Political Roundtable - Part V

[popper]

Great - Ron Klain, our new Ebola Czar, has no medical background and no infectious disease background but he does have extensive experience in partisan political spinning.

[Nivek]

Great - Ron Klain, our new Ebola Czar, has no medical background and no infectious disease background but he does have extensive experience in partisan political spinning.

Klain is a career manager whose judgement they trust. I THINK I'd have preferred someone with expertise in infectious disease control, but I can understand an executive choosing a person he views as competent, smart, and trustworthy.

I also think we could use a whole lot less partisan sniping and general hysteria. Why not try to take the view that the president and the people advising him mean well and are doing what they believe to be prudent based on the information currently available?

[popper]

Great - Ron Klain, our new Ebola Czar, has no medical background and no infectious disease background but he does have extensive experience in partisan political spinning.

Klain is a career manager whose judgement they trust. I THINK I'd have preferred someone with expertise in infectious disease control, but I can understand an executive choosing a person he views as competent, smart, and trustworthy.

I also think we could use a whole lot less partisan sniping and general hysteria. Why not try to take the view that the president and the people advising him mean well and are doing what they believe to be prudent based on the information currently available?

Because they have proven over and over again that that is not the case and trusting this president has put the country in a very dangerous position. The majority of Americans believe the phrase "honest and trustworthy" do not apply to Obama.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence ... rustworthy

[montestewart]

Great - Ron Klain, our new Ebola Czar, has no medical background and no infectious disease background but he does have extensive experience in partisan political spinning.

Klain is a career manager whose judgement they trust. I THINK I'd have preferred someone with expertise in infectious disease control, but I can understand an executive choosing a person he views as competent, smart, and trustworthy.

I also think we could use a whole lot less partisan sniping and general hysteria. Why not try to take the view that the president and the people advising him mean well and are doing what they believe to be prudent based on the information currently available?

Because they have proven over and over again that that is not the case and trusting this president has put the country in a very dangerous position. The majority of Americans believe the phrase "honest and trustworthy" do not apply to Obama.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence ... rustworthy

Actually, it's a 51% majority of 1,027 adults surveyed with a +/- 4 points margin of error. If things break his way, maybe he ekes out a victory, eh?

[Nivek]

Great - Ron Klain, our new Ebola Czar, has no medical background and no infectious disease background but he does have extensive experience in partisan political spinning.

Klain is a career manager whose judgement they trust. I THINK I'd have preferred someone with expertise in infectious disease control, but I can understand an executive choosing a person he views as competent, smart, and trustworthy.

I also think we could use a whole lot less partisan sniping and general hysteria. Why not try to take the view that the president and the people advising him mean well and are doing what they believe to be prudent based on the information currently available?

Because they have proven over and over again that that is not the case and trusting this president has put the country in a very dangerous position. The majority of Americans believe the phrase "honest and trustworthy" do not apply to Obama.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence ... rustworthy

Meh. You'll find the same kind of polling data about nearly any politician. As someone who's neither an Obama supporter or basher, I don't find him to be any less honest and trustworthy than his predecessors in the office, or among politicians in general. I do have a fairly low opinion of the honesty and trustworthiness of politicians in general, though.

I also don't agree that the Obama administration has proven they aren't well meaning, in general. My guess is conservative partisans (like yourself) would take this as true. Liberal partisans would probably take it as untrue. I'm not partisan, but I tend to think that they're doing what they think would be best, and that they're not trying to hurt people. Sorta like, I assume most Republicans probably mean well and are trying to implement policies they think will be best for the country.

One of the great disservices the professional commentators have done for the country is the "knowing" assertion of evil and insidious motives to the "other" side. Granted, it's a lot easier to say the other guy is evil than it is to dissect his policies and explain in functional (not political) terms why other ideas are better. And probably not as entertaining.

As for the topic of conversation -- Ebola -- I readily admit that I don't know how to manage an Ebola epidemic. Shep Smith on FOX did a great segment on it today. I'm sure you can google up the video. From what I've read of the virus and the currently available facts, it doesn't seem like there's much reason for panic or for a big government reaction. A guy got Ebola in Africa and a couple healthcare workers caught it from him -- apparently because the hospital didn't really know what it was doing at first.

Just a wild guess, but the political leaders are getting advice from people with expertise in infectious disease control. Don't see much reason to panic. Or to criticize the president's leadership.

Except for the garden variety partisan bitch fest that seems to come along with everything.

To whit: If Obama had announced travel restrictions and mandatory screenings and a list of other steps to prevent this EPIDEMIC, Republicans would be accusing him of panicking, overreacting and overreaching his authority.

[popper]

Klain is a career manager whose judgement they trust. I THINK I'd have preferred someone with expertise in infectious disease control, but I can understand an executive choosing a person he views as competent, smart, and trustworthy.

I also think we could use a whole lot less partisan sniping and general hysteria. Why not try to take the view that the president and the people advising him mean well and are doing what they believe to be prudent based on the information currently available?

Because they have proven over and over again that that is not the case and trusting this president has put the country in a very dangerous position. The majority of Americans believe the phrase "honest and trustworthy" do not apply to Obama.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence ... rustworthy

Meh. You'll find the same kind of polling data about nearly any politician. As someone who's neither an Obama supporter or basher, I don't find him to be any less honest and trustworthy than his predecessors in the office, or among politicians in general. I do have a fairly low opinion of the honesty and trustworthiness of politicians in general, though.

I also don't agree that the Obama administration has proven they aren't well meaning, in general. My guess is conservative partisans (like yourself) would take this as true. Liberal partisans would probably take it as untrue. I'm not partisan, but I tend to think that they're doing what they think would be best, and that they're not trying to hurt people. Sorta like, I assume most Republicans probably mean well and are trying to implement policies they think will be best for the country.

One of the great disservices the professional commentators have done for the country is the "knowing" assertion of evil and insidious motives to the "other" side. Granted, it's a lot easier to say the other guy is evil than it is to dissect his policies and explain in functional (not political) terms why other ideas are better. And probably not as entertaining.

As for the topic of conversation -- Ebola -- I readily admit that I don't know how to manage an Ebola epidemic. Shep Smith on FOX did a great segment on it today. I'm sure you can google up the video. From what I've read of the virus and the currently available facts, it doesn't seem like there's much reason for panic or for a big government reaction. A guy got Ebola in Africa and a couple healthcare workers caught it from him -- apparently because the hospital didn't really know what it was doing at first.

Just a wild guess, but the political leaders are getting advice from people with expertise in infectious disease control. Don't see much reason to panic. Or to criticize the president's leadership.

Except for the garden variety partisan bitch fest that seems to come along with everything.

To whit: If Obama had announced travel restrictions and mandatory screenings and a list of other steps to prevent this EPIDEMIC, Republicans would be accusing him of panicking, overreacting and overreaching his authority.

Your defense of Obama in the way he handles Ebola and other crisis facing our country is certainly your prerogative Nivek. As you know, he is postponing executive actions on Immigration until after the elections so that Dems in close elections aren't punished by the voters for his unlawful actions. He's also ordered the withholding of Obamacare rate adjustments until after the election (obviously for political reasons). How anybody can trust a word this man utters is beyond me but maybe I'm wrong about him.

I just hope you don't wake up one day and realize you've been had in the same way I felt after posting that Maynard would be ok as backup PG.

[montestewart]

I just hope you don't wake up one day and realize you've been had in the same way I felt after posting that Maynard would be ok as backup PG.

How could you have known?

[Nivek]

Ah hell, I'm not even defending Obama. I don't KNOW if his administration's approach on Ebola is correct. AND NEITHER DO YOU -- unless, of course, you're an expert on infectious disease control.

What I'm "defending" is reason. Thought. Listen to yourself. Listen to the schmucks feeding you this "he's out to destroy America" bull. Obama isn't trying to ruin America, he's doing what he THINKS will make things better. Same as George W. Bush did. And Clinton. And George H.W. Bush. And Carter and Ford and so on into the past.

Even Nixon at his most underhanded thought he was doing what was best for the country, as he saw it.

[popper]

Ah hell, I'm not even defending Obama. I don't KNOW if his administration's approach on Ebola is correct. AND NEITHER DO YOU -- unless, of course, you're an expert on infectious disease control.

What I'm "defending" is reason. Thought. Listen to yourself. Listen to the schmucks feeding you this "he's out to destroy America" bull. Obama isn't trying to ruin America, he's doing what he THINKS will make things better. Same as George W. Bush did. And Clinton. And George H.W. Bush. And Carter and Ford and so on into the past.

Even Nixon at his most underhanded thought he was doing what was best for the country, as he saw it.

I've never said Obama is out to destroy America and I’ve never said Obama is out to ruin America. Nor have I referenced any schmucks that have said so. Straw men aside, I agree he’s doing what he THINKS will make things better (however he defines that). Unfortunately he uses deception and lies to achieve his objectives because he knows that an honest presentation would not go over well with the voting public. This is how he got Obamacare passed. This is why he delays implementing a whole host of policies until after the next election.

As I've said before, I’m an equal opportunity critic. I harshly criticized Bush when he deserved it and it’s only fair that I do so with Obama. I get no pleasure from doing this but I’m not going to hide my head in the sand and pretend everything is ok. It’s not, and like Nixon, I believe history will remember Obama as one of the most deceitful and duplicitous presidents of all time.

Here is what a few non-schmuck Democrats have to say about him.

“The danger is quite severe. The problem with what the president is doing is that he's not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He's becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid. “
Democrat and Constitutional Scholar Jonathan Turley

“But frankly, he should never have said as much as he did, that if you like your current health care plan, you can keep it. That wasn't true. And you shouldn't lie to people. And they just lied to people."
Democrat and former representative Barney Frank

“And Obama knew full well he was lying when he promised that the Affordable Care Act would allow Americans to keep insurance plans they liked. He had to know he was misleading the audience' ..
Democrat and former U.S. Senator Bob Kerrey

Obama “avoids the battle, complains, and misses opportunities.”
Democrat and former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta

[penbeast0]

Question . . . do you trust what Obama says less than when you heard George W. Bush or Bill Clinton speaking? We have created a culture where speaking truth seems to disqualify you for the Presidency. How many Presidents have we had in the last half century going back to Kennedy that weren't inveterate liars . . . Jimmy Carter is about it, and he may have been the most incompetent man we've had in the job (I'd like to rate him second least competent behind George W. Bush personally but Bush had a stretch where he got things he wanted done after 9-11; Carter never did).

[popper]

Question . . . do you trust what Obama says less than when you heard George W. Bush or Bill Clinton speaking? We have created a culture where speaking truth seems to disqualify you for the Presidency. How many Presidents have we had in the last half century going back to Kennedy that weren't inveterate liars . . . Jimmy Carter is about it, and he may have been the most incompetent man we've had in the job (I'd like to rate him second least competent behind George W. Bush personally but Bush had a stretch where he got things he wanted done after 9-11; Carter never did).

I do trust Obama less than Bush and Clinton because he has proven over and over again that he is serially dishonest about important govt. policy and accountability. I love your question regarding "can an honest person be elected to high office." I think it would be difficult but not impossible.

As you know, politicians buy votes with other peoples money. An honest candidate would declare that we have to start cutting this or that and then that particular interest group goes crazy. Dems are much better and more effective than Repubs at buying votes but they are both guilty.

I have recommended that Repubs provide lump sum cash payments over and above their current take to a significant segment of Dem constituency. These payments would come from reductions in other federal spending. For instance, eliminate the Dept's. of Education, Energy and other wasteful spending as well as the half of the FAA's budget used to promote air travel (as if the govt. needs to promote air travel). Take two thirds of the savings and make payments to Dem constituents (single women, Muslims, Latinos, Blacks, govt. workers, etc.) One can easily design a policy that would pass muster and reward Dems for voting in Repubs. If Democrat John Doe wants an extra grand a year then he would have a financial incentive to vote Repub.

[hands11]

Question . . . do you trust what Obama says less than when you heard George W. Bush or Bill Clinton speaking? We have created a culture where speaking truth seems to disqualify you for the Presidency. How many Presidents have we had in the last half century going back to Kennedy that weren't inveterate liars . . . Jimmy Carter is about it, and he may have been the most incompetent man we've had in the job (I'd like to rate him second least competent behind George W. Bush personally but Bush had a stretch where he got things he wanted done after 9-11; Carter never did).

I do trust Obama less than Bush and Clinton because he has proven over and over again that he is serially dishonest about important govt. policy and accountability. I love your question regarding "can an honest person be elected to high office." I think it would be difficult but not impossible.

As you know, politicians buy votes with other peoples money. An honest candidate would declare that we have to start cutting this or that and then that particular interest group goes crazy. Dems are much better and more effective than Repubs at buying votes but they are both guilty.

I have recommended that Repubs provide lump sum cash payments over and above their current take to a significant segment of Dem constituency. These payments would come from reductions in other federal spending. For instance, eliminate the Dept's. of Education, Energy and other wasteful spending as well as the half of the FAA's budget used to promote air travel (as if the govt. needs to promote air travel). Take two thirds of the savings and make payments to Dem constituents (single women, Muslims, Latinos, Blacks, govt. workers, etc.) One can easily design a policy that would pass muster and reward Dems for voting in Repubs. If Democrat John Doe wants an extra grand a year then he would have a financial incentive to vote Repub.

Popper

Reading your posts is like listing to Rush or watching Fox Noise.

When Clinton was President, Rs said he was the devil and the worst President ever.

[popper]

Question . . . do you trust what Obama says less than when you heard George W. Bush or Bill Clinton speaking? We have created a culture where speaking truth seems to disqualify you for the Presidency. How many Presidents have we had in the last half century going back to Kennedy that weren't inveterate liars . . . Jimmy Carter is about it, and he may have been the most incompetent man we've had in the job (I'd like to rate him second least competent behind George W. Bush personally but Bush had a stretch where he got things he wanted done after 9-11; Carter never did).

I do trust Obama less than Bush and Clinton because he has proven over and over again that he is serially dishonest about important govt. policy and accountability. I love your question regarding "can an honest person be elected to high office." I think it would be difficult but not impossible.

As you know, politicians buy votes with other peoples money. An honest candidate would declare that we have to start cutting this or that and then that particular interest group goes crazy. Dems are much better and more effective than Repubs at buying votes but they are both guilty.

I have recommended that Repubs provide lump sum cash payments over and above their current take to a significant segment of Dem constituency. These payments would come from reductions in other federal spending. For instance, eliminate the Dept's. of Education, Energy and other wasteful spending as well as the half of the FAA's budget used to promote air travel (as if the govt. needs to promote air travel). Take two thirds of the savings and make payments to Dem constituents (single women, Muslims, Latinos, Blacks, govt. workers, etc.) One can easily design a policy that would pass muster and reward Dems for voting in Repubs. If Democrat John Doe wants an extra grand a year then he would have a financial incentive to vote Repub.

Popper

Reading your posts is like listing to Rush or watching Fox Noise.

When Clinton was President, Rs said he was the devil and the worst President ever.

Hello Hands,

Good to re-engage with you. Hope all is well. Rush and Fox Noise are generally ignorant about how to turn this country around. To be honest, I can't even stand to listen to them. My posts stand on their merits until someone overcomes the substance and logic of the content. When and if that happens I will freely admit to and defer to the superior logic as I have done in the past. I have been proven wrong here before and, as you know, will readily concede to a more informed and well reasoned position. Until then, you're stuck with me and my opinions.

Stay thirsty my friend.

[Nivek]

I haven't found Obama to be any more or less trustworthy than anyone else who's held the presidency. Presidents lie. Probably all of them, but I haven't done a study on the subject to say for sure. In that respect, presidents (politicians in general) are oddly like the rest of us. We lie too. All of us. To get what we want, to avoid embarrassment, to make others feel good. To expect a president to be fundamentally different from the rest of us is naive, I think.

Glad we can agree on Rush Limbaugh and FOX News. Although, Shep Smith had some commentary about the ebola coverage. Not that he redeemed the network, but it was good to hear something rational from the cable networks for a change.

[penbeast0]

Ah hell, I'm not even defending Obama. I don't KNOW if his administration's approach on Ebola is correct. AND NEITHER DO YOU -- unless, of course, you're an expert on infectious disease control.

What I'm "defending" is reason. Thought. Listen to yourself. Listen to the schmucks feeding you this "he's out to destroy America" bull. Obama isn't trying to ruin America, he's doing what he THINKS will make things better. Same as George W. Bush did. And Clinton. And George H.W. Bush. And Carter and Ford and so on into the past.

Even Nixon at his most underhanded thought he was doing what was best for the country, as he saw it.

Even if he is not trying to ruin America, it can fairly be said that some of his policies are potentially very destructive of the Constitution which is the basis of American government. Like George W. Bush and the jailing of terrorism suspect without trial and sending prisoners to countries that torture (as well as waterboarding and the like), President Obama is creating some very dangerous precedents with his continual end runs around Congress. He (and others, sometimes including me) may not like what Congress does or doesn't do but we set up a government of limited powers with specific checks and balances. The idea that only Congress can pass laws and the President's job is to implement them is one of the main cornerstones of the U.S. Government. This has already been greatly weakened by the growth of the bureaucratic state and the power of regulatory bodies to create rules, but President Obama has been taking it to a greater extreme than any President to date. That's dangerous.

[dckingsfan]

Ah hell, I'm not even defending Obama. I don't KNOW if his administration's approach on Ebola is correct. AND NEITHER DO YOU -- unless, of course, you're an expert on infectious disease control.

What I'm "defending" is reason. Thought. Listen to yourself. Listen to the schmucks feeding you this "he's out to destroy America" bull. Obama isn't trying to ruin America, he's doing what he THINKS will make things better. Same as George W. Bush did. And Clinton. And George H.W. Bush. And Carter and Ford and so on into the past.

Even Nixon at his most underhanded thought he was doing what was best for the country, as he saw it.

Even if he is not trying to ruin America, it can fairly be said that some of his policies are potentially very destructive of the Constitution which is the basis of American government. Like George W. Bush and the jailing of terrorism suspect without trial and sending prisoners to countries that torture (as well as waterboarding and the like), President Obama is creating some very dangerous precedents with his continual end runs around Congress. He (and others, sometimes including me) may not like what Congress does or doesn't do but we set up a government of limited powers with specific checks and balances. The idea that only Congress can pass laws and the President's job is to implement them is one of the main cornerstones of the U.S. Government. This has already been greatly weakened by the growth of the bureaucratic state and the power of regulatory bodies to create rules, but President Obama has been taking it to a greater extreme than any President to date. That's dangerous.

Agreed, and what worries me more is the next R president doing more of the same. Then the following D president doubling down or Obama, Bush, ect.

[penbeast0]

The old "slippery slope" to autocracy.

[Nivek]

Haven't we been on that "slippery slope" for a long time, though?

[dckingsfan]

It "seems" like it is accelerating. But feelings on these things are often wrong.

Possibly it is because much of the rulings seem "arbitrary" to me. I feel like starting with Bush "things started getting out of hand". For O'bama it has been all of the ACA changes, profiling by the IRS, recess appointments, issuing work and residence permits, etc.

And maybe it is because I like to follow the Supreme Court rulings - it seems like the Justice Department is getting continually slammed.

But, I haven't seen any factual numbers to base the "feeling" on. Love to know if anyone is keeping score.

[penbeast0]

Well, the Judiciary has backed off bigtime since I was in school looking at court ordered busing rules that would bus kids across county lines, mandate the amount of money spent on everything from gymnasiums to music programs, and otherwise take over the legislative/executive functions of running local schools.

Congress still has issues with passing omnibus bills stuffed with riders and earmarks that are so long and complicated no one even reads them before voting on them, but hasn't made any major power grabs in a long time.

It's pretty much the executive branch that keeps biting off extra pieces of the pie. And yes, it's been going on since the New Deal and the Great Society.