Houshphandzadeh wrote:you really want me to like dig up links to petitions for Bush to be tried as a war criminal and whatnot? a million Daily Show clips? old facebook photos of Bush as a monkey? I can't believe you have this huge blind spot to only ten years. you can argue validity (obviously Bush sucks and I prefer Obama even though Obama sucks, too) but the idea that Obama is the first sitting president to have to endure tons of accusations is just silly

For me, I think the difference is where the worst stuff is coming from. You're citing examples of things done by comedians and interest groups and just random idiots. The stuff against Obama has come from people high in the GOP. It's not the fringe element doing it (well, they are too), it's the establishment republicans doing it in many cases. And it seemed to be a coordinated effort on some of the issues. Much of it is the rise of the tea party and big money PACs, but the establishment types have gone along with much of it and participated in many cases, because they had to feed the beast.

There's also the difference in the scope of the things done by the two presidents, so I wouldn't discount that factor. Bush got us into two wars, killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq in an oil and defense grab, used torture as a matter of policy, and in general fucked the economy (though Clinton and Bush the elder and Reagan had a hand in that as well). What has inspired hatred of Obama? He passed a healthcare plan modeled after a previous republican plan, may have dropped the ball in the Bengazi incident, and is making executive decisions at a rate slower than his predecessors. Those are the big complaints and they are supposedly bad enough to seriously discuss impeachment and suing him. There is no equivalence here. A sitting president should face opposition from the other party, but this is bat shit crazy stuff, mostly made up, and based on outrage over next to nothing when you compare it to what people from both parties hated Bush over.

Anyway, I think the Perry thing has at least a little to do with the executive order thing. It will be hard to get people to understand the nuances of that discussion. Reps are mad about Perry because they know it makes attacking Obama on executive orders more difficult.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:Yeh, even if he's completely innocent, it's laughable that a staunch republican would cry foul over trumped up charges on Perry. Welcome to every day of the Obama presidency.

I've ruminated on this one a bit, and it continues to strike me as a really fucking bizarre post

I think it's much more bizarre that you wouldn't understand I'm referring to the constant barrage of BS from the right about Obama, anything from Bengazi to his birth certificate nonsense to him being a secret Muslim who hates America. Given this, whining about Perry, when you don't even know the facts of the case yet (unless you are secretly working in the Austin DAs office), comes off a bit weak and crybabyish, imho.

You're probably just mad because this will make it harder to sue Obama for executive order overreach. Hard to publicly say that Perry was ok in using his powers to squash a person he didn't like at the same time that you're saying Obama has no right to appoint judges and address problems that need to be addressed quickly. Sure there's a difference between the two, but good luck parsing that for the American public.

I understand that you're trying to equate the House holding hearings on Benghazi and people on Fox News saying false and mean things about Obama to a prosecutor indicting someone on fake bullshit that could send him to jail for the rest of his life. And that because the party I vote for has been harassing the president, I am not allowed to complain about people trying to put someone from my party in jail for bs reasons. I think that's a really weird way of looking at things.

I don't really care about Boehner's lawsuit one way or the other, though the means of suing to get an injunction against executive action you believe to be unwarranted is within the scope of normal political jostling, and they're not trying to get someone kicked out of office or thrown in jail for petty, political bullshit.

As for the prosecutor's evidence, I don't know beyond what was in the indictment and the various commentaries I've read about the laws and how it seems like trying to apply these statutes to Perry's actions is a major reach, and tremendously problematic on separation of powers and free speech grounds.The condemnation of the indictments range from across the spectrum. All of the largest editorial boards in the country have bashed the indictments ranging from the Wall Street Journal (Texas Chainsaw Prosecution) on the right to the USA Today (Rick Perry's Flimsy Indictment) in the center to the Washington Post (The Wrong Headed Case against Rick Perry) and the New York Times (Is Gov. Perry's Bad Judgement Really a Crime?) on the left. Are they all being whiny crybabies?

No, they aren't all being crybabies. It's mostly just you. Let's wait to see what happens with the case before we dismiss the charges from our armchairs, ok?

If the case against Perry is BS, then it's BS. If the crap being said about Obama from people all over the GOP, including higher ups (it's not just Fox News), is BS, then it's BS. I think it's weird to hear someone complain about tactics when they generally support any tactic done by their own party. Perry isn't going to jail, so stop being so melodramatic. The gloves are off, you should have a boner over it.

dajafi wrote:

Bucky wrote:OBAMA PLAYED GOLF AFTER ISIS ADDRESS

You're probably doing fake outrage, but this really pissed me off. Way too close to Bush saying, "now watch this drive." Arguably worse given the specific human tragedy.

Obama consistently projects "I no longer give a #$!&@." I support him and think on balance he's been good in office, but if he can't at least fake enthusiasm, I don't know what the point is.

actually i'm not even sure of the context. i was out at breakfast this morning and CNN was on (silent) and that was on the bottom of the screen in HUGE letters for about 3 minutes running. Had to keep double taking to check that it was the CNN bug I was seeing and not Fox.

Who cares if he golfs

Bc it doesn't look good. it looks like shit

The Dude wrote:Bc it doesn't look good. it looks like shit

I know it sure looks like shit when I golf

Monkeyboy wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:Yeh, even if he's completely innocent, it's laughable that a staunch republican would cry foul over trumped up charges on Perry. Welcome to every day of the Obama presidency.

I've ruminated on this one a bit, and it continues to strike me as a really fucking bizarre post

I think it's much more bizarre that you wouldn't understand I'm referring to the constant barrage of BS from the right about Obama, anything from Bengazi to his birth certificate nonsense to him being a secret Muslim who hates America. Given this, whining about Perry, when you don't even know the facts of the case yet (unless you are secretly working in the Austin DAs office), comes off a bit weak and crybabyish, imho.

You're probably just mad because this will make it harder to sue Obama for executive order overreach. Hard to publicly say that Perry was ok in using his powers to squash a person he didn't like at the same time that you're saying Obama has no right to appoint judges and address problems that need to be addressed quickly. Sure there's a difference between the two, but good luck parsing that for the American public.

I understand that you're trying to equate the House holding hearings on Benghazi and people on Fox News saying false and mean things about Obama to a prosecutor indicting someone on fake bullshit that could send him to jail for the rest of his life. And that because the party I vote for has been harassing the president, I am not allowed to complain about people trying to put someone from my party in jail for bs reasons. I think that's a really weird way of looking at things.

I don't really care about Boehner's lawsuit one way or the other, though the means of suing to get an injunction against executive action you believe to be unwarranted is within the scope of normal political jostling, and they're not trying to get someone kicked out of office or thrown in jail for petty, political bullshit.

As for the prosecutor's evidence, I don't know beyond what was in the indictment and the various commentaries I've read about the laws and how it seems like trying to apply these statutes to Perry's actions is a major reach, and tremendously problematic on separation of powers and free speech grounds.The condemnation of the indictments range from across the spectrum. All of the largest editorial boards in the country have bashed the indictments ranging from the Wall Street Journal (Texas Chainsaw Prosecution) on the right to the USA Today (Rick Perry's Flimsy Indictment) in the center to the Washington Post (The Wrong Headed Case against Rick Perry) and the New York Times (Is Gov. Perry's Bad Judgement Really a Crime?) on the left. Are they all being whiny crybabies?

No, they aren't all being crybabies. It's mostly just you. Let's wait to see what happens with the case before we dismiss the charges from our armchairs, ok?

If the case against Perry is BS, then it's BS. If the crap being said about Obama from people all over the GOP, including higher ups (it's not just Fox News), is BS, then it's BS. I think it's weird to hear someone complain about tactics when they generally support any tactic done by their own party. Perry isn't going to jail, so stop being so melodramatic. The gloves are off, you should have a boner over it.

Seems a bit weird that editorial boards trashing the indictment is OK, but I can't given we've got the same amount of information about it.

I'm pretty amoral about things like negative ads, but I'm not big on randomly arresting political opponents for made up shit. He's been indicted for a pair of crimes that would put him in jail for years and years. The let's see what happens approach isn't appropriate given the circumstances. The absurdity of this should be highlighted loudly until it is reversed.

The other negative side effect from this is if he does get the charges dismissed, it will boost his standing in the 2016 primary field. The Dems shot at him for bullshit and missed. The whole thing is awful.

TomatoPie wrote:The ham sammich analogy is apt for Gov Perry.
...

Perry ain't even guilty of anything more than being a ham sammich without mayo OR mustard - but this trumped up charge could give him a huge boost.

If you peel the onion to get past the narrative of the pundits and media, you''ll eventually get to the actual reason Perry wanted Lehmberg to resign. While Perry will likely beat the current indictments, I expect he'll later be indicted for at least one of the onion layers that gets exposed and he will not survive that. IOW, he will eventually be convicted of at least one crime but it won't be for anything he's currently indicted for.

Just a reminder...Michael McCrum, the special prosecutor that brought the Perry indictments, was a US Attorney appointed by the George H.W. Bush administration.

Also want to say, McCrum would be a good name for a baker.

jerseyhoya wrote:I'm pretty amoral about things like negative ads, but I'm not big on randomly arresting political opponents for made up shit. He's been indicted for a pair of crimes that would put him in jail for years and years. The let's see what happens approach isn't appropriate given the circumstances. The absurdity of this should be highlighted loudly until it is reversed.

The other negative side effect from this is if he does get the charges dismissed, it will boost his standing in the 2016 primary field. The Dems shot at him for bullshit and missed. The whole thing is awful.

would you knock off bleating about this thing ffs? You understand that Perry WANTS all this attention to this erzatz "criminal" theater, do you not? I mean it's Texas - it's him & his "all-star legal team" arranging all this high-profile outrage.

The man IS a ham sandwich - this desperate, transparent BS is the only way he can get any legit attention anymore. "The" Dems aren't A thing, dooder - some drunk psycho Texas bitch with pull got this thing rolling and in TX it doesn't take a whole lot to have a hootenanny.

Jesus, it's like someone is PAYING you to carry on this way

I have no opinion on the indictment other than it would be hilarious if he went to a maximum security prison and got all the anal sex he clearly wants.

Bank of America will pay a $16 billion dollar fine for their role in the subprime mortgage crisis.

The Justice Department had already forged huge mortgage deals with JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup, but in certain ways, the Bank of America accord is shaping up into the showpiece for the Obama administration. Some consumer advocates said that while the deal was flawed in many ways, it provided more relief than the other settlements.
“It is better than previous settlements because it offers more principal reductions, more money for blighted areas and more money for new mortgages to low- and moderate-income home buyers,” said Bruce Marks, founder of the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America.
Photo
Angelo Mozilo was chief executive of Countrywide Financial.Credit Lucas Jackson/ReutersAnd in contrast to the other deals, law enforcement authorities are weighing whether to sue bank executives, including Angelo Mozilo, the co-founder and former chief executive of Countrywide Financial, the mortgage giant that Bank of America bought in 2008.
The consumer relief is expected to help tens of thousands of homeowners across the country. Most notably, the deal could result in Bank of America forgiving billions of dollars in mortgage principal. Unlike the other settlements, a person briefed on the matter said, the Bank of America plan could involve cutting the principal on loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration, a move that will primarily help low- and moderate-income borrowers.
With six years having passed since the depths of the housing crisis, however, many homeowners with Countrywide loans have already lost their homes in foreclosure.
The Justice Department and the state attorneys general who negotiated the settlement were creative with their relief measures. In New York State, for example, Bank of America has agreed to donate hundreds of foreclosed properties to land banks and community groups, while chipping in money to renovate each property.

a statement of facts:

The Justice Department documents also show the failings of the government’s efforts to protect itself against insuring defective mortgages.
One Bank of America employee describes trying to “trick” a system that screened mortgages that the Federal Housing Administration agreed to insure.
When using this system, Bank of America sometimes changed an applicant’s financial information and resubmitted the loan many times to try for approval. In at least one case, a Bank of America underwriter tried to pass the F.H.A. screening more than 40 times, according to the documents. In other cases, “underwriters regularly changed the relevant data and resubmitted the loans more than 20 times,” the documents said.

Youseff wrote:I have no opinion on the indictment other than it would be hilarious if he went to a maximum security prison and got all the anal sex he clearly wants.

have not read anything and absolutely do not give a shit about this rick perry business at all

pacino wrote:Bank of America will pay a $16 billion dollar fine for their role in the subprime mortgage crisis.

well, they can afford it now that mcneal's salary is off their books

jerseyhoya wrote:Seems a bit weird that editorial boards trashing the indictment is OK, but I can't given we've got the same amount of information about it.

I'm pretty amoral about things like negative ads, but I'm not big on randomly arresting political opponents for made up shit. He's been indicted for a pair of crimes that would put him in jail for years and years. The let's see what happens approach isn't appropriate given the circumstances. The absurdity of this should be highlighted loudly until it is reversed.

The other negative side effect from this is if he does get the charges dismissed, it will boost his standing in the 2016 primary field. The Dems shot at him for bullshit and missed. The whole thing is awful.

I guess I go back to the fact that we don't really know anything about it yet.

When the christie thing hit the fan, you said that the source of the complaint about the lane closing was a partisan (the mayor of Fort Lee, I forget his name) and, I assume, we should not believe this person for that reason. And you said it just didn't make sense that Christie would do it for a variety of reasons. Now you are saying essentially the same thing about Perry, that he's being basically set up by a partisan (err, Bush appointed DA) and that it doesn't make sense. Well, I think most people would say that Christie did some things wrong and that maybe he even did something illegal. We now know this because a whole bunch of stuff came out because the NJ legislature went after him aggressively. Isn't it possible that the same thing could happen here? Isn't it possible that the DA knows a few things about Perry that you don't and these things will eventually come out during the investigation? As I'm sure you know, an indictment or a grand jury are relatively early in the process. It's unclear where this will end up. At the time of the christie thing, I said he was probably innocent, but I no longer believe that to be the case. I now believe Perry is probably innocent, but experience tells me to wait and see. I think that's reasonable.

Oh, and I really don't have a problem with Perry being the GOP nominee. In fact, I kinda like the idea.

Monkeyboy wrote:Oh, and I really don't have a problem with Perry being the GOP nominee. In fact, I kinda like the idea.

I'm guessing you feel this way because you're sure he would lose. There are two problems with this.

First, there's no guarantee. A lot of Democrats in the late '70s felt there was no way the country would elect that dimwitted right-wing nut Ronald Reagan. I don't think Perry's in the same galaxy as Reagan in terms of political talent, but it's still the case that once someone gets to the finals, he can win. Carter probably would have been re-elected if the April 1980 hostage rescue had come off. And if it's Perry against, say, Hillary, he could win if the Clintons do something that disqualifies them. Even if not, I think she's so profoundly unlikeable that after six months of a general election campaign (both nominations will settle early), the country might just decide it can't abide having her in their faces for four years.

Second and more importantly, if Perry wins the Republican nomination it says something really, really upsetting and depressing about a large chunk of the electorate. It would be difficult to imagine anyone more temperamentally or psychologically unsuited for the presidency. This is a guy to whom nuance, critical thinking and self-reflection all seem to be entirely foreign concepts (and he's not a fan of anything foreign, of course). Try to imagine him making decisions about use of force. Or conducting international diplomacy. Or negotiating with Congress.

Bush wasn't a bad president because he was stupid or evil. I don't think he was either. He was a disastrously bad president whose tenure saw enormous damage to the country because he failed to surround himself with people of talent, didn't ask good questions, and was too stubborn or insecure to change course. I think Perry is worse on every one of those levels, and he might actually be stupid and/or evil.

Frankly I'd be pretty happy with a constitutional amendment that forbade any Texans from seeking the presidency. Based on LBJ and Bush 43, they're just too prone to make everything about dick size. To render the measure bipartisan, I'd happily see any blue state paired with Texas as far as having its politicians disqualified from the White House. Maybe two or three blue states.

Dajafi, I actually did consider your 2nd point before posting (but not the first point about Hillary) and I came to the conclusion that it is too late for much to change this election cycle. The GOP isn't going to abandon their top guys and there's too much money going into revving up the tea party crowd. I was thinking more long term and I think a few more nominees like Mitt and Perry might actually help pull the country away from those types of guys. So while I agree a Perry nomination would be scary, it's probably less scary than the next guy who thinks like him but is more electable. IOW, if we have to see guys like Perry from the GOP, and I don't think we'll see anyone who thinks much differently than he does, I would prefer someone like Perry who is less likely to actually win the contest.

But yeh, it would be great if we could just stop getting nominees like him. I look forward to the days when I can go back to pulling the R lever sometimes. I just don't think that's going to happen this cycle.

I guess the question is how you balance likelihood of winning against risk of total disaster in office. Romney is a distasteful prick, but he's also a smart guy with some eye for talent and, so far as I can tell, a fairly even keel as far as temperament. He wouldn't terrify me in office. Neither would Jeb Bush. Perry or Cruz absolutely would.

To expand on the point a little more, I think all this stuff matters most when the country hits a crisis moment. We've had two in the last 15 years: 9/11 and Lehman Bros. The response to 9/11 was horrible, probably more damaging than the attack itself (and I was there, mind you; I take 9/11 very seriously). It was so bad because the people in power saw it through the lenses of short term political gain (Rove) and ideology (the neocons), and the president couldn't contain them.

The Lehman crisis response by contrast was pretty good. By then, Bush was listening to the realists and he didn't worry about the politics. Obama's part in it was as good or better. The financial system recovered and the stimulus, though too small, was effective.

Try to imagine President Perry and his team of advisors responding to either, then go change your pants.