THE PLANK OCTOBER 17, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
David
Brooks makes an important point about Barack Obama’s temperament--that he
possesses a kind of equanimity reminiscent of Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald
Reagan. He and they are “driven upward
by a desire to realize some capacity in their nature. They rise with an
unshakable serenity that is inexplicable to their critics and infuriating to
their foes.” He might have also added
Dwight Eisenhower to this list.
But I don’t quite agree with Brooks’ analysis of why Obama,
Reagan, and Roosevelt possess this quality. Brooks
says that Obama’s biography is more similar to that of turbulent-minded presidents Lyndon Johnson and
Bill Clinton. “Obama has the biography
of the first group but the personality of the second,” Brooks writes. “He grew
up with an absent father and a peripatetic mother.” Brooks does not say it, but he implies that Roosevelt
and Reagan grew up strong, caring, and ever present fathers.
But guess what? Reagan’s father was a drunk who saw himself as a failure in life. Reagan
seemed to be raised more by his mother than father; and he always attributed
his faith and optimism to his mother. Roosevelt’s father was 54-years-old when Franklin,
an only child, was born, and was reputed to be a sickly and distant father, who
died when Franklin
was 18. Of course, both Reagan and Roosevelt spoke admiringly of their fathers,
but there is no question that they were mother’s boys. And indeed, when psychologists have tried to
explain the self-confidence of people like Roosevelt,
they have pointed to doting mothers.
Does this sound familiar? It’s not that different from the Barack Obama
story. Obama wrote a book about looking for his father, but the key parent in
his life was always his mother not his father. His father--like Reagan’s and Roosevelt’s fathers--was the odd parent
out. What’s different from Reagan and Roosevelt is that for Obama’s teen years, his mother was sometimes
absent, her place being taken by her parents.
But there is still more similarity than difference between Obama’s
biography and that of Roosevelt and Reagan.
And this is not to say--and I agree with Brooks here--that
Obama will be as successful a president as either of these men. Or that this kind of temperament is a prerequisite
for great leadership--Abraham Lincoln, who was dogged by depression, was no
slouch. But in the course of the
two-year long campaign for office, Obama has certainly demonstrated an
emotional capacity for leadership that is eerily reminiscent of Roosevelt and
Reagan.
--John B. Judis
49 comments
With the sudden emphasis on temperament in election coverage, you’d think that Americans are going to the polls on November 4 to pick the White House dog. Focus on this farcical dimension is due to the fact that the MSM is madly in love with Barack Obama, but have run out of reasons to say exactly why.
They used to cite his objection to the Iraq War, but the U.S. is now winning, and a troop withdrawal plan has been negotiated without his input. They used to talk about his plan to tax the “rich” and relieve the poor, but with the market meltdown, raising anyone’s taxes sounds petrifying–plus Joe the Plumber brought out Obama’s socialist side on this issue and the press would rather try to discredit Joe. They used to praise his eagerness to re-establish America’s standing in the world, but in the nearly two years he’s been preparing his penance, America’s image has gotten a boost from its military achievement, the rise of the Right in Europe, the need for an ally against Russian aggression, and the call for leadership on the global financial crisis. They used to rave about his willingness to upset the status quo, but with his tacking to the center on a dozen different issues, that’s out the window. His outsider status? Sarah Palin swooped into the election from outside of the continental United States, while Obama is now running with a career D.C. benchwarmer.
They could never tout his experience.
So what’s left? This amorphous, quasi-mythical thing everyone’s decided to call temperament. And Obama’s, we’re told, is just right for the job: Measured, unflappable, and patient. And how far are legitimate media outlets willing to go to push the temperament line? Far enough to make Nancy Gibbs declare, in her contribution to Time, that “[t]he presidency is less an office than a performance.”
www.commentarymagazine.com/.../38901
- jacobt1
October 17, 2008 at 1:18pm
I commented elsewhere on a related topic and will indulge myself by copying part of what I wrote here as well:
People marvel at Obama's ability to "keep his cool." These people haven't been paying attention: every black man is schooled as a matter of survival in how to keep his cool from the moment of his birth. If I'm a black guy and I can't keep my cool, I'll likely end up a drunk, a felon, or both. Barack Obama has had plenty of practice dealing with skinhead bigots like Joe the Plumber. After a lifetime of such dealings, John McCain losing it on the same stage with you is child's play.
- williamyard
October 17, 2008 at 1:37pm
“[t]he presidency is less an office than a performance.”
Probably true - but I didn't learn that from Nancy Gibbs. I learned it from Ronald Reagan.
Temperament, like character, has always been a vitally important criteria in choosing a President. Naturally, some folks would rather ignore that when it works against their own candidate. McCain's campaign thought they'd be able to rely on the "experience factor" to carry the Maverick into the Oval office. Two huge problems there.
First, McCain tossed away his experience edge (and probably every other edge he once had) when he picked Palin as his running mate.
Second, an increasing number of Americans have come to understand that not all experience is good experience.
- citizenghost
October 17, 2008 at 1:55pm
jacob's cut'n'paste skills are alive and well, obviously . . .
Did you ever have an original thought, by the way? Just wondering.
- ironyroad
October 17, 2008 at 2:07pm
Jacob: Your unparalelled ability to boil down an issue succinctly and then cut and paste someone else's thoughts once again has me re-examining my views.
- mjhniner
October 17, 2008 at 2:10pm
williamyard said:
"with skinhead bigots like Joe the Plumber."
Joe was minding his own business, in his house, in his own yard when Obama came up TO HIM! Obama was doing a house-to-house
www.pajamasmedia.com/.../025880.php
He had an audacity to express some doubts in the Obama tax plan. This is a good enough reason to call him a skinhead bigot. I'm afraid for my country. Obama brings in his supporters so much hate. Obama might bring a fundamental change to US, the end of democracy
- jacobt1
October 17, 2008 at 2:15pm
ironyroad,
Did you ever have an original thought, by the way? Point me to any of your thought that couldn't not be copied from another source.
mjhniner,
Nothing will force you to re-examining your views.
- jacobt1
October 17, 2008 at 2:19pm
"skinhead bigots like Joe the Plumber"
The plot could not be more nefarious. In 2008, Barack Obama decides to go ring doorbells in Toledo, Ohio. A decade earlier, anticipating just such an event, the notorious S&L swindler Charles Keating instructs his son-in-law to move his son-in-law’s cousin, a man named Samuel, into the path of Barack Obama’s eventual walking tour. He further instructs Samuel to a) pretend he is a plumber even though he doesn’t have a license and b) to call himself “Joe” rather than “Sam,” since “Joe the Plumber” sounds better in a nationally televised debate than “Sam the Plumber.” Then, when Obama shows up, Sam aka Joe is to ask Obama about Obama’s tax plan, and focus his eyes on Obama, thereby telepathically forcing the Illinois Senator to say he wants to “spread the wealth around.”
Surely this must be the true story. Otherwise, why would seemingly honorable people in the media, in the Left blogosphere, and a would-be vice president decide to investigate the bona fides of Joe the Plumber in a transparent effort to destroy the credibility, job prospects, and good name of a hard-working single father – when all he did, it would appear to the naked eye, was to live in a house on a block where Barack Obama decided to come calling in pursuit of a nice TV spot on the local news?
www.commentarymagazine.com/.../38921
- jacobt1
October 17, 2008 at 2:22pm
I liked during the debate when Obama basically called McCain a 'pussy' to his face, that was pretty cool.
- mmathog
October 17, 2008 at 2:27pm
citizenghost said:,
"“[t]he presidency is less an office than a performance.”"
Why don't you go to commentary web site and argue your point there? We need to have some exchange of ideas instead of groupthinking.
- jacobt1
October 17, 2008 at 2:28pm
jacob's right, the reason that an unknown black guy with an arab sounding name is gonna beat a well-known white war hero by 10 points is because of 'the MSM.'
- mmathog
October 17, 2008 at 2:33pm
"Obama brings in his supporters so much hate."
Sarah Palin just told a North Carolina audience that she likes coming to the parts of the country where they 'love America....' so you know, fuck her and fuck you.
- mmathog
October 17, 2008 at 2:35pm
McCain wants to stop all government spending (except war spending) and cut taxes on the rich and on corporations.
Obama wants to increase gov't. spending on domestic infrastructure and cut taxes on the middle class.
Go vote.
- mmathog
October 17, 2008 at 2:36pm
jacob,
He's a skinhead bigot. He thinks Social Security is a bad idea--he resents being forced to pay into it (there's civic pride for ya!). He's such a civic-minded patriot that he doesn't pay his taxes or engage in his business legally. Then he lies about his projected income and compares Obama to "Sammy Davis Jr." Let's see: Sammy Davis Jr. has been dead for 18 years. Umpteen gazillion song-and-dance guys have come and gone since Davis. Wonder why "Joe" compared Obama to Davis? Hmmm...what do Obama and Davis have in common?
But the best part about Joe the Plumber isn't that he's a skinhead bigot, as well as a liar and a tax cheat who thinks he owes society zilch.
It's that he's now a lynchpin of McCain's campaign!
- williamyard
October 17, 2008 at 2:49pm
mmathog said
"cut taxes on the rich and on corporations."
Where do you work? Where is your 401K plan or your pension plan is invested in?
Obama wants to give the middle class tax cuts, five 30% of Americans the increase in welfare payments,
increase spending in healthcare, educations, alternative energy and so on by taxing 5% of Americans. Point me to any country where 5% provide for the rest of 95%.
- jacobt1
October 17, 2008 at 2:51pm
mmathog said,
You don't love America it exists today You believe that America is fundamentally bad country full of skinhead bigots like Joe the Plumber in the need of fundamental change.
- jacobt1
October 17, 2008 at 2:54pm
jacobtl: "Did you ever have an original thought, by the way? Point me to any of your thought that couldn't not be copied from another source."
Yes, and there is a wide choice of my unmistakeable work on currently accessible discussion threads on this site. Help yourself! Hey, if you don't think I'm "original" enough, go with someone else, Rhubarbs or Wandrey or Bill Yard or sleepyavl or GSpinks -- you might learn something. Although I doubt it.
- ironyroad
October 17, 2008 at 3:06pm
Oh, and as for the "skinhead" part, I'm a skinhead, too: same hairstyle as Mr. Plumber. I'm also a bigot (as is, I suspect, everyone reading this comment), but I admit same and try to be conscious of my bigotry, lest it, to take one example, influence what I think about one or another political candidate.
- williamyard
October 17, 2008 at 3:09pm
"Point me to any country where 5% provide for the rest of 95%. "
Well, that's a retarded strawman jacob, Obama merely wants tax rates on the wealthy to rise to like, what they were 10 years ago, whatever.
I'll rise to the bait regardless.
The most interesting phenomenon in the U.S. of the last 25 years has been the dramatic rise in wealth and wealth disparity, this would be ok if the largest swathe of the population could get their basic needs consistently met (housing, healthcare, and education), but increasingly, we see that's not the case.
Dramatic gains from trade were not shared properly, we could've taken those gains and provided healthcare, instead, we opted to cut taxes for the rich and fight a stupid and costly war, oh well.
Why is it more honorable for you to support a war that clearly supports one group's interests but it's not honorable for me to support healthcare and education and infrastructure spending that supports another group's interests? It's public spending in both cases, and my group is way bigger than your group.
Fact is, a strong middle class makes a strong democracy, the New Deal won WW II.
- mmathog
October 17, 2008 at 3:10pm
"You don't love America it [sic] exists today "
I do love America, my fine illiterate friend, as it exists today. I don't like racist, xenophobic, hate-filled fools like yourself though, you're right about that.
Jacob, you can be a fool your whole life. It feels GOOD to be a fool, but consider this:
Your side is getting crushed politically, why do you suppose that is? If you want to continue to feel the rush and blame Brian Williams, that's your prerogative. Me? I'd want a more satisfying explanation.
Finally, do you think whining like a baby the path to victory?
- mmathog
October 17, 2008 at 3:14pm
I suspect it won't be as bad as '84 or '94, but bad enough.
Hog, the GOP is going to lose because of many factors. The deeply unpopular President, the wars - even though both are going reasonably well - and now a looming recession. But additionally, the cycle of American politics looks as if it is swinging back to the Left, if only slightly, after 40 years (1968-2008) on the Right. This is driven in part by demographic changes - old people die, kids get to vote, etc.
We have now reached the point where, on the one hand, Republicans can't win elections simply by saying "I'll cut your taxes." Nor, even in the age of terrorism, does defense and foreign policy play a major role in our politics. And after 8 years of one party in the WH, we generally, though not always, give the other side a chance.
OTOH, it's unclear to me that the platform of the Dems will be much of an improvement. Federal spending on our problems is generally inefficient and ineffective. We all know we can't cover 47 million more people's health care for nothing. No President should promise that. Obama says he'll pay for it, but if the past is prologue, he won't. And we all know it.
Our political class has steadfastly refused to deal with the coming crisis in entitlement reform. The demographics don't lie, and we've made promises with our alligator mouth that our canary ass can't keep, at present.
So, yes, the Dems will have a big night, and then it will be time to govern, and even blaming W will only get you so far. When the press turns on him - and they will - it will be ugly. So enjoy it while you can hog. Eventually it'll be your turn to be crushed yet again.
- butchie b
October 17, 2008 at 4:53pm
HEY! YARD!
Jacobt1 does not warrant a response--from any of us, but certainly not from you. We talkbackers--the weird, the proud, the verbally incontinent--have jacobt1's number, and we've got yours, and his number is very, very, very teensy-weensy, and your number is gigantinormous.
In fact, the only time I've posted a comment disagreeing with you was this morning, when I read your bit of devil's advocacy in So-called Joe the So-called Plumber's defense, which displayed your characteristic intellectual honesty but apparently was not good enough for a bad, turd-stealing puppy dog like jacobt1.
Bad jacobt1! Bad jacobt1! Leave those cat turds in the litter box!
- Nippers
October 17, 2008 at 5:12pm
"We all know we can't cover 47 million more people's health care for nothing. No President should promise that. Obama says he'll pay for it, but if the past is prologue, he won't."
I'm not sure I understand your point(s), butchie. I don't know who is saying that we can cover more people's health care "for nothing," but I do know some people who are saying that the costs of universal health care are (a) justified by the benefits to both citizens and the economy at large, adn (b) open to being controlled in different ways with new efficiencies of technology, management, and illness prevention.
Why shouldn't a candidate promise a set of ambitious reforms if he believes they are both needed and achieveable?
- ironyroad
October 17, 2008 at 5:26pm
mmathog said:
"Fact is, a strong middle class makes a strong democracy, the New Deal won WW II.
The most interesting phenomenon in the U.S. of the last 25 years has been the dramatic rise in wealth and wealth disparity, this would be ok if the largest swathe of the population could get their basic needs consistently met (housing, healthcare, and education), but increasingly, we see that's not the case. Dramatic gains from trade were not shared properly, "
The problem is not a free trade of goods. The problem is the import of cheap low skill workforce. Employers don't have a need to invest in increasing productivity. How much the productivity has been increased in industries that employ cheap foreign labor in the last 25 years?
- jacobt1
October 17, 2008 at 5:32pm
There's also a very strong argument that UHC will cause health care costs to fall, not rise.
Also butchie (and I feel the need to repeat how much I like the way you engage here), your tone sounds a bit passive wrt to Republican rule, I'd pretty much assert that we've had GOP governance and now we're in a big old mess, THAT'S why the landslide is coming.
- mmathog
October 17, 2008 at 6:01pm
"How much the productivity has been increased in industries that employ cheap foreign labor in the last 25 years?"
Assloads. Assloads and assloads and assloads.
- mmathog
October 17, 2008 at 6:02pm
"the Dems will have a big night, and then it will be time to govern,"
Yes butchie, it was nice of the Bush GOP to bankrupt the nation, stuff cash into the pockets of themselves and their cronies, and run out of town middle fingers raised for the Dems to clean up.
Sorry, you personally excepted, but I think the GOP needs to start acting like grownups before they're returned to power.
- mmathog
October 17, 2008 at 6:05pm
"The problem is not a free trade of goods."
The freer trade of goods (combined with strong dollar policies) did in fact, decimate a region, a region where like, people live. You see jacob, an economy takes people, land, and capital; and in general, most of us think that it's immoral to treat people like they're inanimate objects.
That said, I'm often in favor of lowering tariffs, provided the gains from trade, (especially if massive, as it was in this case), are distributed in some vaguely fair fashion that allows for a great nation like ours (which can clearly support) to provide their citizens with a basic safety net.
- mmathog
October 17, 2008 at 6:20pm
Curious:
Obama must pay for his health care plan.
Bush need not pay for the wars.
Weird.
- mmathog
October 17, 2008 at 6:22pm
Yes mmathog, it was nice of the Clinton Dems to leave Bush with huge high tech bubble, unresolved Iraq problem and growing Al-Qaeda as well as Fannie and Freddie mess.
- jacobt1
October 17, 2008 at 6:36pm
UPDATE: McCain defends the plumber:
Last weekend, Senator Obama showed up in Joe's driveway to ask for his vote, and Joe asked Senator Obama a tough question. I'm glad he did; I think Senator Obama could use a few more tough questions.
The response from Senator Obama and his campaign yesterday was to attack Joe. People are digging through his personal life and he has TV crews camped out in front of his house. He didn't ask for Senator Obama to come to his house. He wasn't recruited or prompted by our campaign. He just asked a question. And Americans ought to be able to ask Senator Obama tough questions without being smeared and targeted with political attacks.
What would it be like with a President Obama?
MORE: Mess with Obama, and you'll never plumb in this town again.
There are a few other problems with the attempts to smear Wurzelbacher. He did not claim he now makes more than $250,000; he said he plans to acquire a small company that would put him in that bracket. And it's curious that Politico states that Wurzelbacher "would receive a tax cut if Obama were elected president"--as if Obama's campaign promises have already achieved the status of established fact.
As for his unpaid taxes, blogger "Patterico" reports that Obama's campaign treasurer has liens for unpaid taxes. That isn't exactly an earth-shattering scandal either, but it is hard to see how it is less relevant than Wurzelbacher's liens.
- jacobt1
October 17, 2008 at 6:41pm
Video: 12-year-old called racist for wearing Palin t-shirt
hotair.com/.../video-12-year-old-called-racist-for-wearing-palin-t-shirt
- jacobt1
October 17, 2008 at 6:50pm
"unresolved Iraq problem"
which bush left that problem for whom?
"Al-Qaeda"
Clinton's people begged Bush to address that, they blew it off, specifically, Rice, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft.
"huge high tech .... Fannie and Freddie"
I agree. And what did Bush do? He slashed taxes undermining Rubin's delicate balance, stripped regulation further, and marched off to a stupid and costly war (exacerbating domestic budget problems.)
- mmathog
October 17, 2008 at 6:57pm
jacob, you really wanna nut surf? I think our side has a far richer pool to work with.
- mmathog
October 17, 2008 at 6:58pm
" stripped regulation further"
Which one?
- jacobt1
October 17, 2008 at 7:24pm
"Which one?"
Greenspan fought tooth and nail against the regulation of derivatives, but technically, that's not Bush per se. I might be willing to concede that Bush made things way way worse in a whole bunch of ways, but did not himself necessarily strip regulations further (although I wouldn't be surprised if he did and I just don't know it).
But jacob, what about the other half dozen or so points I've made?
- mmathog
October 17, 2008 at 7:34pm
"and marched off to a stupid and costly war"
Which war? Was was the alternative?
"Clinton's people begged Bush to address that,"
Why they didn't address that themselves.
- jacobt1
October 17, 2008 at 7:46pm
"Which war? Was was the alternative?"
Iraq. Lots of alternatives, including the status quo, please, don't bore me with any 'invade or Saddam becomes king of the world' strawmen, too dull.
"Why they didn't address that themselves."
They tried and failed.
Bush and Co. didn't even try.
- mmathog
October 17, 2008 at 7:50pm
"raq. Lots of alternatives, including the status quo, "
I don't think that he status quo was a sustainable alternative.
- jacobt1
October 17, 2008 at 7:58pm
"I don't think that he status quo was a sustainable alternative."
Maybe, maybe not, it's pretty debate-able.
Smartening sanctions? Getting rid of sanctions? Pressuring allies? Dealing first with Al Queda?
Saddam wasn't a threat to anyone, we certainly didn't have to march off and toss all those resources down the drain.
You still haven't explained why it's better to spend public funds on a war of choice that benefits a small (and by the way, elite, small class) and not spend public funds shoring up a broken healthcare system (which would benefit a non-elite, large class.)
- mmathog
October 17, 2008 at 8:13pm
I think Obama realizes this exact point. Remember when he said that Reagan was a transformationational figure that got people to vote for him against their self interests. Clinton slammed him for that reference to a Republican. pshh..
- knishycous
October 17, 2008 at 8:21pm
Smartening sanctions? couldn't work.
Getting rid of sanctions? Did any advocate this?
Pressuring allies? Whom? Do do what?
"You still haven't explained why it's better to spend public funds on a war of choice that benefits a small (and by the way, elite, small class) "
I'm not sure that it was a war of choice.
www.commentarymagazine.com/.../why-iraq-was-inevitable-11456
It is too often forgotten, not least by historians, that George W. Bush did not invent the idea of deposing the Iraqi tyrant. For years before he came on the scene, removing Saddam Hussein had been a priority embraced by the Democratic administration of Bill Clinton and by Clinton’s most vocal supporters in the Senate:
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons. . . . Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: he has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. . . . I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.
These were the words of President Clinton on the night of December 16, 1998 as he announced a four-day bombing campaign over Iraq. Only six weeks earlier, Clinton had signed the Iraq Liberation Act authorizing Saddam’s overthrow—an initiative supported unanimously in the Senate and by a margin of 360 to 38 in the House. “Iraqis deserve and desire freedom,” Clinton had declared. On the evening the bombs began to drop, Vice President Al Gore told CNN’s Larry King:
You allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons. How many people is he going to kill with such weapons? . . . We are not going to allow him to succeed. [emphasis added]
- jacobt1
October 17, 2008 at 8:36pm
"Getting rid of sanctions? Did any advocate this?"
Yes.
"Smartening sanctions? couldn't work."
How the hell do you know?
"Pressuring allies? Whom? Do do what?"
France and Russia, to stop doing business with Saddam, maybe it works, maybe it fails.
Get Britain to help out in the no-fly, maybe encourage some rising resistance. Or, if you just have to invade, work harder to get more international help and sanction, make the effort easier. Whatever, there's lots of shit that could've been done.
"I'm not sure that it was a war of choice."
Of course it was. Saddam was a tinpot dictator of a weak country far away that had no WMD, let alone any sort of delivery system for them. No one, not Iran, not Saudi Arabia, not Israel, was at all afraid of him.
"George W. Bush did not invent the idea of deposing the Iraqi tyrant. "
Who cares.
"I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."
Straw man, no one is arguing that Saddam be 'left unchecked.'
There was no doubt the invasion had bi-partisan approval, a lot of Dems were too wimpy to stand up for their principles (Edwards and Kerry) or actually thought it was a good idea (Clinton). I notice none of those people are about to become president.
- mmathog
October 17, 2008 at 8:46pm
" I notice none of those people are about to become president."
I notice that one those people is about to become vice president.
- jacobt1
October 17, 2008 at 10:41pm
mmathog said:
""You don't love America it [sic] exists today "
I do love America, my fine illiterate friend, as it exists today. I don't like racist, xenophobic, hate-filled fools like yourself though, you're right about that."
Very nice assessment of jacobt1 by mmathog. jacobt1 is a Republican demagogue who is not ashamed to defend Republican kleptocracy. From Ken Lay to Jack Abramoff to Richard Fuld, the kleptocrats have been helped and worshipped by Republicans like jacobt1.
The urge to steal is so strong in Republicans that it trumps disaster. They don't care the economy is burning - thanks to their imbecile little minds. In fact, the kleptocrats fanatics keep shouting nonsense about socialism.
Fuck you! You wanna see socialism? Go to France, where the average French LIVES LONGER because he has good health care and longer paid vacations. I don't like even like France, but it's impossible not to see that coming from Western Europe to America feels like coming to the third world. Everything here looks old and decrepit.
Why? Because you Republican kleptocrats (actually Republican implies kleptocracy) keep stealing the money that should go into better roads and better hospitals - just so the rich can be super-rich.
So jacobt1, you might have a hard time in the coming years because hopefully you and your ilk won't have the chance to abuse the middle class, as you have done it for the past eight years.
And spare me any lecture about how ingenuity wins in America. I am a research scientist at one the US top 10 universities and have gotten my PhD here - and all I see is people being laid off - because your filthy Republicans cut the budget for science. Not any people are laid off - people with PhDs at MIT. Why? Because there is no money anymore. The taxpayer money that funded scientific breakthroughs now goes to the pocket of Wall Street and government kleptocrats like Richard Fuld and Dick Cheney. These creeps are YOUR people, thief.
- sleepyavl
October 18, 2008 at 1:32am
sleepyavl said:
"I am a research scientist at one the US top 10 universities and have gotten my PhD here "
sleepyavl also said:
"Fuck you!"
I see, you are a good research scientist .
sleepyavl also said:
"but it's impossible not to see that coming from Western Europe to America feels like coming to the third world. Everything here looks old and decrepit.
So, why do you love America?
- jacobt1
October 18, 2008 at 3:53am
"jacobt1 said:
So, why do you love America?:"
You fool, even your question is indecent. One can tell you're a Republican - these people bellow al the time how much they love their country. I know people who love it for less.
What do you think, that declarations of love buy back the theft, eh?
I think america is a good place for other reasons - its openness to immigrants, its tolerance, its willingness to fight for freedom. Your kleptocratic ideology don't come into this list. But that's hard to penetrate your mind.
For you, it's all about professed patriotism, the more jingoistic the better - while your leaders steal with abandon and weaken the country. Clearly, to satisfy your US love requirements, I should learn to love your Mobutu-style kleptocrat Dick Cheney. It's symptomatic for your far-Right mind that you equate love for your Mobutus with like of the USA.
- sleepyavl
October 18, 2008 at 4:37am
Why not talk about a real plumber...Gordon the Plumber!
Gordon Liddy, of Watergate fame, is a Republican's kind of plumber, a gun-totin', wild-eyed patriot who - well, who did jail time for trying to steal an election. Only back then they called it a "break-in".
Nothing much changes, does it? Why does McCain pal around with felons like this?
- fougasseu
October 18, 2008 at 7:53am
I read about 5 posts into this thread, realized it was a jacob thread, and scrolled down to register my disapproval here. Not with jacob, who is hopeless, but with you people who keep the flame alive.
- psantillana
October 18, 2008 at 2:40pm