Royster beat me to the "not the same" but also note Washington, Jefferon, and Adams weren't trying to create a new country in the middle of the old one. There were a few logistical circumstances. Please, Prosiman.

No, they were trying to rid themselves of an oppressive government. Obviously, some people disagreed with them and either kept their mouths shut or came to what is now Canada as Loyalists. But in the end, the group that spoke out against their oppressors were supported by the majority of citizens. Now you can't even categorize government as oppressive or deceitful or criminal in any meaningful forum (i.e. network TV or a large circulation newspaper) without being called unpatriotic and a conspiracy theorist. I'm not advocating another revolutionary war. I do wish, however, that people like Ron Paul who have very important things to say, would be allowed to say them. He was strategically excluded from coverage by the networks after the first Republican debate last fall because he was chosen by viewers (even Fox viewers) to be the overwhelming winner. Things like this, and congressmen voting against the wishes of their constituents, is nowhere near what a democracy is supposed to be.

I do wish, however, that people like Ron Paul who have very important things to say, would be allowed to say them.

He's being silenced?
He's a United Sates Congressman.
He has no trouble getting his message out.

So do you have to be a fricking idiot now to be a conservative radio host or is that a redundant question?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/10/10/state/n104219D33.DTL&tsp=1

What movies are about geology?

Treasure of the Sierra Madre?

Now you can't even categorize government as oppressive or deceitful or criminal in any meaningful forum (i.e. network TV or a large circulation newspaper) without being called unpatriotic and a conspiracy theorist.

A tradition enacted by some of the very revolutionary Founding Fathers themselves. The Alien and Sedition acts, for example.

Oh, Andy loves geology. I guess it appeals to his meticulous nature.

That must be my Peiping cousin you're thinking about, Kevin. I can barely tell a stalagmite from a stalagtite, or these days even a cave from the White House.

Not a movie buff, eh, Andy?

Not a geology movie buff, no. What movie were you referring to?

Shawshank Redemption

Okay, so now I'm not only an economic illiterate, but I'm a movie illiterate. I've vaguely heard of that film but I don't have a clue as to what it's about. But since I can tell you all about the greatest movie of all time (Angi Vera) and the greatest baseball movie of all time (Death on the Diamond), I don't feel completely clueless.

What movies are about geology?

Dante's Peak and Volcano?

Me, I think Brooks’ column—and every Brooks column—can be summed up with this line, from his column today: What we need in this situation is authority. This is neoconservativism in a nutshell: An authority fetish coupled with general contempt for markets, masses, and choice. Just put a few (Brooks-approved) folks in charge, and give them unfettered power.

In other words, he's a monarchist. Gee, you can't get much more conservative than that.

Treasure of the Sierra Madre?

oh, now don't go getting fred c. dobbs started!

I think a third party will emerge before the far, far right takes over the Rs.

Your sentence is only one bridge too "far". Surely the far right has taken over the Republican party?

Well Canada just jumped on the Communist Bailout Bandwagon and bought $25 billion in good mortgages that were already insured by the CMHC (Crown corp. that regulates the industry). That $25 billion is probably close to the $700 billion as a percentage of the to countries GDP.

I know I will be mocked in the short-term, but all of this is leading to a downfall of the US government as we know it, which will be replaced by a North American Union sometime in 2010. I will refrain from saying "I told you so" if the internet is still a "free speech zone" by then.

You do understand that this is the "Corporate Bailout Bandwagon"? The US government won't fall anytime soon. It would have to lose the backing of (and probably gain the active enmity of) the military for that to happen.

And once Gorbachev saw the light, Reagan was more than willing both to talk and to share the credit. I don't see how anyone can deny that, no matter what we might think of anything else he did. He was far from the simpleminded cipher that so many people on the left portray him as.

Reagan was a simpleminded cipher, Andy, most of his ideas were terrible, and many of the problems we have today (astonishingly intrusive Executive, activist rightwing judges, shredded Constitution, markets regulated in a way that ensures their destruction, the loathing of the US by much of Latin America, etc., etc., etc.) are the direct result of his extraordinary ignorance and bizarre views, but I'll give him full credit for being exactly the right guy at exactly the right time to provoke the fall of the USSR.

He has no trouble getting his message out.

Well, he does actually. But not because of government stifling of free speech. :)

signs we might be near the bottom

ben stein channeling, well, a sane person
http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/yourlife/112984

1) Have a fiscal policy that creates immense deficits in good times and bad, burdening America's posterity with staggering burdens of repaying the debt.

2) Eliminate regulation of Wall Street and/or fail to enforce the regulations that already exist, instead trusting Wall Street and other money managers and speculators to manage other people's money with few or no regulations and little oversight.

5) Allow investment banks, insurers, and banks to bet their entire net worth and then some on the premise that borrowers known to be improvident will in fact repay those loans.

6) Allow the creation of large betting pools called "hedge funds" that can move markets and control the outcome of trading, thus taking a forum for savings and retirement for families and making it into a rigged casino game that exists primarily to fleece suckers like ordinary working men and women.

7) Have laws that protect corporate officers from being sued for misconduct but at the same time punish lawyers in the private sector who ferret out such misconduct and try to make accountable the people responsible for shareholder and investor losses. If one of those lawyers gets particularly aggressive in protecting stockholders, put him in prison.

signs we might not be at the bottom

international trade actually beginning to physically grind to a halt
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=866522

The credit crisis is spilling over into the grain industry as international buyers find themselves unable to come up with payment, forcing sellers to shoulder often substantial losses.

Before cargoes can be loaded at port, buyers typically must produce proof they are good for the money. But more deals are falling through as sellers decide they don't trust the financial institution named in the buyer's letter of credit, analysts said.

"There's all kinds of stuff stacked up on docks right now that can't be shipped because people can't get letters of credit," said Bill Gary, president of Commodity Information Systems in Oklahoma City. "The problem is not demand, and it's not supply because we have plenty of supply. It's finding anyone who can come up with the credit to buy."

So far the problem is mostly being felt in U. S. and South American ports, but observers say it is only a matter of time before it hits Canada.

"We've got a nightmare in front of us and a lot of people are concerned it's going to get a lot worse," said Anthony Temple, a grain marketing expert based in Vancouver.

"We've got a nightmare in front of us and a lot of people are concerned it's going to get a lot worse," said Anthony Temple, a grain marketing expert based in Vancouver.

Wonderful. Our manufacturing sector has already been worked over by the strong Canadian dollar. The recent slowdown in the US economy has hammered commodity prices, which really hurts us as well. Now, we're going to get roughed up in the farming sector, and our dollar just dropped to $0.83 US, so we're likely to start seeing all our prices climbing again, but the manufacturing jobs will take a long time to come back.

Canada is about to have the economic #### kicked out of it.

What movies are about geology?

The Rock
Rocky (I-IV)
School of Rock
Detroit Rock City
Brokeback Mountain
Cold Mountain
Escape from Witch Mountain
Earthquake!
Joe vs. The Volcano
Joe Dirt
Dr. Strangelove ("We must not allow ... a mineshaft gap!")

OK, this joke has run it's course...

Canada is about to have the economic #### kicked out of it.

dude, we're all about to have the economic #### kicked out of us ...

OK, this joke has run it's course...

But you didn't even include movies starring the Rock, Rock Hudson, Knute Rockne, and so on...

dude, we're all about to have the economic #### kicked out of us ...

Fair enough. I think I'm going to start looking for a job in a recession-proof industry.

Anyone know any breweries which are hiring?

And once Gorbachev saw the light, Reagan was more than willing both to talk and to share the credit. I don't see how anyone can deny that, no matter what we might think of anything else he did. He was far from the simpleminded cipher that so many people on the left portray him as.

Reagan was a simpleminded cipher, Andy, most of his ideas were terrible, and many of the problems we have today (astonishingly intrusive Executive, activist rightwing judges, shredded Constitution, markets regulated in a way that ensures their destruction, the loathing of the US by much of Latin America, etc., etc., etc.) are the direct result of his extraordinary ignorance and bizarre views, but I'll give him full credit for being exactly the right guy at exactly the right time to provoke the fall of the USSR.

So you essentially agree with my main point, which concerned the USSR. You're preaching to the choir about Reagan's domestic and Latin American policies.

But that doesn't make him a simpleminded cipher, unless you're just reflexively applying that term to anyone who radically disagrees with you. Like it or not, by 1980 Ronald Reagan had spent half a lifetime reading and thinking about politics and political issues, and to this he added on much valuable experience dealing with those famous Hollywood "progressives"---and I'm not referring to the Bogarts and the Bacalls, who have nothing to do with this---whose love of Stalin wasn't even disguised with a fig leaf. In union meetings he saw these ideologues in action every bit as vividly as we can see the yahoos cheering on Sarah Palin when she starts babbling about Bill Ayers. It's not hard to come away from either of those gatherings more than a bit creeped out.

But even at that, Reagan continued to vote for Democrats right up through 1952, an election that was dominated more than any other in our history by the Red Scare.

All of which isn't to say that lots of his conclusions weren't simplistic. But the point is that, once again like it or not, these conclusions were his own. And I think that if you don't understand that, you can't begin to understand Ronald Reagan's appeal. It wasn't just a big act, it was the real deal, however half-asssssed the underlying philosophy was.

There Will be Blood is about geology.

Crack in the World and Earthquake! are also

Fair enough. I think I'm going to start looking for a job in a recession-proof industry.

Nursing. Seriously, RNs can always find a job. Of course, male nurses are kinda creepy and you run the risk of getting poop (or worse) on you, but hey, job security!

Anyone know any breweries which are hiring?

Brew your own. It'll be a useful skill if we really have a total economic collapse and wind up living in caves, subsisting on lichen and moose meat.

Nursing. Seriously, RNs can always find a job. Of course, male nurses are kinda creepy and you run the risk of getting poop (or worse) on you, but hey, job security!

I know a couple nurses, and a bunch of doctors. Given their stories, I think I'd be happier with the lack of job security.

the loathing of the US by much of Latin America

I'm significantly older than Julio Franco, and I don't remember this ever not being the case.

I'm significantly older than Julio Franco, and I don't remember this ever not being the case.
I'm older than JF too -- although not significantly, you old fart :) -- and I agree. I remember seeing archival footage of VP Richard Nixon getting virtually shat upon on a trip (Venezuela, maybe?)

the loathing of the US by much of Latin America

We loathe then just as much right back for giving us the basis for that crappy Andrew Lloyd Webber/Madonna movie.


I also blame Art Howe just out of reflex.

Also, this ohhhhhh yes it will certainty over the North American Union and/or Chinese control strikes as me little... overwrought. Not unfounded, but not entirely realistic.

You barely heard a peep about this during Bush's admin. The instant a Democratic candidate gets near the White House, however, out comes the black helicopter brigade. Odd, that.

We loathe then just as much right back for giving us the basis for that crappy Andrew Lloyd Webber/Madonna movie

And the Macarena too.

the loathing of the US by much of Latin America

I'm significantly older than Julio Franco, and I don't remember this ever not being the case]

three words: United. Fruit. Company.

the loathing of the US by much of Latin America

I'm significantly older than Julio Franco, and I don't remember this ever not being the case.

Latin American Loathing of the US is contingent upon many factors, the primary two being whether we effed with them militarily, and whether we effed with them economically- how recent or how far back in time doesn't matter.

The latest bizarre strategy from the McCain campaign: Actually defending the people at the rallies who yell out "terrorist" and "kill him". This is from Rick Davis:

Barack Obama’s attacks on Americans who support John McCain reveal far more about him than they do about John McCain. It is clear that Barack Obama just doesn’t understand regular people and the issues they care about. He dismisses hardworking middle class Americans as clinging to guns and religion, while at the same time attacking average Americans at McCain rallies who are angry at Washington, Wall Street and the status quo.

Even worse, he attacks anyone who dares to question his readiness to serve as their commander in chief in chief. Raising legitimate questions about record, character and judgment are a vital part of the Democratic process, and Barack Obama’s effort to silence and shame those who seek answers should make everyone wonder exactly what he is hiding.

To paraphrase Bush "They hate us for our produce?"

The latest bizarre strategy from the McCain campaign: Actually defending the people at the rallies who yell out "terrorist" and "kill him". This is from Rick Davis:

Barack Obama’s attacks on Americans who support John McCain reveal far more about him than they do about John McCain. It is clear that Barack Obama just doesn’t understand regular people and the issues they care about. He dismisses hardworking middle class Americans as clinging to guns and religion, while at the same time attacking average Americans at McCain rallies who are angry at Washington, Wall Street and the status quo.

Even worse, he attacks anyone who dares to question his readiness to serve as their commander in chief in chief. Raising legitimate questions about record, character and judgment are a vital part of the Democratic process, and Barack Obama’s effort to silence and shame those who seek answers should make everyone wonder exactly what he is hiding.

This is pure poetry, and I have to give Rick Davis credit where credit is due: If there were a Pulitzer Prize for bullshlt, this would make the competition skulk away like beaten curs. A bit more practice and he could be our next Ezra Pound---who, I might add, was from Idaho.

And if you look at Reagan from that perspective, then rhetoric aside, he didn't act all that differently in light of events than most every other postwar president would likely have done in his place. Just as today, I still think that WRT Iraq the differences between Obama and McCain are far more rhetorical than substantive, and that both will be guided more by events (including the financial situation) than they will by anything they've promised during the campaign. Which is not necessarily something to be condemned in either case.

I think the differences are just the opposite: they're far more substantive than they are rhetorical. Obama has perceived a need to soften his rhetoric in order bring in conservative democrats and independents and the stray Republican, and in so doing now winds up sounding more like McCain than he did six months ago. OTOH Obama has given no indication that he thinks the war in Iraq is winnable--he doesn't say it's impossible to win an occupation of this type, though I'm sure he knows it's impossible. I'm certain too, that unlike McCain, Obama knows that the comparison of the occupation of Iraq with the long-term American presence in Japan and Germany is preposterous, and that that comparison by McCain betrays an enormous misunderstanding of the nature of the Iraq conflict. I'm sure, too, Obama understands that the cost to the US of maintaining an occupying army sufficient to reduce violence in Iraq is unsustainable, another big difference between him and McCain.

Not to dance on the graves of Corporate America or anything, but the restructuring industry (I work for Alvarez & Marsal) is about to start busting at the seams with work. We just won the Lehman restructuring job, are on track to get another large financial entity restructuring/wind-down, and will be looking at tons of failed LBOs over the next two years. We can't hire people fast enough. Yay countercyclical industries!

Kyle S: the Rhett Butler of BTF.

But that doesn't make him a simpleminded cipher, unless you're just reflexively applying that term to anyone who radically disagrees with you.

Uh, no.

Like it or not, by 1980 Ronald Reagan had spent half a lifetime reading and thinking about politics and political issues,...

Thinking? Not in any profound sense; not in any real sense. It's not either/or, in that he was either a real thinker on the subject, or he was an idiot. When I wrote simpleminded, I meant exactly that. Reagan was not curious, he was not capable of involved reasoning, and I have seen no evidence suggesting otherwise.

If you can find anything in, for example, Reagan's diaries (excerpts here) that indicate something other than a mediocre intelligence, anything at all that resembles logical inquiry, by all means let me know.

And if you look at Reagan from that perspective, then rhetoric aside, he didn't act all that differently in light of events than most every other postwar president would likely have done in his place. Just as today, I still think that WRT Iraq the differences between Obama and McCain are far more rhetorical than substantive, and that both will be guided more by events (including the financial situation) than they will by anything they've promised during the campaign. Which is not necessarily something to be condemned in either case.

I think the differences are just the opposite: they're far more substantive than they are rhetorical. Obama has perceived a need to soften his rhetoric in order bring in conservative democrats and independents and the stray Republican, and in so doing now winds up sounding more like McCain than he did six months ago. OTOH Obama has given no indication that he thinks the war in Iraq is winnable--he doesn't say it's impossible to win an occupation of this type, though I'm sure he knows it's impossible. I'm certain too, that unlike McCain, Obama knows that the comparison of the occupation of Iraq with the long-term American presence in Japan and Germany is preposterous, and that that comparison by McCain betrays an enormous misunderstanding of the nature of the Iraq conflict. I'm sure, too, Obama understands that the cost to the US of maintaining an occupying army sufficient to reduce violence in Iraq is unsustainable, another big difference between him and McCain.

I guess that I just think that no matter whether Obama or McCain gets elected, certain facts about Iraq are going to be staring them in the face.

---Americans want out.

---Americans don't want to be seen as being chased out.

---The Iraqis may or may not be (underneath it all) more afraid of the aftermath of a quick withdrawal than (underneath it all) they're afraid of the Americans, but those hypothetical fears may also to a great extent be trumped by nationalism. Why is it so surprising that Iraqis want to control their own country without an occupying foreign army to jack it up?

Not to mention that those civilian casualties, while barely registering on our own radar, do not go unnoticed by Iraqis. If the roles were reversed, we'd have given birth to a thousand Timothy McVeighs.

Against all this, and given American opinion, I doubt if even McCain himself is going to be able to hold back the pressures for a speedy withdrawal.

But it's also true that the "Nixon to China" factor will be at work, which in this case would act in opposite directions for McCain and Obama: It would enable McCain to get out faster without losing face, while to an extent it would slow up Obama, no matter what his instincts. IOW I'm pretty sure he'd proceed with caution.

And after you take all these factors into account, I honestly don't see that there's going to be much of a difference in what happens over there, no matter which one gets elected.

Another factor restraining McCain, of course---and this is going to hold especially true in light of the depressed world economy---will be (IMO) an extreme reluctance on the part of our "allies" to lend any support to a policy that's NOT geared towards an accelerated U.S. withdrawal.

That "victory" BS that McCain's been spouting? I don't think that it's pure politics at all. In fact it may be the one genuine opinion (other than his visible contempt for Obama himself) that I'll give him credit for in the course of his otherwise pathetic campaign. I think that he honestly believes it.

But I don't think that John McCain, no matter how sincere he is, is going to be able to put his finger in the dike for all that long, not with every other factor I've mentioned working against him. I think he'll put on the old George Aiken robe, declare victory---and go home.

Color me either naive or cynical, or both, but that's the way I see it.

Like it or not, by 1980 Ronald Reagan had spent half a lifetime reading and thinking about politics and political issues,...

Thinking? Not in any profound sense; not in any real sense. It's not either/or, in that he was either a real thinker on the subject, or he was an idiot. When I wrote simpleminded, I meant exactly that. Reagan was not curious, he was not capable of involved reasoning, and I have seen no evidence suggesting otherwise.

If you can find anything in, for example, Reagan's diaries (excerpts here) that indicate something other than a mediocre intelligence, anything at all that resembles logical inquiry, by all means let me know.

No question that Reagan's thought processes weren't a complex as we'd have liked for them to have been. And WRT to most of his policies, I'd of course have to agree with you.

But on the issue of Communism---or more specifically WRT to the Soviets---I think that you might consider what the late Susan Sontag had to say back in the early 80's, in a somewhat famous address she made at a Solidarity rally in New York.

She said that if she'd wanted to learn the essential truth about the history of Communism in practice from the back issues of periodicals, she would have learned more that was useful out of the pages of the Reader's Digest than she would have out of the pages of The Nation.

She wasn't saying this to pimp the overall political stance of the Reader's Digest. Not at all. She knew of that magazine's simpleminded approach to pretty much every political issue under the Sun.

But she had the forthrightness (for a known radical) to recognize that the Reader's Digest, for all of its simplemindedness, had seen through the fog of Soviet propaganda in a way that The Nation never really had. While the Reader's Digest was printing firsthand testimony of refugees from the Gulag, The Nation was writing convoluted apologias for the Moscow Trials and the overrunning of Eastern Europe.

These may be "simpleminded" facts. But they're facts nevertheless. And it made Susan Sontag, and lots of others on the left, wonder just who was the simpleminded one.

And in this case, it wasn't Ronald Reagan, no matter what other long run damage in other areas he might have wrought upon our society. Whatever else you can say about him, he understood---far better than many of his critics---the essential nature of the Soviet brand of totalitarianism. And he had the right word for it, too.

The Iraqis may or may not be (underneath it all) more afraid of the aftermath of a quick withdrawal than (underneath it all) they're afraid of the Americans, but those hypothetical fears may also to a great extent be trumped by nationalism.

It is simpler than this. The main party of Shiites, supported by Sistani, are running the show now, and he and they want us out.

The "mainstream" Shiites finally have the upper hand in their country, and while the US was helping them in that endeavor for a while, it is now a hindrance. They are starting to go after the Sunni "Awakening Counsels" [what have you done for us lately], and after those Shiites [Sadr] who are not part of it.

Arab politics, as it has played itself out for a very long time. Me and my brother against my cousin; me and my cousin against the world.

Thinking? Not in any profound sense; not in any real sense. It's not either/or, in that he was either a real thinker on the subject, or he was an idiot. When I wrote simpleminded, I meant exactly that. Reagan was not curious, he was not capable of involved reasoning, and I have seen no evidence suggesting otherwise.

If you can find anything in, for example, Reagan's diaries (excerpts here) that indicate something other than a mediocre intelligence, anything at all that resembles logical inquiry, by all means let me know.

Although I disagree with your characterization of Reagan, I'm more interested in the fetishization of intelligence in our presidents. Obviously stupidity is not a desirable quality in a president, but I'm not sure why a "real thinker" is better than somebody who possesses sound judgment and leadership skills.

A list of the five most intelligent presidents of the past century, going by IQ, would probably look something like this, in no particular order.

1. Jimmy Carter
2. Woodrow Wilson
3. Herbert Hoover
4. Bill Clinton
5. Richard Nixon

Carter was (almost) a nukular engineer who graduated in the top 10% of his Naval Academy class, but also history's greatest monster, a weak man with absolutely no leadership ability.

Wilson was, even by the standards of his time, a vicious racist. He also imprisoned political dissidents.

Hoover was a brilliant engineer and skilled administrator, but was unable to see the Great Depression coming, or do anything to stop it once it arrived.

Clinton was the best of the bunch, but his lack of personal discipline/judgment undermined his ability to lead.

Nixon, well... nuff said really.

In short, there's no evidence that once past a certain threshhold, being really, really smart is useful for a president. In fact, the smartest guys are pretty much the worst of the bunch. The other aspects of the job are far more important, and have nothing to do with whether one is a "real thinker" or not.

Clearly, the good face doesn't conceal a good brain behind it.

I do not agree with your assessment of Carter's presidency. In large measure he was a victim of circumstance, just as most other presidents are. Carter appointed Paul Volker, who was probably more directly responsible for the economic boom of the Reagan years than anyone else.

IMHO, the worst presidents in history have been:

1. George W. Bush
2. Warren Harding
3. Richard Nixon
4. James Buchanan
5. Andrew Johnson

I don't have anything to add to 937, Andy. It's an excellent summary of how Reagan's--shall we call it "unambiguous"?--thinking at the time suited him for bringing clarity to the nature of the USSR and to dealing with it. As for 936, there may be Nixon/China possibilities for McCain wrt to the Middle East, yet I see no sign at all that McCain has the capacity to see those possibilities should they arise.

Against all this, and given American opinion, I doubt if even McCain himself is going to be able to hold back the pressures for a speedy withdrawal.

Don't be so sure. Bush has resisted those pressures, and even escalated in the teeth of them. The only pressures to which McCain might succumb would be Congressional, if Congress stopped funding the occupation. McCain seems to absolutely believe the occupation is winnable, so his utmost resistance to pressures for withdrawal can be expected.

But it's also true that the "Nixon to China" factor will be at work, which in this case would act in opposite directions for McCain and Obama: It would enable McCain to get out faster without losing face, while to an extent it would slow up Obama, no matter what his instincts. IOW I'm pretty sure he'd proceed with caution.

Possible, wrt to Obama, but again he would have his repeated assertions that he would withdraw US troops within 16 months to point to. There would be enormous pressures from within the Democratic party and from the electorate to keep to that timetable. Further, short of outright genocide, what could happen in Iraq that would be traced, without ambiquity, to a troop withdrawal as that withdrawal was under way, and thereby halt that withdrawal? As for McCain getting out faster without losing face, since he will have no inclination to get out at all, I just don't see this happening.

I'd put Buchanan right up there with Bush. The ####### guy committed treason.

Kyle its problem a matter of taste but I would throw Grant on that top 5 somewhere. Just curious if Nixon would have been on the top 5 for Watergate alone, or for the fact that he kept Vietnam going for longer that it should have. I would think that if he would have ended it earlier like he could have then maybe Watergate would not have happend.

In short, there's no evidence that once past a certain threshhold, being really, really smart is useful for a president. In fact, the smartest guys are pretty much the worst of the bunch. The other aspects of the job are far more important, and have nothing to do with whether one is a "real thinker" or not.

I am reminded of a quote about FDR that has always stuck in my head (I forgot who said it unfortunately, but it was an ADMIRER IIRC). The guy said that FDR was a "B+ intellect" but an "A" in people/leadership/political skills.

So, I think I agree with the thrust of the comment, if not necessarily with everyone on the list you made.

Although I disagree with your characterization of Reagan, I'm more interested in the fetishization of intelligence in our presidents. Obviously stupidity is not a desirable quality in a president, but I'm not sure why a "real thinker" is better than somebody who possesses sound judgment and leadership skills.

I see an unnecessary dichotomy here, face. "Sound judgment" follows from "real thinking", and one form leadership skills take is persuasion. When persuasion has a rational basis (as opposed to Obama's a terrorist socialist! while McCain's mortgage bailout is high capitalism!!), the chance of a good, lasting result increases.

Kyle its problem a matter of taste but I would throw Grant on that top 5 somewhere.

I wouldn't. Grant was merely a bad president. Those top 5 were destructively bad.

As awful as Bush has been, he's not nearly as bad as Buchanan. Buchana is really way past everyone else when it comes to being an awful president.

Hmm.

Buchanan
Wilson
FDR
Bush
LBJ

Five doesn't leave us room for warmongers like Polk or TR, or weaklings like Carter or (Andrew) Johnson.

EDIT: That's off the top of my head; if I sat down systematically I might change one or two. But the ones I picked were all very bad, so it would be hard to displace them. Nixon's bad, but I think he misses the top (er, bottom) 5. Also, with more time to consider it I might slightly change the order of the five I selected.

If war mongering was a basis for nomination then I'm sure McKinley would make it too

So, combining movies and politics, is anyone going to see W? I have zero interest in it,lefty though I am. Liked Platoon but not a Stone fan.

I am interested in seeing Valkyrie in Dec. although I am not a Cruise fan. Think it is a great subject for a film.

RDF.

Only Nieporent would list FDR, one of the 5 best presidents we've had, as one of the five worst presidents.

If war mongering was a basis for nomination then I'm sure McKinley would make it too

I don't think that's really true, he was kind of forced into it by a war-hungry public. McKinley actually resisted the call to go to war for a while, but after the Maine there was just too much public demand for it

Only Nieporent would list FDR, one of the 5 best presidents we've had, as one of the five worst presidents.

Bad on civil liberties, bad on economic liberty, bad on economics generally. Tried to pack the Supreme Court, something far worse than Bush ever did. Have you ever had an original thought about politics in your life, or do you just repeat what you learned in sixth grade social studies ad nauseam?

So I'm watching the news and seeing that McCain had to defend Obama as not an Arab terrorist, and get booed (!) at his own rally. And also that the Alaska board commission has chosen to make the report on the investigation of Gov. Palin public. We could be watching the disintegration of the Republican party as we've known it for the past 12 (26?) years; kinda like what happened to the Dems after '88.

I could actually see a real shame in McCain's body language as he was listening to his supporter says that he was "fearful" of an Obama presidency, since he cavorted with "known terrorists". I really think if I were McCain I might call a press conference tomorrow morning to say: "I've made the decision to fire all of my advisors, and I'm going to staff my campaign with only friends of mine, and from now on you're going to hear the real John McCain." (Unspoken: "#### the Rove-ists. I never liked or believed in any of that #### anyway.")

It might be his only shot to, not win (I find it hard to posit a believable scenario at this point that will accomplish that), but save his own political legacy and political, soul, I guess, for lack of a better word.

It might be his only shot to, not win (I find it hard to posit a believable scenario at this point that will accomplish that), but save his own political legacy and political, soul, I guess, for lack of a better word.

If he does that, he's also have to drop Palin, and then spend the next four weeks apologizing non-stop. He'll also only salvage his reputation among a small portion of the centrists - the left will think he's a bastard for all the things he's already said, and the far-right will think he's a traitor for essentially throwing the election. As far as I can tell, he's screwed no matter what he does.

Unless, of course, the elusive "Whitey" tape makes an appearance.

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - A legislative committee investigating Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has found she unlawfully abused her authority in firing the state's public safety commissioner. The investigative report concludes that a family grudge wasn't the sole reason for firing Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan but says it likely was a contributing factor.


The Republican vice presidential nominee has been accused of firing a commissioner to settle a family dispute. Palin supporters have called the investigation politically motivated.

Monegan says he was dismissed as retribution for resisting pressure to fire a state trooper involved in a bitter divorce with the governor's sister. Palin says Monegan was fired as part of a legitimate budget dispute.


***

So I'm watching the news and seeing that McCain had to defend Obama as not an Arab terrorist, and get booed (!) at his own rally.

Yeah. I sent that along to Andy as an email.

the left will think he's a bastard for all the things he's already said

The left is about to win. Presumptive winners are a lot more open to forgiving and forgetting. Sure, crazy liberals will hate him no matter what, but I think a lot of thinking libs and barely left-leaners would have had a hard time voting against McCain v.2000, and would welcome him back to the fold of the respectable.

and the far-right will think he's a traitor for essentially throwing the election.

I didn't know you could "throw" a game you're already losing 8-1 in the 8th inning. Besides, the far-right hates him anyway. You ever hear Rush's "I don't have to carry water for people who don't deserve it" rant against the "fake" Republicans after the 2006 midterms? I imagine his Nov. 5th show is going to be verrry similar.

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - A legislative committee investigating Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has found she unlawfully abused her authority in firing the state's public safety commissioner.

I can't understand this. Palin already determined that Palin didn't abuse her authority. Surely the report on Palin produced by Palin wasn't biased in favour of Palin, was it?

PALIN PALIN PALIN!

(This post has a fever, and the only cure is more Palin!)

Tried to pack the Supreme Court, something far worse than Bush ever did.

Yeah, Bush just tried to ignore the Constitution while Roosevelt just tried to get a more modern Supreme Court.

I really think if I were McCain I might call a press conference tomorrow morning to say: "I've made the decision to fire all of my advisors, and I'm going to staff my campaign with only friends of mine, and from now on you're going to hear the real John McCain." (Unspoken: "#### the Rove-ists. I never liked or believed in any of that #### anyway.")

It might be his only shot to, not win (I find it hard to posit a believable scenario at this point that will accomplish that), but save his own political legacy and political, soul, I guess, for lack of a better word.

If he does that, he's also have to drop Palin, and then spend the next four weeks apologizing non-stop. He'll also only salvage his reputation among a small portion of the centrists - the left will think he's a bastard for all the things he's already said, and the far-right will think he's a traitor for essentially throwing the election. As far as I can tell, he's screwed no matter what he does.

Probably so, but it would make for quite a moment, and believe it or not, there are a lot of people who would forgive him.

Of course one of the reasons we'd forgive McCain for his campaign up to that point is that he'd then probably wind up with about 30% of the vote after all was said and done. It's a lot easier for us to be forgiving in circumstances like that....[EDIT: I see you've already made this point in #959.]

And #955, don't be shy about using the "s" word, because to lots of us, that's what's at stake for McCain here: his political soul. Right now his campaign has left it somewhere in the gutter, and he doesn't have much time left to retrieve it.

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - A legislative committee investigating Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has found she unlawfully abused her authority in firing the state's public safety commissioner. The investigative report concludes that a family grudge wasn't the sole reason for firing Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan but says it likely was a contributing factor.

But it also found that firing him was lawful.

I don't think that's really true, he was kind of forced into it by a war-hungry public. McKinley actually resisted the call to go to war for a while, but after the Maine there was just too much public demand for it

Yeah I guess but as we have seen by some of the arguments offered that presidents get alot of the blame as well as alot of the credit for some of the things that happen during their term. The annexation of the Hawaii happened during his presidency as well which leads credence that he had no problem with advancing American interests over legitimate governments.

ICODJB;NPS, while I think you're right about people generally willing to be a bit more gracious in victory, the McCain campaign has been pulling some absolutely crazy ####. I generally think that there's a line which, once crossed, most people are no longer willing to forgive, and I think McCain may have already blown by it.

I can't really speak about the perceptions of the right, as I really don't know many people who would qualify under the category of "far right", or at least enough to get a general sense of their position. Mostly, I'm going by what I've read, rather than first hand experience.

Robin, thanks for that link about McCain's getting booed at his own rally. Not much to say other than to note it as one more bit of evidence of a party going not so slowly insane.

But it also found that firing him was lawful.

Only three paragraphs were up when I found it and I posted them all. Here is the link, with a longer piece, which ends by saying the panel does not recommend "criminal sanctions" or investigation:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081011/ap_on_el_pr/palin_troopergate

Tried to pack the Supreme Court, something far worse than Bush ever did.

Yeah, Bush just tried to ignore the Constitution while Roosevelt just tried to get a more modern Supreme Court.

This is why it's hard to take liberals seriously. FDR "tried to ignore the Constitution"; the court wouldn't let him, so he tried to actually force out/disenfranchise all the judges that ruled against him to get a more pliable Supreme Court that would accept his unconstitutional policies. But this is called "modernizing." Bush, on the other hand, accepted the Supreme Court rulings when they said his policies violated the constitution. But this somehow makes Bush worse. Why? Only reason I can think of for this bizarro view is that you approve of FDR's socialist policies.

"Legislative panel consists of 10 Republicans, 4 Democrats"

That's going to make it a bit harder to spin this as a "left-wing conspiracy".

I am watching Fox, though, and "Hannity and Colmes" just started, so I'm sure Sean will suck it up and find a way.

But it also found that firing him was lawful.

Which do you think is more likely to be the big story? The lawful firing, or the unlawful abuse of authority? I'm guessing the latter.

The former will be buried, much like the "Ayers was never actually convicted of a damn thing" line. People aren't particularly interested in the non-illegal things others did.

I would think that most people on the left would have a problem with FDR because of the Japanese- American internments during WW 2.

Dick Morris: "Palin was perfectly justified in firing this trooper. This is an openly political investigation. They're only investigating this because she's the vice-presidential candidate...."

Alan Colmes: "This investigation was going on before she was the nominee."

Dick Morris: "Yeah, but this wouldn't have come out four weeks before the election otherwise, c'mon."

*clap, clap, clap* I KNEW they wouldn't let me down!

Edit: OTOH, Rachel Maddow looks like she's about to have an on-air orgasm, so it cuts both ways.

The former will be buried, much like the "Ayers was never actually convicted of a damn thing" line. People aren't particularly interested in the non-illegal things others did.

Well, Ayers wasn't convicted not because he wasn't guilty but because the evidence was tossed out because it had been illegally gathered. Ayers makes no secret of what he did, so it's not as if his guilt is controversial.

Edward James Olmos' agent better pick up the cell phone; it's probably NBC calling him trying to cast Walt Monegan for the "Troopergate" made-for-TV movie.

Edit: Also, Greg "Matt Parkman" Grunberg is a shoe-in for Trooper Mike Wooten.

The legislative committee investigating Palin was, I believe, unanimously approved by both Dem and Republican legistators.

Responding to Andy -- my comments are hardly aristocratic, and 9/10ths of my comments are not from left-wing sentiment, but basic populist rhetoric against the idea that Barack Obama represents any kind of change from the status quo.

Certainly, he doesn't have the rightwingers and neoconservatives that line up behind McCain/Palin, but nearly every one of his positions represents the status quo of politics in America at this time -- pro-war, pro-Wall Street, pro-corporatism. I'm sure there's some truly progressive policy initiative lurking somewhere in his platform, and not merely the standard, "he's not Republican" position of the current Democratic party. He voted for continued funding of Iraq, has expressed his support for increased military presence around the globe, does not support universal health care -- point out a few to me, not counting policies he's voiced support or opposition to and then voted the other way.

If I've pumped up the anti-Democrat rhetoric, it's because the bailout 'vote' was a slap in the face that showed me exactly where the Democrats, including Obama, stood. I'm hardly some enlightened aristocrat -- I've been lulled to sleep accepting any alternative to Bush and by the bright shiny object that is Obama. I work for a living, producing a product with skilled manual labor that serves a public good, and I meet new people from nearly every socio-economic background every week of the year, urban and rural, north and south, rich and poor, educated and uneducated, young and old. Not that any of this gives me all-knowing insight into 'the people', but I'm not sitting in an ivory tower reading Chomsky or meditating in front of a picture of Nader.

My recent posts have been emotional and heartfelt, certainly angry. My reading material has been Alice Miller. Personally, I've lived in too much denial regarding authority figures, both projecting them as larger-than-life and feeling powerless to confront them in the real world. What's left here is pretty much me, warts and contradictions and all. I've largely abandoned my reasonable persona that attempts some David Brooks/NYT/'educated' response to every issue. It's basically b.s. I don't want reasonable, I want real, something not chewed up in little pieces for baby birds to swallow. I don't want false dichotomies, don't want to read any more newspaper articles written on a third-grade level, no pols like Obama condescending to me in word and deed.

Moloch the incomprehensible prison! Moloch the crossbone soulless jailhouse and Congress of sorrows! Moloch whose buildings are judgment! Moloch the vast stone of war! Moloch the stunned governments! Moloch whose mind is pure machinery! Moloch whose blood is running money! Moloch whose fingers are ten armies! Moloch whose breast is a cannibal dynamo! Moloch whose ear is a smoking tomb! Moloch whose eyes are a thousand blind windows! Moloch whose skyscrapers stand in the long streets like endless Jehovahs! Moloch whose factories dream and croak in the fog! Moloch whose smokestacks and antennae crown the cities! Moloch whose love is endless oil and stone! Moloch whose soul is electricity and banks! Moloch whose poverty is the specter of genius! Moloch whose fate is a cloud of sexless hydrogen! Moloch whose name is the Mind!

BTW, who is the poster who can out-debate Joe Biden?

BTW, who is the poster who can out-debate Joe Biden?

Well, I thought you said many posters here could "tear him apart", notably yourself, so, going by that, hell, it could be anybody.

Maybe it is the same poster who does "kevin's innermost thoughts."

I don't know. Based on your comments ("I imagine many people here, myself included, could have taken Biden apart"), it could be almost any of us.

EDIT: Curse you robinred. Where should I send the coke?

Where should I send the coke?

Funny. The same thing happened with kevin's Shawshank ref in this thread, but in that case your post went up first.

This post has a fever, and the only cure is more Palin!

I should've invested in her baseball card.

Funny. The same thing happened with kevin's Shawshank ref in this thread, but in that case your post went up first.

So we're even then? Or do you want to swap an American Coke for a Canadian Coke?

David,

My handle was "SaveUsBullpenJesus" (referencing Jeff Samardzija) until the Cubs gacked all over the floor two weeks ago. I changed it to what I have now because I thought it was funny. I can change it if it's a problem; at first I just made it "I can outdebate Joe Biden", but I didn't know if anyone would get it without referencing your comment. (I also couldn't fit your whole name in the space alloted). But, again, if it's a problem, I apologize, and will create a new "nom de plume".

For the record: not Biden, but I think I could take Palin; given two weeks of study and if she makes the mistake of actually trying to answer one of my questions.

Edit: "take Palin" was probably a poor choice of phrase.

But, again, if it's a problem, I apologize, and will create a new "nom de plume".

Personally, I think you and Andy should keep the new handles through Election Day.

I'm not offended; I was just curious. If my name is going to be taken in vain, I at least want to know who's doing it.

I don't want reasonable, I want real, something not chewed up in little pieces for baby birds to swallow. I don't want false dichotomies, don't want to read any more newspaper articles written on a third-grade level, no pols like Obama condescending to me in word and deed.

Twenty more million people actually thinking like this, and we'd actually have a viable third-party candidate one of these years. Seriously; half of the things Ron Paul said in the debates made me want to stand up and cheer, and the other half made me cringe at his obvious bat-#### insanity.

Only reason I can think of for this bizarro view is that you approve of FDR's socialist policies

And you detest those things that are not Libertarian which quite obiviously means you ain't going to like FDR
But this is called "modernizing."

considering that a lot of those unconstitutional things he was doing has now become accepted practices I would say yes it is modernizing.

David, did you have a response to my question to you in 754?

I'm also interested. I wouldn't say I know much about FDR beyond what I learned in basic history (still more than many know). Outside of all the miserable, terrible acts and policies - in your opinion - he committed, how do you feel he did handling the war?

David, did you have a response to my question to you in 754?

I assume you mean this question:

Does this mean you also think that you have no tie to the holocaust? Or rather, that your children won't, perhaps?

As I said, I don't really know what it means (I've ranted before about the word "tie," which means anything and therefore means nothing), but in the same sense that American blacks alive today have no "tie" to slavery, yes, I think that I/my children will have no "tie" to the Holocaust. (I do/did know people -- not my own relatives -- who survived the Holocaust, since it was much more recent than American slavery. But if merely knowing people who experienced it was sufficient, then why wouldn't Obama have the same "tie" that other American blacks do?)

I'm also interested. I wouldn't say I know much about FDR beyond what I learned in basic history (still more than many know). Outside of all the miserable, terrible acts and policies - in your opinion - he committed, how do you feel he did handling the war?

Well, I obviously wish he had done more about the Holocaust, but overall, I don't have complaints about the way he prosecuted the war (setting aside internment). I certainly don't buy the conspiracy theory about Pearl Harbor. I'm not an isolationist, and anyway even most of the most extreme isolationists generally think WWII was okay.

WWII never gets characterized as a massive failure. It was a failure in one major respect, the American's/allies got to Germany too late for 7 million Jews. WWII was not the unmitigated success everyone thinks it is. Hopefully we get to Iran before it is too late.

I don't know many jews (and I know many jews) who would simply say they have no tie to the holocaust. Just that phrase, without a sad lawyerly repetitious use of quotes or Clintonesque definition of "tie".

I think that dismissing across the board an American black's tie to slavery because of how YOU think of it is simply poor behavior.

Would you dismiss so easily and say the same to scores, to thousands, and even millions of jews alive today? That they have no tie to the holocaust, in the way you and your children also do not? I really think that's the height of arrogance, to question the validity of their thoughts and emotions. Not only that, but to question an entire population's collective experience. No blacks alive today need feel a tie to slavery. At all.

Hell, place yourself 100 years in the future, would you simply toss aside those thoughts from the population of jews? OK, go ahead and forget now?

I dunno. Talking to you is continually depressing.

Hopefully we get to Iran before it is too late

Yeah, cause Iran has comparable economic and military power to Nazi Germany

War can never be an unmitigated success. Millions of people were going to die in WWII. The Allies failed to save the Jews much the same way that the Allies failed to keep thousands of soldiers alive on D-Day. It isn't like the allies could have put a stop to the holocaust any time they liked. Once America got into the war they acted fast and basically within 2.5 years of boots touching ground they (along with USSR was going to win this war w/o American troops) had brought an end to the war in Europe.

Are the Western countries free of guilt? Of course not, but in terms of the war itself failing to stop the holocaust was not a failure. You can say the holocaust was a failure of appeasement diplomacy or 30's thinking but not of WWII itself. WWII's failings had to do with the Yalta and Potsdam conferences as well as not settling the old issues of colonial empires.

Have you ever had an original thought about politics in your life, or do you just repeat what you learned in sixth grade social studies ad nauseam?

Walking the country through it's worst economic slump and biggest war successfully doesn't make much of an impression, huh?

Why am I not surprised? Has it ever occurred to you that FDR is commonly referred to as one of the great presidents because it's indisputable that he wasn't?

Nah.

Being a major contributing factor in the country's worst economic slump does make much of an impression, but not a very good one.

As for WW2 being the "biggest" war, I suppose if you don't park and era adjust that might be true, but obviously the Revolutionary War and Civil War were "bigger" in the sense of being actual existential threats to the U.S. In any case, as I said, I don't have a quarrel with his handling of WW2 -- except for internment -- but what's his VORP there? What did he do that was so great that another president wouldn't have done? Germany First? Lend-Lease? What's your argument there? You need a little more than your sixth grade education, sorry.

Seriously; half of the things Ron Paul said in the debates made me want to stand up and cheer, and the other half made me cringe at his obvious bat-#### insanity.

Of course, for me, this is how I experience the two guys going now.

But it also found that firing him was lawful.

Of course, that's a red herring, since there was never really any question that she had the legal authority to fire him.

Being a major contributing factor in the country's worst economic slump does make much of an impression, but not a very good one.

Nieporent is hallucinating again.

Dave, it was Hoover that did all the damage. Roosevelt corrected all the mistakes Hoover was making. You should get your head out of Atlas Shrugged and read a real book every now and then.

Lincoln was our greatest president and he suspended habeus corpus. Roosevelt did what he had to do to save the country from fascism, which is probably why you don't like him so much.

You're all nuts. Neither Hoover nor Roosevelt had a lot to do with the causes of the Depression. No president has all that much to do with the immediate economy. There were a lot of factors that went into it but I'd say the dye was pretty much cast by 1925.

It's the same as this crisis. The Ds want to blame Bush and they can make a lot of good points. The Rs would like to blame the Ds and they can make a lot of good points. The general public would like to blame the "rich" and they can make a lot of good points. No one is really saying it, but you can make a lot of good points by pointing out that the general public likes to have a bunch of stuff without paying for it and is perfectly happy to have a little cushy job that doesn't actually produce much while some schmuck in Asia makes actual stuff for a dime a day.

In other words, we didn't arrive here because of one evil guy or organization and attempts to score political points off the trouble will do much to further folks getting elected but little make things better.

Oops.