Yes We Did — Now What?

To Mr. President-elect Obama: No matter how big you judge the responsibility America has given you to be, do not underestimate it. We know you won’t work miracles and we expect we won’t always agree with you, but we need to know that the risk we took by choosing you was not foolish, and that the faith that many voters who are used to being cynics have put in your character was not misplaced. We voted for you to serve for 4 years, but we expect a precedent of leadership to last a generation.

To those who voted for John McCain, or Ralph Nader, or who supported Mike Huckabee, Hillary Clinton, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney or who didn’t vote at all: Give Barack Obama a chance. There are certainly reasonable disagreements to have with his experience, his policies, maybe even his friends. But he represents something to a lot of Americans that is not partisan and is in many ways not even about the man himself. Criticize his policies that you believe will lead us in the wrong direction, point out his inconsistencies and failings — I’ll be there with you. Just give him a chance on his own merits, and with some respect for what many of us voted for: not a return to Democratic leadership, but a profoundly different kind of leadership than either party has offered in our lifetimes. We promise to respect the fact that much of this country disagrees.

61 Responses to “Yes We Did — Now What?”

  1. Craig Says:

    Well said. People need to give him a chance because he represents America and democracy to the world. I can’t help but think back to all the overwrought pronouncements about the fascist state that we had now become, to the point that people felt it was almost inevitable that elections would be called off to make it official! All along, I knew and said that, for those who understood U.S. history, the people have a funny way of being able to recalibrate the Country as they see fit.

    Most people will give him a chance because this Country is not in a position to afford to have its leadership come off as weak and uncertain, in dealing with serious internal and external problems right now. Most people will be waiting to see if the “hope/uniter/change the world” talk will be more political empty rhetoric to win a campaign or if it will announce the rare accomplishment of reality. Let’s face it, Obama has set the bar very high for himself. There are a lot of people who will either become deeply engaged in the political process for a lifetime or become inconsolably cynical in politics for a lifetime, based upon the, almost unfair, emotional investment they have made in him.

    Will he rise above starkly partisan leadership or will he get sucked in to obliging the debts that his hard left core supporters will feel he owes them, much as Bush’s presidency often did with the far right? How will he react when he reaches the intersection of responsibly ending the Iraq war and the timeline that he has promised? How much presidential capital will he want to spend in taming a Congress (and a base) that will want its pound of flesh in endless investigations and hearings to try to flog and prosecute its villains, and instead forcing discplined action on the serious issues impacting our Country right now?

    He is, without much hyperbole, set up to become one of the Country’s greatest leaders or one of its greatest disappointments. Time will be the judge.

  2. ymatt Says:

    That’s it, right there.

  3. shcb Says:

    Well, congratulations guys. Before we went to sleep tonight my wife said in the dark “pretty sad day” I agreed and went to sleep. I wish him well but I understand politics and the Democratic coalition will be served. Pretty sad day.

  4. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb, I know how you must be feeling as I, and millions of others, felt the same in 2000 and 2004. It was sad and scary. You may take solace in the fact that your interests are understood, shared, will be respected and protected by the captain and its crew as we embark on the next step of our journey.

    Fortunately (or not) the problems facing America now far exceed those we saw facing us in y2k and Americans have decided overwhelmingly to participate in picking the best man and team for the challenge. The choice was between a fighter, determined to press forward with certain ideals squishing objections and dissent as he went, and a man whose reputation was less as a fighter, more as a uniter, and presented a new way forward full of the audacity of hope.

    Americans engaged in a collective effort (dare I say wisdom?) in a way I have never before witnessed and feared I never would.

    “Now What?” We shall see whether or not Americans can work together to overcome adversities, adversaries and most importantly their falsely perceived adversaries. Or we shall see whether entrenched red vs blue polarizations will triumph in eroding the hope held by the majority of Americans tonight. A hope for this new path to lead towards a better future than what was glimpsed during the past 8 years while travelling a war torn path with its substrate decayed from de-regulation and increasing tolls. Yes, time will be the judge.

    I’d like to be more clear on exactly what it is that ymatt and so many others mean by “give Barack Obama a chance”? Does that he mean one chance, as in wait for one big mistake and then send in the dogs? Does that mean restrain from attack politics for his entire first and most of his second term? Where does one draw the line between giving him a chance and not?

  5. leftbehind Says:

    No reflection on YMatt, but for a lot of folks, I think it just means “be a better loser than we were.”

    For my part, all respect, support and blessings be upon my new President, Barack Obama.

  6. shcb Says:

    I have a lot to say, imagine that, but it can wait for a few days, you guys deserve… I’m not sure what word to use, I want to use gloat but that’s not right, let’s just say be proud of your accomplishment, see you in a few days.

  7. J.A.Y.S.O.N. Says:

    Don’t say gloat, that’s not what it is, not from me at least. I’d say let’s just genuinely enjoy the moment if Obama was your guy.

  8. ymatt Says:

    Go read or watch Obama’s victory speech if you haven’t. That’s what I want to be given a chance.

  9. ymatt Says:

    And I don’t want to gloat — that’s the last thing I want. One of the reasons I like this guy is that he is committing himself to addressing those who disagree with him. I voted for a guy that I believe hasn’t let gloating cross his mind; there’s too much work to do.

  10. enkidu Says:

    Yes, we did.
    And now… Yes, we will.

    Expect to have to fight the right for every step forward. Filibuster like crazy in the Senate. Yell that he’s a socialist or marxist for sunsetting bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest. Criticize his every step (not just the missteps, of which I am sure we’ll see some). But the ball is now in the progressive’s court and it is time to play hard ball. Politics isn’t bean bag, and if you want to move America and the world back from the far right, it is going to take some pushing.

    I for one welcome our new marxist/socialist trrrrrst-paling arugula-eating electric-car-driving overlords!

  11. NorthernLite Says:

    His victory speech was awesome. A perfect way to end a perfect campaign.

    I have no doubt in mind that he’ll work hard to reach out to those who disagree with him.

    But remember this: For 20 months he spoke about ending the war in Iraq, providing healthcare for every American and rasing taxes on the rich and lowering them for the middle class. And he received a very strong mandate from the American people for his efforts.

    As much as we want him to reach out, those people must realize that they will have to do a little reaching out themselves.

  12. leftbehind Says:

    I think that’s a much better way to put it.

  13. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb was clear that he did not think “gloat” was the correct word, and boy is that an understatment.

    He may have been looking for “celebrate”, but he will find it hard to understand that Obama invites everyone to celebrate – even if they think it is a sad day, with a little reflection they can be shown that there are many silver linings for everyone to celebrate. A new hope amoungst the majority is the biggest streak of light, and the feeling in the air is palpable, even from where I sit.

    leftybehind makes a crafty / tactical suggestion that what ymatt is really saying is that republicans are being asked to “be a better loser than [democrats] have been”. That suggestion is a death spiral of doom, and to push back in the opposite direction let me just say that I for one would be happy if the republicans settled for being even one half as good at losing as the democrats were in 2000 and 2004. (Despite those highly suspicious and hotlly contested election results, the democrats conceeded and moved forward.)

    To turn the death spiral of doom upside down, everyone needs to realize that Obama has challenged democrats to be better winners than what we witnessed in 2004 and 2000, that is, there is no need for gloating or ascerbic attacks. From what I’ve seen in the media, the democrats have met that challenge and the tone of this victory is one of great relief, of hope and of an openness for all to participate in finding solutions to the economic, military and social problems that need to be addressed NOW.

  14. leftbehind Says:

    If you actually read the post, Gnarly, you’ll see that Leftybehind was very careful not to put any words into Ymatt’s mouth, and distanced him from any comments I was making. as far as the Dems being good losers, I guess that depends on what you mean. If you mean that they have done a good job of losing elections, I agree wholeheartedly – they’ve succeeeded in not succeeding spectacularly. If you’re trying to say that they have accepted defeat the way that, I don’t know, an adult might, I’d respectfully submit that you haven’t been paying much attention to some of their most public voices for the last eight years or so.

  15. knarlyknight Says:

    Leftbehind, I’d respectfully submit to you that you’ll always be able to find examples to prove your point, as will I, but that overall the tone and tenor of the first 6 of the last 8 years were, relatively, remarkably docile from the dems. The last 2 years of the past 8 can be characterized as an awakening of the American people (just look at the record voter turn-outs!) and a heartfelt sense that they had put up with far and away too much of misguided governance, hence the slogan “Enough!”

  16. Steve Says:

    Craig, it is not partisan to investigate and prosecute crimes. The rule of law should trump party loyalty or fear of disunity. It’s entirely possible to investigate the crimes of the administration without indicting all Republicans.

  17. knarlyknight Says:

    “entirely possible” and maybe even quite probable that an investigation of the crimes of the former administration will not indict all Republicans

    … depending on how well they covered their tracks ;-)

  18. ymatt Says:

    Aside:
    Coming back to this thread, the title now keeps making me think: “Oh no we di’n't!”

  19. leftbehind Says:

    that would go for a lot of people from both sides of the aisle. If this government can be implicated in half the things you’ve suggested on these pages, Knarly, it’s’ very unlikely that one party could pull off what they have without an, ahem, extensive bipartisan effort. That’s why so few in the mainstream will ever be willing to follow you all the way to PrisonPlanet, even if there were more hard evidence to go on.

  20. knarlyknight Says:

    That may be true Leftbehind, no argument from me on that. I haven’t seen prsionplanet for months, have you seen anything of value there lately?

    Last I saw there was that micro-wave weapons were right around the corner to be deployed (in Iraq first and then in America) for riot or crowd control and that the military will be deployed soon for routine police type action in the USA. Both sounded ridiculous at the time but these same items later were reported in the mainstream press without any mention that Alex Jones had reported these were in the works many months (years?) earlier.

  21. shcb Says:

    Matt,

    I’m not sure of your meaning but if it is “did we really win” all I can say is that in a lot of ways it is easier to be the party out of power. Your only mission is to get back into power, it is easy to unify. You are less concerned with the factions because all the your factions are united in a common cause as well, getting you back in power so you can do the bidding they paid for… getting you back in power.

    On the other hand when you are in the party in power, especially the party in complete control you are in constant fear of pissing off your core factions, you owe them but at the same time you can’t piss off that fickle swing voter. If you are smart you also understand that some day you will be out of power and you will have to work with the folks who will then be in power, and they have good memories. You have promised many things to many people, mostly things you have little to no control over in the first place… but the power is so seductive.

    To the rest of you, Steve especially, there isn’t going to be any investigations on the scale you wish if at all. The Bush administration did very little if anything illegal. Sorry, that’s the way it is. You may not like what they did, but that doesn’t make it illegal. There would be too much information come out of an investigation, the truth for one thing, the American people would say “why are we so mad at the Bush administration they didn’t do anything wrong” and then they would slowly turn their 300 million collective heads to the little group of Democrats standing in the corner giving that little smile and sheepish wave. Look the Democrats pulled it off, they said Bush lied and did all these things illegal when he didn’t, then they successfully tied McCain to Bush, the American people bought it and they won going away. The best thing the Democrats can do at this point would be to say they aren’t going to prosecute anyone because they want to move on(.org). Besides unending investigations would kind of undermine this whole unity thing wouldn’t it? Hell, Matt might even vote Republican the next time if we can’t all get along.

  22. leftbehind Says:

    To be honest, Gnarls, I haven’t been reading as much Alex Jones as I was for a while. I jumped ship about the time his whole “vaccination of children is a liberal collectivist plot” schtick got a little overwhelming. You know, you owe it to yourself to check out the work of William Cooper, the UFO hunter / 9-11 Truth Pioneer from whom Alex Jones pretty much stole his entire Illuminati routine. Cooper had a radio show out of the American Southwest called “The Hour of the Time.” If you can get ahold of recordings of that show, particularly several broadcasts in his “Mystery Babylon” series, you’ll see how much Jones, not to mention the producers of “Zeitgiest” and similar presentations, ripped off from Cooper. Cooper knew Alex Jones, and once described him as a “fear mongering hack” despite Jones’ obvious worship of him.

    Having said all this, though, I’ll still keep an eye on PrisonPlanet. Alex Jones is going to shit a brick when he finds out Barack Obama didn’t really win the election…

  23. knarlyknight Says:

    Lefty, I don’t really know what you are talking about, but more to the point: I don’t really care.

    shcb,
    That small group of dems standing in the corner waving with sheepish smiles is nothing but a wishful figment of your imagination. By and large, Congressional investigations are cautiously proceeding, even though cooperation from witnesses is less than admirable. I have faith that Obama will not allow that to become the kind of circus sideshows we’ve seen in the past and instead will focus on the real challenges ahead; but that being said, investigations into allegations of misconduct (e.g. condoleezzing torture) are likely to proceed.

    It is nicely summarized here http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/03/uselections2008.joebiden

    Obama sounded a similar note in April, vowing that if elected, he would ask his attorney general to initiate a prompt review of Bush-era actions to distinguish between possible “genuine crimes” and “really bad policies”.

  24. leftbehind Says:

    I don’t think I’ll hold my breath for those investigations…I’d encourage you to, though.

    What do you mean you don’t know what I’m talking about? Alex Jones, that guy you’re always citing and quoting (or at least were citing a quoting all the time until I drew adverse attention to your doing so?) “Zeitheist,” that film you provided a link to on this blog several months ago? 9-11 Truth? Don’t tell me you, of all people, have forgotten 9-11 Truth! Isn’t 911 “Truth” part of what you’re hoping Obama’s going to “investigate?” I thought you and I were cool to talk about this sort of thing, particularly since nobody but me ever pays any attention to you when you bring any of it up.

  25. leftbehind Says:

    You don’t have to be coy about this stuff. Everybody here already knows what you think about most of it, and only Inky, JBC and I have ever made fun of you for it. It’s not like you’re going to shatter anyone’s illusion of you as some moderate thinker. Shit, you’ll never actually meet any of us, anyway.

  26. knarlyknight Says:

    Lefty,

    What part of “I don’t really care” do you not understand?

    Traffic must be slow in the troll lane today.

  27. leftbehind Says:

    Maybe this will refresh your memory:

    “Some discussions at http://www.lies.com have involved one blogger (knarlyknight) defending 911 skepticism against a group of intelligent, misinformed believers of the official conspiracy theory. I think he’s done a great job, but maybe he could use some help or expressions of support from experienced 911bloggers?

    Anyone willing to drop by http://www.lies.com, read the comments, and make a few comments of their own in the spirit of 911 truth?

    I realize this is a low gain approach to activism, but it seems that knarlyknight is making some inroads there. Getting the folks from Lies.com onto the 911 truth side would be good. Go to the comment section under the most recent blog: How Bad Is It?

    At the least it is entertaining to observe how he takes the discussion from war and deception and relates it back to 911 truth and then holds his own against all the others who do not agree. Some of the older entries are also good that way, especially the one titled Dyer On Loose Change. ”

    from 911blogger.com/blog/2280

    I wonder though: with such a sincere call for assistance posted at such an important hub for 911-Truthiness, why didn’t anyone from 911-Blogger come here to render aide? Certainly they all couldn’t have been at the airport handing out literature at the same time…

  28. leftbehind Says:

    but maybe they both were…

  29. shcb Says:

    Thanks for that link Knarls, it makes my point quite well. I have to admit this all of us getting along working toward the same goal is rather pleasant.

  30. leftbehind Says:

    Where was Romill? He seems to be friend of yours at 911blogger, and blogs at some length about goings on here at Lies.com, but I don’t believe I’ve ever actually encountered him as a poster here.

    Romill writes: “There is a classic TAP (“True Authoritarian Personality”) at http://www.Lies.com who goes by the acronym “shcb” which stand for short haired country boy. The guy claims to be a 50ish independent business owner of a machine shop near Denver. Has posted on lots of threads, look for his debates with the truther “knarlyknight”.

    “shcb quotes government and right wing sources, but refuses to consider independent thinkers or anything resembling “conspiracy”. Often he writes condescendingly, ridiculing “liberals” and he tells silly stories that somehow he thinks prove his opinions about the governments version of events above other facts presented to him.”

    911blogger.com/node/8125

    Seems like a pretty informed guy with a pretty sharp axe to grind aghainst ol’ shcb for someone whose never actually crossed swords with him, at least not to the same degree you have.

  31. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb, you’re welcome. With the Chief of Staff appointment, it seems that Obama is not going to be the great unioter after all. I’m shocked, but let me guess: you’re not. When does Obama become president?

    Lefty, for the third time: I don’t really care.

  32. knarlyknight Says:

    uniter

  33. leftbehind Says:

    Of course you care, or you wouldn’t get so upset.

  34. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb never mind: “Obama is to be sworn into office on January 20, 2009.”

  35. shcb Says:

    He may turn out to be the greatest president in 100 years, fair and honest, respected and loved but the coalition will be served.

  36. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb,

    What do you mean by “coalition”? It sounds like maybe you think a coalition is a bad thing? Is the term fundamentally different when applied to the dems as opposed to when it is applied to the repubs? What is your motive in highlighting the term “coalition”?

    I’m not looking to score any points here, I just have no background info to put your comment into context… if you are talking about the crude concept of the dems being the victors and to victors go the spoils, well I won’t argue that point you’re probly right but only time will tell.

  37. shcb Says:

    No, no, by coalition I mean a group of special interest groups as we call them now. The Founding Fathers called them factions. Both parties have these groups, the Dems have the environmentalists, the pro choice people, unions, trial lawyers, the ACLU etc. The R’s have small business owners, pro-life people, gun advocates, NRA members, you know the list. When a politician gets elected he owes these groups something for helping elect him. When the candidate signs up for the ticket he is buying into that grouping of groups.

    Of course there are always crossovers, a guy in Michigan may be a union member and lifetime NRA member for instance so he will pick the party that most closely matches his choice of factions that are of highest priority to him.

    Candidates are no different, Rudy for instance isn’t particularly favorable to the NRA, had he been elected he would still been obliged to throw them a bone here and there because they would have held their noses and endorsed Rudy because they know the Democrat probably would be worse for their cause. Sometimes a faction will cross over, and it makes national news because it is so rare. I’ve mentioned Federalist 10 a few times in recent weeks, take the time to read it, this is explained quite well. You may have to read it a few times, the prose is a little hard to work through sometimes.

    What I getting at here is the people who voted for Obama seem to think he is something special, and I just don’t see it. He may be a great president for all I know but he seems to me just another politician. I scanned through the nearly 500 pieces of legislation he has sponsored in the 100 weeks he was active in the Senate and I just don’t see where he reached across party lines. For one thing it seems he only had a very few, 3 to 5 pieces that were passed into law, one was outlawing the sale of elemental mercury? He was a cosponsor of a bill with a Republican that required the president to give a report on the war ever 6 months from what I understand. I limited my search to bills he sponsored. This reporting bill was enthusiastically supported by the administration and passed almost unanimously in the Senate. It was so inconsequential that the New York Times didn’t mention Obama in the two paragraph story.

    Does his reputation come from his time in the state house? Surely you guys researched this stuff before putting so much faith in the man.

  38. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb,
    Thanks for elaborating. Must be a story behind banning the sale of elemental mercury (can’t make some of the vaccines as we know them without it for one thing), I hope to have the time to look into that.

    As for your last line, i.e. “research this stuff”, naaah not me I just liked his smooth talkin and he had a truthiness demeanor. Good enough for me! Then again, I don’t have a vote in your country… yet, I hold out the glimmer of hope that there will come a day when non-Americans get to vote for your president. :-)

    Cheers, off to take my daughter swimming.

  39. knarlyknight Says:

    shcb – was this what you meant? http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2008/2008-10-15-091.asp

  40. knarlyknight Says:

    Enk, this one’s for you:
    http://www.bigpicture.typepad.com/writing/2008/10/wassup.html

  41. shcb Says:

    That is probably the bill, I don’t remember the number or which congress it was from and I’m certainly not going to go back through 500 pieces of legislation to find out :-) Sounds like a step in the right direction and I’m glad he did it but my point still stands that it doesn’t show him to be a uniter in any way. It sounds like this was one of those cases where technology made this law practical, once you convince people of that it is a no brainer. Oddly enough the thing I most dislike about McCain was McCain-Feingold, which was truly bipartisan and did show he is a uniter, much to my chagrin.

    On a note that at least makes me smile. You mention his smooth talkin’ even if it was in jest,it brought back a memory. My mom was so enamored with JFK, he had it all, he was very good looking, he was a Kennedy, and most importantly he was Catholic. I usually worked Sundays at Denny’s grocery store in high school and Reagan had his radio show that day. I would always make sure I could listen to it, I thought the things he was saying made so much sense and realized how shallow my mom’s reasons were for the people she voted for. Later in life she was enamored with Clinton, her reason that trumped all she knew about the man was that he reminded her of JFK. I guess some things never change.

  42. knarlyknight Says:

    I don’t know if I heard this somewhere or it’s just materialized in the back of my head over the past few days, but it seems the aura of hope surrounding Obama is very similar to what it must have been like when JFK was president elect. I’d expect you shcb to dis-agree, perhaps, but wonder if any others here have a good sense or can reminisce about the popular mood(s) 45 years ago.

  43. knarlyknight Says:

    oh, and you’re right, my comment about Obama’s smooth talking was in jest. One thing we’ve all learned is that talk is just talk, we’ll see what gets delivered.

  44. Craig Says:

    Actually, I can recall in all the talk leading up to Clinton’s inauguration, that his administration would usher in a Kennedy-like era to the Presidency. In a snarky way, they were right. But most people tend to lean on simplistic comparisons for things like this (ie, Republicans hope for Reagan-like comparisons for its leaders).

  45. shcb Says:

    I was very young then, 4 when he was elected and 6 when he died. One of my earliest memories was when he was killed. I didn’t really understand why everyone was so sad, I had just been through my grandmother dieing, my family was sad but the rest of the world seemed unaffected. With this man everyone was sad, they all talked in hushed tones, everyone hugged, grown men cried and hugged, Germans don’t hug and Germans don’t cry and yet…. No one that was sad had ever met him. It seemed odd. When I asked my mom why he was so great she said because he was the president and he was the first Catholic president. We even went to a funeral in our church, complete with casket. “Is this great man in the casket?”, “no, the box is empty”. It seemed odd. In my family at least it seemed his greatness started and ended with his powerful speeches and his religious beliefs, it still seems odd.

  46. enkidu Says:

    knarls, thx for the link!
    I’d seen the new one already, but it is really great to view the old one and then the new one. The end of the new one is fan-farking-tastic.

    hope wins over smears, slime and outright lies

    muchas gracias!

    ps – did u know that Sarah Palin had no idea that Africa was a continent?

    http://www.drawger.com/zinasaunders/?section=comments&article_id=6430

  47. knarlyknight Says:

    yea, I heard that same smear, slime and outright lie (and I am ashamed to admit that while it sounded fishy I allowed myself to accept it as probably true.) It’s amusing when the thugs turn on each other (amusing but still sad, although not as painful as, for example, when the smears become a swift-boating of a legitimate candidate.)

    yea, the wasup had me ROFL, I need a lot more of that. (Maybe time to see tropic thinder again. )

  48. Craig Says:

    My guess, when it comes to the whole “investigate the Republicans” issue is that Obama and his new Chief of Staff will initially be able to keep Pelosi “on script” regarding keeping focus on the critical issues at hand. But as soon as Bush pardons Scooter, Obama’s base and the democratic congress will lose their minds (and that focus) and push to put these bubbling urges to the forefront. This may be Obama’s first big challenge in controlling the agenda of the ruling party.

  49. knarlyknight Says:

    Craig, shcb,
    Hope you’re wrong Craig. Do you think there is any chance Bush will not pardon Scooter?

    (I’m thinking that the pardon is a sure thing, but people were betting 60/40 for a long time and I’d wondered why so low.) see intrade.com (click on “markets” at the top then “legal” on the side bar, then “Libby” then the graph or whatever… )

  50. shcb Says:

    I would think he would pardon him, Scooter didn’t do anything wrong. But who knows. I can tell you for sure Bush won’t be pardoning any Puerto Rican murderers. If Bush does pardon Scooter, I think even Peloci is smart enough to realize there isn’t a lot to be gained here and a lot to lose (I had to pause to remember who he was and I live this stuff). Dems will feign indignation for the base, Obama will calm the assembled masses with his arms outstretched, palms down, a halo mystically appearing behind his head and all will say how magnanimous this great man is. Then Peloci and he will share a cigar on the veranda and say “think we pulled it off?” such great theater.

  51. shcb Says:

    I am afraid the young President may have more pressing issues than the pardon of someone falsely accused who has already had his sentence commuted, face it we’re just finishing up paper work here with Scooter. I am afraid this President will be tested by Korea and Iran rather quickly. We found out last week that we stopped a shipment of missile parts from Korea to Iran with the help of our new best friends the Indians. What a diplomatic achievement that must have been to get the Indian government to agree to help even though they aren’t part of the nuclear proliferation group that tries to stop these rouge states from acquiring WMD. And in such short order, our intelligence pinpointed the plane and the diplomatic corps went to work and stopped the plane on the tarmac. Good work Bushies. Think there were some tired aircrews on Diego Garcia that night after escorting the cargo plane back whence it came?

    I am happy to see he is already starting to renege on his promise to soak the rich, that would be a really bad thing. Unfortunately the tax credit thingy smoke and mirrors cap is going down drastically, I think Bill Richardson said it was now at $160k if we use Obama’s original method of defining the income versus the IRS’ that makes it about $120. So we’re down to the top 10% now and remember the lower 38% (soon to be 51%) don’t pay taxes. This is going to suck.

  52. shcb Says:

    Oh, Oh, oh, I almost forgot, there was an article the other day that college tuition was going up drastically, my guess is about $3999. Remember where you heard that first? They blamed it on the soft economy, huh? You raise prices on your product when people can’t afford it anymore?

  53. ymatt Says:

    No, but you do raise prices when your remaining customers are rich.

    This is what we call an economic gap.

  54. ymatt Says:

    And on change.gov, I am still seeing Obama’s same promise that he has made since the beginning — no tax increases on anyone making less than $250k. Where are you seeing otherwise?

  55. shcb Says:

    That might work for Ivy League schools, but the majority of the nation’s 12 million college students don’t go to Harvard and are paying for their schooling for years to come, making an investment in themselves and their country’s future, this will possibly deny many of them that dream, but Bill Ayers kids will be ok, you’re right about that. As I said Bill Richardson has quoted the lowest numbers so far but Obama’s aides have said the number is closer to 190k in the last few days. They have said many of his promises will have to be delayed, but not to worry, “we’ll git er done as soon as we can” (my paraphrase).

    This is the nasty side of “the coalition will be served”. There are a lot of teachers out there that put a lot of time and sweat into getting him elected, they want a raise, simple as that. They know raising the college exemption to $4,000 goes straight into their pockets since 85% of education costs are labor. The way college professors get this money is for tuition to be raised. They will lose customers if that money isn’t offset somewhere, so the kid’s parents have to get a raise, not likely in this economy, the kid pays longer on his loan, or the government takes money from someone and gives it to the kid who gives it to the school who gives it to the professor that manned the phone lines. The coalition will be served.

    Ninety four percent of primary school teacher pay is paid by local and state taxes, so the way they are paid back is by getting advanced degrees, if tuition at colleges goes up they too need this increase of the college exemption. The colleges are already making their play for that promise, they are gambling that this will force Obama’s hand to follow through with this promise at the expense of promises to other factions of the coalition.

  56. ymatt Says:

    Yes, I know how common student loans are. My point was that it seems like they may have determined that the people for the $4k increase would have been a problem were already falling by the wayside due to the downturn, such that they would still be increasing revenue. I’m not sure that is *the* explanation, but I don’t buy that they are trying to force Obama’s hand.

    Whatever. This puerile “coalition will be served” stuff is what I was hoping you’d be mature enough to pass on for now. Wouldn’t you like somebody to not bow to this kind of pressure? Or would you rather just dismiss that it will ever be possible because you want to see the other team fail. Not sure why I allowed myself to get drawn back in. Count me out of this discussion.

  57. shcb Says:

    I don’t understand your first paragraph, that only makes sense if you are selling a high end product, but education is mass production, you need product turnover for everyone but the most elite in the business.

    The discussion is getting a little too hot so you’re going to bail, no problem, it is to be expected.

    I’m all in favor of his new approach, it shows some maturity. You are going to lose a little faith in him, but hey, that is going to happen sooner or later, ask Rev Wright how much you should trust Obama’s word of honor, or any politician for that matter. The best way to pay for his and your social programs is to feed that golden goose and get it to breed other little golden gooses, not kill it. Reagan after a while figured he couldn’t restrain the Democrats from spending like drunken sailors so he persuaded them to reduce upper marginal taxes for 90% to something like 40 or 50%. Then he simply grew the economy faster than Democrats could spend it. The economists I trust say you should never raise the top marginal rate above 1/3, we are at 34% now, Obama wants to raise it to an effective 51%, that is the wrong direction. Even delaying that dreadful decision is a good thing. If he wanted to grow the economy to pay for all his social programs he should cut corporate taxes in half, same with capital gains. Only a few disciples of the politics of envy, beggar thy neighbor, would care the rich are getting richer, so long as their rice bowl was getting more full.

  58. shcb Says:

    Would I like someone to not bow to this kind of pressure? Sure, if it will mean my cause is advanced at the expense of someone else’s. We’ll see if Obama is that type of person, nothing in his past would lead me to believe he is but we’ll see. Maybe you won’t be disappointed.

  59. NorthernLite Says:

    shcb, I thought that you would have learned from the recent ass kicking your party received that smearing the other side with lies and bullshit isn’t working anymore.

    Perhaps instead of blaming someone for something that hasn’t even happend, you should do what most in your party are doing: Relfect on why the majority of people are rejecting your style of political discourse and figure out how to make your party credible again.

    Hell, I’ve even noticed that Bill O’Reilly has toned things down recently.

  60. shcb Says:

    what have I said that was a lie or bullshit? I’m not blaming anyone, I’m just telling you what this young man is up against from his own party, it is the same with either party. This is the advice Bush gave Obama at their first meeting several years ago. I’ll give Obama every chance to do the right thing and so far he is doing ok, he is cutting back on his soak the rich stance and a firm timetable for withdrawl from Iraq. the only thing I don’t like at this point is closing Gitmo and turning the thugs on the court system, but he has every right to make that mistake.

  61. shcb Says:

    This one is just too funny

    http://www.theonion.com/content/video/obama_win_causes_obsessive?utm_source=EMTF_Onion

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.