Guest Convention Correspondent -- My Road To The Convention
Program Note: All this week, ChrisWeigant.com will be covering the Democratic National Convention. We hope to bring you a varied picture of the convention itself, and to further this end, we will be featuring a special voice here. As you'll read below (and all week long), Malcom Fox will be one of the youngest people attending the convention. His reports will give valuable insight into how the youngest Democrats view the race, the candidates, and the convention itself.
One side note to make, as well -- during the next week, ChrisWeigant.com will become more of a traditional blog. By this, I mean that multiple postings can occur on any day, by multiple reporters. We cannot commit to posting on any sort of regular schedule, due to the chaotic nature of attempting to cover such events. As technology and time permits, we will strive to get the word out, so check back frequently during the week. Malcom's articles will be part of this mix, and should be appearing daily. Follow along all week with us, as we attempt to tell our stories of attending the 2012 Democratic National Convention.
-- Chris Weigant
My Road to the Convention
I was five when President George Bush "beat" candidate Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election. At the time I had no clue about politics or party philosophy. However, I did know Al Gore received more overall votes in the election than George Bush, and then the members of Supreme Court voted on who would become the next president, and they elected Bush. The election was the first political event that I can remember clearly in my life, and although I was always bound to be a liberal (given the household I grew up in), that lost election established my anti-conservative opinion. I followed the Kerry/Bush election in 2004 with determination (or at least all the determination a nine-year-old can muster), thinking I could somehow impact the results of the election. Of course I was wrong.
Just watching the elections myself could in no way help the candidates I supported; instead I decided to learn the policies and approaches of each party. I listened to the news (I'm partial to Morning Joe and MacNeil/Lehrer), and although some may debate whether MSNBC is really a credible news source, as a liberal it made me happy. I enjoyed mocking Bush's policies in my elementary and middle schools, feeling incredibly smart because no one else did so. As 2008 rolled around, I wanted to get involved in electing a Democratic president -- the kind that that I felt this country needed. The country was a mess as a result of two wars that weren't paid for and a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans which resulted in an economic crisis that could only be compared to the Great Depression -- our worst economic condition in more than eighty years. I asked Mom how I could involve myself in an election and try to make a minuscule difference for the Democratic Party I supported.
So I hopped into a car with my mother and we drove to Philadelphia to campaign for candidate Obama. I had always supported Obama from the primary. He was young (relatively speaking, of course), exciting, and he talked in a manner that portrayed America as having the potential to be a better country. He talked of economic change and universal health care that could transition America into the modern world of social care for citizens. My mother, on the other hand, was a determined Hillary supporter, and she was really disappointed that Clinton was bypassed for the nomination. However, as a loyal party member she threw her full support behind Obama and we campaigned for Obama and cheered when he won the presidency on a chilly November night.
Unfortunately -- and I never want to repeat this -- I think my mother was right. In the last four years, like many other Americans, I have been disappointed. Obama ran on a platform of change in America, perhaps too boldly so, and he made promises that disappointed Americans when he couldn't fulfill them. Not to take away from his incredible accomplishment on health care, but ultimately he has not fixed the "Number One" problem with America: the economy. His inexperience in politics showed as he tried to compromise with conservatives on everything, instead of pushing through the policies that were needed to fix the country. He extended the Bush era tax cuts that gave the rich even more money, in order to appeal to conservatives, and he strived (naïvely, I think) for a bipartisan approach in Congress.
Regardless, I will support Barack Obama in this election because the alternative, Mitt Romney, appears to be more robot than man. Romney has pandered to the Republican nonsense that has flooded Congress for the last two to four years. He has questioned Obama's birth certificate and has lied about Obama's policies and stances on issues. More so than ever the upcoming election will be a vote for sanity. Americans will either vote for a candidate who will try to fix the economy, whose party supports the belief that no matter how poor a person is they deserve to be healthy, and that women should have rights over their own body -- or they'll vote for a candidate whose party would prefer a theocratic government in which civilians walk around carrying guns without any form of regulation.
I was presented with the opportunity to go to the Democratic National Convention by a program called the Junior Statesmen of America. I immediately showed my interest in the program, and a week later I was admitted. I want to attend the convention in order to assess the atmosphere of the Democrats attending and gauge the amount of support for Obama. In addition, the opportunity to witness people like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama may only present itself once in a lifetime -- and to miss such a chance would be insane. I hope to get a better sense of the direction Obama will take with the economy in his next four years (optimistically speaking), and to see how, and if, he responds to the Republican's negativity. Can the president can stay positive in his campaign and focus on policy instead of the bureaucratic banter Romney subjects people to? Regardless, I will get to experience history unfold in front of me in Charlotte, and I can't wait.
I enjoy talking about politics and encouraging opposing points of view. I hope to blog about my findings at the convention to induce discussions with people who don't agree with me. In addition, I want my blog to include interesting political points that may not occur to others, to spark conversation. I haven't been blogging for all that long, but I have thoroughly discussed politics for many years. As a result, I believe my commentary to be both insightful and helpful in discerning the various political speeches and statements made throughout the convention. Also, I would hope to continue the blog after the convention and commentate regularly on the complex and intricate nature of American politics.
-- Malcom Fox
Follow all of Malcom's convention reports: from his own blog.
Malcom,
That was quite an interesting read. I'll be looking forward to your take on the convention as a whole and on what the individual speakers have to say.
Our mothers are usually right but, not in this case. I mean that sincerely, I'm not trying to be facetious here. (Do you know who often says that?)
As far as being inexperienced is concerned, Hillary was just as inexperienced as Obama was back in 2008. If you and your mother have concluded that it would have been better for the Democrats to have nominated a candidate with more experience then you both should have been heartily supporting Senator Biden. In any event, he is now the vice president and did indeed add an immeasurable amount of experience, competence and good judgement to the Democratic ticket in 2008.
Now, as for your disappointment with Obama vis-a-vis the economy ...
You have not been clear about how he has disappointed you. For example, what would a President Hillary Clinton have done any differently to avert a full-scale, all-out second Great Depression that Obama/Biden/Geithner did not do?
I would suggest that the disappointment many Democrats say they feel with respect to how Obama/Geithner managed, and are managing, this ongoing financial crisis is woefully misdirected. Do you not consider the fact that Obama's policies averted a second Great Depression to be a great economic accomplishment?
Was the economy circling the drain on the day Obama was sworn into office? That would be a yes. Is the economy now recovering? Absolutely, and despite a great deal of obstruction from the opposition party, the depth of which I am sure that you are well aware of. Is it recovering to the extent that we would all like? Of course not! This financial crisis was unlike any other and it's going to take more than four years of good policy for the economy to fully recover.
You mentioned that Obama extended the Bush era tax cuts that gave the rich even more money, in order to appeal to conservatives. I'm afraid that analysis misses the boat by a country mile. As you must know, the opposition party essentially resorted to blackmail over the Bush/Cheney era tax cuts, holding the extension of the middle class tax cuts hostage to the extension of the higher end tax cuts, number one. And, number two, despite opposition efforts, this "tax package" was rather cunningly managed by the Obama administration into a much needed second stimulus bill that included a host of measures that helped the fragile economic recovery continue.
Like you, I'll be listening carefully to the convention speeches, particularly from Obama and Biden ... oh, and the former Presidents Carter and Clinton, too ... and I'll be watching carefully to see how Obama will handle the high end Bush/Cheney era tax cuts that are set to expire at the end of 2012, on schedule. If these cuts do not expire on schedule, then we can revisit the disappointment with Obama and whether it is misdirected or not! Deal?
Great commentary.
I just have to question one part.
The idea that Obama tried to compromise with Republicans is pure fantasy..
It's a political contrivance, machined so as to give the Left more (imaginary) ammunition against the Right.. As if they need it..
Obama only paid lip service to the idea of compromise. This was no more evident than during the ObamaCare fiasco that consumed ALL of (and then some) Obama's political clout.
How many of the GOP's ideas went into ObamaCare??
Tort Reform??? "Oh, we'll have Kathy over at HHS take a look at that.."
What happened??
Not a thing...
Obama's idea of "compromise" was to offer Republicans impossible options that he KNEW they could not possibly accept and then walk away with a shrug of his shoulders and say, "well hay... I tried.."
Obama has Chicago politics down pat...
But Americans are tired of Chicago politics...
Otherwise, great commentary... I mean that...
Michale.....
Obama only paid lip service to the idea of compromise. This was no more evident than during the ObamaCare fiasco that consumed ALL of (and then some) Obama's political clout.
How many of the GOP's ideas went into ObamaCare??
how many? try ALL of them! you're right about obamacare not being a compromise. he eschewed nearly all lefty ideas and used nearly all republican ones. The individual mandate came from the heritage foundation in the 90's, was promoted by newt and was implemented by mitt. obamacare keeps the corporations in charge of healthcare, and it subsidizes premiums so the profits keep growing just as nixon envisioned. it gives HMO's the power to make medical decisions for patients. single payer was under the bus before the debate even started.
it's no wonder the republicans are so upset at obama, he stole all of their ideas!
obamacare keeps the corporations in charge of healthcare
Obama promptly obeyed the insurance lobbyist when she insisted he dump the public option and institute a mandate, poet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PwqSCJmbxk It's a called a quid pro quo, plain and simple. The lobbyist got her money-machine mandate — now a tax — and O got his legacy. And there wasn't a single Republican who backed it. So spare us the trip in the WayBack Machine to the days of Nixon, and the 90's, etc. O sold the Left out, and he forced his legacy-making CrapCare on a majority of Americans who never wanted it passed and, to this day, want it repealed.
wayback, my arse. romneycare was enacted in 2006, and gingrich supported a mandate as recently as 2008. they, along with the majority of congressional republicans, flipped against the mandate only after obama flopped in favor of it.
how many? try ALL of them!
Really??
Where is Tort Reform???
Tell ya what.. Do Democrats REALLY want to lower Health Care costs???
Do they REALLY and TRULY want to bring down out of control Health Care costs???
Destroy all tobacco and make using and/or possessing tobacco a Class 3 Felony..
You do that and Health Care costs would plummet...
I don't see how that could be ANY problem for Democrats... Since they want this country to be the Ultimate in Nanny State'edness, this idea is right in keeping with that concept...
How many of ya'all would support that idea??
Michale.....
Gingrich is completely irrelevant to this election..
Further, there is a HUGE difference between a GOVERNOR implementing a policy specifically tailored to HIS state and the entire Federal Government trying to force a one size fits all program that the vast majority of Americans are against..
ObamaCare was not needed and not wanted and was DIRECTLY responsible for the Great Democrat Shellacking Of 2010.
Michale.....
wayback, my arse. romneycare was enacted in 2006,
That was a state program. That Obama sold the Left out by implementing a Republican governor's state program at the national level is Obama's doing. God forbid the Left should ever hold its own pols accountable for their own decisions and actions.
God forbid the Left should ever hold its own pols accountable for their own decisions and actions.
yea, that's a pain, ain't it??
Michty "criticized" Obama because he extended the Bush tax cuts.. But then, "But he only did it because the Republicans MADE him do it"... (emphasis mine)
Personally, I wouldn't WANT a leader that couldn't stand up to political pressure and could be MADE to do something that is morally abhorrent...
Which simply re-enforces what I said before..
The Left's "criticism" of Obama consists of a Noun, a Verb and, "It's all the Republican's fault!"
I would LOVE to see anyone here come up with a factual and relevant criticism of Obama that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the GOP....
Michale.....
Malcolm
Welcome to the site! Fantastic post - I agree almost with every comment. I do sympathise with the points of Liz, especially on the tax cuts, but there is no doubt Obama was naive as a President and over-compromised at times - this was his biggest failure. As Joshua (nypoet) put it: it's no wonder the republicans are so upset at obama, he stole all of their ideas!
But there-in lies the catch-22 of this election. We, on the left, can criticise Obama because he moved right in many areas (eg. healthcare). But Republicans cannot criticise him for moving right, they obviously like that! So they resort to inventing stuff Obama does and trying to invent a 'socialist' Obama because they really have no arguments against what he has done.
And where they do have arguments - the stimulus, bailout of GM, equal pay for women, gay rights, abortion, taxes, regulating the banks - the public fall on the side of Obama so they don't want to initiate a debate they'll lose very badly. So they just make up stuff. Obamacare? That's robbing Medicare! Tax the rich? He just wants you to turn up and get your free check! And the inane mud slinging continues daily...
God forbid the Left should ever hold its own pols accountable for their own decisions and actions.
Although, to be fair, Joshua is probably the most far Right of all the Lefties here.... :D
Michale....
the stimulus,
Which DIDN'T keep Unemployment below 8% FAIL
bailout of GM
Which the American people are STILL on the hook for TWENTY FIVE BILLION FAIL
equal pay for women
Which the White House a stated men's club that doesn't give women equal pay for equal work.. FAIL
gay rights,
Got to give credit for this one, even though I am philosophically against giving people "rights" solely for lifestyle choices...
abortion,
Something I care very very little about.
taxes,
OBAMA CARE/TAX FAIL
regulating the banks -
BBBAAHWHWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA FAIL
Anything else????
And the inane mud slinging continues daily...
Only on the days that Democrats and Team Obama open their mouths...
Michale.....
Michty "criticized" Obama because he extended the Bush tax cuts.. But then, "But he only did it because the Republicans MADE him do it"...
And this is while he still had Pelosi/Reid's majority congress. But, of course, nothing can ever be O's fault, so it has to be the Republicans', despite the fact that it was a Dem congress.
Michale
Well this should be fun.
- Please outline the Republican alternative to the stimulus. I don't recall hearing about one or what they would've done instead...
- So you believe that being on the hook for $25b is worse than the loss of an entire industry? Do you oppose all bailouts or just the ones Obama did? Do you believe $25b is a large sum of money in proportion to the GDP generated by the auto industry?
- I'd love to hear your reasoning why Lilly Ledbetter was a fail, or Republican alternatives to this.
- We all know Republicans are in the stone age on abortions and gay rights. At least we're agreed there.
- Taxes - so you believe in 'Trickle Down'? So you are in the minority of Americans who don't want to see taxes raised on the wealthy (i.e the minority who agree with the Republican position)?
- You believe in no bank regulation? So you, once again, like Republicans, are in the minority of Americans who believe in de-regulating the banks?
You see when you try to break Republicans down into actual policies they realise:
1. How unpopular their policies are - they are in the minority on almost every issue
2. They don't have any better alternatives or any explanation as to what they would've done differently (except for GM, where Romney clearly stated 'let Detroit go bankrupt').
This is why the Romney/Ryan campaign is to keep quiet about their actual policies (they are unpopular) and why, for example, neither of them talked about a single policy of theirs during their speeches - just blank rhetoric.
CB
And this is while he still had Pelosi/Reid's majority congress. But, of course, nothing can ever be O's fault, so it has to be the Republicans', despite the fact that it was a Dem congress.
Round in circles we go. You know it is an absolute fact that Republicans filibustered Obama's (several) attempts to end Bush tax cuts. But keep on denying and blaming Obama... The record all time high number of filibustering by Republicans is Obama's fault.
Credit to you Michale, at least you're actually willing to debate these issues, unlike your Republican candidates...
- Please outline the Republican alternative to the stimulus. I don't recall hearing about one or what they would've done instead...
What good would it have done??
Obama had a LOCK on all facets of the government.. And, as he proved time and time again, he only gave lip-service to the idea of compromise and bi-partisanship..
- So you believe that being on the hook for $25b is worse than the loss of an entire industry?
Actually, I do.. I was on record at the time and I still believe it to this day that it would have been better to let the entire industry collapse and then build a newer, better more modern system with emphasis on green technologies..
Yea, it would have hurt real bad for a bit. But by now, we would actually be on a REAL recovery..
But Nooooooooo Obama thought it better to put a band-aid on a heart attack patient and extend the pain and suffering until the NEXT bailout...
- You believe in no bank regulation?
That's not it.. I was laughing so hard because Obama loves the banker's money and wall street's money. He hasn't reined them in at all, which is why we are facing ANOTHER economic meltdown..
This is why the Romney/Ryan campaign is to keep quiet about their actual policies (they are unpopular) and why, for example, neither of them talked about a single policy of theirs during their speeches - just blank rhetoric.
In YOUR opinion...
Apparently, the American people feel differently as evidenced by ALL the polls that mention the economy.. Americans prefer Romney to Obama on the question of fixing the economy..
"These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed."
-Captain Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN
Michale.....
The record all time high number of filibustering by Republicans is Obama's fault.
For not offering REAL compromise and palatable choices???
Yea, that IS Obama's fault...
Like I said. A noun, a verb and "it's all the Republican's fault".....
Michale.....
Obama had a LOCK on all facets of the government.. And, as he proved time and time again, he only gave lip-service to the idea of compromise and bi-partisanship..
So the 70 bills (a record high at the time, although this record didn't last long!) that were blocked from passing in 2009-2010 by the filibuster are just inventions? They don't exist?
And the fact the left are pissed off at Obama for over-compromising is just us making stuff up too?
Seriously man open your eyes! I agree you can't blame Republicans for everything but there are obviously legitimate obstructionist claims you are ignoring - perhaps you should re-read CW's 'worst Congress ever' article...
Actually, I do.. I was on record at the time and I still believe it to this day that it would have been better to let the entire industry collapse and then build a newer, better more modern system with emphasis on green technologies..
Yea, it would have hurt real bad for a bit. But by now, we would actually be on a REAL recovery..
This is a legitimate argument and good point. I think I'd agree with you if America wasn't already in a massive recession. I think at the time the bailout was the best decision, otherwise we'd probably be looking at 10%+ unemployment today. Reforming an entire industry during the peak of the biggest recession in 70 years isn't the choice time to do it. Can you at least agree with this logic?
That's not it.. I was laughing so hard because Obama loves the banker's money and wall street's money. He hasn't reined them in at all, which is why we are facing ANOTHER economic meltdown
You've lost me here. What other economic meltdown? And what bank de-regulation caused economic meltdown??
Apparently, the American people feel differently as evidenced by ALL the polls that mention the economy.. Americans prefer Romney to Obama on the question of fixing the economy..
And, as I mentioned in my previous post, when you poll on SPECIFIC POLICIES Americans vastly support Obama's policies (economic and otherwise). This is why Romney keeps stum about his actual plans.
Seriously man open your eyes! I agree you can't blame Republicans for everything but there are obviously legitimate obstructionist claims you are ignoring - perhaps you should re-read CW's 'worst Congress ever' article...
Obstruction is what the minority Party does..
There's a story I heard as a child, a parable, and I never forgot it: A scorpion was walking along the bank of a river, wondering how to get to the other side. Suddenly he saw a fox. He asked the fox to take him on his back across the river. The fox said, "No. If I do that, you'll sting me, and I'll drown." The scorpion assured him, "If I did that, we'd both drown." So the fox thought about it, finally agreed. So the scorpion climbed up on his back, and the fox began to swim. But halfway across the river, the scorpion stung him. As the poison filled his veins, the fox turned to the scorpion and said, "Why did you do that? Now you'll drown too." "I couldn't help it," said the scorpion. "It's my nature."
-Chakotay, STAR TREK: VOYAGER
Complaining that a political Party is being obstructionist is like complaining to the Sun that it rises in the East and sets in the West...
The Hysterical Left is simply pissy about it because the GOP does it so much better and more effective than the Democrats...
This is a legitimate argument and good point. I think I'd agree with you if America wasn't already in a massive recession. I think at the time the bailout was the best decision, otherwise we'd probably be looking at 10%+ unemployment today. Reforming an entire industry during the peak of the biggest recession in 70 years isn't the choice time to do it. Can you at least agree with this logic?
All things being equal, the logic is sound.. However, given the nature of the American mindset, the ONLY logical time to do it is WHEN things have gone to hell...
Can you imagine trying to make the case that we should retool an entire industry when everything is peachy keen wonderful??
Americans would laugh that guy out of office...
The ONLY time to do such a thing is when things are really REALLY bad.. Then, and ONLY then, will a true leader with a vision convince the American people that the time to change is now...
You've lost me here. What other economic meltdown? And what bank de-regulation caused economic meltdown??
You do realize that we are headed for a financial cliff, right??? The coming meltdown is going to make 2008 look like a walk in the park by comparison...
And, as I mentioned in my previous post, when you poll on SPECIFIC POLICIES Americans vastly support Obama's policies (economic and otherwise). This is why Romney keeps stum about his actual plans.
Just as Obama kept mum on his specific plans in 2008....
It seemed to work fine for him back then... Why blame Romney for taking a page from the Obama playbook???
Michale.....
Michale
Obstruction is what the minority Party does
The Hysterical Left is simply pissy about it because the GOP does it so much better and more effective than the Democrats
Lol well at least you've admitted they were very effective at being obstructive. We're making progress.
And I agree - the minority party is always going to be obstructive a little. However, let me edit your comment a little:
'Obstruction is what the minority Party does...except when you're in a massive recession, where it is common for parties to put differences aside and work together for the better of the country, not block RECORD HIGH numbers of bills to slow down the recovery.'
Can you imagine trying to make the case that we should retool an entire industry when everything is peachy keen wonderful??
Americans would laugh that guy out of office.
Sure. Like renewable energy these things should be slowly edged in so as not to upset the current economic recovery. And during a recession they should be even more carefully edged in - not SHUT DOWN EVERYTHING, BANKRUPT EVERYTHING AND BEGIN AGAIN! During a recession that would be disastrous!
Just as Obama kept mum on his specific plans in 2008
Again you've lost me. Yes 'Hope and Change' was big part of his election rhetoric. But he backed this up with progressive positions on: taxation, immigration, the economy, civil rights, regulation. Most of which (not all) he has now put into law.
Lol well at least you've admitted they were very effective at being obstructive. We're making progress.
I've never denied it.. I have ALWAYS said how ridiculous it was for the Democratic Party to complain about obstructionist Republicans..
During the Bush years, Democrats *TRIED* to be as obstructionist as the Republicans are now.. But they couldn't pull it off and failed practically every time...
Being obstructionist is what the minority Party does.. Democrats are obstructionist when they are the minority and Republicans are obstructionist when THEY are the Minority party...
Complaining about obstructionism is like complaining that breathing...
It's what they do...
'Obstruction is what the minority Party does...except when you're in a massive recession,
How about 'Obstruction is what the minority Party does...except when this country has suffered a brutal and horrendous series of terrorist attacks where over three thousand innocent people died'??
You just don't understand that it works both ways...
Sure. Like renewable energy these things should be slowly edged in so as not to upset the current economic recovery.
WHAT 'economic recovery'??
Again you've lost me. Yes 'Hope and Change' was big part of his election rhetoric. But he backed this up with progressive positions on: taxation, immigration, the economy, civil rights, regulation. Most of which (not all) he has now put into law.
Bull... Obama avoided specifics at all costs during the 2008 election... The things he DID get specific on (torture, rendition, Gitmo, Patriot Act) he has violated the Democratic Party's most sacred tenets while being egged on and applauded BY the Democratic Party...
Michale.....
Being obstructionist is what the minority Party does.. Democrats are obstructionist when they are the minority and Republicans are obstructionist when THEY are the Minority party...
Complaining about obstructionism is like complaining that breathing...
Again we are not talking about norms. Obama didn't assume Presidency during a 'normal' period; it was during a recession the likes of which hadn't been since in 70 years.
Parties are normally obstructionist but during the worst recession in 70 years you think this is ok?
You don't think being obstructionist during an economic recovery is putting party before country?
You can't see how being obstructionist during a recovery is a MUCH bigger deal than 'normal' obstructionism?
You don't think the LEVELS of obstructionism (more than ALL TIME EVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE USA) plus the fact that this was during a difficult period makes this obstructionism particularly brutal?
WHAT 'economic recovery'?
Well the USA lost 8 million jobs under Bush. About 4 million have been added back.
I'd call that a recovery.
The USA had one of the worst recessions with GDP hitting -3.53% in 2009; it is now at +1.7% (so is growing 5.23% more now than then).
I'd call that a recovery.
Again we are not talking about norms. Obama didn't assume Presidency during a 'normal' period; it was during a recession the likes of which hadn't been since in 70 years.
Norms Smorms... A good leader doesn't make excuses...
It's just as easy to say that Bush can't be held responsible for the state of the country because of 9/11... The Left wouldn't let anyone get away with THAT bogus statement so I don't see why the Left should get away with the same kind of lame excuse....
Well the USA lost 8 million jobs under Bush. About 4 million have been added back.
I'd call that a recovery.
According to reports, those jobs were added back AFTER Obama lost his ability to force his policies thru....
It's like the stat that the Left likes to float around that the best prosperity of this country occurred under DEM Presidents... But what the stats DON'T say is that those DEM Presidents had GOP Congresses....
The USA had one of the worst recessions with GDP hitting -3.53% in 2009; it is now at +1.7% (so is growing 5.23% more now than then).
I'd call that a recovery.
You would because you don't leave here..
Ask your average American who doesn't have a political agenda if the country is in a recovery...
Hell, even DEMOCRATS will say that Americans aren't better off. That is, until the get the BOOKER call from the White House...
Michale.....
You would because you don't leave here..
You would because you don't LIVE here..
My bust...
Michale.....
Michale,
I think that is what is commonly known as a classic Freudian slip, my friend. :)
I think that is what is commonly known as a classic Freudian slip, my friend. :)
Touche' :D
Although, to be fair, Joshua is probably the most far Right of all the Lefties here.... :D
that's not really accurate. i just don't really believe in the left-right paradigm. differences between individuals on either side tend to be so variegated that it renders the distinction practically moot. sure, i could easily define you as "right of center" because you tend to regurgitate fox news talking points sometimes. personally i think you do it just to test whether or not there's any reasonable response. but there's a lot more to anyone's views than the left-right label. as barry ritholtz says, the major divide in our politics isn't currently left versus right, it's between the individual and the corporation.
going back to the obstructionist argument, although parties have always obstructed never to the extent that the tea party (who can't really call themselves republicans anymore because they've moved so radically right) is unheard of. Signing a document to not even consider the raise of taxes to gain a little income in the country is not just politics, but hurting the country. Not to say that liberals have never obstructed in their life but the degree to which the right will go to prevent Obama from accomplishing any thing is truly astounding. The tea party's goals are clear, Mitch McConnell laid them out when he said the primary focus is to make Obama a one term president. not fix the country, but get rid of Obama. I may be overly patriotic or extremely naive, but isn't the purpose of congress to help the country, not bicker about who is in charge? by the way I am the person who wrote the road to the convention and subsequent articles if anyone has further questions for me.
Malcom,
.. by the way I am the person who wrote the road to the convention and subsequent articles if anyone has further questions for me.
Ah, questions are still pending from the first comment on this post. :)
I'll eagerly await your responses!
which questions would that be? The only question I could find that wasn't rhetorical was "deal?" I would say deal in terms of revisiting the Bush era tax cuts and whether or not Obama lets them expire/extend them.