November 2, 2012

"Althouse: If you could write your 'How Obama Lost Me' post in the next 24 hours, the race could come down to your influence!"

Writes Ruth Anne Adams in the comments to the "last 72 hours" post. She adds "But if you're going the way of Colin Powell not so much" and "But if you could at least reveal your voting preference in the next few hours, that could win a wager or seven."

I think she's misremembering what the "lost me" posts of the past were about. I started blogging in 2004, a presidential election year, and, after much coverage of the election, including a commitment to something I called "cruel neutrality," on September 26th, I wrote a post called "How Kerry lost me." This wasn't me explaining why I was going to vote against Kerry. It was me acknowledging how I felt and realizing that I could mine the blog archive to discover where that feeling came from.
Yet I find myself expressing an increasing amount of hostility to Kerry, so I thought I'd go back and trace the arc of my antagonism through my various posts.
It was a bloggy project, solving a mystery about myself by taking advantage of the archive. For example, I found the wellspring of my antagonism in a single remark: "You're not listening" (said to a man who asked him what his position on Iraq was, as if the man had simply failed to pay attention to some supposedly previously stated position, when I too had been waiting for Kerry to answer that question). And I found what was, to me, "his final, fatal mistake" (disrespecting Allawi!), which prompted me to write the "lost me" post.

In 2008, I wrote "How McCain lost me," which may have created the impression that "lost me" posts are an Althouse blog tradition. That post was written after the election, but — I said at the time — "it's the same in that I'm mining my blog archive to try to understand how my resistance to the candidate formed and hardened and caused me to vote for the other man."
I know that I voted against McCain. Up through August, I genuinely didn't know which candidate I'd vote for, but I knew I was taking more shots at Obama and therefore giving the impression that I favored McCain. I didn't trust Obama, and I feared (and still fear) what Obama would do with a Democratic Congress. McCain was a more familiar character, less fun to write about, and he was also the underdog. But by mid-October, I knew that unless something big happened, I would vote for Obama. It was nothing new that Obama did. I didn't start liking him more, and I never got caught up in the Obama lovefest.
It was a lot of work to mine that archive. Oddly, despite all that work, my commenters have accused me for the last 4 years of having fallen for Obama delusions. But the point of the work was not to drum anything into your head. It was, as it had been in 2004, an effort to see where my decision happened. That's what I'm interested in: How people think, where, in the emotional/reasoning mind of an individual, does a decision take place? The blog archive gave me the ability to examine that. What I wrote in the "lost me" posts of the last 2 elections was not anything like a newspaper's endorsement of a candidate or an argument designed to persuade anyone to agree with me. It has more to do with my professional interest in how judges make decisions: How does the human mind work?

Why haven't I done a "lost me" post this time around? I haven't had the experience of noticing that there is a mystery that I could solve by delving into old blog posts. As you can see in that last indented paragraph, above, I didn't trust Obama, and I feared what he would do with a Democratic Congress. We all saw what he did with a Democratic Congress. He let Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have their way with him. It was horrible. It led to the Tea Party and the trouncing Democrats took in 2010. I've felt no connection to the Democratic Party since then. Of course, I don't like half of what the Republicans stand for, but I've still voted for some of them, notably Ron Johnson and (twice!) Scott Walker, because... what choice do I have? The Democrats have been leading us into financial ruin.

If I could have been assured that the GOP would control both houses of Congress, I might have thought Obama would be good. I like balance, moderation, and pragmatism. If one of the hardcore righties had won the Republican nomination, I would probably have gone for Obama. But Mitt Romney got the nomination, which is what I had been hoping for (after Mitch Daniels decided not to run). It was time to pay attention again to Obama The Candidate, and his campaign centered on vilifying Mitt Romney in the most inane Occupy-Wall-Street style that was completely alienating to me. Romney seamlessly transitioned from being my choice in the primaries to being my presumptive choice for President. I remained open to Obama. Obama could have won me.

Then came Benghazi, and a door closed.

483 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 483   Newer›   Newest»
Chuck66 said...

Democrats say we should compare the Clinton-Gingrich budgets as a reason to vote for Obama. Then us Republicans can say look at Eisenhower budgets as a reason to vote for Romney.

Say, what did Clinton do to solve the longterm budget issues? The $100,000,000,000,000 in unfunded Big Entitlement liabilities?

David said...

A good lawyer can simplify the seemingly complex. Usually you do, Althouse, but I don't know why this decision has been at all hard for you.

"The Democrats have been leading us into financial ruin."

Think of the immense negative social and political consequences that will bring. The worst case is collapse of democracy, tyranny and war.

Unless we fix this, no other social goal is attainable.

Benghazi is illuminating but why do you need that to decide?

sakredkow said...

Actually, Obama's own metrics prove that he was worse than doing nothing.

Oh, Obama's results were worse than he thought they'd be? Unlike every other President or politician.

kcom said...

This slammed the door for me: "The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation."

When practically the first words out of Barack Obama's mouth when he was introducing himself to the nation at large were a bald-faced CYA lie, utterly laughable in its ridiculousness, then I could no longer take him seriously. The big sell I heard on him from 2004 was that he "understood" religious people and red states and could reach across the aisle. I thought that sounded promising but when in 2007 it was revealed that he attended Rev. Wright's God Damn America church, and had been for 20 years, it put a whole new spin on things. He had the chance to explain himself, somehow, but instead he chose to lie and pretend that in all those 20 years he'd never heard the good Reverend say any of those deplorable things. That's when I realized two things 1) he was a bald-faced liar and 2) he really did think people were that stupid. Oh, and 3) that the press would cover for him no matter what he said or how laughable it was (that's the point for me where they dumped the last shred of their credibility).

bagoh20 said...

Look at the arguments posed here. The right is making assertions based in facts and reason, but you lefties are just in a multitude of ways saying nothing other than. "That's not true." You gotta do better than that.

Matt Sablan said...

Phx: Not quite right. Obama said: If we do nothing, this will happen. If you do what I want, this better thing will happen. I am not trying to show his plan was bad -compared to other options offered by economists.- I merely need to show that by his own measure his plan failed, horribly. Which it did.

Since it did, there is no reason for me to -continue believing that his future plans will do miraculously better because they mystically revise past numbers to make their new estimates sound even better.- It is quite simple: If I buy a product and it fails me, I move to a new supplier. In this case, the Democrats failed to deliver the goods, so it is time to give Romney a chance. His team might fail, but I do not know for certain that they will fail.

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

Noe's door... at the time of Cindy.

How Althouse lost me ;)

tim in vermont said...

OK, I have to get to work now, but I loved this:

"The election of 2006 didn't change anything fundamental about the budgeting process" - Jake

Except for putting Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in charge of it when like autumn leaves they got caught helplessly in a jump in the deficit.

"Deny, deny, deny." - William Blythe Clinton.

Tim said...

I sincerely appreciate trolls like Jake Diamond making it clear they are trolls; it makes it easier to ignore them.

I don't always ignore them, but I try.

Engaging them is, inevitably, a fruitless exercise.

Life is too short to deal with this much stupid, especially if it isn't necessary.

Anyway, the election will come Tuesday, the least experienced man ever elected president, who objectively made it worse, will be defeated.

And then we can move on, as they say.

sakredkow said...

Matthew yes, I see. I disagree then.

I gather you believe we would have been better off doing nothing than implementing Obama's economic plan.

I believe if we did nothing we would have been in a depression now.

Matt Sablan said...

Why? Even Obama's estimates don't paint us doing that badly had we done nothing. In fact, we'd be doing noticeably better than we are now.

sakredkow said...

I sincerely appreciate trolls like Jake Diamond making it clear they are trolls; it makes it easier to ignore them.

I don't always ignore them, but I try.

Engaging them is, inevitably, a fruitless exercise.

Life is too short to deal with this much stupid, especially if it isn't necessary.

Anyway, the election will come Tuesday, the least experienced man ever elected president, who objectively made it worse, will be defeated.

And then we can move on, as they say.


Why can't you then just say "Troll" and then move on?

sakredkow said...

Obama's estimates? Where? I don't believe that. We were in a free fall. I assume that stopped as a result of the stimulus.

Unknown said...

So sad. Another tragic case of Obama derangement syndrome. Professor Althouse, I hope you are feeling better soon.

Best Wishes!

Brendan

Marshall Rose said...

2002 $157.8 Billion Deficit - Bush + Split Congress
2003 $377.6 Billion Deficit - Bush + Rep Congress
2004 $413 Billion Deficit - Bush + Rep Congress
2005 $318 Billion Deficit - Bush + Rep Congress
2006 $248 Billion Deficit - Bush + Rep Congress
2007 $161 Billion Deficit - Bush + Dem Congress
2008 $459 Billion Deficit - Bush + Dem Congress
2009 $1413 Billion Deficit - Obama + Dem Congress
2010 $1294 Billion Deficit - Obama + Dem Congress
2011 $1299 Billion Deficit - Obama + Split Congress
2012 $1100 Billion Deficit - Obama + Split Congress

sakredkow said...

We must be arguing about something different.

WWIII Joe Biden, Husk-Puppet + America's Putin said...

"The Democrats have been leading us into financial ruin."

Little else matters. That finacial ruin will only get worse if Obama is re-elected. Or cheats to win.

Tank said...

The great con by the great con man.

Even after the con, the mark is open to being conned again.

According to AA, after four years of con, she was/is still open to another con [or did she close that door with Libya?].

Sad.

Doomed.

DEAD COUNTRY WALKING.

50% of voters think the path we're on is just fine.

Doomed.

Matt Sablan said...

This chart

Matt Sablan said...

Why yes, I do love showing off that chart. Why do you ask?

vbspurs said...

Welcome back.

P.S.: Landslide.

Cheers,
Victoria

David said...

"We were in a free fall. I assume that stopped as a result of the stimulus."

Of course you assume that. It's what you want to believe. The stimulus had a modest impact--that much money has to have some. But Obama has failed to address the issues that might really turn the economy around. Indeed, on some (like housing), his policies have been seriously counterproductive.

Tim said...

"I believe if we did nothing we would have been in a depression now."

This is a fair, and debatable point.

"Doing nothing," from a political perspective, was not acceptable, although, compared to what was done, it may have been the better option.

The bank bailouts, distasteful as they remain for many of us, were probably necessary.

The $790 billion "stimulus?" Parts of it, especially the tax incentives and, conceptually (given the fact they were not "shovel-ready") and infrastructure projects, possibly. Transfer payments to state and local governments to meet payroll? Not so much.

Auto bailout? No. Or, more accurately, just enough to bridge them through our long established, effective and efficient bankruptcy proceedings. In the long run, GM and Chrysler, and the US, would have been better served with that rather than the US taxpayer bailing out the UAW and failed management.

Obama-care? Stupid, on so many levels.

There are more, of course, but those are the big ones...

Chip S. said...

This CIA story is old news that does not address the Fox News story at all.

The question that is being asked and is most definitely not being answered by this anonymous piece of ass-covering is...why was there no military support at any point in the 7-hour battle?

AFRICOM is not part of the CIA.

hombre said...

Jake wrote: Timmy #1 - ... I will explain this to you once: there is no generally accepted standard for rating qualifications to be president....

Eureka! It has not been clear to me how Democrats could have nominated and elected the least qualified candidate in history and continue to support him after 3+ years of dishonesty and incompetence.

Jake sums it up: There are no standards by which to measure qualifications of a prospective President!

There you have it. This election is truly a referendum on the stupidity of Democrats.

sakredkow said...

Who did that chart? What's the source for what Obama said would happen if we did nothing as opposed to implementing his plan?

Tim said...

"Why can't you then just say "Troll" and then move on?"

U mad, bro?

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

Hi Vic.

sakredkow said...

Grrrrrrrrooowwwwlllll

Caroline said...

Benghazi would not have been a deal-breaker for me if Obama had been my guy until then, if he had been honest with us from the start. Presidents have made bad decisions in the past; that could be forgiven. But what is unforgivable is the blatant lying and the attempted cover-up. There is no excuse for using this event to scapegoat our first amendment rights; especially since we now know that they knew the Libya attack was not related to the video. If there were national security reasons for withholding facts, they could have said that. Instead they chose to deliberately misinform the public. That would have been the deal-breaker. I suspect that is how Althouse sees it ( Althouse: please feel free to correct me if I am being too presumptuous.)

Matt Sablan said...

The original chart was by Romer and company; the update I get from Instapundit, not sure who is keeping it alive now-a-days.

sakredkow said...

Why yes, I do love showing off that chart. Why do you ask?

Because you made it yourself? It came from a loved issue of Mad Magazine?

There's nothing that identifies its source.

Matt Sablan said...

(I'm using Obama, the White House and the administration interchangeably. Romer's use of the chart was in furthering the administration's preferred policy, so technically, Obama may have been completely oblivious to the policy his team was advocating. But, if that's the case, I don't think that helps Obama's argument at all.)

sakredkow said...

All right, check. I don't who Romer Company is but maybe they're experts at this stuff.

Instapundit couldn't be more partisan, could they?

mark said...

@AReasonableMan "most economists believe the stimulus helped avoid a much bigger economic disaster."

Yeah. Idiots like Krugman. People who can't wrap their brain around the fallacy of broken windows.

Matt Sablan said...

I'm sorry, I assumed a chart this famous was like the Hockey Stick graph, and everyone knew the source.

Dante said...

bagoh20:

Look at the arguments posed here. The right is making assertions based in facts and reason, but you lefties are just in a multitude of ways saying nothing other than. "That's not true." You gotta do better than that

In a fair (moderate) world, this would make sense. Nothing I've seen makes me believe the truth matters, if you can make it sound good enough.

Somehow, somewhere along the line leftists convinced the press that the intent was more important than the truth, and of course liberals intend the best.

As the rightist press comes along, it too is going to go down this same path of lies and half-truths. It's inevitable. Lying and getting away with it is too much of an advantage to pass up.

Matt Sablan said...

Err... Christina Romer. One of Obama's economic team.

Matt Sablan said...

See, this is my fault. I assumed we were working from the same common pool of information (what the White House asserted would happen without the stimulus, the key arguments they made, etc., etc.) It is now fairly clear to me that we're not even pulling from the same facts and list of key players, so I can see now why we're reaching radically different conclusions. But, if you're not aware of Christina Romer's role in the stimulus, I wonder how much reading you've actually done on it.

chickelit said...

Landslide (1975)

Jane said...

Thank you for this post, Ann.

I went back to the Huffington Post when I googled for articles or updates about the Coptic Christian filmmaker who allegedly was responsible for the Muhammed film.

There are two comments on the article from October. The first is from a man with 158 fans at Huff Po. His comment was, "Put him [the filmmaker] in an electric chair and fry him."

I remember all those self-righteous editorials after 9/11/12 about how certain forms of free speech, being incendiary, should be forbidden.

Can't any of you people here from the left understand what Obama tried to do to your civil liberties? I'm just shocked that you openly lean more toward fascism.

It turns out that the murderous episode at Benghazi was a pre-determined attack. These mortar-wielding murderers were not whipped into a frenzy by a YouTube video, yet Mr. Obama told you they were, and a scapegoat was found.

Matt said...

phx said...

"Obama's estimates? Where? I don't believe that. We were in a free fall. I assume that stopped as a result of the stimulus."
11/2/12 11:17 AM

Here you go!

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/OBAMAUNEMPLOYMENTFAILCHART.jpg

Colonel Angus said...

There was no way to magically fix this mess. It was always going to take a long slog, whoever was in power.

Yes and the main focus of Obamas administration during this huge fiscal crisis was to institute Obamacare which took nearly two years of his first term.

That tells me he didn't care about fixing the economy but forcing through his left wing agenda.

Roger J. said...

my thought: the professor, as professors are wont to do, is profess. You may or may not want to attack her for her thoughts. I personally think that is rather foolish, and if your vote is determined by what the professor thinks, then you are bigger fools than is she. The facts and statistics, the promises and the lies are before you. Make your own decision. The Professor runs a blog, and this thread, as noted above is going to generate a lot of revenue.

The Professor can make her own decisions and the electorate can make theirs. Please distinguish between a blog, and what you personally think is best for the country, and vote your preference on November 6.

Joe Schmoe said...

The GOP's last 3 prez candidates have all been moderates. The Dems last 3 have run much more extremist-partisan.

So while you may not like the GOP fringe groups, overall their system is working better than the Dems.

PackerBronco said...

Bambi lost me at "hello"

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
sakredkow said...

It is now fairly clear to me that we're not even pulling from the same facts and list of key players, so I can see now why we're reaching radically different conclusions.

Just to restate MY conclusion: If we had done nothing instead of implementing Obama's plan, we would be in a depression, probably looking at unemployment rates 20-25% rate.

You apparently believe doing nothing would have been better.

Neither of us can prove our case (which was actually my original point, remember?) but I stand by my assessment.

Anonymous said...

RogerJ, the voice of reason, as always. Commenters here who are so relieved and actually even thank God for Althouse professing her vote for Romney, do appear foolish indeed, similarily if she professed to vote for Obama.

Make up your own minds.

rcommal said...

@Jake Diamond: I don't know if anyone has pointed this out yet, but: Althouse voted for Gore, not Bush, in 2000. This partly why her piece on how Kerry lost her was interesting.

chickelit said...

Althouse: If you could write your 'How Obama Lost Me' post in the next 24 hours, the race could come down to your influence!

This transfigures Althouse, giving her Sarah Palin's kingmaker powers!

Known Unknown said...

No. It exposes the fact that you understand that revenues have to match outlays in order to remain solvent in the long term.

Reducing outlays is a Washington, D.C. impossibility.

damikesc said...

It took the negligent homicide of Benghazi to seal the deal???? Wow. Just wow.

I'll defend her on that one. There is a difference between having some issues with policies. Benghazi, OTOH, was a total abdication of responsibility for the WH. One can overlook policy problems --- but Benghazi is really, really bad.

Anyone who voted for Bush has lost all credibility on the subject of budget deficits and debt.

Obama ran up the debt in 4 years more than Bush did in eight. And Bush's biggest deficits, by a good margin, were when the Dems ran Congress.

An independent would regularly link to Huffington Post as well as to Drudge, would quote Daily Kos as often as Instapundit (although there is no one quite as hacky on the left)

BWA HA HA! Sure.

and would approvingly quote the contributions of Randi Rhodes to the national discussion along with those of Rush.

Wouldn't she have to HAVE some contributions to be worthy of mention? If we mention things she's known for saying, you'd say we're cherry picking her lunacy.

Did the truth lie with the Republican hacks as their party ran the economy into the ground during the 2000's? Of course not. A balanced presentation is exactly that, a willingness to listen to all sides.

Ah, delicious irony.

Why do you think Colin Powell endorsed Obama?

Skin color.

It would have been much easier if Bush had not previously run up huge deficits with unpaid tax cuts and unnecessary wars, which limited the abilit to respond to the crisis. The huge deficits are due to the collapse of the economy not to prolifigate spending by governments.

Do we need to produce how much we are spending now vs how much we spent in 2007 for this dunce?

The nearly one trillion we spent in stimulus? Since the Senate won't pass a budget, we have to go woth continuing resolutions which keeps spending unchanged from the prior year.

We're spending the stimulus every single year.

The last Clinton budget produced a 1.3% (of GDP) SURPLUS.

Yet the overall debt increased. Odd. You'd think a surplus would reduce that.

Here's the "Bush was asleep at the wheel" defense again. It's quite pathetic that this is the only excuse Republicans have for Bush's incompetence.

Bush had 8 months to fix up problems.

Obama had 3 YEARS to do so.

Why is Obama so incompetent?

Chip S. said...

phx said...
All right, check. I don't who Romer Company is but maybe they're experts at this stuff.

This is just sad.

If you don't even know that Christina Romer was the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors during the first two years of the Obama Administration, your assessment of Obama's economic policy is--shall we say--uninteresting?

Oh, BTW, the stimulus that many (don't know about "most") economists credit with preventing free-fall is TARP 1.

The one signed by Bush.

Matt said...

Holy crap, phx, how can you not be familiar with this chart? What rock have you been under? I imagine you won't be back for awhile as you comb the internet for some way to spin the chart in Obama's favor.

Here is the actual, factual truth: By Obama's own measure, he has FAILED on the economy. Utterly. By his own measure, the economy is WORSE than if he had done NOTHING. Again, BY... HIS... OWN... MEASURE.

Now, check out this chart:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SSOjnM1jTo4/UHIEzL0AljI/AAAAAAAA63c/NpiuV4h1H7k/s1600/121007-deficit-chart.jpg

That is how much more money we went into debt than under Bush so that Obama could utterly fail to fix the economy.

Again, by Obama's own measure we spent even more than he originally proposed. The economy is still worse than he said it would be with his plan or than he said it would be if we had done nothing.

What a waste of trillions of dollars.

Kansas City said...

I don't know why it really was of importance to me (or many others), but I am relieved to see Ann is smart and as sane as I thought.

Anonymous said...

Cheers,
Victoria

wb yourself :)

hombre said...

And then going back I found this one from garage: “At every level in the chain of command, from the senior officers in Libya to the most senior officials in Washington, everyone was fully engaged in trying to provide whatever help they could,” a senior intelligence official said in a statement. “There were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support.”

No fodder for cognitive dissonance for lefties here (sarcasm alert for moonbats). "Everyone was fully engaged" and yet the best we could do was an armored car load of CIA agents, a couple of contractors and 3 Libyan militiamen while four guys died and our compound was destroyed.

Really? The military was "fully engaged?" After the President, allegedly (by him) ordered that the personnel in Benghazi be "secured." How impotent are we?

Does any sane person believe this drivel? Like I said, this election is a referendum on the stupidity of Democrats.

Matt Sablan said...

Why did Colin Powell endorse Obama? Because he is center/center-left on domestic policy and realistically understands that foreign policy has very minor variances, no matter who is elected. Skin color had nothing to do with it, it was simply pragmatic politics (the same reason in a draw, I tend toward Republicans because the more heinous of their over reaches are more likely to be smacked down by the Supreme Court than Democrats' over reach.)

furious_a said...

“At every level in the chain of command, from the senior officers in Libya to the most senior officials in Washington, everyone was fully engaged in trying to provide whatever help they could,” ...There were no orders to anybody to stand down in providing support.”

Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were unavailable for comment.

Colonel Angus said...

Just to restate MY conclusion: If we had done nothing instead of implementing Obama's plan, we would be in a depression, probably looking at unemployment rates 20-25% rate.

Is this your opinion or do you have any factual data to back up that assertion?

sakredkow said...

If you don't even know that Christina Romer was the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors during the first two years of the Obama Administration, your assessment of Obama's economic policy is--shall we say--uninteresting?

Nerd, please. I'm barely aware that there exists something called the Council of Economic Advisors.

I have never --how shall I say--asked you to be interested in any of my comments.

Known Unknown said...

When God closes a door, somewhere he opens a window.

JUMP!

chickelit said...

rcommal said...
@Jake Diamond: I don't know if anyone has pointed this out yet, but: Althouse voted for Gore, not Bush, in 2000. This partly why her piece on how Kerry lost her was interesting.

I'd add that there were many of us lessers who also voted for Gore but switched to Bush in 2004--Althouse was representative. The Democrats didn't mind losing a goodly swath of voters either--they acted like "don't let the door hit you on the way out" ever since.

rcommal said...

@Jake Diamond: And if I recall correctly, Althouse's presidential vote previously has gone to the Republican candidate just twice: Bush in 2004, and the time she vited against Carter.

Colonel Angus said...

The Federal government has been stimulating the economy with an extra trillion dollars more than it is taking in each year and that doesn't seem to be doing much other than massively increasing the debt.

Roger J. said...

Miss Victoria--wonderful to see you back. Hope things are going well and you and your mother are now suffiently armed and trained. My lady friend and I will be visiting the bahamas in the spring with, of course, a stop in the Versailles. Will be thinking of you. Take care.

Caroline said...

JL - There's no shortage of idiocy and incompetence in the Republican party. Bush had plenty of help in driving the economy off the cliff.

I see. So even when the competent, economic geniuses in the Dem party had control over congress in Bush's last two years, they were powerless to stop the idiot Bush and the idiots Reps. who were in the minority, from driving the economy over the cliff... Only a bunch of schmucks could be overpowered by a minority of idiots.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Matthew Sablan said...
I'm sorry, I assumed a chart this famous was like the Hockey Stick graph, and everyone knew the source.


This is so dumb. This ESTIMATE was based on a misunderstanding of how badly Bush had fucked the economy. Obama's team were giving him the benefit of the doubt. In fact he was a much bigger failure than they believed at the time and GDP had fallen much faster and further under his economic policies than they believed possible at the time.

Bryan C said...

"Neither of us can prove our case (which was actually my original point, remember?) but I stand by my assessment."

Furthermore, without the stimulus, we'd all have been devoured in our sleep by alien space bats. I stand by my assessment.

Colonel Angus said...

If you don't even know that Christina Romer was the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors during the first two years of the Obama Administration, your assessment of Obama's economic policy is--shall we say--uninteresting?

I think the word you are looking for is uninformed.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

damikesc said...
Why do you think Colin Powell endorsed Obama?

Skin color.


Racist prick. Are you voting for Romney because of his skin color?

Chip S. said...

Really? The military was "fully engaged?"

No, hombre...gotta parse this ass-cover carefully.

The assertion being made by an anonymous Top Man is about "everyone" in the CIA's chain of command.

test said...

AReasonableMan said...

This is so dumb. This ESTIMATE was based on a misunderstanding of how badly Bush had fucked the economy. Obama's team were giving him the benefit of the doubt. In fact he was a much bigger failure than they believed at the time and GDP had fallen much faster and further under his economic policies than they believed possible at the time.


Some people will believe whatever is necessary to conclude their team isn't at fault. you should change that moniker to AGullibleMan.

sakredkow said...

Heh. If you read Instapundit you're "informed."

gadfly said...

@Bill made this incredible statement:

The Democrats' majority in the Senate is only going to get bigger, since they've got Indiana in the bag now, too.

What is it with the GOP and mind-numbingly stupid comments about rape and abortion? I mean...rape, something that god intended? Jesus H. Christ.


Mourdock says he didn't mean that God intended rape, but that God intended the creation of life - else the pregnancy would not occur.

Regardless, polling in Indiana shows Romney with a double-digit lead, which spells landslide, and Mourdock will be pulled right along behind it.

But now is not the time to become stupid - not voting is a vote for Obama.

Matt said...

So, according to AReasonableMan, it is unfair to measure the President by his own standards. Good to know.

Oh, and if they badly mis-estimated the state of the economy, how does that help their case for being good stewards of it?

Dante said...

"More than 40 percent of all babies born in the country last year, the report said, were born to unmarried women."

What more does one need to know where this country is heading?

test said...

Bryan C said...
"Neither of us can prove our case (which was actually my original point, remember?) but I stand by my assessment."

Furthermore, without the stimulus, we'd all have been devoured in our sleep by alien space bats. I stand by my assessment.


Best laugh nominee.

Chip S. said...

I'm barely aware that there exists something called the Council of Economic Advisors.

That explains why you think unemployment would've hit 20% w/o trillion-dollar deficits.

I have never --how shall I say--asked you to be interested in any of my comments.

It's good to know that your comments are intentionally uninteresting, I guess. Feel free to do something else w/ your valuable time.

Marshall Rose said...

This is so dumb. This ESTIMATE was based on a misunderstanding of how badly Bush had fucked the economy. Obama's team were giving him the benefit of the doubt. In fact he was a much bigger failure than they believed at the time and GDP had fallen much faster and further under his economic policies than they believed possible at the time.

And this is an argument in favor of Obama? That his grasp on reality is so far off that even his own estimates are wrong, and that his proposed solutions failed by his own measure.

So, by all means, lets give him another round of failing to understand reality, and then implement more programs that by his own measures will fail again?

I do not, and cannot find the position that things 'were worse than we knew' at all persuasive. It just says, we failed then, let us fail more.

Forward!

Colonel Angus said...

In fact he was a much bigger failure than they believed at the time and GDP had fallen much faster and further under his economic policies than they believed possible at the time.

What exactly were those economic policies? Outside of his tax cuts, he really didn't do much to effect the economy. The economy was roaring along with the housing boom that began under the Clinton administration.


Matt said...

phx said...

Heh. If you read Instapundit you're "informed."
11/2/12 11:56 AM

That unemployment chart, which you were apparently ignorant of, is posted on Instapundit whenever it is updated. So, while HOW informed someone is for reading Instapundit could be debated, we can conclude that readers of Instapundit are more informed than you.

LilyBart said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Colonel Angus said...

Heh. If you read Instapundit you're "informed.

I didn't have to read Instapundit to know who Christina Romer is and her role in the Obama administration.

garage mahal said...

Why do you think Colin Powell endorsed Obama?

I'm voting for Obama because his mother is white. YOLO!

dreams said...

This what the liberals want and they won't stop until it happens.

"And what Obama failed to pass through Congress, he enacted unilaterally by executive action. He could not pass cap-and-trade, but his EPA is killing coal. (No new coal-fired power plant would ever be built.) In 2006, liberals failed legislatively to gut welfare’s work requirement. Obama’s new Health and Human Services rule does that by fiat. Continued in a second term, it would abolish welfare reform as we know it — just as in a second term, natural gas will follow coal, as Obama’s EPA regulates fracking into noncompetitiveness.

Government grows in size and power as the individual shrinks into dependency. Until the tipping point where dependency becomes the new norm — as it is in Europe, where even minor retrenchment of the entitlement state has led to despair and, for the more energetic, rioting."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-choice/2012/11/01/59b5bed0-2445-11e2-9313-3c7f59038d93_story.html

Roger J. said...

Miss Inga--thanks for the kind words. hope your fall is going well in Wisconsin. my lady friend and I are off to heber springs AR to fish for trout on the little red river, play a round of golf and go dancing at the Cleburn County Historical society. We will enjoy a wonderful weekend sequestered from the bile of this campaign. Staying a a nice b and b on the little red. Regretably, Cleburn County is dry so we have had to some advance planning :)

As my friend Garage can tell you, that while we may disagree on politics, fishing is the sine qua non of the good life.

Chip S. said...

Heh. If you read Instapundit you're "informed."

More informed than you, since Insty's source for that chart is this. Links to which were provided by Insty, of course. Hyperlinks and all that techie shit.

Patrick said...


I'm voting for Obama because his mother is white. YOLO!


I;m voting for Mitt because one of his great great grandfathers was an Aztec!

gadfly said...

Here are Obama's unemployment metrics compared to actual numbers from the USBLS.

Tim said...

Matt said...

"phx said...

Heh. If you read Instapundit you're "informed."

11/2/12 11:56 AM

That unemployment chart, which you were apparently ignorant of, is posted on Instapundit whenever it is updated. So, while HOW informed someone is for reading Instapundit could be debated, we can conclude that readers of Instapundit are more informed than you."


Here's betting the irony goes by phx unnoticed.

Tim said...

"I;m voting for Mitt because one of his great great grandfathers was an Aztec!"

I'm voting for Mitt because some Americans deserve a better president.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

marshall2twr said...
And this is an argument in favor of Obama? That his grasp on reality is so far off that even his own estimates are wrong, and that his proposed solutions failed by his own measure.


They were working with the best estimates available at the time. That the size of the collapse of GDP was then unfathomable does not seem to be a strong argument in favor of electing another Republican president.

garage mahal said...

Roger
Regarding that possible Door County trip of yours: It's definitely a top destination in the U.S. to bring a lady friend.

hombre said...

a reasonable man wrote: ...This ESTIMATE was based on a misunderstanding of how badly Bush had fucked the economy. Obama's team were giving him the benefit of the doubt. In fact he was a much bigger failure than they believed at the time and GDP had fallen much faster and further under his economic policies than they believed possible at the time.

Of course. and none of the data necessary to draw the correct conclusions were available to Obama and his fabulous economic team during the 2008 campaign and at the time this graph was constructed by them. (Sarcasm alert for moonbats)

Pathetic!

PS Obama's folks gave Bush "the benefit of the doubt" on the economy?

Pathetic, dishonest and stupid!

sakredkow said...

That explains why you think unemployment would've hit 20% w/o trillion-dollar deficits.

That's not what I think. I think without Obama's economic plan we would have gone into a depression which would have resulted in 20% ue. His plan restored a level of confidence that was immediately needed as well.

Feel free to do something else w/ your valuable time.

Oh please, Phx is school for you and you know it. You come her looking for me to go back and forth with so much, I should be charging you tuition.

Patrick said...

Even better Tim.

Roger J. said...

While my friend Garage and I have been criticized for our affinity to fishing, it is worthwhile to note Herbert Hoovers last book on fly fishing: All men are equal before fish.

Most always, politics comes in a poor third.

Tim said...

"More informed than you, since Insty's source for that chart is this. Links to which were provided by Insty, of course. Hyperlinks and all that techie shit."

I dunno, man, can you break it down even more so? "...all that techie shit" might be too ambiguous.

You know, that whole "reality-based community" thing?

Colonel Angus said...

I think without Obama's economic plan we would have gone into a depression which would have resulted in 20% ue.

So you have no hard data to support your hypothesis, just that you think that's how it worked out.

Patrick said...

Obama's team were giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Yeah, and they failed to close G'tmo for the same reason.

Figure it out. The President didn't know what he was talking about. He still doesn't.

Roger J. said...

Garage--I can always count on you to bring sanity to political discussions. Tell you what: irrespective of the outcome of the election, I will send you some Memphis BBQ--you have to tell me which ribs your prefer, but will get them off shortly after the election.

Take care, and hope your daughter is doing well.

Tim said...

"Oh please, Phx is school for you and you know it. You come her looking for me to go back and forth with so much, I should be charging you tuition. "

Uh, stupid is free on the internet.

Apparently, not everyone knows that.

But good luck with your business plan anyway.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

hombre said...
Of course. and none of the data necessary to draw the correct conclusions were available to Obama and his fabulous economic team during the 2008 campaign and at the time this graph was constructed by them. (Sarcasm alert for moonbats)


You are so dumb it is sad. No, the exact numbers for the extent of the fall in GDP were not available at that time. Estimates were available but these proved to be very wrong because the extent of the collapse of the Bush economy had been signficantly underestimated, due to its literally unprecedented magnitude.

Revenant said...

I've said this before, but: I can't understand why a person would vote for Obama. But I can definitely understand why a person would vote against John McCain.

sakredkow said...

and none of the data necessary to draw the correct conclusions were available to Obama and his fabulous economic team during the 2008 campaign and at the time this graph was constructed by them.

"We made that projection back in 2008 at a time when the most recent information about the economy was that it was contracting at a rate of less than 1 percent. At the time, we simply didn’t have good information. We now know with revised data that in the very quarter where we made that wrong projection, the economy was contracting at almost 9 percent." - Bernstein

And what's so hard to understand about that?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tim said...

"Estimates were available but these proved to be very wrong because the extent of the collapse of the Bush economy had been signficantly underestimated, due to its literally unprecedented magnitude."

Unprecedented?

You need to read more.

And that's just a fact.

sakredkow said...

Uh, stupid is free on the internet.

And weren't you the one complaining about trolls?

Anonymous said...

Roger, have a wonderful time , you and your lucky lady!:)

See you after the election, whoever wins the US will still be the best nation in the world.

hombre said...

"Reasonable" wrote: That the size of the collapse of GDP was then unfathomable does not seem to be a strong argument in favor of electing another Republican president.

The argument is makeweight. If the "size of the collapse of GDP was then unfathomable," it was only unfathomable to Obama, his advisors, and other fiscally illiterate Democrats.

No Republican voted for the so-called "stimulous." Democrat folklore has it that this was to "get" Obama. Reality is that Republicans weren't foolish enough to believe it would work.

Roger J. said...

Thanks, Inga--we will although she always kicks my butt in golf. But I do better on trout. Hope your daughter is safe and i wish both you and her well. She sounds pretty tough--just like her mama

Sammy said...

The only reason Obama is even in this thing is because of the media's steadfast embargo of any bad story


And not only do I hope America kicks to the curb a truly horrible President..


But gives the national media a big FUCK YOU... You manipulative , soulless bastards...

Instead of holding the people we in trust with power to account and protecting the republic.. These soulless partisan cowards have spent the last 4 years protecting the powerful against the interest of it's citizens.

At least in country's with state run media , like Russia, there are journalists who try to get the truth out to the citizens... at the risk of death, donzens of reporters have been assassinated in Russia the last decade..... Our media are scared to risk a invitation to a cocktail party or to a celebrity " charity" event.


sakredkow said...

Jeez, I'm self-admittedly and willfully uninformed about this dismal science, and yet I'm the one who makes cogent arguments, while you guys are stand around feeling intelligent with the epithets: "Stupid! Libertard! Idiot!"

I'm not afraid to admit exactly where I'm coming from, what I know and what I don't know. Most of you look bad in any case.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Tim said...
"Estimates were available but these proved to be very wrong because the extent of the collapse of the Bush economy had been signficantly underestimated, due to its literally unprecedented magnitude."

Unprecedented?

You need to read more.


Name all the other times GDP fell by more than 9% in a quarter if you are so well read.

Colonel Angus said...

Jeez, I'm self-admittedly and willfully uninformed about this dismal science, and yet I'm the one who makes cogent arguments

Stating that ' I think Obama's brilliant economic plan saved us from a depression' isn't a cogent, or compelling argument for that matter.

dc said...

I don't think Inga or Althouse have taken enough physics courses to be allowed to comment on this blog.

Plus,once inside the voting booth she'll flop. She'll never be able to go against the Bamster.

Chip S. said...

A"Reasonable"Man said...
You are so dumb it is sad. No, the exact numbers for the extent of the fall in GDP were not available at that time. Estimates were available but these proved to be very wrong because the extent of the collapse of the Bush economy had been signficantly underestimated, due to its literally unprecedented magnitude.

Where do you get this stuff?

This is from the actual news release announcing final GDP figures for the 4th quarter of 2008 (released on 3/26/09):

Real gross domestic product decreased at an annual rate of 6.3 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008, (that is, from the third quarter to the fourth quarter), according to final estimates released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

The GDP estimates released today are based on more complete source data than were available for the preliminary estimates issued last month. In the preliminary estimates, the decrease in real GDP was 6.2 percent.


Wow. Off by an entire 0.1 percent! How can we expect Obama to have overcome such a crippling lack of accurate information?

garage mahal said...

Roger, the first rib package you sent. You the man!

I'll send you something back again.

Dante said...

And what's so hard to understand about that?

Nothing. Yeah, the president made a mistake, and ought to own it.

Somewhere along the line, the president knew the economy was in big trouble. How did he handle it?

He spent big money on expensive energy ideas, primarily solar, he used the EPA to put the kabash on cheap coal, he spent years on a partisan health care reform bill. While Nancy Pelosi claimed it would create 1,000,000 jobs on the day it was signed, she seems to have been, well, wrong. And if what I read is correct, it is costing jobs.

So it seems so long as he can continue to "blame it on bush" he doesn't need to do much of anything, right? And we can blame apologists like you who are so willing to swallow.

mark said...

@phx "I'm self-admittedly and willfully uninformed"

Yes, you are. And you still are commenting like you understand anything about economics, math, and reasoning.

You just repeat what you are told. Ignoring that Obama's people admit, like you, that they really didn't understand anything when the passed the stimilus. That, like you and Krugman, they believe in logical economic fallacies.

You call Romney a liar when you can't even find anything within the realm of Obama's lie about the Stafford Act. A raciest, pathological, demagoging lie.

You trust Obama, and his 7th grade math skills, on the economy?

And you trust him to be honest on Libya?

sakredkow said...

Stating that ' I think Obama's brilliant economic plan saved us from a depression' isn't a cogent, or compelling argument for that matter.

I should have added "compared to YOU guys!"

As a matter of principle I try to append "I think" or "I believe" to the conclusions that I'm not certain of. Some people hate the weasel words but it comports with my standards for intellectual integrity.

You knew that. You do that too, right?

Roger J. said...

Garage: you are on sir--and i have broached the discussion about door county with Kay (the GF)--she's interested. We will be in the bahamas in April, but have have May open. She has taken up canoeing and we would be comfortable on a canoe trip--she's getting better with the fly rod--and I keep telling her about smallies.

sakredkow said...

Okay, mark, I'm upfront with what I know and don't know, and where my information comes from.

What do you know, and how do you know it?

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rabel said...

Althouse is in fine company with her parable of the closed door. Here are a few of other takes on the metaphor.

Kafka

Jesus

Murray

The door can be opened if you have the key.

John said...

I was legitimately undecided a few month's ago, but the biggest issue facing this country is debt. I don't trust Romney's plan, but I know Obama's track record, and he's done nothing to help. It's time for someone else to give it a try.

Colonel Angus said...

As a matter of principle I try to append "I think" or "I believe" to the conclusions that I'm not certain of. Some people hate the weasel words but it comports with my standards for intellectual integrity.

So you aren't certain that Obama's plan saved us from a depression.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Chip S. said...
Wow. Off by an entire 0.1 percent! How can we expect Obama to have overcome such a crippling lack of accurate information?


You are so in the tank for Bush that you now want to argue with the GDP figures from the Department of Commerce.

Read them and weep, for all of us. What a monumental fuck up that man was.

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdp_glance.htm

sakredkow said...

I was legitimately undecided a few month's ago, but the biggest issue facing this country is debt. I don't trust Romney's plan, but I know Obama's track record, and he's done nothing to help. It's time for someone else to give it a try.

Why do I think this sounds like an intelligent person, even though he's reached a conclusion different from mine?

hombre said...

phx wrote, quoting Jared Bernstein: "We made that projection back in 2008.... At the time, we simply didn’t have good information." And what's so hard to understand about that?

It's certainly not difficult to understand why Bernstein, who is a social work guy, not an economist, couldn't figure it out.

But the question implied by my remark was: What information was missing to allow them to determine the state of the economy?

Bernstein's comment is just an excuse, not an answer. Real economists at the CATO Institute opposed the stimulous and stated their reasons in December of 2008 using information available at that time.

damikesc said...

Reasonable, you cannot point to competency in foreign policy or domestic policy...nor can Powell. Skin color is the only explanation.

But thanks for further killing the concept of a race card, Chuckles.

sakredkow said...

Colonel Angus: I'm absolutely not certain. I think I expressed earlier I believe we still could enter a depression, and I can't be certain about the ameliorating effect of Obama's plan.

The difference between my conclusions and those of others here is that I acknowledge I could be wrong.

Roger J. said...

phx--we could indeed be wrong--with respect to our personal thoughts, but at the end of tuesday, we will find out if our views were shared by the majority of the American People. I will accept their judgment.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

damikesc said...
Reasonable, you cannot point to competency in foreign policy or domestic policy...nor can Powell. Skin color is the only explanation.


Compared to Bush Obama has been remarkably competent. GDP didn't collapse 9% in a quarter under Obama and he didn't start an 800 billion dollar war for no good purpose. By this miserable standard Obama is the King of Kings when it comes to presidential competency. To vote for Romney you have to believe that he will be vastly, unfathomably, more competent than Bush. Where is the evidence to support this belief?

Powell is making a rational prediction based on the ongoing insanity racking the current version of the Republican party. A more belligerent foreign policy coupled with tax decreases and no changes in medicare - a truly incredible policy, in the literal meaning of the word incredible.

Anonymous said...

"Then came Benghazi, and a door closed."

As late as September 10, 2012, I was determined to leave the top line on my November 6 ballot blank.

The next day I changed my mind. I will be voting for Romney -- not because he deserves my vote, but because America doesn't deserve to put up with another four years of Obama.

garage mahal said...

Roger
Door County will not disappoint, trust me on this one.

Roger J. said...


garage--will be looking forward to it--will keep you posted

sakredkow said...

...at the end of tuesday, we will find out if our views were shared by the majority of the American People. I will accept their judgment.

As will I Roger J. As much as I supported Gore, I never complained about the SC deciding that election in favor of Bush. Someone had to decide, and I'm not one to whine about the way things are in life.

Nobody will hear me whine on Wednesday either.

Bob Ellison said...

Darn it! We'll never make 710 comments if lefties and righties keep talking about fishing!

People Died, The President Lied said...

"I think I expressed earlier I believe we still could enter a depression, and I can't be certain about the ameliorating effect of Obama's plan."

What exactly, is Obama's 'plan'???

Known Unknown said...

That's not what I think. I think without Obama's economic plan we would have gone into a depression which would have resulted in 20% ue. His plan restored a level of confidence that was immediately needed as well.

I think Obama could have done SOMETHING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT HE DID and we'd have 2% ue!

Bob Ellison said...

*fishies

Bob Ellison said...

*not that I'm trying to pad the comment tally

Rose said...

If Obama had been one iota of the caliber of an Allen West, or a Thomas Sowell (if we're going by skin color) - he would have won all of us. (Many Republicans were impressed with him in his early convention speech, it was only after we saw more of him and realized what an empty vessel and poseur he was that we turned against him.) He had every opportunity to do the right thing, and impress us, rise to the occasion. He did not. Nor did he care to. And, in fact, he was actively against us, against half the country, HIS people, ostensibly, he hates us.

And along the way, there have been so many instances of "THIS ONE THING should be enough for people to finally grok the emptiness of this man" - Benghazi is just the latest and most egregious.

I don't understand why he has even a 10% approval rating.

sakredkow said...

I think Obama could have done SOMETHING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT HE DID and we'd have 2% ue!

I get that argument. I think most righties here ASSUME that something like that is true.

I don't, and I'm not very persuaded by them, even though I do consider myself open to persuasion.

furious_a said...

ARM: By this miserable standard Obama is the King of Kings when it comes to...

...keeping his tee times.

There, fixed it for you!

WWIII Joe Biden, Husk-Puppet + America's Putin said...

Obama is king. Come worship. Pay up. There's a party and you must pay.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

EMD said...
I think Obama could have done SOMETHING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT HE DID and we'd have 2% ue!


The obvious question is why didn't Bush do something to avoid the monumental increase in unemployment in the first place.

The answer is ideological rigidity. Without a complete remaking of Republican ideology voting for the same fool in different clothing is guaranteed to produce the same unfortunate results.

People Died, The President Lied said...

phx

What parts of Obama's plan have been 'ameliorating'???

Has it been the denigration of white America?

Has it been the investment in green energy?

Has it been the investment in new IRS agents to enforce our new 'health care' plan?

Has it been his and the democrats amazing show of 'bipartisanship' during his first two years where he had unfettered opportunity to push through anything he wanted?

BTW, where are all the windmills and solar panels needed in NYC and New Jersey now?

What are we missing about this man, his ideas, and the democrat party in general?

Cedarford said...

Jane - I remember all those self-righteous editorials after 9/11/12 about how certain forms of free speech, being incendiary, should be forbidden.

Can't any of you people here from the left understand what Obama tried to do to your civil liberties? I'm just shocked that you openly lean more toward fascism.


Like many people who have bleeding hearts for 1st Amendment Hero and scumbag Nakoula, you miss two essential points:

1. People who get out of jail early in return for Probation agree as a condition of freedom of serving their full sentence, to certain restrictions that even encompass Precious Rights of the Sacred Parchment Itself.
Meaning they agree they have no 4th Amendment Rights and a probie officer can search their homes and cars w/o a Wise Judge's warrant - for contraband.
In the scumbag's case, he had restrictions on drugs from a past conviction about a meth lab he tried setting up, and Internet restrictions on the basis of him defrauding people by internet ID theft and bank scams (he was caught when they busted him with 6 passports with different aliases). He is being held on Probation charges, not Obama's displeasure - and will go back on his felonies UNLESS the Feds cut him a break for revealing his financiers.

2. There is ample precedent for hard criminal time for people that incite others to hurt or kill with words or speech or other forms of encouragement or manipulations.
Sometimes they get away with it, like Al Sharpton has done. Sometimes they don't, like the creep in the New Bedford pool hall who urged others to rape a drug addled woman, but didn't touch her himself. His 1st Amendment defense went down in flames.
Nakoula stated in his first interview his intent, knowing full well as an Egyptian how they react to Prophet blasphemy - his intent was to get Muslims to kill or injure Americans to draw attention to the plight of minorities in Egypt.
He still may face charges for that and join the New Bedford rape cheerleader on similar charges - but right now, he is in jail only because he blatantly and eggregiously violated key terms of his legal probation.

jimbino said...

Obama is Jesus giving the Sermon on the Mount, "blessed are the peacemakers, blessed are the meek, blessed are the poor in spirit, blah, blah blah..." and then acting on "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's."

Bryan C said...

"This is so dumb. This ESTIMATE was based on a misunderstanding of how badly Bush had fucked the economy."

So you're saying that the Democratic majority was even more massively ineffective and grossly incompetent than we believed possible at the time. And they certainly haven't improved. You're right, we should definitely vote for Romney.

Marshall Rose said...

Compared to Bush Obama has been remarkably competent. GDP didn't collapse 9% in a quarter under Obama and he didn't start an 800 billion dollar war for no good purpose.

No, Obama just spent 6 trillion borrowed dollars with no discernable result, by his own metrics conditions are much worse than he proposed they would be.

And once again, how does this point to giving him more time and money? And free reign to continue to implement policies that, once again, by his own standards have been abject failures?

People Died, The President Lied said...

So phx and other liberals, we all want to know how this president and the democrat party policies have been 'ameliorating'. Educate us, and sell it using tried and true feature-with-related-benefit reasoning.

Maybe its been the energy policies that have restricted anything other than exploration/drilling on private property.

Maybe its been the first lady's tinkering as a new-age nutritionist and screwing with school lunches.

Maybe its been the power plants going off-line as a result of his 'plan'.

Maybe its that gas prices have doubled.

Maybe its the deliberate EPA policies that make energy that exists within our borders too expensive or impossible to access as a sop to environmentalism.

Maybe its the lack of his senate's willingness to even offer a budget.

maybe its the fact that his own budget plan was rejected out of hand by congress.

Maybe its that few in his own party want to campaign with him.

There's plenty more.

Tell us about his great plan!!!

Original Mike said...

"...a misunderstanding of how badly Bush had fucked the economy."

You have no idea what caused the 2008 meltdown, do you?

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

marshall2twr said...
No, Obama just spent 6 trillion borrowed dollars with no discernable result, by his own metrics conditions are much worse than he proposed they would be.


It is really kind of sad that literally the only talking point you have is a graph that you get from Instapundit, which is well known in the rest of sentient world to have been based on an inaccurate forecast of how much GDP would decline because of Bush's failed policies. All it does is emphasize once more what an utter fool Bush was that even his ideological opposites underestimated the extent of his failure.

In fact GDP declined much more than originally predicted. Again, it is understandable that this FORECAST might be inaccurate given the unprecedented fall in GDP produced by failed Bush policies.

Marshall Rose said...

Labor Force Participation Rate:

Jan 2009: 65.7%
October 2012: 63.8%

This is an improvement? We want more of this? Lowest rate in over 30 years, with the largest drop off occuring unber Obama.

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Original Mike said...
"...a misunderstanding of how badly Bush had fucked the economy."

You have no idea what caused the 2008 meltdown, do you?


Let's hear your explanation for how, after 8 long years of the Bush presidency, Bush bears no responsibility for the calamitous outcome.
In your answer try to also explain how Obama is solely at fault for current reaonsable but not outstanding economic conditions.

Marshall Rose said...

It is really kind of sad that literally the only talking point you have is a graph that you get from Instapundit, which is well known in the rest of sentient world to have been based on an inaccurate forecas

Show me where I posted the graph you refer to.

Obama is responsible for the innacurate forecast developed by his economic team, on which he bases his policies. This is the part that you are ignoring in my position.

My position is this: Obama and his economic team were unable to correctly discern the economic conditions. They developed recovery plans based on their flawed assumptions. This led to the failure of the policies.

Giving Obama another shot at developing flawed assumptions/plans/policies is a losing proposition. He has already demonstrated failure in this arena.

furious_a said...

FOUR! MORE! DAYS!
FOUR! MORE! DAYS!
FOUR! MORE! DAYS!

Marshall Rose said...

Let's hear your explanation for how, after 8 long years of the Bush presidency, Bush bears no responsibility for the calamitous outcome.

This is fun!

Let's hear your explantion for how Bush bears responsibility for the calamitous outcome.

Or, even doubleplus more fun.

Let's hear your explanation for how, after 4 long years of the Obama presidency, Obama bears no responsibility for the calamitous outcome.

Original Mike said...

2008 was a housing bubble brought on by the Fed's easy money policy. A policy which they have double-downed on.

Michael McNeil said...

GDP didn't collapse 9% in a quarter under Obama

GDP didn't “collapse 9% in a quarter” under Bush either. The rates in that chart are annualized. Actual decline during 4th quarter 2008 — even according to it — would thus have been about 2.2%.

Leland said...

I'm late to the party, but as I was reading, I would have said Benghazi was the final straw. It was when I noticed a change in tone.

Kirby Olson said...

The news blackout on Benghazi is newsworthy in and of itself. The New York Times pretends it didn't happen or blames it on Libyan security. Everyone seemed to know that Libyan security was a reason for insecurity.

Washington Post is covering the story now rather intensively as is the WSJ and many other top newspapers.

While the NYT motto is "any news that fits" they apparently see "any noose that fits" as a story they will run against Romney, but they will run nothing about Obama except hagiographies. How is this news?

"Any news that fits Obama's campaign strategy," should be their new motto.

Kirby Olson said...

The news blackout on Benghazi is newsworthy in and of itself. The New York Times pretends it didn't happen or blames it on Libyan security. Everyone seemed to know that Libyan security was a reason for insecurity.

Washington Post is covering the story now rather intensively as is the WSJ and many other top newspapers.

While the NYT motto is "any news that fits" they apparently see "any noose that fits" as a story they will run against Romney, but they will run nothing about Obama except hagiographies. How is this news?

"Any news that fits Obama's campaign strategy," should be their new motto.

carrie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe said...

So, your mission eight and four years ago was to understand the mechanism by which you finally decided to decide?

Your entire purpose was to rationalize what you were going to do? Was it ever about making the right decision?

Congratulations. Prof. Kingsfield would be proud. You're thinking like a lawyer, and that is not a compliment.

Please re-title this post "How Althouse Lost Me."

JohnJ said...

"Obama could have won me…Then came Benghazi, and a door closed."

We all come to our decisions through different paths, but the one you've chosen diminishes the possibilities that Romney brings to the presidency.

Romney is a smart, sober and pragmatic man, not given to arrogance or ego (ahem!). From day one, he will work diligently to reach some acceptable level of understanding with the Democratic Senate and, just as important, with the more strident House. That should set the stage for finally and honestly addressing many of the budgetary issues that have been allowed to fester for decades—why, we might even pass a budget.

All of this hanging on Ohio.

People Died, The President Lied said...

Like the sentimental parent and a wayward child, modern liberals rarely find fault in their iconic leaders. That's how these despotic leaders survive and ultimately end up inflicting economic and human cost.

There are no examples of socialist panaceas from the point of view of the people themselves, only from the point of view of the masters. Yet, we hear every day countless persons enthusiastically promoting this life-sucking ideology.

Unfortunately, our most plentiful (and costly!) resource today is ignorance. This is a perfect environment for spreading the lie of socialism. It is now prevalent in schools, the media shamelessly cheers its practitioners like blushing freshmen, even religious institutions have been breached vis a vis the new 'healthcare' abomination.

Some sheep know they are sheep, and others, not so much.

Please. Liberals. If what you profess is so god damned fantastic, PLEASE- explain why y'all are so angry and dissatisfied all the time???

Happy people generally do not meddle in their neighbor's business because they are too busy BEING HAPPY.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

marshall2twr said...
Let's hear your explanation for how, after 8 long years of the Bush presidency, Bush bears no responsibility for the calamitous outcome.


Clearly you have nothing. Why bother posting on these sites if you have nothing to offer. Even boilerplate Republican talking points would be more useful that simply restating the questions. At least I could have some fun pointing out the idiocy of current Republican theology, sorry, I mean economic policy.

Michael McNeil said...

Again, it is understandable that this FORECAST might be inaccurate

Why do you assume that the underlying theory is sound while it was just unfortunately supplied with inaccurate data? This is economic theory — enthusiastically latched onto by the Obama administration — that makes global warming (excuse me: “climate change”) theory look like the Rock of Gibraltar, and it's very far indeed from being near in soundness to the theory of gravitation. Now experience has shown that it has flat-out failed — not just just been fed some incorrect parameters. Why shouldn't the administration that tied itself so thoroughly to those sails be carried away by them?

Did Economists Doom Obama's Presidency?

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Kirby Olson said...
The news blackout on Benghazi is newsworthy in and of itself.

Washington Post is covering the story now rather intensively as is the WSJ.


Undermines own argument in consecutive paragraphs. Try a little harder.

The Wall Street Journal article is particularly informative. In fact Bengahzi was a CIA operation overseen by former Republican saint Petreaus. Responsiblity for security or lack there of apparently lies on the shoulders of David Patreaus. An interesting outcome I must say.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204712904578092853621061838.html

Marshall Rose said...

Clearly you have nothing. Why bother posting on these sites if you have nothing to offer. Even boilerplate Republican talking points would be more useful that simply restating the questions. At least I could have some fun pointing out the idiocy of current Republican theology, sorry, I mean economic policy.

You feel this is a legitimate question to pose to Bush supporters do you not?

Yet it is an unreasonable question for you to answer?

You are unserious, if not downright disengenous if that is the case. You cannot defend Obama, other than saying that he didn't know how bad things were, but when I point out that that is no justification for a second term in office you cannot confront that point.

Lisaocean86 said...

Just two words. Thank You!

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Michael McNeil said...
Why do you assume that the underlying theory is sound while it was just unfortunately supplied with inaccurate data?


There is no question that the data was incorrect. Again, the forecast was much too generous in its assessment of the calamitous outcomes of Bush's economic policies.

I don't disagree that the model could also be wrong. Economists as a group generally favor increasing government spending during a recession in order to avoid a recessionary spiral. I think this is the commonsense position and it would take some pretty good evidence to argue against this position. Notably, a large number of Republicans supported this idea when Bush was in office.

Original Mike said...

We're still waiting to hear how 2008 was a result of Bush policies.

Browndog said...

"Obama could have won me…Then came Benghazi, and a door closed."

Not..

"Obama could have won me…Then came Benghazi, and the door closed."

Nuance...

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

marshall2twr said...
You cannot defend Obama, other than saying that he didn't know how bad things were, but when I point out that that is no justification for a second term in office you cannot confront that point.


The argument that Obama is not as bad as the alternative seems a perfectly good one to me. Under Obama we have had steady if not spectacular growth in GDP and exports. Under the previous president we had a calamitous financial meltdown.

Let's think, which of these outcomes do I prefer?

Patrick said...

Reasonable -

If the President (notwithstanding what he told us throughout the 2008 campaign) didn't have a handle on how bad things were, what makes you believe that he does now? He had four years to adjust to the circumstances. Except for a slick campaign brochure, he's given us no real plan for his next four years. What will be different?

Not trying to be (too) snarky, but why so credulous. I can understand not buying Romney, but wha thas the President shown you?

Patrick said...

And you lay your reasoning out the post ahead of mine. You're nothing if not prescient.

Ben Morris said...

Sorry if someone has said this already, but you perpetuated this belief yourself. You have previously said "At some point I'm probably going to end up writing a 'How Obama Lost Me' post..."

I don't remember where, but I know I've been waiting ever since.

Lydia said...

Seems Romney’s going with the “door” theme as well, only a door opening not shutting.

From his speech today in West Allis, Wisconsin (!):

“The door to a brighter future is there, open, waiting for us. I need your vote, I need your help. Walk with me, walk together. Let us start anew.”

Dante said...

Let me see whether I can get this thought out right.

I am having a hard time coming up with a way Ann could declare her selection that would have more impact than the way she presents it here. And the visual is also pretty good. I have an open mind, the door was open, but he closed it with Benghazi. She needs not state the reasons, but implicit in her comment is it is considerable, and we can fill in the blanks for ourselves.

It's strong enough to help other undecideds to close the door.

Also, it is strong enough to encourage others to take a look. What is Benghazi? What happened? Oh, the president lied to us? He put someone in jail to keep his lie going? Why didn't he do something during the prolonged firefight? Is he incompetent? Is his control over the chain of command tenuous? Or are there more cynical reasons?

In my view, this is a stroke of Genius.

Ann, I feel now compelled to apologize for all the snark I have laid at your feet.

--Big Bird

People Died, The President Lied said...

"Under Obama we have had steady if not spectacular growth in GDP and exports. Under the previous president we had a calamitous financial meltdown."

The first sentence is laughably wrong, the second is akin to saying death is caused by too many seasons.

This kind of unsound 'reasoning' is behind many liberals' decisions. In fact, it is sentimentality that directs the course of the liberal.

"The salvation of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants"

hombre said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
sakredkow said...

What parts of Obama's plan have been 'ameliorating'???

Has it been the denigration of white America?


There's where you lost me. I don't see it that way, but maybe you could explain that.

hombre said...

"Reasonable" wrote:
... No, the exact numbers for the extent of the fall in GDP were not available at that time. Estimates were available but these proved to be very wrong because the extent of the collapse of the Bush economy had been signficantly underestimated,....

Bullshit! Other economists worked with the available data and reached correct conclusions about the limited potential impact of the stimulous.

You have no independent sources for this. This is an Obama talking point - read: "excuse" - which, along with the righteous indignation and nastiness of a shallow lefty, is all you've got.

mark said...

@phx "What do you know, and how do you know it?"

What I know about Obama and how. I listen to him and watch what he does. What type of man would be at the US Senate's Stafford Act vote over Hurricane Katrina, and the lie about the result in a racist way a week later? What does that tell you about his mental state?

As far as Business and Economics. Family businesses, teaching mathematics, logic and reasoning, and studying the mathematics of dynamical systems. And from that mess, my opinion is that all large scale structures (large businesses and large government) are inherently bad for the stability of systems. It also means the stimulus and bailouts actually made the state of the economy worse. The horrendous state we are in shows that. It is far worse then if Obama had done nothing.

My catch phrase (stolen from a friend) ... "Too large to fail? We need to fix that 'too large' part."

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Patrick said...
Except for a slick campaign brochure, he's given us no real plan for his next four years. What will be different?

Not trying to be (too) snarky, but why so credulous. I can understand not buying Romney, but wha thas the President shown you?


Well, Obama saved us from a potential Great Depression. If Bush/Greenspan had been at the helm I have very little doubt things would have been much worse. They were both hopelessly confused by their respective ideological blinders. He rescued the auto industry, which was absolutely essential in order to save the US manufacturing base.

On his watch both bin Laden and Qaddafi were killed. He husbanded through universal healthcare, which I think makes both moral and financial sense, given that Emergency Care rooms are the most costly way to provide medical care.

Unemployment is moving downward rather than up as it was under Bush. Next year's IMF-predicted US growth is higher than any other developed country, although this is largely due to the insanity of the austerity-driven policies in Europe, where unemployment is still climbing,

US exports last year were a record 13.8% of GDP, the largest ever percentage of GDP. Increasing exports is the single most important element in rebuilding the economy, much more important than giving tax breaks to guys who can already afford every imaginable luxury item.

Even if we only got more of the same it would be a lot better than what we got through eight long years of the Bush presidency, which was a litany of economic and foreign policy incompetence.

sakredkow said...

It is far worse then if Obama had done nothing.

How can you argue with someone who actually believes that if Obama had done nothing we would have been better off, and by far?

We come from two different worlds.

Marshall Rose said...



Explain to me how Obama is better than Romney at Fiscal/Financial/Executive/Business management again? I must have missed that.

Under Obama we have had steady if not spectacular growth in GDP and exports. Under the previous president we had a calamitous financial meltdown.

Bush Export Growth over 8 years averaged to 55% increase. (This includes the losses from the recession)
Peak Growth in Exports for Bush was 82% prior to the recession.

Obama Export Growth of 4 years averaged to 44% increase. (This is measured from the start of the recession when exports bottomed out)

GDP under Obama has been dismal.
If you ask nicely I'll point out the %'s per year, Bush vs Obama and have some fun. (hint, 2009 was -3.53%, but you'll probably want to ascribe that to Bush and not to Obama)

But only if you ask nicely.

Known Unknown said...

phx--we could indeed be wrong--with respect to our personal thoughts, but at the end of tuesday, we will find out if our views were shared by the majority of the American People. I will accept their judgment.

What parallels can one draw from the 1980-1982 recession and recovery to this one?

Why did we recover more quickly?

What was done differently?

Known Unknown said...

How can you argue with someone who actually believes that if Obama had done nothing we would have been better off, and by far?

Has anyone advocated that here? Specifically doing nothing at all?



Original Mike said...

I still want to know what Bush polic(y/ies) caused the 2008 collapse.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

hombre said...
"Reasonable" wrote:
... No, the exact numbers for the extent of the fall in GDP were not available at that time. Estimates were available but these proved to be very wrong because the extent of the collapse of the Bush economy had been signficantly underestimated,....

Bullshit! Other economists worked with the available data and reached correct conclusions about the limited potential impact of the stimulous.


Provide some evidence for this. The fall in GDP was almost universally underestimated. Maybe, Roubini got it right but his assessments are always on the negative side so he has to more correct than everyone else at some point.

You have no independent sources for this.

Ironically, one of your fell economic truthers provided just such a link earlier in the thread in a painfully inept attempt to counter my comments on the extend of GDP decline under Bush.

hombre said...

"Reasonable" wrote: Under the previous president we had a calamitous financial meltdown.

Let's think, which of these outcomes do I prefer?


Let's see. Given your reasoning here and since presidents don't pass laws regulating GSE's like Fannie and Freddie, and since Congress, not the Pres, authorizes expenditures, and since the Dems held Congress for four years during the financial crisis, does this mean you'll be voting for a Republican Congress?

Can you even see how irrelevant and stupid your preoccupation with Bush is?

Methadras said...

Inga said...

They don't care Garage, their version of what happened is much more appealing to them. Screw the truth, right?


Yup, Urkel not only fucked the truth, but he's hiding the abortion of it too. You are such a depraved individual that you would callously ignore and willfully so, the actual truth of what happened there and then look to garage for ideological support. Everything I've ever said about you is not only true, but clearly isn't enough to describe what an immorally depraved, despicable person you are.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 483   Newer› Newest»