A few words about “low-information voters”
Martin Addison | Wikimedia Commons | Altered by Dan
I’m always amused by the term “low-info voters” and low-information voters.” It’s a phrase coined by Rush Limbaugh and which is used with increasing frequency by certain RWers on this blog. (More here, here, and here.)
What’s so funny is, there certainly are some “low-info” posters here, but they’re the ones who are aiming the barb. At the risk of making some regulars so upset they’ll threaten to tattle on me to my superiors, we’ll explore this just a bit.
Recall the weeks leading up to the November election? These same RWer posters smugly predicted Romney was going to win. That certainty was not at all false bravado.
Instead, it was based on something these posters believed to be a fact, and which they cited over and over in the comments: the pollsters were way oversampling Democrats, therefore the poll results were skewed, therefore they could not be believed. And, in fact, the polls could be “unskewed.” The mainstream media was burying this this, though, because they were in cahoots with Obama.
Some of the posters took pains to explain how this came to be: the turnout model assumed too many Dems, because it was based on the 2008 election.
From them, you read repeated comments positing that if the pollsters had “accurately” based their turnout models on the 2010 midterm Congressional elections (which RWers claimed was a much less distant-in-time snapshot of the mood of the electorate compared to 2008, and therefore inherently more reliable) the outcome of the polls would show Romney easily winning.
One or two criticized these turnout models by citing this “fact:” There are more Republicans than Democrats. And one or two others cited the “fact” of Obama’s overwhelming unpopularity.
None of that garbage was true. It was all big grab bag of assumptions the RWers mistakenly believed was fact.
The pollsters’ turnout models were correct. Of course they were — you cannot compare turnouts in congressional and presidential elections. Anyone with any sense knows this. Republicans don’t make up a higher proportion of the electorate than Democrats. Perhaps somebody could dig up some phony, low-information site that made such a claim; nevertheless, the opposite was (and remains) true.
Then when Romney lost the election, some of them just shrugged it off and claimed Obama won because he stole it. All those “facts” they had relied on in their confident predictions? Out the window. The “facts” were so yesterday. Time for a new set!
I mean, geez, the crazy train has no destination.
More recently, we’ve been playing a similar game in the comments about whose fault it is that this country hasn’t had a budget in 4 years,. Again, the asserted “facts” are shifting as the RWers are challenged on them.
At first, they argued: “Obama has not proposed a budget in FOUR YEARS! In FOUR YEARS!”
When it was pointed out this was 100 percent untrue (h/t to Dan Radmacher), they looked it up, muttered to themselves, “Oh sugar, got that one wrong!” then shrugged and came back with:
“Well, he hasn’t proposed a budget THAT CAN PASS CONGRESS, SO THERE!”
This statement is completely meaningless, because whether a budget can pass Congress is entirely up to Congress, not the president. A federal budget is in no way a take-it-or-leave it proposition. Congress actually has the power to rewrite the whole budget to its liking, and then give it to the president to sign or veto.
Once those facts slapped them in the face, the RWers tried again:
“Yeah, but NOT ONE Democrat voted for Obama’s budget! NOT ONE!” they cried.
That was technically true but completely deceptive at the same time. Nobody voted on Obama’s budget because it never got introduced. Why? No congressman or senator introduced it — again, that is up to them. Why didn’t they introduce it? The answer is politics.
What’s actually been happening is the folks in Congress (and goes both for Republicans and Democrats) don’t want to pass a budget. Because that would force them to cast a vote on deficit spending, tax increases, and other politically charged matters. The entire House is up for re-election every 2 years and so is one-third of the Senate. Budget votes can easily hurt vulnerable members. Neither side has an overwhelming majority. A shift of a handful of seats in either chamber can alter who has the majority.
So they sidestep the issue by passing continuing resolutions to keep the money flowing, except for gimmicks like the Ryan budget that passed the House. House Speaker John Boehner allowed a vote on that only because he knew it didn’t have a snowball’s chances of passing in the Senate.
Next, the charge was: Well, “Obama could take the budget TO THE PEOPLE! Why doesn’t he? See! That’s proof he’s responsible.”
This is ridiculous as well.
First, there’s no such thing as a national plebiscite, because the U.S. Constitution does not allow for that. Second, while presidents have in the past used their “bully pulpit” to urge voters to put pressure on Congress, that’s never been done with budget before for many good reasons.
The chief reason is, the bully pulpit only works on single, narrowly defined issues. The budget is not single issue; it’s tens of thousands of distinct spending issues. It’s way too vast and complex for any voter to comprehend in any significant way. That’s why the idea to “take it to the people!” is so silly.
Surely now the RWers will next shrug this off and come up with some other equally absurd argument. It never ends, because the crazy train has no destination, remember?
In other words, the root of this entire debate is more “low-information” — but from the people who are keep bringing it up. They don’t understand the ins and outs of the process, or how it works. It doesn’t even appear they want to understand.
All of which is to say, the folks who are pissing and moaning about “low-info voters” really ought to be looking for them in mirrors.
February 16, 2013 - 2:45 PM
Wow, that was weak. Obama won, yes. The American people lost. The biggest losers are “low information” voter(who voted) for him, which are being forced further into poverty and further away from having a job. Anti-business policy and attitude not only hurt the rich, they hurt all of us.
The excuses you libs keep making about the lack of budget is pathetic. What happened in 2010 when Dems controlled, the White House, Congress and Senate? Obama hasn’t proposed a budget for this year yet and it was due 2/4/13. I know, sometimes president’s are late, but after 1388 days without having a budget, you would think that would be more of a priority the pre-school for 4 year olds.
Obama is a political hack that is failing by every metric possible. Yet all we get from you libs are, excuses, it’s Bush’s fault, etc..
AC, you’re definitely posting on the right thread!
This was an interesting read…and, how about that, approximately column-length, isn’t it?
I find myself frustrated at the low-info voter strike force, but it comes from within my own group of hyperliberal freethinkers, premised on political awareness tests or issue-voting (as opposed to candidate-voting). While, in fairness, this is a minority view and possibly outbalanced even by support for inmate voting rights, it still strikes me as strange for a group both having origins in the labor movement and hypervigilant over personal freedoms.
So, not just a right-winger phenomenon.
Eureka Park – Obama 689 – Romney 10
Melrose 1 – Obama 490 – Romney 18
Pull up those actual figures Danny if you want. Look at the district by district votes. The above sure points out not much thought process goes into some folks votes. And the above are the ones getting hurt the most by the under qualified president.
I bet some of those “low information” voters would have voted for this lady in 1872.
http://www.indystar.com/article/20130215/THINGSTODO03/302130010/Art=%20woodhull_1.jpg
It would appear from the posts that “low information” voters are perceived to be anyone who didn’t vote Republican, which I guess would make them “high information” voters in their minds. Perhaps they will be good enough to help me achieve their level of intelligence. Does Medicare pay for lobotomies?
Eureka Park – Obama 689 – Romney 10
Melrose 1 – Obama 490 – Romney 18
Now that’s a couple of very informed districts. Smarter than the average bear. Or is that bare?
Eureka Park – Obama 689 – Romney 10
Melrose 1 – Obama 490 – Romney 18
Does this make Bob She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named’s newest sockpuppet?
“Does this make Bob She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named’s newest sockpuppet?”
No, all it means is the voters in Eureka Park and Melrose are a lot smarter and less deluded than voters in South Roanoke.
They call everyone else low information, but the rest of us can easily look to them laughing and calling them ‘wrong information’ voters.
Didn’t Suzie and her idiotic friends say some horrible things about Nate Silver. The most accurate pollster in our time?
Well, I suppose better him than FauxViews and their intentional misinformation.
Eureka Park – Obama 689 – Romney 10
Melrose 1 – Obama 490 – Romney 18
Now that’s a couple of very informed districts. Smarter than the average bear. Or is that bare?
Comment by Cold n P — February 16, 2013 @ 4:26 pm
Perhaps the folks in these locals are capable of strong group think, but are bare(n) in terms of individual thought. It appears it would take an angry grizzly bear to make these voters vote for the GOP. I get it now “Cold n P.” By the way, is that your rapper name?
I always figured the REAL low-info voters are those 99%ers who really believe the Republican party cares about them.
Interesting article on education and party affiliation:
http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2012/nov/05/larry-sabato/education-level-tied-voting-tendencies/
Dan
I admit I was wrong. I thought Americans still found rugged idividualism a much happier and productive way to live compared to government dependence. Not so. And the pendulum will not swing back the other way.
Dependence atrophies the spirit. It ultimately leads to Greece with factions fighting for money that no longer exists. There will never be an unlimited supply of others to pay for a majority of depedents.
Terps, this post was not directed toward you.
Terps, do you think Romney is a “rugged” individual?
Good stuff Dan. The anti-Obama folks I know and who use the low information term don’t have a clue how our government works. A couple of my buddies keep saying Obama is going to pass a law to ban guns. They have no concept of our branches of government and how laws are created. I suppose being that ignorant would lead to fear that “King Obama” would do such things.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/01/07/25-examples-that-prove-rush-limbaugh-is-a-low-i/192085
And oddly enough the scientific research has actually proven just who IS a “low information voter” and guess what?
http://psp.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/03/16/0146167212439213.abstract?rss=1
http://2012election.procon.org/sourcefiles/low-effort-thought-promotes-political-conservatism-2012.pdf
“conservatism is promoted when people rely on low-effort thinking. When effortful, deliberate responding is disrupted or disengaged, thought processes become quick and efficient; these conditions promote conservative ideology… low-effort thought might promote political conservatism because its concepts are easier to process, and processing fluency increases attitude endorsement.”
In other words, thinking and critical analysis are just not their strong suit. No surprise there.
Mitt Romney and sons, George W. and Jeb Bush, Pat Robertson, Richard Mellon Scaife, Charles and David Koch, Donald Trump, Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney, these are the type of people terps mythologizes as the “rugged individuals” of our time.
On the other hand, because of their politics he would say that Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Warren Buffett, Colin Powell, Steven Speilberg, Bill Cosby, and Elizabeth Warren, to name a few, are selfish takers who only want the government to give them things.
At the rate he’s going, maybe terps can even convince his children that Paris Hilton is a rugged individual who bootstrapped her way to success, after which she dedicated herself to making others’ lives better. After all, she fits his mythology no worse than those other GOTP exploiters.
terps, why do you continue the charade that people voted for Obama because they are being, or want to be taken care of? It is a lie, it is an insult and it only proves your status as that “low effort” conservative. I get it that some brains have not evolved but successful people who have a real stake in a better society do not cling to simplistic outdated and insulting memes. Does it ever even register with you that you NEED some of those votes you insult so regularly to win? Do you vote based on insults you sustain?
Face it, you all are angry, you hate Obama (and those who voted for him) more than you love America and you want to punish us. Funny how you people think that will make us vote differently next time?
Another Chuck, how is it “group think” when we vote one way and not “group think” when you and yours do? See you people do not even think through your insults and how they reflect on you.
Debbie
Rugged individualism does not require a rugged individual as president. It requires a president committed to the idea that a free society requires limited government. But it is a mute point. The lure of getting more out of government than you put in is intoxicating. Our kids will live to see the ruin it will bring this country.
Yes, Bush and McCain and Romney sure bring “rugged idividualism” to mind.
Warlock@10
I think the operative pharse Suzie used about Nate Sliver was “bed wetter”. That was round about the time unskewed polls ( unemployed dude with a website) was using a ouija board to refute the preponderance of polling suggesting that Obama was doing just fine.
It didn’t matter to conservatives if it was accurate as long as it fit with their hopeful expectations. It’s also abetted my the infotainment wing of conservative media, Rush, Hannity et al, which have found great success if not wealth from making stuff up that their followers want to hear. If it comes from their mouths, it’s gospel.
Sandi
In order to “get their vote”, the Republicans will have to become watered down Democrats. Your side has won the arguement. Government is now a vehicle for wealth redistribution. It is not “insulting”, it is a fact. Not many on your side feel comfortable looking in the mirror of your advocacy. You cloak the redistribution in Orwellian rhetoric(“fairness, 99%,fair share etc) to lend moral support for government wealth redistribution.
I would feel better if one of you could tell me how we can succeed when a majority feels entitled to live off the minority. Because we are almost there.
Dan,
Of those who do not want a budget passed or to face the myriad of problems inherent, of which there are many, Obama must be counted as the
front of the line. You will recall that the GAO recently advised that it was “unable to complete an audit of the Federal Government”:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/18/gao-audit-federal-government-defense_n_2507097.html
Have Beason read that one to you. . .and you cannot, with honesty, dispute the source. Goes right along with the linky I gave you earlier
on the economy being the worst in 60 years from Radmacher’s source.
This administration is out of control, period. Realistically, how many
unexplainable, inexcuseable and unacceptable scandals does this administration have to chalk up before the liberals have to admit that
this administration smells like dead fish. . .financially, ethically and morally.
But sides have a block of low information voters. Clearly the left’s is much larger. It’s hard to dispute that fact. Yes, the left has some highly educated supporters, but they are far out numbered by the low educated population depended on their polices. Highly educated doesn’t make you susscesful either.
Here’s a Pew study that backs that up. And there is a lot more where this came from.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/22/science-say-gop-voters-better-informed-open-minded/#ixzz1ssc0VHdF
20.Yes, Bush and McCain and Romney sure bring “rugged idividualism” to mind.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 16, 2013 @ 6:19 pm
You’re SO right Sandi. . .Bush was a trained fighter pilot; McCain a Medal of Honor winner; Romney a proven successful businessman and Executive.
In other words, thinking and critical analysis are just not their strong suit. No surprise there.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 16, 2013 @ 6:06 pm
I don’t care what you sayyyyyyyyyyyyyy….that right there is FUNNY!
Be honest Sandi; those sources you’re digging this stuff up from must
be causing some cranial degradation to your critical thought process. LOL
“but from the people who are keep bringing it up. They don’t understand the ins and outs of the process, or how it works. It doesn’t even appear they want to understand.”
I like this part of the essay because it reflects how I view the absurdity of many of the blog posts related to complex technical issues like the budget. It’s one reason I hardly ever comment on these issues because I am a freaking low information voter in this regard and most any blogger who posts here probably is too. There are probably a hand full of topics in which my personal knowledge qualifies me to speak authoritatively about a subject and the nuances of a complex federal budget certainly isn’t one of them.
I suspect that the case for AC and any number of people who consistently comment on budgetary issues. You’d think the certainty of their posts they had done a stint as director of the Congressional Budget Office.
Leon,
You’ve previously admitted on this blog that you’re crazy. Now, you’re gonna get mikeO harping on you because you’ve linked to HuffPost. He says nothing there can be believed.
I make it a habit to watch all news channels which I highly recommend everyone do. I’ve found Fox News to be far more objective than MSNBC. Yes Fox leans right. The other five( NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, and CNN) channels lean just as much left. Comedy Central is more serious than MSNBC. So Fox News haters are a joke to me. It’s popular culture to make fun of FN while looking past MSNBC. Serious viewers would watch all serious news channels and be self thinkers and much more informed.
“But sides have a block of low information voters. Clearly the left’s is much larger. It’s hard to dispute that fact. ”
Really, Eddie? Because anyone using this blog as evidence would conclude that the right is a bunch of semi-literate delusional cry-babies. It’s hard to dispute that fact. And FYI, there are, as you say, plenty of studies where yours came from…supporting both sides as being better informed/smarter/better educated. Maybe the right should direct all their mighty brainpower to creating a party that isn’t drowning in its own hateful suck.
I’d dearly love to hear one our of currently ascendant leading lights on the right, AnotherChuck, weigh in on the “rugged individualism” ole Terps is espousing.
9.“Does this make Bob She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named’s newest sockpuppet?”
No, all it means is the voters in Eureka Park and Melrose are a lot smarter and less deluded than voters in South Roanoke.
Comment by Dan Casey
Really say’s it ALL…
Admire your honesty Mike Scott, I’m in the same boat on many issues. Talk about low information voters though, how about the birthers and global warming deniers? Truly a case of believing what you want or led to believe, the facts be damned.
Leon T -Sorry that once again I cannot agree with you on even one point
Dan you are right on as usual.
“I get it now “Cold n P.” By the way, is that your rapper name?”
AC it’s whatever you want it to be.
Comment by Leon — February 16, 2013 @ 6:43 pm
“You’re SO right Sandi. . .Bush was a trained fighter pilot; McCain a Medal of Honor winner; Romney a proven successful businessman and Executive.”
Leon – better check your sources for that “Medal of Honor winner”.
These are John McCain’s medals for his military service in Vietnam [he was a prisoner of war for five years after crashing his plane] – the awards include the Silver Star, Legion of Merit, Distinguished Flying Cross, Bronze Star and Navy Commendation Medal, for actions before, during, and after his time as a POW
I find no record of his receiving the Medal of Honor @ this website….
A Complete and Official Catalog of the 246 Medal of Honor Citations Issued for Combat Actions During the Vietnam War
http://www.mishalov.com/Citations.html
And yet Eddie, no one in the conservative mind set will agree that we can cut a dime of defense spending, whether they can be audited or not.
BTW, your unsourced article and the survey it references is not evidence it is propaganda, but you knew that already.
I will concede that the new book by Jon Haidt does show that the things we think about many conservatives is not really the same problem we think it is.
“The hardest part, Haidt finds, is getting liberals to open their minds. Anecdotally, he reports that when he talks about authority, loyalty and sanctity, many people in the audience spurn these ideas as the seeds of racism, sexism and homophobia. And in a survey of 2,000 Americans, Haidt found that self-described liberals, especially those who called themselves “very liberal,” were worse at predicting the moral judgments of moderates and conservatives than moderates and conservatives were at predicting the moral judgments of liberals. Liberals don’t understand conservative values. And they can’t recognize this failing, because they’re so convinced of their rationality, open-mindedness and enlightenment.
Haidt isn’t just scolding liberals, however. He sees the left and right as yin and yang, each contributing insights to which the other should listen. In his view, for instance, liberals can teach conservatives to recognize and constrain predation by entrenched interests. Haidt believes in the power of reason, but the reasoning has to be interactive. It has to be other people’s reason engaging yours. We’re lousy at challenging our own beliefs, but we’re good at challenging each other’s. Haidt compares us to neurons in a giant brain, capable of “producing good reasoning as an emergent property of the social system.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/the-righteous-mind-by-jonathan-haidt.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Both sides are guilty and both sides are wrong at times and on certain issues, until we can grasp our own failings, we have no right to point out others.
He nails the problem spot on:
“The problem isn’t that people don’t reason. They do reason. But their arguments aim to support their conclusions, not yours.“
John McCai is a war hero, and Leon is wrong on the facts again!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — @ 8:28 pm
I’m conservative, and I believe the DoD funding should be subject to budget cuts, so that’s one.
Also, it’s a Pew study. Sourced by name and recognized as non-partisan. Thanks for personally helping me make my point that the left is less informed.
#Comment by Kristen @ 7:18 pm
The one I sourced is non-partisan. You made the claim there are plenty out there showing the right is less informed. Then you should have no problem sourcing a legitimate non-partisan study that backs up your claim. Tick-tock.
Another Chuck, how is it “group think” when we vote one way and not “group think” when you and yours do? See you people do not even think through your insults and how they reflect on you.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 16, 2013 @ 6:15 pm
Sandi, you did not vote for Obama for these reasons and neither did the rest of the liberals on this board. You have given your political positions great thought and have made an informed decision to vote for a liberal President. You have done your research! I respect that.
However, when you see the numbers that Bob posted from the urban side of town, they are experiencing group think. Dan mentioned S. Roanoke as an example of the same on the conservative side. Romney did win the S.Roanoke precincts easily, but is was something like 60-40% Many individuals choose to think for themselves.
17.
Good stuff Dan. The anti-Obama folks I know and who use the low information term don’t have a clue how our government works. A couple of my buddies keep saying Obama is going to pass a law to ban guns. They have no concept of our branches of government and how laws are created. I suppose being that ignorant would lead to fear that “King Obama” would do such things.
Comment by Ernie — February 16, 2013 @ 5:59 pm
Considering the power grabs of this administration including ACA, recess appointments, declaration not to defend DOMA, and Fast and Furious plus
the utter blatancy of the Benghazi lies and public statements by Obama indicating he would do so. . .I can see a reasonable doubt that he would in fact, try to ban guns. What’s your point Ernie?
Umm, nothing on HuffPo can be believed, except their mods are far left censor happy loons. Left wing circle jer ….. pull.
Examining Roanoke’s voter districts does tell a story of ignorance and who does not have the capability of independent thought. To disagree shows ones incapability of honesty.
ps ~ Jeeps are indeed made in China now.
17.
Good stuff Dan. The anti-Obama folks I know and who use the low information term don’t have a clue how our government works. A couple of my buddies keep saying Obama is going to pass a law to ban guns. They have no concept of our branches of government and how laws are created. I suppose being that ignorant would lead to fear that “King Obama” would do such things.
Comment by Ernie — February 16, 2013 @ 5:59 pm
While I sit slightly corrected; my point refuting Sandi’s assertion @23 stands strong.
40.
John McCai is a war hero, and Leon is wrong on the facts again!
Comment by Dan Casey — February 16, 2013 @ 8:39 pm
As is John McCain
Mike Scott and Scott Whitaker, can I join the economically challenged club? My knowledge is woefully simplistic in this arena.
That said, we all would do well to step back and take note of our ever evolving political landscape. When we started this country, women and African-Americans didn’t have the right to vote. We evolved and rightfully included more of the citizenry in the process. I personally believe we are in the middle of another period of great change. Latinos and women and LGBT and African-American citizens are voting in large numbers, and they are doing so consistently. I hope, as this trend endures, the influence of money in politics will gradually wane. That is a longshot, I know. The politicians who can harness these demographic realities in the decades to come will get elected. Fringe movements on both ends of the spectrum will, I think, lose steam as the majority of voters call for something to get done.
” What’s actually been happening is the folks in Congress (and goes both for Republicans and Democrats) don’t want to pass a budget. Because that would force them to cast a vote on deficit spending, tax increases, and other politically charged matters. The entire House is up for re-election every 2 years and so is one-third of the Senate. Budget votes can easily hurt vulnerable members. Neither side has an overwhelming majority. A shift of a handful of seats in either chamber can alter who has the majority.”
I thought the above paragraph was the most important of Dan’s thoughts. Our elected officials are paralyzed because they are more concerned about being re-elected than acting in the people’s best interests. What we have now is untenable.
Ha, ha, Leon. Fast n Furious is a molehill and so is Benghazi and you know it. ACA is a conservative healthcare plan and you know that. The biggest laugh is recess appointments is the biggest laugh. Do you think Obama invented those as a power grab? He didn’t. Do you believe he’s the biggest recess appointer? He’s not.
I think you know this. But you’re aware that other RWers do not, and you believe you can use it to manipulate the RW dummies.
44 – Leon. My point is as you made it. The President can try to ban guns but we have this pesky process in place. How can the President ban guns? He may try but how can he accomplish this feat unilaterally?
31.Leon,
You’ve previously admitted on this blog that you’re crazy. Now, you’re gonna get mikeO harping on you because you’ve linked to HuffPost. He says nothing there can be believed.
Comment by Dan Casey — February 16, 2013 @ 6:54 pm
Dan,
I give Huffpost for the benefit of you, Beason and Radmacher.
Kristen – if you’re still looking for that non-partisan study that repudiates the Pew study I cited, you should stop wasting your time. It doesn’t exist. Its a proven fact Conservatives are more informed.
#47 So, Leon, wher’se your proof of that MOH John McCain got.
And, Bush, all he did was dodge Vietnam. Everybody knows that.
Yep, Bob continuing the embarrassing and juvenile tradition of Bobs on this blog.
No doubt about it, the Bobs are a hoot!
49.Ha, ha, Leon. Fast n Furious is a molehill and so is Benghazi and you know it. ACA is a conservative healthcare plan and you know that. The biggest laugh is recess appointments is the biggest laugh. Do you think Obama invented those as a power grab? He didn’t. Do you believe he’s the biggest recess appointer? He’s not.
I think you know this. But you’re aware that other RWers do not, and you believe you can use it to manipulate the RW dummies.
Comment by Dan Casey — February 16, 2013 @ 10:12 pm
Fast & Furious was criminal activity which resulted in the death of over 300 Mexicans and 2 US Border Patrol agents; none of which favorably share
your humor. Benghazi was negligence in providing adequate security and then blatant outright lies to all US citizens. ACA, which is a Gov’t takeover of healthcare isn’t “conversative”. While other presidents have,
in fact made recess appointments. . .never has one done such with the unconstitutional flair of Obama who allowed not only could he make the appointments he alone was entitled to determine when the Senate and Congress were in recess. Finally, there are no RW dummies that I know of;
however, I can identify a host of liberal progressive idiots.
50.44 – Leon. My point is as you made it. The President can try to ban guns but we have this pesky process in place. How can the President ban guns? He may try but how can he accomplish this feat unilaterally?
Comment by Ernie — February 16, 2013 @ 10:20 pm
Ernie,
This administration has no respect for the judicial branch, the legislative branch, the constitution or any US citizens that oppose it.
Based on what has transpired to date with this corrupt administration
it would be unwise to underestimate what it is capable of as to corrupt, tyrannical actions. IMO, if attempted, the action will fail. The failure of such action will not be pretty.
53.#47 So, Leon, wher’se your proof of that MOH John McCain got.
And, Bush, all he did was dodge Vietnam. Everybody knows that.
Comment by gdad — February 16, 2013 @ 11:05 pm
As to McCain, my error does not diminish his heroic actions or point to refute Sandi’s point. As to Bush, I seem to recall that Dan Rather tried
to fabricate the POV you espouse; such action was an EPIC fail as is your post. Follow Rather, retire in disgrace.
36.Leon T -Sorry that once again I cannot agree with you on even one point
Dan you are right on as usual.
Comment by Richard J Beason — February 16, 2013 @ 8:06 pm
Surprise, a CPA who does not understand what “could not complete an audit”
means. Confused, Perplexed and Addled again.
Ha, ha, Leon. Fast n Furious is a molehill and so is Benghazi and you know it. ACA is a conservative healthcare plan and you know that. The biggest laugh is recess appointments is the biggest laugh. Do you think Obama invented those as a power grab? He didn’t. Do you believe he’s the biggest recess appointer? He’s not.
I think you know this. But you’re aware that other RWers do not, and you believe you can use it to manipulate the RW dummies.
Comment by Dan Casey — February 16, 2013 @ 10:12 pm
Dan, I really don’t believe Benghazi is a molehill, but the truth needs to be linked to Obama and that possibility exists. The ACA that passed is neither conservative or liberal, it’s just a mess that we we all suffer for in one way or another.
Another Chuck:
“Dan, I really don’t believe Benghazi is a molehill”
Neither is Fast and Furious. But, it doesn’t matter to them and never will. There is absolutely nothing their esteemed party favorites can ever do wrong.
More trolls in here than a Norse bedtime story. Meh.
59 Leon t once again gibberrish on your part You are arguing a decades old problem as you well know
danny wouldnt care about benghazi or fast/furious even if his own brother had been one of obamas victims…really pathetic, conscience much? but damn he will stand by those abortions…
I think the discussion here on who qualifies as a “low information voter” voter expands the definition too much. The “low information voter” meme is directly tied to the right wingers overuse of the phrase “do the research”. Of course the sources of knowledge that they scold their intellectual/political adversaries for not researching can not include “main stream media” (left-leaning at best), university research and their associated journals (leftist), or often any collection of data and facts (misleading!). No, the source of research they require to be used are the Limbaughs, Becks, etc., and the extremely conservative forums and blogs that are used as echo chambers for the Limbaughs and Becks. These serve to function as an online John Birch Society or given the anonymity with the internet, a more secretive lodge or society.
So a “low information voter” is a non-initiate who has not “done the research” required by the online “Birchers” or conservative virtual secret society. Those who “Know” created the term “low information voter” not just a label for someone who doesn’t follow politics, but as a perjorative for those who do not Know.
Dan –
The recess appointments are not an impeachable item, but they certainly are no molehill. For example, every decision made by the NLRB which included one of those recess appointed persons is likely invalid.
If I were one of the attorneys who got their client a judgment in one of those cases (favorable or not) when I go back to the board for a decision by properly appointed people (well, we know the rethuglicans won’t allow appointments so how about just without improperly appointed persons) I would demand my fees from the NLRB and Federal Government, not my client.
Low information voters are very easy to identify. They believe:
- 47% of Americans are moochers;
- Obama is a socialist;
- George Bush left the Country in good shape;
- the housing bubble was caused by poor people;
- Obama wants to confiscate all guns;
- Obama was born somewhere other than America;
- legitimate rape;
- people only voted for Obama because they wanted free stuff;
- the UN is trying to take over the Governance of the US;
- it’s ok to discriminate against gays;
- Social Security and Medicare are bad;
I could go on and on but the best (or worst) is they believe “the end justifies the means”. Yes, I have had several Teapublican friends tell me that thwarting Obama’s initiatives justifies lying. Hey, it’s even patriotic to do so.
Kristen – if you’re still looking for that non-partisan study that repudiates the Pew study I cited, you should stop wasting your time. It doesn’t exist. Its a proven fact Conservatives are more informed.”
I wasn’t looking for anything, Eddie, as I think throwing up battling links is stupid. As for Conservatives being “proven” to be smarter, that makes me laugh my head off. Good luck selling that nonsense to anyone but, say, HayFrank or “Mommy they’re being mean to me!”AnotherChuck. They desperately need your support.
JohnW, there’s no fantasy the desperate right won’t latch onto regarding Obama in an attempt to justify their irrational hatred of him. We apologize if, after being treated to 4 years of birthbagger conspiracist insanity, we don’t take your every little impeachment wet dream seriously. Both “Benghazi” and “F&F” (which I put in quotes as these are manufactured bits of nothing) occurred BEFORE the election, and Obama won a resounding victory anyway. This should tell you something, but it doesn’t.
What the right seems incapable of understanding is that no one’s interested in the hateful small-minded narrative it’s trying to sell. People like HayFrank, Leon, and “OMG I’m TELLING” AnotherChuck are unteachable, but if the GOP is going to drag itself back from irrelevancy it’s going to take younger, smarter people to do it. Or, you can let yourself be dragged down their rabbit hole of inanity along with them.
AC says “but the truth needs to be linked to Obama…” Of course in your world of anything Obama does or says is wrong, it has to be linked to him, no matter what. Yet somehow over 4,000 American deaths in Iraq over phantom WMD’s is a molehill…
“Dan, I really don’t believe Benghazi is a molehill, but the truth needs to be linked to Obama and that possibility exists.”
Mostly because Sean Hannity says so. He has a hard time giving up wedge issues that have no traction or rational basis in belief. His main purpose in politicizing the tragedy was to influence public perception of Obama as and incompetent leader prior to the election. Nice try. The election is over.
Behghazi is a molehill and no matter how much conservatives try to get that dog to hunt, it’s not going to run game.
AC let me tell you why I don’t think Behghazi is worth worrying about.
The US Department of State is a large organization. This may surprise you. They had a tragedy in Libya. It is a risky, unstable and hostile region. It can barely be said to have a government. The US presence there was also risky, but seen as crucial to influence an outcome favorable to our geo political interests. Sometimes risky moves don’t work out. In hindsight, we should have protected our diplomats better.
End of story……..
Unless you believe there was some nefarious attempt to purposefully put our people in harms way. I don’t. I also don’t believe the President of the United States had any freaking thing to do with the day to day operations of the the large and complex set of operations that take place within the State Department.
Once again, a complex issue in which the political positions masquerade as facts and a blogger with clear certainty on the conspiracy cause, ya know, they know so much about how the government and State Department operate.
Hey liberals….If this same incident had happened on George Bushs` watch, you idiots would be screaming from every rooftop and `calling for his head` and you damned well know it.
And in another VERY INTERESTING matter, it has become known that now a new `movement has arisen….Some gun & ammo manufactuers are going to stop selling firearms & ammunition to the Federal Government. It WILL send a clear message. Support it.
Terps, our kids will live to see the ruin of this country if the Republicans continue to vote against anything and everything Obama proposes, simply because they are angry that he was reelected. They don’t care if they destroy the country, they seem to remain hellbent on doing it and then they will try to blame Obama for it.
“Dan, I really don’t believe Benghazi is a molehill, but the truth needs to be linked to Obama and that possibility exists.”
It sounds more like you’re sagying “the blame must be pinned on Obama.”
I mean, what if “the truth” doesn’t “link” to Obama? Apparently you’ve already decided it needs to be. Do you link it anyway?
The truth about the Tea Party needs to be linked to their paranoia and know-nothingness.
VVArlock,
You’re correct that the effect of the court’s ruling on recess appointments was hardly a molehill. But it terms of abuses of power, which Leon was talking about, the charge is laughable. Obama’s made fewer recess appointments per year than the last 4 preseidents before him. (One third the number that Reagan made and a little less than half of GWB’s average). And under the court’s ruling, more appointees by those presidents would be invalid than the number who would be invalid under Obama.
Leon either knows this and doesn’t care, because he believes it’s another phony outrage he can gin up against Obama, or he’s unaware of those facts. It’s often hard to distinguish between prevarication and stupidity these days.
That Tea Party really gets Dan in a `snit`. Must be because they are such a productive movement. I doubt that the Tea Party would even cross Dan`s mind were they not. On to the ingenuity of the people vs. the ignorance of large Gubmint….Using 3D printers and schematics available on the Internet, gun owners can manufacture a fully-functional, plastic magazine clip..and the plans are free. As I mentioned yesterday, guns and their implements will ALWAYS be here..The ignorant Government and their do-nothing laws are meaningless, and to support them is to waste your time.
“Hey liberals….If this same incident had happened on George Bushs` watch, you idiots would be screaming from every rooftop and `calling for his head` and you damned well know it.”
–Awood aka applewood
You talking about Benghazi, Awood?
There have been attacks on our embassies which cost lives under most presidents since LBJ. Some of them were much costlier in terms of lives. None of them were turned into political footballs like this one.
And you may be too young to remember it, but there was an attack on U.S. soil that occurred under GWB. It is called 9/11. I suggest you look that up and report back to us on whether it was of the magnitude of Benghazi.
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/13333916-number-of-embassies-attacked-during-the-bush-years-before-benghazi-many
Here’s a list of the embassy attacks tha occurred under Bush. Those of you beating your breast and tearing your shirts over 4 people on Libya you couldn’t name without google on a bet, take a gander at it. As I’ve said before, 4 dead Americans is a slow day around here.
“.Some gun & ammo manufactuers are going to stop selling firearms & ammunition to the Federal Government. It WILL send a clear message.”
LOL
“I mentioned yesterday, guns and their implements will ALWAYS be here.”
–Awood
So what? Who cares what you say? Last month you quoted Thomas Jefferson about words he never wrote or said. “Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who do not.”
If you can’t even tell the difference between Thomas Jefferson and John Birch Society hogwash, why should be bother paying attention to you?
Funny & Factual.
Starting in 2014, you get 2 quarts of General Tso’s chicken with every Chinese made Jeep purchased.
Leon, the simple fact that Bush had his daddy pull strings to get into the National Guard constitutes a form of dodging Vietnam back then. That’s a plain fact. And that’s not wat Dan Rather was trying to prove. So, YET AGAIN, you are wrong. In fact, you are wrong pretty much every single time you post. You are an embarrassment to right wingers.
I really wish somebody would investigate Rathergate and explained what happened, how and why. I will never believe that Dan Rather, or his producers, were anything but unwitting victims in that case. They had nothing to gain and everything to lose by cooking stuff up. They should have been more witting, true.
But somebody did cook things up, and the big question is “why?”
Bob, we’ve already covered the stupidity of the right-wing Jeep meme. Try to keep up.
Dan, IMO there’s no question at all that there was a setup involved in the Rather thing. Still, Rather wasn’t trying to prove what I was saying about Bush. That part is pretty much indisputable.
Hey Mike Scott at 9:33 am,
Let’s see if we can have a conversation about the mystery that Benghazi has become, due in large part to the …bizarre behavior… exhibited by obama and his administration in the 15 or so days following the attack which killed four Americans, including our Ambassador to Libya.
The …bizarre behavior… certainly includes the “susan rice fiasco” (obama let her lie, and lie, and lie some more to the American people, didn’t he?)..I mean, he REALLY threw her under the bus, right? And, let’s not forget the others in obama’s administration who with straight faces spread obama’s lies to the American people with vehement clarity.
ok. Enough of that. Here’s the challenge!
After hearing from leon panetta the other day, the trusted obama appointee and Secretary of Defense (and former CIA Director), that he (panetta) “knew on 9/11/12″ that the attack on our consulate in Benghazi was NOT caused by a “crowd reation to some bad movie trailer”:
–why did obama spread the lie (that the attack WAS fomented by the same crowd which panetta knew it wasn’t…) to you and me …for two weeks… and even to the world during his address at the United Nations?
–why was Susan Rice sent out to lie to the viewers on all those Sunday Morning talk shows?
–why did obama and clinton quickly project forward the lying to the tv viewers in Pakistan, and spread their lie to THOSE folks at U.S. taxpayer expense via a televised message?
There’s lots more unanswered questions, Mike, but I think we can have some fun with your answers to those three. Give ‘em a try, please.
gdad, I agree there was a setup. But the question is, why? And who?
Was it a setup against Rather? In that case, it must have involved people who were very familiar with the inner workings of network news operations. Who were they? And who was behind them?
Or was it a setup of Bush by some clumsy amateurs that CBS allowed itself to get caught in?
59. Len Slum lords making a living flipping low income housing have little credibility when trying to denigrate the CPA profession.
hey dan at 10:16 am,
the problem with your point is that at least several obama appointees very likely aren’t legal.
i am not in favor of any president making illegal appointments.
Hey Frank,
The problem with your point is that it ignores Leon’s charge that Obama’s recess appointments constitute an abuse of power — which is an impeachable offense, by the way.
The fact is, Obama has used this form of appointment much less than each of the four presidents who preceeded him. They abused power a hell of a lot more, within the narrow confines of Leon’s definition. It’s only a crime when Obama does it, though.
The fact is, it was NOT any kind of abuse of power, Frank. It was a regular practice that didn’t get challenged until Obama came along, and the court ruling surprised most legal scholars.
“–why did obama spread the lie (that the attack WAS fomented by the same crowd which panetta knew it wasn’t…) to you and me …for two weeks… and even to the world during his address at the United Nations?
–why was Susan Rice sent out to lie to the viewers on all those Sunday Morning talk shows?
–why did obama and clinton quickly project forward the lying to the tv viewers in Pakistan, and spread their lie to THOSE folks at U.S. taxpayer expense via a televised message?”
–Frank
The first two questions are predicated on nonexistent “facts.”
1. Obama didn’t “spread the lie.”
2. Susan Rice was not “sent out to lie.”
The 3rd question makes no sense whatsoever.
Frank, you really need to unpollute your mind from the RWer propaganda.
AC says “but the truth needs to be linked to Obama…” Of course in your world of anything Obama does or says is wrong, it has to be linked to him, no matter what. Yet somehow over 4,000 American deaths in Iraq over phantom WMD’s is a molehill…
Comment by scott whitaker — February 17, 2013 @ 9:25 am
Hussein had used chemical weapons on his own people numerous times. What rational thinking person would think he didn’t have them? WMD’s were not the primary reason for the invasion. Bush correctly identified 3 countries as being the Axis of Evil- N. Korea, Iran and Iraq. 2 of those remain a collective pain in the world’s arse, Iraq does not.
88.
59. Len Slum lords making a living flipping low income housing have little credibility when trying to denigrate the CPA profession.
Comment by Richard J Beason — February 17, 2013 @ 11:05 am
A big amen and +1 to that post RJB.
dan, regarding Rather at 10:54 am,
although you raise a couple of interesting and plausible alternatives (and I as well would love to see an investigation of that sad affair), i think Rather was behind it, or at the very least an unabashedly eager, if unwitting, and willing participant in his false report concerning Bush, near the end of the 2004 election.
The tragedy for liberal news media is that it involved a popular news-reader who was considerably adored by libs and non-libs, and was the face and voice of CBS for quite some time.
Oh, while I’m thinking about it, do you think that was the FIRST time Rather lied, or was set-up to lie by unknown persons, concerning a major, “breaking-news” report? The reason I ask is, it’s pretty unusual to catch a child with his hand in the cookie jar….the first time, …just as its pretty unusual to catch a liar in their …first… lie.
The tragedy for Rather’s viewers is they tended to view the news-reports he read to them as valid and true (otherwise, they wouldn’t have watched CBS news), and all of the folks involved with this obvious betrayal of the American people, with the consequence (ultimate goal?) being the usurption of the presidential election away from Bush and in favor of Kerry…knew that as well, and eagerly planned to exploit, along with Dan, Dan’s loyal viewers.
After Rather got caught, he “resigned” and signed off being a newsreader at CBS…then low and behold the lib news media rallied around dear-old-dan, and gave him award, after award, after award…most recently a “biggie” in 2012, the Edward R. Murrow Lifetime Achievement Award.
All those awards were and are being heaped on Rather as though Dan Rather got caught the VERY FIRST time he lied to his viewers. And, the “industry” bestowing those awards on Rather is none other than his own lib media.
Sad.
The first two questions are predicated on nonexistent “facts.”
1. Obama didn’t “spread the lie.”
2. Susan Rice was not “sent out to lie.”
The 3rd question makes no sense whatsoever.
Frank, you really need to unpollute your mind from the RWer propaganda.
Comment by Dan Casey — February 17, 2013 @ 11:20 am
Wrong, Dan. Obama said on national TV that the White House sent Susan Rice on the Sunday shows. She has been sacrificed. Leon Panetta testified under oath they knew it was a terrorist attack on 9/12. Stop defending the indefensible. Obama’s handling of Benghazi was either 100% incompetence or a cover-up. Actually, I think it was both. Obama might slither out of this one, but he might not. Lindsey Graham is not standing down.
Frank, you really need to unpollute your mind from the RWer propaganda.
Comment by Dan Casey — February 17, 2013 @ 11:20 am
Dan. Assumes facts not in evidence. First you must have a mind to unpollute.
well, dano,
It’s possible that obama’s appointments could be considered an abuse of power.
At this point-in-time, they have been ruled ….unconstitutional.
dan,
the third question is, “after the Benghazi terrorist attack, why did obama and hillary make a tv add (starring none other them themselves) to run on Pakistani tv, which apologized for the “bad movie made by an American?”…which furthered their lie that terrorists were NOT behind the Benghazi terrorist strike.
dan,
as far as your misinformation goes concerning your beef about obama’s “appointments…”, please remember that other U.S. Presidents made their appointments according to the law.
Do you expect ANYBODY to believe that if there was even a shred of a hint that Bush did something, anything, outside the Constitution, that libs wouldn’t have gone ape sh-t?
Are you serious?
hey wayne,
i see that you have finally realized that, yes, you have run out of smarts.
AC, Frank’s charge was not that Rice was “sent out on TV” but that she was “sent out to lie.” She was “not sent out to lie.”
What you’re doing is changing the terms of the charge in order to proclaim it true. It’s a fundamentally dishonest way to debate/discuss/engage and you do it repeatedly, for whatever reason.
We’re done. It’s not worth my time to “engage” with dishonest reasoning. Have a good life!
Frank,
Nope, Frank, they were not an abuse of power. In making the recess appointments, Obama followed the long track record of his predecessors, who had never been charged with abusing power for the same thing.
Perhaps, if the president makes recess appointments FOLLOWING the court’s ruling, you could mount an argument it’s an abuse of power. That would make a lot more sense.
Keep in mind this is not yet settled. The ruling was by a 3-judge panel, not SCOTUS. It’s sure to be appealed and ultimately taken up by them.
“dan,
as far as your misinformation goes concerning your beef about obama’s “appointments…”, please remember that other U.S. Presidents made their appointments according to the law.
Do you expect ANYBODY to believe that if there was even a shred of a hint that Bush did something, anything, outside the Constitution, that libs wouldn’t have gone ape sh-t?
Are you serious?”
–Frank
Frank, you need to go read the Congressional Research Service’s analysis of the decision. You can find a link to it here. It examines EVERY intrasession and intersession recess appointment a president has made since Reagan.
There are hundreds of recess appointments that Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II made that would be invalidated by applying the court’s ruling.
Good points, AC.
Hey dan,
Please explain how, since Panetta recently spilled the beans that he knew on the day of the terrorist strike in Benghazi that the strike was in fact, by terrorists, and NOT by a crowd acting all p–ed off about a movie trailer:
1. susan rice said what she said on those talk shows, and
2. obama said what he said at the UN.
Dan, those are pretty easy things for you to explain, given that Panetta is a lib, albeit a pretty up-standing one, and you must know what he REALLY meant to say. Why don’t you tell us?
“dan,
the third question is, “after the Benghazi terrorist attack, why did obama and hillary make a tv add (starring none other them themselves) to run on Pakistani tv, which apologized for the “bad movie made by an American?”…which furthered their lie that terrorists were NOT behind the Benghazi terrorist strike.”
–Frank
Frank, you’re taking shreds of fact and spinning them into lies. And you’re doing it for the purpose of attacking a president you vehemently opposed before you had ever heard the term Benghazi.
“Please explain how, since Panetta recently spilled the beans that he knew on the day of the terrorist strike in Benghazi that the strike was in fact, by terrorists, and NOT by a crowd acting all p–ed off about a movie trailer:
1. susan rice said what she said on those talk shows, and
2. obama said what he said at the UN.
Dan, those are pretty easy things for you to explain, given that Panetta is a lib, albeit a pretty up-standing one, and you must know what he REALLY meant to say. Why don’t you tell us?”
–Frank
Frank, you’re taking shreds of fact and spinning them into lies. And you’re doing it for the purpose of attacking a president you vehemently opposed before you had ever heard the term Benghazi.
dan,
So, are you saying that one unconstitutionally bad appointment deserves another? Why did it not occur to the libs at the time to legally challenge those appointments made by Reagan, and the Bushes? Why did it not occur to the republicans to legally challenge clinton’s appointments?
I’ll tell ya why. Those appointments were not unconstitutional.
When does the line get drawn? Now.
Who draws it? Both parties should do so non-partisanly, but since that’s not possible these days, I’m glad tha the republicans are doing so, now.
If the link you gave above is accurate, isn’t it time to say, “enough’s enough,” and implore obama to do his business within the parameters of Constitutional Law?
Dan,
regarding your post at 1:24 pm, I take it that you are unable to craft a response plausible enough to support your thinking.
i applaud you for not trying, because once you go down that hole, you increase your chances of ending up like dan rather.
Frank
I have no clue why the sequence of events from the attack to subsequent press conferences and hearings went down the way they did. Neither do you. It’s another one those issues that’s passed on to me through the media and just because I listen to the radio doesn’t mean I have any fact about it.
I don’t discount the idea that my government would lie to me, or that it will make tragic errors in judgement in the exercise of policy. This particular incident in which four people lost their lives is a whole lot like other diplomatic tragedies with similar outcomes and none of them are vast conspiracies orchestrated from the White House.
That would be my position regardless of who was in the oval office.
Mike Scott,
I follow and agree with your comment about government-generated lies.
And, after the dan rather affair, no thinking person is excused from realizing that the bastions of lib media do not hesitate to do so to their viewers and readers as well.
In fact that industry CONTINUES bestowing awards and honoraria on dan rather as we speak…in an effort to over-shadow rather’s blue-stained dress (figuratively).
Call me when you get rid of the trolls.
Frank,
You don’t know, and I doubt you’ll ever be able to persuade me, that Rather deliberately cooked up anything with regard to Bush. At worst, Rather was lied to and he got fooled. That’s bad, but it doesn’t put his whole career in the toilet.
Heck, you demonstrate being fooled with almost every comment you put here!
Don’t wait by the phone, Art.
It’s quite clear that Rather didn’t make it up. We all know that.
Interesting that this “well planned terrorist attack” was carried out by terrorists carrying cans of fuel oil. What happened, did the truck with the heavy weapons break down?
“Interesting that this “well planned terrorist attack” was carried out by terrorists carrying cans of fuel oil. What happened, did the truck with the heavy weapons break down?”
–Blue John
Obviously, they got Benghazi confused with 9/11, but it doesn’t matter because that was Obama’s fault and he’s covering that up, too! /snark off
Could someone on the right please explain why the Repubs. did not adjourn for the recess period. Why did they have someone drop by for a few minutes just to avoid adjournment? It’s obvious there was no business on the agenda, what was their intent and purpose? The American People deserve answers!
Hi Blue John,
I’ve got a couple of questions about the “well planned terrorist attack you mentioned at 2:58 pm:
Do you know why obama, during his UN speech, went with his story about the terrorist attack on Benghazi having been conducted by a crowd peeoed about some film made by an American? and why susan rices’ prepared talking points were so woefully out of synch with the facts as known by Panetta several days prior to her performances on the talk shows?
And, since Panetta, a stand-up lib if there ever was one, recently admitted that HE knew the attack was conducted by well-organized terrorists on the day of the strike, why do you think he chose to not tell obama? or, did he tell obama?
Or, what do you think?
blue jon, i meant your post at 3:29, not 2:58.
And, to answer your post at 3:41, I believe the repubs chose not to adjourn the recess period because they knew obama was going to stack the NLRB, and maybe other boards, with folks that he knew he would have NEVER gotten approved through the routine process.
Dan,
it gladdens me that you, gdad, and i have finanlly agreed on something.
i am only sorry that it had to be on the subject of dan rather, and that we all think he wasn’t smart enough to have pulled that caper on Bush all by himself.
now for a follow-up question. why do you, gdad, maybe even Blue John, think that Dan Rather has been bestowed ever since his 2004 fiasco with awards, honoraria, and acclaim from the lib media?
Dan,
Re: 10:16 am
I am looking for education from the “informed”, are you suggesting that Bush made “illegal” recess appointments? Please cite specifics, I would hope you are more “intelligent” than to base your entire opinion on something from a defined left wing source such as TPM… (or is that where you get all your “informed” information? Please focus on “illegal”.
Also:
Speaking of “informed”, it now looks like even MSNBC is figuring out that the national debt is “suddenly” a problem (but nary a peep 6 months ago). I guess it’s (almost) doubling in only 4 years is hard for even the “most informed” to ignore forever.
Looks like even some liberals are signaling the OK for their followers to move away previous gospel of (“Nobody understand the debt” but me) Krugman , as they realize “their” children (the elves) are going to suffer from obama’s “santa claus” policies. Surely some here will now begin to recant their previously beliefs, as the bastions on the left are now moving away from this thinking.
Strange how some “intelligent” voters become even more “intelligent” after an election.
Frank: re: Benghazi, other questions; why did the FBI not give notes from survivors to congress?, why did obama not get more involved (since everyone else seemed to be watching real time), why was Gen. Ham “put aside” shortly after incident; why did the FMI not inform the CIA of the information it had?
mikeO, I appreciate the implicit acknowledgement that you are uninformed. Many of us here have known that for awhile, btw. But congratulations are indeed in order. Oftentimes the first step in resolving an issue is to recognize your own failings. So fret not, there seems to be hope for you!
Simply click on the link I provided and it will take you to another link, to a pdf of the report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. It’s in the 2nd paragraph of that page.
Then — and this is the important part — READ THE REPORT. With any luck, you might then be informed!
The four presidents preceding Obama made at least 329 unlawful recess appointments under the 3-judge panel’s ruling — and perhaps hundreds more, given the breadth of the ruling.
Interesting that everything that happened (according to the lib-progs) during the Bush administration was the responsibility of Bush (or the nefarious Cheney).
But nothing that has happened during the obama administration, except the lib-prog belief of his; “saving us from a “perceived depression”, “total meltdown of our economy”, “old people dying”, “young people not being educated” and his saving us from total “Armageddon”); is his responsibility.
Is there a different definition or responsibility for R’s and D’s?
“Interesting that everything that happened (according to the lib-progs) during the Bush administration was the responsibility of Bush (or the nefarious Cheney).”
–mikeO
mikeO continues to make progress!
From a great letter to the editor in today’s paper:
“From the day of George W. Bush’s inauguration until the end of his presidency, unemployment plummeted from 4.2 percent to 7.3 percent, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average skyrocketed from 10,587 to a stratospheric 7,949.”
gdad, we’ve already covered the Bush thing. Some folks may call it P*L*A*Y*E*D. Democrats still use Bush as an excuse for their car not starting.
Bush Derangement Syndrome is alive and well!
mike o,
You are so right. Benghazi is a target-rich environment. It is a treasure-trove of material just begging for an investigation. Kinda like chinese water torture (not water boarding, you libs!), drip, drip drip.
And, obama slept uninterrupted that night. So did hillary…. ’cause they both instructed their appointees to NOT DARE making that 3 a.m. call to either of them!
What were they thinking? Well, it wasn’t that they were thinking about Ambassadore Stephens and his few protectors, were they? It was more likely along the line of:
obama – “I don’t want any of THIS to get on me right before the election.”
hillary – “I don’t want any part of THIS getting on me, because I’ve got the nomination in the bag in 2016.” “After all, it’s MY TURN!”
Not one of the two MADE any calls during the night of terror.
Not one of the two RECEIVED any calls during the night of terror.
They saw nothing…heard nothing…said nothing, during the night of terror.
And, these two people are in charge of our country (well, one is, and the other’s a wanna be…but she IS in-charge of the Benghazi Consulate).
They think their supporters are low-information voters.
Go figure.
mikeO is the person who said CFL bulbs cost $20 each. His suspicions on Benghazi are similarly ridiculous.
Dan,
Thanks for the “informed” advice.
A truly “informed” person would note the following re: the CRS:
“Consequently, although the research presented here can identify specific recess appointments that might have been precluded by Noel Canning, it cannot determine whether a similar recess appointment of the same individual to the same position might have been made in such a way as to satisfy the ruling’s criteria.”
But hey… that would not fit with your “informed” bias. Keep parroting the libprog talking points, they do inform the uninformed…
You cant make this stuff up….
“And, obama slept uninterrupted that night. So did hillary…. ”
That’s pretty interesting Frank. How would you know what Hillary was doing at 3:00am in the morning? Got some inside information? This is indeed an intriguing revelation.
It sounds like Frank just copped to sleeping with Hillary AND Obama the night of Benghazi! And Frank did NOTHING, either. LOL.
hey frank’s going all hook, line and sinker again.
Hi Dan,
Maybe you can clear this up, ’cause so far the libs of obama’s administration sure are unable to.
Did obama talk with anyone in the defense dept, state dept, cia, fbi, nsa, or any other agency about the status of the Benghazi attack…after Penetta told him about it on the afternoon of 9/11…until the next morning? If he did, Panetta’s sure not talking “who”, after making clear obama didn’t talk to HIM.
Hey! I know!! Maybe obama was with his white house staff advisors in the situation room watching the whole thing unfold in real time.
I wouldn’t so quick to rule that out, dano.
hey, looky who’s here! hiya steve c.
I bet you can spot a liar a miles away.
Who in obama’s administration do you think is lying about what happened in Benghazi?
And, who do you think is telling the truth?
Please explain your answers.
Thanks.
Frank,
Tell us what went down at 3:00am with the Pres and Hillary. It was pretty freaky I bet. You go dude. How did you get past security?
hey dan and mike scott,
of one thing i can assure…
if i were with either of those false leaders at 3:00 a.m. on the night which i knew our Consulate in Benghazi was under attack and the lives of our staff and the Ambassador were at stake…we wouldn’t be “sleeping”. and i’d be sure that they were visibly attentive to what was going on in the situation room, and were there and available for support if and when it was needed.
Also, I would see to it that obama and hillary would provide visible leadership and support to those who were responsible for saving our staff on the ground. Their very presense in the room would convey their support.
Above all else, I’d be sure to quickly intervene if they got into it “over who the buck stops with.” And I would fight through their arguing and remind them that this attack was definitely NOT Bush’s fault.
I would tell obama to forgo his vegas trip the next day, and send vpjoe instead.
And, I’d send Bill off with Michelle in order for him to find them something to do that would keep them out of the way…
Gee Frank,
Now you’re claiming we’re saying that Benghazi is Bush’s fault? What are you smokin’? We’re not even saying the embassy attacks when Bush was president were his fault.
gee dan,
…it was just part of the script, ya know?
say, what do you think of the other parts?
“I bet you can spot a liar a miles away.”
Sure can, Frankie. Not sure how many miles way you are, but I can spot you at least that far.
Anybody ever think just maybe the CIA was running a black op out of Benghazi? I mean really, our downfall will be not being able to shut the F up about things we the public don’t need to know.
But if you’re interested in Presidents lying and causing mayhem in the US and abroad, Rachel Maddox will have an interesting show tomorrow on MSNBC @ 9:00 EST. Just sayin’. Really, I’m not in favor of this coming out either. Sometimes it’s better to “let sleeping dogs lie.”
Frsnk, we know you’ve been making stuff up about Benghazi since the start. It’s really old.
Frank, if you know anything about your latest anti-Obama obsession that highly connected foreign policy professionals very much closer to the actual evens don’t know, you owe it to your country to take them your information. Nothing you post here will help. If you have no information that isn’t from the most banal public sources, or that hasn’t been fed to you by partisan sources, then please shut up about it.
Remember, your posts here on the topic are already considered ludicrous because of your repeatedly making absurd suggestions without any proof that rape and torture were involved in those events. By those claims you’ve already defined yourself as without credibility on the topic.
If you hope to regain any credibility to discuss it, demonstrate some knowledge that hasn’t already been widely considered by those much more in the know than yourself. If you can’t, you’re just a bore, and no one should bother answering your posts. That will not reflect any avoidance of the matter, it will only reflect avoidance of a bore who doesn’t have anything special to justify his boorish droning.
My personal opinion is: Frank, like millions of others, doesn’t know much about the events of that night, the context in which they occured, or circumstances that prevailed before or since. Frank is just a tiresome bore without much else to post about. Tiresome. Boring. Frank.
Looks like Hay Frank is the sockpuppet du jour.
hey frank @ 8:42,
“Please explain your answers.
Thanks.”
hey frank, there’s only one way I can explain it to you but it’s pointless because you still ain’t getting the message…
Here’s the deal, clue hound; how many things have I mocked you about insisting you were wrong that haven’t came to pass? None? Not one single thing yet?
Tell me, hey frank; what does this little experiment in mental gymnastics prove other than those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it? Thank God you’re not the least bit self-conscious about me always metaphorically beating you like a rented government mule because if you did I’d feel really guilty about constantly humiliating you.
hey frank, here’s your helpful tip of the day; try not to stare up during a rain storm with your mouth agape, lick any windows in public places or attempt to walk and chew gum at the same time.
hi Cold n P,
I do think you’re on to something, that something is not quite right with Benghazi. At least you have the smarts to realize it and the guts to admit it.
I think weapons were being collected there and “arranged to find there way to Turkey and Syria”…to help the Syrian rebels. There’s lots of reasons why any administration who would choose to do something like that covertly would also choose to lie to the American people about it. However, that’s where the investigative power of the free press should come into play.
However, our’s isn’t free of their bondage to obama’s will. And, I think that is the bigger story line.
holy cow, steve c! wow! I kinda doubted whether you really had an mba.
and, based on your post above….well, i’d say the jury is still out on that, so, i still do doubt it. but, you’ve sure got a fanciful imagination.
Hey! Here’s one for ya!
Do you think barack obama is as good a liar as bill clinton is?
Hey mikeO,
I bought some CFL bulbs at the grocery store today. I’ll give you a great deal on them: only $12.95 each!
I think we all need to come to a realization that none of us responds well to insults and those who want an honest discussion will learn to post without them or suffer the consequences. If it is that important to you do insult Obama, or liberals, or Democrats or just another blogger, then do not expect anyone to treat you any better than what you have been getting.
I will respond to those who at least try to respect me, I will not respect anyone who cannot do that much. Why should I?
We all need to decide what kind of blog WE want this to be. So far, it is pretty ugly with a lot of great information and intelligent points that get lost in the hate and BS. Are we better than that?
Frank –
Typical of your ilk you misstate the facts.
Obama made his appointments according to the law s understood at the time. A court later ruled that the appointments were improper because they bought the fiction of the pro forma session of congress, a heretofore unrecognized bit of partisan BS which will now be followed in every congress and completely end the process of Recess Appointments AND most likely further deepen the vacancy problem in the Executive.
“Frank –
Typical of your ilk you misstate the facts.
Obama made his appointments according to the law s understood at the time. A court later ruled that the appointments were improper because they bought the fiction of the pro forma session of congress, a heretofore unrecognized bit of partisan BS which will now be followed in every congress and completely end the process of Recess Appointments AND most likely further deepen the vacancy problem in the Executive.”
–VVarlock
And to add to that, Frank: If some silly panel of silly judges one day ruled that it was illegal for you to post ridiculous tripe here, and suggested that because you have, repeatedly, before their ruling that the government should retroactively sanction you for that, I’d be the first person to defend your actions (not your ideas). But you seem to think that if that ever happened, that you should be charged under those circumstances. Does logic never figure into the stuff you post here? (Perhaps that’s a silly question).
Sorry, gentlemen (vvarlock and dan),
The “silly” court trashed the president’s appointments. That is a fact, based on facts.
As to your rhetorical question, dan, i find it ….silly.
Please let me know when the circumstances where the same in past presidencies concerning whether the senate was …”in recess” …or not. During past presidencies, I don’t recall ANY recesses that were challenged regarding whether the Senate was really in recess…or not. Do you?
Please advise.
And, if you are unable to, I will understand that to mean you agree with me.
Frank, the fact that hundreds of other intersecession recess appointments by Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II went unchallenged does not mean that they did not happen. They did, and it’s a fact, and the list is easily available.
When you choose not to acknowledge facts, Frank, you paint yourself as a fool. If that’s your intent you’re doing a bang-up job.
no doubt they happened, dan. that’s not in dispute. what you can’t seem to grasp is that they were all legal in the eyes of the law, and obama’s most recent ones aren’t.
sheesh. are you trying to be this “not smart”, or does it come naturally?
dan,
in your lead-in for this thread, you have deliberately mischaracterized whats not happened regarding obama, reid, and the republican-led house and a budget not getting passed during obama’s presidency.
my position has always been, folks who don’t want their spending controlled don’t want budgets. that includes spouses, kids, and obama and reid and libs.
obama has proposed budgets that even harry reid won’t bring up for debate in his senate. is that correct?
the republicans have passed budgets during the years they have controlled the house. and, again, harry reid has refused to allow any discussion of those budgets to occur in his senate. Is that correct?
why do ya think that is? well, i think it’s because with no budget, there’s no control, and there’s no accountability. and, the money just flows and flows, with happy libs just cheering it on.
obama and reid and the libs don’t want a budget, dan.
Only 3 comments are showing in this thread, starting at Dan Casey | February 18, 2013 at 6:48 pm. There seems to be nothing before February 18.
IF Obama’s appointments end up being not legal, Frank, it’s only because useless Repubs are gaming the system. A sad commentary on right wingers.
Gdad …your ignorance is astonishing…Just how in the H do you think the repubs could` game a system` when the teams had been chosen ? 3-0 until 2010..If you don`t understand, let me know..I`ll try and spell it out for you in a more simple way.
Awood, you’re posting on the correct thread!
Oh, please, Awood.
“…the independent Congressional Research Service found 329 intrasession recess appointments made since 1981 – 72 by Ronald Reagan, 37 by George H.W. Bush, 53 by Bill Clinton, 141 by George W. Bush and 26 by Barack Obama. It also tracked 323 intersession recess appointments by those presidents, but noted the lack of specific vacancy dates for many of those make it unclear how many would’ve been precluded by the recent court ruling.”
http://democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/sites/democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/files/documents/112/pdf/Recess%20Appointments%201981-2013.pdf
–
The point remains, this is a political machination, not a justifiable case of wrongdoing being eradicated.
Awood, is your insulting post based on the premise that no one can game the system or that Republicans cannot?
Is Awood, the old applewood?
O.K. Saunders…real s-l-o-w for you…how could the repubs…still with me?….`game` anything when they ……..still here?……had NO CONTROL of anything ? If the repubs could `game,` obama would have impeachment charges as we speak . The 3-0 signified President, House, and Senate. Now, I can`t do my thing, if I`ve got to walk you through everything. Slow-walk, I mean. Sheeeez.
#161 Awood, showing up for a few seconds to claim Congress is still in session when it fact it really isn’t is gaming the system. Period.
Did I type that slowly enough for you to absorb it? Probably not.
Awood, being a wiseacre while still being wrong, does not help your case. I can see that anonymity helps conceal more than just your lack of intelligence. The Senate (and the House to a lesser degree) have all sorts of procedures whereby the party not in the majority, may “game”, disrupt and wreak havoc with the system. Democrats are not “in control” of the Senate. Can you possibly not know this?
–
And yes, Awood is the old Applewood. Can you people pick a name and stick to it?
It was only a matter of time: http://www.zazzle.com/lowinformationvoter
#164 I enjoy a good laugh at either side, but those are just dumb.
Not witty. “Low information voter” is too wordy and cumbersome.
“Low information voter” is too wordy and cumbersome.”
Exactly my complaint, Kristen (along with the fact that it’s been used so much it’s already cliche). A good insulting phrase needs to flow. “Low” is absolutely the wrong word here and “information” is just too long. Whoever made it up — Limbaugh or or somebody else — either has a tin ear or just couldn’t come up with anything else and was desperate.