The actions of the Gore lawyers in the 2000 vote were hypocritical - especially when you consider how they were chasing after every possible dimpled ballot. They've set the standard, however - find any way you can to disqualify votes cast in good faith but not processed to the exact letter of the law, and gin up whatever votes you can based on bogus visual criteria. ("Is that chad dimpled or not?" "Just to be on the safe side, mark it for Gore.")

After all, every possible legal vote (for the PROPER candidate, can't just have indiscriminate voting, after all) must be counted!

The Dems have a REMARKABLE ability to ignore the law of unexpected consequences in passing their idiotic legislation... and then blame what happens on everyone and everything BUT them and their ideas!

(Then again, I imagine on 9/12, Gore was going "Damn - dodged a bullet on THAT one!")

The really funny part of the whole fiasco was that Democrats designed the ballot....not that anyone ever went out of their way to mention it.

I know, Garandfan. Funny how it wasn't confusing until the election was close!

Excellent points, JLawson and GarandFan.

The only thing I'd express differently is that
The Dems have a REMARKABLE ability to ignore reality also.

4. Posted by Fitz | July 28, 2010 9:37 AM

The reason for that is, unemployment will be down to 2%, there will be a budget surplus, no new tax hikes, secured border and health care cost will go down.

@ #6 -

Your unicorn showed up on schedule? Still waiting for mine, damn it...

I think someone stole it out of the mailbox. Why didn't they send them out 'signature required'?

I'm curious what success in Afg looks like. It's not a "modern 3rd world nation" like Iraq so having a central gov't is going to be even more difficult. And the only way for gov't to be effective is to have a monopoly on the use of force.

The thing that I find so troubling is Obama's timeline is obviously driven by the U.S. campaign cycle (i.e. draw down starts July 2011).

If we're there to accomplish a mission, the timeline is bullshit. If Obama is instead going to cut-and-run just in time for the '12 election, then why send more troops ? Compromise sometimes results in the worst of all solutions.

7. Posted by JLawson | July 28, 2010 9:54 AM

Wait a second.
Aren't skittles included?
I thought this was a package deal.
I was lied to?
Again!

Skittles? That's what they told me these little brown crunchy things are. They sent those, but... looks like they screwed up the batch, they aren't sweet at all and they're pretty fibrous.

Tastes like poo. Maybe they'd be better with salt?

Hey, they sent a rabbit's foot! Wait a sec...

Yeah, that's swell. But naturally the troops overseas will receive their ballots far too late to have them actually COUNTED in the election. You know...like in 2008!!!!

Ya know, I just wish the Dems (left) would take their "support" for our troops and SHOVE IT until they CHOKE on it.

And if that offends anyone, then see the above statement.

(Very PISSED vet).

I can totally see how the DeviousDems could use Republican support for staying in Afghanistan as a wedge issue in upcoming elections. Look at how they used Iraq against us in the last election.

I can totally see how the DeviousDems could use Republican support for staying in Afghanistan as a wedge issue in upcoming elections. Look at how they used Iraq against us in the last election.

OOH, I sure hope so! Showing themselves as cowards, when everyone is pre-loaded to think the worst of them - ideal for conservatives.

The American public is ready to "toss the bums out" already. Rooting for failure/against success is poison for the liberals. Obama knows that, that's why he's ramping it up, rather than cutting and running (for the time being).

I'll be danged... Lee "Throwing Fitz" Ward burned off another IP, and one of my colleagues caught it for me. Thanks, folks!

J.

I believe that the so-called "public disillusionment" with the Afgan war has to do with the absence of a coherent plan from our Dear Leader. Other than to cut and run at some future date. Pretty hard to get people to stay at your side when you keep moving towards the exit. And the release of the names of informants (by family name and village) in those papers leaked out really isn't going to help.

But I'm sure Dear Leader will have Eric Holder right on it should any of those people suddenly turn up dead with a bullet in the back of their heads.

I"m not sure if Im following the logic here.

If the Democrats pushing for an Afghan withdrawal, they will be bringing home almost 100,000 (94,000 as of May) people, the majority already inclined to vote Republican and many feeling even more slighted by the Democrats. Add in their families and friends they can sway, and that number only grows.

Soldiers home from Afghanistan are going to convince their families to vote Republican so that they can be sent back to Afghanistan to fight?

I don't think yo meant that, but I'm not clear on what you did mean, Mr. Tea.

Gee, it's almost as if Democrats think bringing the troops home would be good for both the soldiers and the nation, as opposed to keeping them there to politically look good.

Wow what dummies!

As a veteran, I always support the troops no matter what. It is one of the last things anything should be touched politically and that is troop deployment, etc. Unfortunately, Afghan war is now a political item for Obama and the liberal left. What that means to me is our troops are no longer safe. I do not think the generals and commanders on the ground will get what they need until it has passed a political test. Wiki-leaks, the left leaning group releasing thousands of secret documents to hurt our soldiers just proves my point.

We should announce to the world that we have to withdrawl the troops because one of america's two political parties is purposely endangering our troops. Our troops will know and accept this. ww

Interesting that you think the Left is endangering our troops, WildWillie.

Considering that the Right most definitely endangered the troops by opening an unnecessary second war in Iraq, before Afghanistan was stabilized. Thus placing our soldiers' sacrifices in *both* fronts at risk, at best.

Also interesting that telling the truth counts as "leaking documents to hurt our soldiers". Which is a ludicrous charge. As if the Wikileaks founder woke up one morning and said "You know what I want to do today? Let's hurt the troops! I know, I'll release a bunch of documents that say they're being sacrificed for nothing because the Afghanistan occupation is doomed to failure! That way when the military's plans are either changed so they succeed or the soldiers are withdrawn, that'll **really** hurt the troops!"

PS - Obama is not a liberal. He's a centrist in the Bill Clinton mode. He's just to the Left of you because you're far to the right.

"Obama is not a liberal. He's a centrist in the Bill Clinton mode."

You are so full of shit, it's a wonder you can get your head that far up your ass.

As for those leaked documents, including the names/villages of those who've provided info to NATO troops about AQ and Taliban activity would not be the smartest thing to do. Of is it that you just don't give a damn?

You are so full of shit, it's a wonder you can get your head that far up your ass.

Please explain what Obama has done, that Bill Clinton would NOT have done because it was "too leftist".

Otherwise, please blow it out your ass, past your head. And then shove it back in. Why not?

As for the danger of the names/villages, even if that's the case that's different from WildWillie's argument. His argument is specifically that WikiLeaks put those documents up because liberals hate soldiers and want them to suffer and die. And that statement is stupid, slanderous, and worthy of ridicule.

Democrats never met a conflict they couldn't surrender to.

In my opinion, Clinton tried for an Imperial Presidency, but didn't get the support he was expecting and got his hand slapped pretty hard in '94 at the mid-terms. After that, he was pretty centrist, and he pretty much kept his fingers off shit he didn't understand (like the economy).

Obama? Imperial Presidency, aided and abetted by the media. But I think he's finding the 'It's good to be da king!' metaphor is losing its appeal, and he's pretty much facing a revolt of the peasants in a few months. And compared to him, Clinton's looking as far right as Reagan economically.

I could wish the times weren't so interesting... and looking to be even more so in the near future.

Well JLawson that's an interesting opinion. But in fact CLinton quite actively paid attention to the economy, including raising taxes on the wealthy while cutting them on the poor and middle class, and then investing that money into the poor and middle class. Which is what resulted in 8 years of unprecedented prosperity and a budget surplus.

I really don't see how Obama can possibly be trying to have an "imperial presidency". What is he trying along those lines that Bush did not try, or actually do?

"One of the hallmarks of the left is their apparent inability to think things through."

Kind of reminds me of one of the hallmarks of the right: ridiculous over-generalizations.

Notice: Irony alert approaching.

One of the hallmarks of the left is their apparent inability to think things through. They seem blissfully unaware of the law of unintended consequences, and don't seem to grasp how simple good intentions don't trump everything else. As long as their hearts are in the right place, they refuse to see how things might not turn out how they want them to.

Seriously? That's a hallmark of the left? Look again.

"Specter of Arizona immigration law slowly drains economy"

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/28/arizona.immigration.economy/

Not exactly the intended consequence, is it?

Did we all forget the original reason for the Gany affair? It was to toss the taliban and kill OBL. We got the 1st done and pakistan stopped us from doing the second.If we are not going to kill the bastard then I see no reason to stay. That pile of rocks and dirt aint worth it and never was and never will be.We can make up all kinds of benevolent reasons to stay but its just a waste of time and money and my friends.Kill Osama or get the hell out.

Jim X -

"he pretty much kept his fingers off shit he didn't understand (like the economy)."

He didn't try to micromanage it, wasn't constantly tweaking it, didn't shove out stimulus packages that didn't work, didn't try to bleed everyone he didn't like of every last dollar, didn't cut sweetheart deals for the unions, and mostly left it alone.

Obama should review Clinton's actions - and learn from them.

John -

From your link...

But anecdotal evidence from business owners, real estate agents and community leaders indicates the mere specter of the bill has created a culture of fear among Hispanics in Arizona that's slowly paralyzing sectors of the economy. Hispanics make up 30 percent of the state's population.

...

Based on feedback from clients and preliminary data, Hidalgo said his group estimates that rental vacancies in predominantly Latino neighborhoods will be 10 to 15 percent higher than the normal rate of 12 percent.

"People are scared, and they don't want to wait around to find out what's going to happen with SB 1070," said Hidalgo, whose group offers housing, economic and education services to low-income families and individuals, both undocumented and U.S.-born.

"Regardless of their status, people are frustrated with an environment that's not accepting and potentially threatening, and they're fed up with being targeted and singled out by law enforcement. It's driving them out of the state, and not necessarily to better situations."

As far as the economic hit goes...

"Recent data compiled by a market research group show hotel bookings across the state -- as well as in tourism hot spots Phoenix and Scottsdale -- have been on the rise the past two months.

The numbers could dispel warnings from local officials that Arizona stands to lose a fortune and dampen the chances that cities and organizations will be able to compel the state to reverse its immigration law by choking its economy with a sanctions-style business boycott.

"Fundamentally, the boycotts have been unsuccessful," said Barry Broome, president of the Greater Phoenix Economic Council. "

Something has to be done about illegal immigration. Tapping 'em all on the head with a magic wand and declaring them citizens is one way to go - but I'd rather see LEGAL immigration opened up a bit more, and the folks in the country ILLEGALLY go out and then process through correctly... at the back of the line behind the folks who were willing to jump through hoops and pay the fees and do things according to existing law.

Jim X

"
Which is what resulted in 8 years of unprecedented prosperity and a budget surplus"

I guess that thing called the dotcom boom didnt have anything to do with things.

You know where every business in America automated things with PCs?

You know the start of large scale internet commerce?

That little old thing had nothing to do with the economy during the Clinton years.

From 1992 to about 1999 was Bill and Al's economy every step of the way.

That is Bill Gates and Alan Greenspan.

"I really don't see how Obama can possibly be trying to have an "imperial presidency"."

By 'imperial', I mean it in a 'Fuck you, I'm the King and you're peasants, pay up and shut up' sort of way.

Let's see... photo op flight in AF 1 for his daughters and supporters. Wednesday parties, concerts, command performances, date night in NY, near weekly golfing trips, heck of a lot of vacations, separate plane for the dog (and support personnel, to be fair - but they won't let the dog on AF 1?)...

Being the Prez has it's perqs, to be sure!

What's next - shall we build him a copy of the Palace of Versailles as a summer residence? Washington in the summer is SO unpleasant...

Don't get me wrong - I WANT him to be gone from Washington as much as possible. Golf trips? Maybe he should go on a 50-state tour, one course every other day, with plenty of travel and sightseeing time? Rafting down the Colorado for a week? The poor sap works hard, so I think he should be able to take at least 6.5 days a week off. The more time he's out of the White House 'vacationing', the less he's screwing the country over.

JLawson

"Maybe he should go on a 50-state tour "

Then the folks in those other 9 or 10 states he didnt visit would be mad at him.

Hmmm. You're right. Maybe he should visit them first!

I guess that thing called the dotcom boom didnt have anything to do with things.

The first 4 years of the Clinton Administration economic boom was 1992-1996 - during which dot-com businesses were not anywhere near a significant portion of GDP. The dotcom boom didn't start to affect GDP until late 1996, at the earliest.

So to suggest that all 8 years of prosperity were solely due to the Internet boom is simply wrong. Ditto for the computer industry - computers didn't start becoming a staple in American homes until 1996 at the earliest as well.

I know it sucks to think someone you hate may have done things well, but Bill Clinton is that person.

By 'imperial', I mean it in a 'Fuck you, I'm the King and you're peasants, pay up and shut up' sort of way.

So I repeat: What is Obama trying along those lines that Bush did not try, or actually do?

Shall I present the loooooong list of Bush incidents clearly presenting of this attitude? And show you just how much longer it is than Obama's, even if just counting items from the first 1 1/2 years of GWB's administration?

Shall I even just list how many more vacation days GWB took off, at this same point in his presidency?

It constantly amazes me how conservatives don't see this sort of thing. Then when it's brought up, the subject is changed - but then conservatives bring it up again.

But I know the reason why. You guys don't mind when Bush did (many) things smacking of an Imperial presidency - because you felt he was on your side. You don't like Obama or his policies - which is fine. The problem is when instead of attacking his policies or even him, you enlarge his policies until you actually seem to convince yourselves he's Adolf Capone Bin Laden.

Sure, Jim X - why don't you do just that?

Bring it all out, let people see and decide for themselves.

I thought 'anecdotal evidence' was pretty much worthless. Oh, wait, I forgot - that only applies when it doesn't support what you're professing.

Says who? Strawman dismissed.

As far as the economic hit goes...

You're conflating two things. It may be true that the boycotts didn't impact the tourism industry. But that's not the same as the rest of the working class infrastructure facing the loss of many of its consumers.

Although to your point (from my previous link):

Since groups nationwide began announcing boycotts of the state because of SB 1070, at least 40 meetings have been canceled. That's resulted in the loss of $12 million in lodging alone, according to Kristen Jarnagin, spokeswoman for the Arizona Hotel & Lodging Association.

Summer is typically the low season, she noted, and pointed out that tourism was up 8 percent statewide in June 2010 compared with June 2009, which was one of the "worst summers ever" because of the recession.

Despite that slight uptick, more telling is the lack of inquiries for future bookings, she said.

I'm unqualified to rank the relative merits of the opinions of Greater Phoenix Economic Council vs. the Arizona Hotel & Lodging Association. Though it seems that the latter has a wider view than the former.

Time will tell, John. It always does.

Alright JLawson. It amazes me that you guys seem to forget this so easily.

Here's what you claim makes Obama imperial in a way Bush was not:

photo op flight in AF 1 for his daughters and supporters.

I couldn't find much on specific Bush photo ops by 2002 - besides the infamous My Pet Goat. But I did find one Bush photo op that is far, far worse than the worst of what Obama's accused of:

http://thinkprogress.org/katrina-timeline

A group of 1,000 firefighters convened in Atlanta to volunteer with the Katrina relief efforts. Of those, "a team of 50 Monday morning quickly was ushered onto a flight headed for Louisiana. The crew's first assignment: to stand beside President Bush as he tours devastated areas.

Bush took needed fifty firemen away from actually saving people in New Orleans, so they could be photographed behind him when he appeared in Katrina.

Just for a second, think about the waste of needed resources that was.

Wednesday parties, concerts, command performances, date night in NY, near weekly golfing trips, heck of a lot of vacations, separate plane for the dog (and support personnel, to be fair - but they won't let the dog on AF 1?)...

Here's what I got when putting "bush vs. obama vacation days" into Google:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/2506288,CST-NWS-obama18.article

Obama trails Bush in vacation days 120 to 65

So by this time in his presidency, Bush had almost TWICE as many vacation days as Obama - ***and this is after 9/11 happened and we'd already invaded one country***.

So again - the worst that Obama is accused of, is far exceeded by George W. Bush - who I'm betting you voted for at least once, if not twice.

This should show to you that Obama being more "arrogant" is 100% a creation by you, because you don't like him - it has nothing to do with his photo ops or vacation days, or you would hate Bush far more.

Hate?

LOL! Jim, you've got enough hate for five people. I dislike Obama's policies. I dislike the man's attitude. It doesn't rise to hate - the man's not worth hating, but he IS worth commenting about and laughing at, the poor pretentious sap.

Obama's likely going to be out in '12 - whether for Hillary or a generic Republican, either will be an improvement.

But Bush, as Obi Wan said of the Force, will be with you ALWAYS.

Well JLawson, all I can see is you claiming Obama's an imperial president, for things which when done far worse by Bush didn't bother you at all.

So substitute "dislike", any other more comfortable word - the point is, if Bush did it far more and far worse, that can't be the source of your problem with Obama.

You can see that, right?

One of the hallmarks of the left is their apparent inability to think things through. They seem blissfully unaware of the law of unintended consequences, and don't seem to grasp how simple good intentions don't trump everything else. As long as their hearts are in the right place, they refuse to see how things might not turn out how they want them to.

Jay, both the left and the right don't always think things through. For instance Cheney said the Iraq war would be a short war measured in months not years. One could also say that those who supported the war in the first place did not give enough thought to how things might turn out. The point is that people on the right are more likely to notice when the left doesn't think things through and those on the left are more likely to notice when the right doesn't think things through.