- This topic has 28 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
A stint of executive experience is lacking for a presidential resume; you need the competence to reach out to Congress with policy and ideas and work on effective legislation. We ought to elect a harmonious, competent and articulate person to lead the nation; a level-headed person that will be able to influence Congress and Washington in passing effective legislation, and create a better future. Sarah Palin has excited the Republican Party as no one had done before; however, one term with a campaigner-in-chief in the White House is enough.
Does this post comply with the Coffee-Room rule against “megillahs”? If there were a rule about getting the facts right, it would certainly be in breach of that rule. For example:
“Barack Obama had a distressed youth: moving across the globe and growing up without parents, he used drugs and other illegal substances to alleviate his pain.” Where did “David Hirsh” get this from? Moving around is not necessarily stressful, and Mr. Obama learned from the broad variety of his childhood experiences. He did not use drugs or “other illegal substances” – whatever that is – because of the stress in his life. He tried drugs as a youth because that is what a lot of youths do.
“Barack Obama, often called divisive and partisan by his critics, has a populist approach and used a grassroots campaign to become president.” Yes, it’s true Mr. Obama is called divisive by some of his critics, but those critics are lying liars. It is not divisive to propose a policy that some people don’t like. It is divisive to suggest that Sarah Palin is not an American citizen – oh, wait, no one, not even the “divisive” Mr. Obama, alleged that about her. I must be thinking of someone else.
As for the “similarity” between Ms. Palin and Mr. Obama: the similarity is non-existent. Mr. Obama advanced himself to high levels of academic and scholastic achievement – an Ivy League college and law school, top honors in law school, vs. Ms. Palin’s intellectual mediocrity and simple-minded opinions about a complicated world. Ms. Palin does not begin to grasp the complexity of the problems facing the US and the world today, and she has demonstrated – in her 2 years in the public eye – that she does not have the education or experience to address anything more complicated than skinning a large dead mammal.
A megillah about the former nominee could be called a Palindrone.
Actually, I kind of like Sarah’le. She won’t get the Republican nomination, so I hope she runs as an independent and does to the Republicans what Nader did to Gore/Lieberman. Of course, I’m not a Republican;-)
Is this redstate.com?
More like redstate than daily kos.
I think she’ll make a laughingstock of the GOP is she tries to run.
No wait. I’m wrong. Let her run, and have Newt Gingrich as her running mate.
Dave, are you running for office :-)? Are you practicing to set up a right-wing political blog?
I hate to disillusion you, but there are still plenty of Democrats in our circles. We don’t make as much noise – or usually write such long posts – but we’re here. And some of us are doing content analysis on some of the more enthusiastic “redstate” posts because we want to understand a mindset that’s so totally removed from the reality of the country.
I don’t know where to start repudiating Dave Hirsh’s refudiation, as it is so wrong in so many ways. So I’ll start with a few points.
First, as for DH’s comments headed “Moderating”: Yes, I know your post was posted, and therefore was either (i) approved or (ii) not disapproved by the moderators. The fact of its posting does not, however, conclusively establish that it is not a “megillah” in violation of the Coffee Room requirement for brevity. The rule you quoted uses the term “megillah” to refer to proposed posts which are unduly long and says they “probably” will be deleted, not that they absolutely will be deleted. In other words, the rule says explicitly that some unduly long posts will get posted notwithstanding the work of the moderators, and so my question about your “megillah,” and my implication that your post is too long under Coffee Room rules, is reasonable, and your refudiation is not only incorrect but illogical. The rule you quoted uses the term “megillah” as short-hand for “too long to post,” much as Americans use the term “separation of church and state” as short-hand for the text of the First Amendment of the US constitution which prohibits Congress from establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. But, of course, a Palin supporter such as former Delaware senatorial candidate Christine O’Donnell does not understand the difference between (a) the words and meaning of the US constitution, and (b) a short-hand phrase to refer to a provision of the US constitution. Your misunderstanding of “megillah” represents the same inability.
Second: your discussion of Obama’s youthful drug use. I stand by my explanation, i.e., he was youthful and youths do stupid things. He outgrew it. His explanations are consistent – and more detailed, and more personal – than my explanation, but mine is correct and helpful in evaluating the adult’s fitness to be president. As for your statement that “other legal substances” refers to alcohol: that is dead wrong outside Utah. Maybe you are from Utah, in which case I can forgive the confusion.
Third: Barack Obama’s “anemic experience”. Mr. Obama’s intellectual gifts, education and experience enabled him to win a hard-fought primary and a US election. That does not per se mean he would be a good president (we’ve had bad presidents who won elections, and I’m not even counting W, because he did not win his first election0, but Mr. Obama clearly figured out how to get from no where – i.e., South Side of Chicago, or Hawaii, or Indonesia – to the White House. As for Ms. Palin’s experience, being mayor of a village of 9,000 people, or governor of a state of 600,000 (which state receives substantial federal aide and has oil tax revenue that enables it to pay cash subsidies to its citizens) is hardly adequate preparation for governing a nation of 308,000 000 people, and Ms. Palin’s policy statements (e.g., I can see Russia) hardly indicate that she learned anything on the job.
More importantly: You correctly stated, “The job of the President of the United States is the toughest in the world.” I would add, and I think you would agree, that no job can adequately prepare anyone for the job of president of the US. It takes extraordinary personal gifts of intellect, education, determination, organizational skill and reasoning ability to execute the job well. As between Mr. Obama and Ms. Palin, there is no comparison between their personal qualities as to who is better equipped to fulfill the duties of the office.
One other point: The comparison of Mr. Obama’s vs. Ms. Palin’s fitness and qualifications for the office of president is in some respects meaningless, because no one favoring Mr. Obama would consider a woman (qualfied or not) of Ms. Palin’s political views; and, likewise, no one favoring Ms. Palin’s views would consider Mr. Obama. A more meaningful comparison would be between, say, Ms. Palin vs. Mitt Romney, or Newt Gingrich, or Mitch McConnell, or even Dave Hirsh. Many Republicans have publicly expressed their doubts about Ms. Palin’s fitness for office, so you don’t have to take my word for it. And please note, some of the Republicans who have doubts about Ms. Palin have no intention of running for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. Mr. Obama’s primary opponents in 2008 had other interests in suggesting that he was not the best person for the job.
“megillahs” are not prohibited, just recommended against as it is usually too big of a tirchah for the mods to read them
DHs post was probably too short to be included in our admittedly nebulous definition of what is a megillah
“We don’t make as much noise – or usually write such long posts – but we’re here”
And I don’t have time to respond to the anti-Obama megillah point by point. I have a day job. And the Obama-haters wouldn’t care anyway.
We just finished the most productive Congressional session in decades. It passed two huge economic stimulus packages. It set up a framework so that no American will ever be forced to go without health insurance, something that was originally proposed (by Theodore Roosevelt!) 98 years ago. It ratified the strategic arms treaty with Russia. It finally provided for the healthcare needs of the 9/11 responders — over nine years after the terrorist attack. It finally got rid of the stupid prohibition against Gays serving in the military. Arguably there has not been a Congress since the 1965-1966 session has so much progress been made in so many areas.
That is pretty good for an inexperienced President. He knew when to compromise and when not to compromise. He gets grief from the Left and from the Right, so he is probably right in the center where he belongs. Similarly, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid deserve a huge amount of credit. Most commenters here are from the Right so they don’t appreciate what has just happened. Our country is better off as a result of the actions our elected officials have taken.
“I didn’t demand FDR to compensate me for the genocide of my grandparents and nation “
FDR didn’t commit genocide.
nfgo3 – Thank you. I have neither the time nor patience to respond to Dave at length, and you did a much better job than I would have.
charliehall – You’re right. The Obama-haters wouldn’t care anyway. That would require taking a good look around at what’s going on in the country and actually stopping to think about it, instead of going off on feel-good rants. Thinking is hard work.
charliehall: your post about the productive session of Congress that ended 12/22/10 understates the contributions of President Obama and overstates the contributions of the Congress. Republicans in the Senate invoked filibusters at a record-breaking pace, and their leader, Senator Mitch McConnell, stated unequivocally that the role of the Senate Republicans is first and foremost to prevent the reelection of President Obama. I do not recall ever hearing that from a Congressional leader, and it gives the lie to any Republican claim that their primary concern is the well-being of the nation. The Senate Republicans have been – dare I say it – divisive, solely for the purpose of advancing their own interests. While I was disappointed with President Obama’s compromise on taxes, it apparently was the key to getting any worthwhile legislation out of this Congress.
Dave Hirsch
Please clarify your opening statement.
nfgo3,
The irony about McConnell is that the tax package he agreed to probably ensures Obama’s re-election as it is essentially a massive economic stimulus. But it now looks like the ONLY essential priority for Republicans is low tax rates for their base supporters, millionaires. Everything else is a candidate to be thrown under the bus.
congress is obviously quite incompetent
charliehall: If you are correct that the recently approved tax package ensures President Obama’s re-election, then it’s not irony – it’s very skillful politics. I hope you are right, but I am wary.
One other thing: why do we Jews use “megillah” as slang short-hand for a too-long comment or too-long statement or too-complicated situation. The Five Megillos are holy writings. Shouldn’t we refrain from using “megillah” as a negative term. Perhaps the Coffee Room moderators could lead the way be removing the word from the CR rules.
One other other thing: The most polarizing president ever is not Barack Obama. That distinction belongs to President Abraham Lincoln – his election and subsequent actions in defense of the authority of the federal government led to The Civil War. Mr. Lincoln is also considered by many as one of the three greatest US presidents. What is striking about this error by Mr. Hirsch is his readiness to attribute horrible qualities to Mr. Obama and his presidency, without considering simple and widely known facts.
A related flaw in Dave Hirsch’s thinking is his calling Mr. Obama a “messiah”. I have never read or heard an Obama supporter call Mr. Obama a “messiah,” but he is regularly called, facetiously, a “messiah” by his extreme right-wing critics, for the porpose or with the effect of insulting Mr. Obama’s supporters by alleging that they overrate his competence. I fully understand President Obama’s limits, but overall, I am satisfied that he is doing as well or better than anyone else could do in the current circumstances.
nfgo is correct. Lincoln was unquestionably the most polarizing President. He could have simply let the South secede. The North would have abolished slavery, and refused to return fugitive slaves to the Confederacy, whose economy would have completely collapsed. The other polarizing aspect of Lincoln was that he pushed throught the aggessive Republican domestic agenda while a war was in progress. The next president to do that was George W. Bush, with disasterous results. It was not until Grant’s presidency that the consequences of the Republican Give Everything to Business economic policy were seen, and what resulted was the longest recession in American history.
nfgo is also correct on the alleged characterization of Obama as a messiah. I’ve been reading dailykos for years and I’ve never seen that term used except by a troublemaking Republican troll.
Nfgo, no time to really read these posts but davening through them, I see that I was guilty of misusing the word megillah.
IOW, I get your point.
(And this time, I was employing irony.)
Well, Dave Hirsch, I will oblige you:
Obama’s “rock-star status” is a characterization which I have seen only in right-wing attempts to blame the news reports they do not like for Mr. Obama’s popularity, first as a candidate and then as President. It is not worthy of a comment. It is also also an attempt to overstate his talents, for the purpose of bringing him low when he does not walk on water.
I do not know what you are referring to in this statement. I will say that I am not questioning your honesty, only your grasp of the facts. As for my arrogance, I would like to know what I wrote that shows you my arrogance. As for my “liberal way of spinning things … “: Spinning is neither conservative nor liberal, it is a rhetorical device. Which of my statements do you consider to be “spinning.”
DH and I discuss Obama’s drug use: First, I have not read either of Mr. Obama’s books. I haven’t read a book by Palin, or George Bush or Bill Clinton. I don’t read politicians’ books until they are dead, and I do not read them for the truth of the matter stated therein, but only to see how they tried to explain themselves and then compare their claims to what they actually did. Politicians’ books tend to be bunk. Perhaps the books of Messrs./Ms. Palin, Obama, Bush, and/or Clinton are the exception to the rule, but I do not care to waste my time reading their books. If I want to waste my time, I argue with people in the Coffee Room. 😉
DH’s objection to my “megillah” comment: I was not purporting to characterize your post as a violation of the Coffee Room rules, I was simply asking for an opinion from the moderators, and one of them provided comments which indicate that (i) the mere posting of a comment does not mean that the post complies with the rules, and (ii) your particular comment does comply with the rules. That is all I wanted to know. You continue to fail to see the illogical nature of your understanding of my comment.
DH’s comment about my comment about Christine O’Donnell: is, as written, a non-sequitur.
Do you mean to say that I am a “rank” liberal, or a “ranking” liberal. The latter would imply that other liberals hold me in high regard. The former would imply that you hold all liberals in low regard. I don’t know what other liberals think of me, but I am confident that I am not rank.
DH writes, in response to my praise of Mr. Obama’s education and intelligence: “How do you know his intellect and education, have you seen his college transcripts? If all he was able to do was being a lecturer and a ‘quitter’. “
You evidently think that the only way to judge a person’s education and intelligence is to view his college transcripts. No, I have not seen them. I have heard him speak, I even read his speech on race delivered in Philadelphia, and it is excellent – not for its political effectiveness but for the understanding it reveals of American history. As for his being a “quitter”: I don’t think his election as president shows any quitting tendencies. And his other career choices shows that he had an interest in public service. And there are very few unintelligent or uneducated members of the Harvard Law Review. You (and, not incidently, I) might not like their political opinions, or their career choices, but they are, as a group, intelligent and educated. (And I’m not one of them, in case you were thinking of accusing me of that. And please don’t use this statement as a set-up for an insult such as: “Don’t flatter yourself – I don’t think you ever received such an academic honor.”)
DH writes: “Show me a capital business that hires a CEO based on his education.”
Actually, I do know of one business that hired a guy as CEO because he had brassy educational credentials and no executive experience, and he was awful. Yes, I am agreeing with you that brassy education credentials do not necessarily make good chief executives of private companies (which is what I think you mean by “capital business”). You never thought a rank liberal would agree with you about anything. Is this going to get you kicked out of the rank conservatives’ club? I hope so, for your sake.
I’m tired. I think I’ll watch the second half of the Jets game.
Well, Dave Hirsch, I will oblige you:
Obama’s “rock-star status” is a characterization which I have seen only in right-wing attempts to blame the news reports they do not like for Mr. Obama’s popularity, first as a candidate and then as President. It is not worthy of a comment. It is also also an attempt to overstate his talents, for the purpose of bringing him low when he does not walk on water.
I do not know what you are referring to in this statement. I will say that I am not questioning your honesty, only your grasp of the facts. As for my arrogance, I would like to know what I wrote that shows you my arrogance. As for my “liberal way of spinning things … “: Spinning is neither conservative nor liberal, it is a rhetorical device. Which of my statements do you consider to be “spinning.”
DH and I discuss Obama’s drug use: First, I have not read either of Mr. Obama’s books. I haven’t read a book by Palin, or George Bush or Bill Clinton. I don’t read politicians’ books until they are dead, and I do not read them for the truth of the matter stated therein, but only to see how they tried to explain themselves and then compare their claims to what they actually did. Politicians’ books tend to be bunk. Perhaps the books of Messrs./Ms. Palin, Obama, Bush, and/or Clinton are the exception to the rule, but I do not care to waste my time reading their books. If I want to waste my time, I argue with people in the Coffee Room. 😉
DH’s objection to my “megillah” comment: I was not purporting to characterize your post as a violation of the Coffee Room rules, I was simply asking for an opinion from the moderators, and one of them provided comments which indicate that (i) the mere posting of a comment does not mean that the post complies with the rules, and (ii) your particular comment does comply with the rules. That is all I wanted to know. You continue to fail to see the illogical nature of your understanding of my comment.
DH’s comment about my comment about Christine O’Donnell: is, as written, a non-sequitur.
Do you mean to say that I am a “rank” liberal, or a “ranking” liberal. The latter would imply that other liberals hold me in high regard. The former would imply that you hold all liberals in low regard. I don’t know what other liberals think of me, but I am confident that I am not rank.
DH writes, in response to my praise of Mr. Obama’s education and intelligence: “How do you know his intellect and education, have you seen his college transcripts? If all he was able to do was being a lecturer and a ‘quitter’. “
You evidently think that the only way to judge a person’s education and intelligence is to view his college transcripts. No, I have not seen them. I have heard him speak, I even read his speech on race delivered in Philadelphia, and it is excellent – not for its political effectiveness but for the understanding it reveals of American history. As for his being a “quitter”: I don’t think his election as president shows any quitting tendencies. And his other career choices shows that he had an interest in public service. And there are very few unintelligent or uneducated members of the Harvard Law Review. You (and, not incidently, I) might not like their political opinions, or their career choices, but they are, as a group, intelligent and educated. (And I’m not one of them, in case you were thinking of accusing me of that. And please don’t use this statement as a set-up for an insult such as: “Don’t flatter yourself – I don’t think you ever received such an academic honor.”)
DH writes: “Show me a capital business that hires a CEO based on his education.”
Actually, I do know of one business that hired a guy as CEO because he had brassy educational credentials and no executive experience, and he was awful. Yes, I am agreeing with you that brassy education credentials do not necessarily make good chief executives of private companies (which is what I think you mean by “capital business”). You never thought a rank liberal would agree with you about anything. Is this going to get you kicked out of the rank conservatives’ club? I hope so, for your sake.
I’m tired. I think I’ll watch the second half of the Jets game.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.