they seem to be consistently uninterested in Huntsman.

Yes, probably because he openly believes in significant CO2 induced anthropogenic global warming. As far as I'm concerned, there is no more imporant issue than this one, either here in the US or globally anywhere else. It is far and away the number one issue I will be going to polls for not only in the next election but likely every single election afterwards.

I appreciate though that Huntsman is forthright about it, as it says a lot about his character. Something far too often lacking in the current political arena. In that sense, he's a very good candidate.

Ricordanza · Post by **Ricordanza** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:45 pm

A similar (but much lengthier) critique of the current crop of Republican candidates can be found in David Frum's article in New York magazine:

http://nymag.com/news/politics/conserva ... m-2011-11/

lennygoran · Post by **lennygoran** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:27 am

>That in many instances he ended up doing the exactly opposite of what he said he would or wouldn't do? Does this not bother you? Or cause any mistrust?<

He's compromised as best he could considering what the Republican House has put him through. BTW did you forget one Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden--did he do the opposite there? Regards, Len

John F · Post by **John F** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 7:37 am

rwetmore wrote:Do you know that Obama broke virtually every campaign promise he made? That in many instances he ended up doing the exactly opposite of what he said he would or wouldn't do? Does this not bother you? Or cause any mistrust?

You asked Lenny, but I'll chime in. Politicians make promises; Presidents made decisions. It's naïve to expect, and childish to demand, that a politician's decisions doggedly fulfill his/her campaign promises even when the real-world circumstances show this to be unwise, or worse. (Yes, I'm talking for example about the no-tax-increase promise that many Republicans made to Grover Norquist.) If a public official seeks reelection, what counts with me is the nature and effect of the decisions he/she has made, not whether they're what he may have promised before being elected. Frankly, I've forgotten what most of those promises were.

jbuck919 · Post by **jbuck919** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 9:19 am

John F wrote:(Yes, I'm talking for example about the no-tax-increase promise that many Republicans made to Grover Norquist.)

Unfortunately, so far they're keeping that promise, which they put in writing. But a good example would be George H.W. Bush who wisely broke his sound-bite campaign promise not to raise taxes. (I certainly hope that in congressional races the Democrats make a big deal of Republicans owing loyalty to Grover Norquist before their own constituents. The Republicans made hay with Nancy Pelosi in 2010, with a weaker argument.)

It seems that a promise not to raise taxes (on anyone or on the 99%), like a profession of religious faith, is necessary to secure the votes of an irreducible number of people who need to hear something specific from a candidate before they will vote for him. Then when taxes are inevitably raised, it can be used effectively against the incumbent and his party by the next round of guys who will repeat the same pattern. As is the case so often, it comes back to the educated wisdom or lack thereof of the voters.

lennygoran · Post by **lennygoran** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 10:25 am

>The Republicans made hay with Nancy Pelosi in 2010, with a weaker argument.<

She may be getting ready to make some hay with Newt pretty soon!

“One of these days we’ll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich,” she said. “I know a lot about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... story.html

Regards, Len

rwetmore · Post by **rwetmore** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:32 pm

John F wrote:
rwetmore wrote:Do you know that Obama broke virtually every campaign promise he made? That in many instances he ended up doing the exactly opposite of what he said he would or wouldn't do? Does this not bother you? Or cause any mistrust?
You asked Lenny, but I'll chime in. Politicians make promises; Presidents made decisions. It's naïve to expect, and childish to demand, that a politician's decisions doggedly fulfill his/her campaign promises even when the real-world circumstances show this to be unwise, or worse. (Yes, I'm talking for example about the no-tax-increase promise that many Republicans made to Grover Norquist.) If a public official seeks reelection, what counts with me is the nature and effect of the decisions he/she has made, not whether they're what he may have promised before being elected. Frankly, I've forgotten what most of those promises were.

In general I agree with what you're saying, and there were even a few promises I'm glad myself he didn't keep. But the point is he broke virtually every one of his campaign promises, and in many cases ended up doing the exact opposite. The reason you don't know or have forgotten is none of them were reported by the media, you weren't paying attention, and/or you were too blinded by your ideology to notice it. I find it interesting that if a Republican or conservative president breaks a promise, the media makes sure everyone is made vividly aware. Why is that, BTW?

rwetmore · Post by **rwetmore** » Fri Dec 16, 2011 6:42 pm

Len,

No answer?

lennygoran · Post by **lennygoran** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 8:27 am

>No answer?<

Just seeing this now--I don't think Obama has purposely broken promises--he's trying to compromise, to adapt but there's not much he can do with the inflexible Republican House and the darn Pledge. Regards, Len

rwetmore · Post by **rwetmore** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 2:49 pm

lennygoran wrote:Just seeing this now--I don't think Obama has purposely broken promises--he's trying to compromise, to adapt but there's not much he can do with the inflexible Republican House and the darn Pledge. Regards, Len

I don't think you've been paying very close attention then. You really don't want me to compile a list, do you?

Might I also ask what your main sources are for news and information? Do you make an effort to follow both sides? For example, read both what's on Drudge and what's on Huffington Post? Fox News and CNN? Real Clear Politics and the Daily Kos?

rwetmore · Post by **rwetmore** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 3:10 pm

Len,

It seems you're stuck on this increased taxing of top earners issue more than anything else, which can understand and appreciate to some degree even though I don't agree with it.

I suppose it wouldn't help if I told you this is really a scam and what Obama and the Dems actually want to do is raise everyone's taxes, including yours and the middle class? I suppose it also wouldn't help if the claimed reason for raising taxes on the top earners over concern about large deficits is a scam too, and what they really want to do is just keep spending more and more as a means to justify taxing everyone more and more?

A few other things you might want to consider: The 36% top rate is for those who earn more than 250K a year, which is mostly the small business owner who employes most of the citizenry. The so-called wealthy or 'super rich' generally already have the bulk of their wealth, so if you really want to tax them you need to increase taxes on capital gains - not income. Furthermore, increasing the top rate on earners really just increases the rate on those who are trying to become wealthy, which de-incentivises business risk because the payout for success is reduced.

lennygoran · Post by **lennygoran** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 3:36 pm

>It seems you're stuck on this increased taxing of top earners issue more than anything else<

Not the complete answer but at least it's something--if 250 is too low how about 750,000? I'll be heading into NYC with only the blackberry so I may miss your answer. Regards, Len

jbuck919 · Post by **jbuck919** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 3:48 pm

rwetmore wrote:I suppose it wouldn't help if I told you this is really a scam and what Obama and the Dems actually want to do is raise everyone's taxes, including yours and the middle class?

Sure, sure, that's why Obama will fight tooth and nail at the end of 2012 to maintain the Bush tax cuts for everybody except the rich, while Congress will not extend them for anybody unless it is for everybody. That is assuming that the Republicans have not been able to extract making the cuts permanent from Obama and the Democrats before then (as they tried to do in the failed Super Committee process). And that's why Obama will give in and allow the cuts to be made permanent as the only way to maintain them for the middle class. Mark my words.

(If you want to know what I think, when that time comes, the cuts should expire for everyone, with the rich going back to where they were and realistic tax rates established for the middle class based on the state of the economy at the time. Obama will be a lame duck at that time and should be willing to take some heat for the temporary problems presented by rejecting the simplistic approach.)

rwetmore · Post by **rwetmore** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 4:18 pm

lennygoran wrote:Not the complete answer but at least it's something--if 250 is too low how about 750,000? I'll be heading into NYC with only the blackberry so I may miss your answer. Regards, Len

I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but increasing the rate above 750,000 to 39% probably would not be negatively impactful to the small business owner or entrepreneur; but it also probably wouldn't generate very much 'increased' revenue to the treasury either.

rwetmore · Post by **rwetmore** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 4:50 pm

jbuck919 wrote:Sure, sure, that's why Obama will fight tooth and nail at the end of 2012 to maintain the Bush tax cuts for everybody except the rich, while Congress will not extend them for anybody unless it is for everybody. That is assuming that the Republicans have not been able to extract making the cuts permanent from Obama and the Democrats before then (as they tried to do in the failed Super Committee process). And that's why Obama will give in and allow the cuts to be made permanent as the only way to maintain them for the middle class. Mark my words.

Yes John, I know you are someone who actually believes what Obama says, and while I do believe that Obama genuinely does think so-called 'rich' should pay more, I also know that he knows that his ultimate designs on society can never 'work' if the middle class is not forced to pay substantially more in taxes than it currently pays. So it's really just phony political pandering for re-election purposes because he doesn't have the votes in congress to do what he really wants to do - spend more and tax everyone more. And even if he intended to keep his initial pledge to not raise taxes on those making less than 250K a year in 2008, he knows eventually one of his successors could do the necessary tax raising on everyone when the congressional votes are available at some point. It could be slipped into some other legislation that the media doesn't report or whatever. The point is his concern over not having the middle class's taxes raised is disingenous and just another part of his whole Alinsky scam.

And you may very well be right in that Obama will 'give in' and allow the cuts to made permament for everyone including on the top earners. This will score points with middle class independent voters - making them think he's concerned with keeping their taxes low as 'promised', which will help his re-election. From which if re-elected, he can move on to stage two of the scam, which will probably be more just trying to preserve as much as was accomplished in stage one of the scam since he won't likely have a congress that will allow him to do anything he really wants to do.

jbuck919 · Post by **jbuck919** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 5:28 pm

I happen to believe that we can never be a decent society until the middle class pays more taxes than it currently pays, which assumes a country with a prosperous middle class. I don't support Obama in either his promise to keep middle class taxes low (before the crash of 2008) or (in the event of an economic recovery) any attempt to keep those promises. But I assure you, he will maintain that pledge no matter the state of the economy, all the more because there is no political opposition to it as long as the rich get their cut too. So we will either be in better economic shape but one of the least decent societies among the advanced countries, or we will be in poor economic shape and one of the least decent societies among the advanced countries.

rwetmore · Post by **rwetmore** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 6:10 pm

jbuck919 wrote:I happen to believe that we can never be a decent society until the middle class pays more taxes than it currently pays, which assumes a country with a prosperous middle class. I don't support Obama in either his promise to keep middle class taxes low (before the crash of 2008) or (in the event of an economic recovery) any attempt to keep those promises. But I assure you, he will maintain that pledge no matter the state of the economy, all the more because there is no political opposition to it as long as the rich get their cut too. So we will either be in better economic shape but one of the least decent societies among the advanced countries, or we will be in poor economic shape and one of the least decent societies among the advanced countries.

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here, but it appears then that you agree Obama's desire or pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class is more or less a scam and not what he really wants or what the real goals are, especially long-term. More importantly, I don't think Len is aware of this, which is why I was trying to point it out to him. And BTW, Len is not the only one - most independents and non-liberal democrats are not aware this is the real agenda either.

This also gets back to my point earlier in the thread about the Democrats and the left in general not being able to say what they really want to do, run on it, get elected running on it, and from there advancing the agenda through a basic and fundamentally transparent democratic process, which is quite telling in and of itself. Moreover, I don't see true conservative or tea party member public officials in congress or anywhere else conducting themselves in this kind of brazenly
disingenuous fashion, which also is quite telling to me of whole lot more than just the issue of taxes.

jbuck919 · Post by **jbuck919** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:42 pm

rwetmore wrote:I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here, but it appears then that you agree Obama's desire or pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class is more or less a scam and not what he really wants or what the real goals are, especially long-term.

I am delighted that for once I have left you short of a glib answer, but in fact, far from agreeing with you, I said exactly the opposite about Obama's pledge.

rwetmore · Post by **rwetmore** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 8:16 pm

jbuck919 wrote:I am delighted that for once I have left you short of a glib answer, but in fact, far from agreeing with you, I said exactly the opposite about Obama's pledge.

I'm aware you think you did. The point is Obama no doubt aspires largely those same goals, so indirectly it's an admission the 'pledge' is more or less a scam, even though he'll probably be forced to adhere to it in order to help his re-election, which itself is just another step toward achieving those same goals in direct contradiction to the pledge. No matter how you want to look at it, it's still fundamentally disingenuous, which is my point, and what I believe Len others should be made aware of.

jbuck919 · Post by **jbuck919** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 8:22 pm

rwetmore wrote:
jbuck919 wrote:I am delighted that for once I have left you short of a glib answer, but in fact, far from agreeing with you, I said exactly the opposite about Obama's pledge.
I'm aware you think you did. The point is Obama no doubt aspires largely those same goals, so indirectly it's an admission the 'pledge' is more or less a scam, even though he'll probably adhere to it in order to help his re-election, which itself is just another step toward achieving those same goals in direct contradiction to the pledge. No matter how you want to look at it, it's still fundamentally disingenuous, which is my point, and what I believe Len others should be made aware of.

And I suppose you think that Lincoln's real aim was to preserve slavery, and that the Emancipation Proclamation was just one more sneaky step to keep that agenda going. Darn good thing, isn't it, that he was killed by Booth before he could complete his nefarious plot.

rwetmore · Post by **rwetmore** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 8:26 pm

jbuck919 wrote:And I suppose you think that Lincoln's real aim was to preserve slavery, and that the Emancipation Proclamation was just one more sneaky step to keep that agenda going.

No, since you ask. Moreover, Lincoln was not disingenuous or an Alinsky follower, especially given the EP was decades before Alinsky was even born.

jbuck919 · Post by **jbuck919** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 8:28 pm

rwetmore wrote:
jbuck919 wrote:And I suppose you think that Lincoln's real aim was to preserve slavery, and that the Emancipation Proclamation was just one more sneaky step to keep that agenda going.
No, since you ask. Moreover, Lincoln was not disingenuous or an Alinsky follower, especially given the EP was decades before Alinsky was even born.

Who is this Alinsky? Was he a famous English poet? Did he recently die of complications of esophageal cancer?

rwetmore · Post by **rwetmore** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 8:38 pm

jbuck919 wrote:Who is this Alinsky? Was he a famous English poet? Did he recently die of complications of esophageal cancer?

Saul Alinsky via Rules for Radicals:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals

"According to Alinsky, the organizer — especially a paid organizer from outside — must first overcome suspicion and establish credibility. Next the organizer must begin the task of agitating: rubbing resentments, fanning hostilities, and searching out controversy. This is necessary to get people to participate. An organizer has to attack apathy and disturb the prevailing patterns of complacent community life where people have simply come to accept a situation. Alinsky would say, "The first step in community organization is community disorganization."

Through a process combining hope and resentment, the organizer tries to create a "mass army" that brings in as many recruits as possible from local organizations, churches, services groups, labor unions, corner gangs, and individuals.

According to Alinsky, the main job of the organizer is to bait an opponent into reacting. "The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength."[2]

In a separate chapter he suggests that the perennial question, "Does the end justify the means?" is meaningless as it stands: the real and only question regarding the ethics of means and ends is, and always has been, "Does this particular end justify this particular means?"

lennygoran · Post by **lennygoran** » Sun Dec 18, 2011 5:10 am

>but it also probably wouldn't generate very much 'increased' revenue to the treasury either.<

Yeah but as I said every thing helps--here's another thing that would help--an Obama style infrastructure work program for the unemployed--I've been screaming for them to start by fixing NYC's 10th Ave between the John Jay College and Lincoln Center for months now--that road has been bumpy for years now--what do I have to do--break an axle before your stubborn guys take action. I'll be driving up 10th Ave later today--care to make a $10,000 Romney style bet it still ain't fixed! Regards, Len

rwetmore · Post by **rwetmore** » Sun Dec 18, 2011 8:25 pm

lennygoran wrote:Yeah but as I said every thing helps--

Yeah but it would just be symbolic. It's not going to make any significant dent in the deficit. Basically, it's not going to accomplish anything.

lennygoran · Post by **lennygoran** » Sun Dec 18, 2011 9:23 pm

(Yeah but it would just be symbolic. It's not going to make any significant dent in the deficit. )

Still just as I said-no infrastructure obama 10th ave project improvements-same old bumpy ride to Lincoln Center-very sad. Len

Dennis Spath · Post by **Dennis Spath** » Mon Dec 19, 2011 6:32 pm

John F wrote:
rwetmore wrote:Do you know that Obama broke virtually every campaign promise he made? That in many instances he ended up doing the exactly opposite of what he said he would or wouldn't do? Does this not bother you? Or cause any mistrust?
You asked Lenny, but I'll chime in. Politicians make promises; Presidents made decisions. It's naïve to expect, and childish to demand, that a politician's decisions doggedly fulfill his/her campaign promises even when the real-world circumstances show this to be unwise, or worse. (Yes, I'm talking for example about the no-tax-increase promise that many Republicans made to Grover Norquist.) If a public official seeks reelection, what counts with me is the nature and effect of the decisions he/she has made, not whether they're what he may have promised before being elected. Frankly, I've forgotten what most of those promises were.

How refreshing it is to hear wisdom spoken regarding the differences between campaigning for election to the Presidency, and the realities one actually faces upon taking the oath of office for the First time. It's invariably in a President's 2nd Term that major accomplishments have been achieved, given the learning curve involved while in office as the wheels of History grind inevitably on.

jbuck919 · Post by **jbuck919** » Mon Dec 19, 2011 7:19 pm

Dennis Spath wrote:It's invariably in a President's 2nd Term that major accomplishments have been achieved, given the learning curve involved while in office as the wheels of History grind inevitably on.

I'm not so sure about that. Not hard to come up with counter-examples.

Dennis Spath · Post by **Dennis Spath** » Tue Dec 20, 2011 12:14 pm

jbuck919 wrote:
Dennis Spath wrote:It's invariably in a President's 2nd Term that major accomplishments have been achieved, given the learning curve involved while in office as the wheels of History grind inevitably on.
I'm not so sure about that. Not hard to come up with counter-examples.

Most obvious, of course, being President Franklin Roosevelt's first term in office. But for the most part it's difficult to argue that two term Presidents do a better job in the first term because they have LESS knowledge and experience!

John F · Post by **John F** » Tue Dec 20, 2011 1:16 pm

On the other hand, second-term Presidents since Harry Truman are lame ducks the morning after reelection day, and have less leverage with Congress for that reason. Or at least that used to be the case. With the erosion of party discipline and the shortening of Presidential coat-tails, maximum Presidential effectiveness may now be concentrated in the first two years rather than the whole first term.

Who is online