Pearls Before Swine
Yes, it was a great speech, the more so for its unadorned honesty, not for soaring, rhetorical cadences like those of his campaign. Yes, he told the Roberts Court to its face what damage it has done. Yes, he put Republicans on the spot over the filibuster and their nation-destroying negativity. And he hit lobbyists and even big corporations.
What has changed for me, though, is my growing (hardening) conviction that the chamber he was speaking to is stuffed to its gills with frauds. (There are exceptions.) Beyond the few measures on which there is a rare alignment of stars, nothing he called for will happen, unless his road trip unleashes a firestorm in the American people against Congress for the systemic sins mentioned above.
Most Americans didn't watch the speech. And with good reason. They've heard laundry lists and fine rhetoric before. As long as most Americans' default position in politics remains what I said it is after the Massachusetts debacle, Congress will remain unworthy of Obama's broad wisdom and self-discipline, and it will remain wide open, therefore, to the most malign and predatory interests.
"A republic, if you can keep it," Ben Franklin said, doubting that, in the long run, we could. I don't want to doubt it, but of late I see very little evidence that we can or will.
But hasn't the republic survived graver doubts than mine for more than two centuries? Certainly, from the moment King George III was gone, the Founders took a hard look at the American people and became obsessed with how a republic ends. Franklin sketched the odds at the Constitutional convention. He warned that the Constitution "can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall have become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other."
History showed that this can happen not with a coup but a smile and a friendly swagger like George W. Bush's, as soon as the people tire of the burdens of self-government and can be jollied along into servitude -- or scared into it, when they've become soft enough to intimidate.
Alexander Hamilton sketched the stakes when he wrote that history had destined Americans, "by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force."
How might that happen? "History does not more clearly point out any fact than this, that nations which have lapsed from liberty, to a state of slavish subjection, have been brought to this unhappy condition, by gradual paces," wrote Founder Richard Henry Lee.
The Founders were all reading Edward Gibbon's then-new account of how the Roman republic had slipped, degree by self-deluding degree, into an imperial tyranny. Leaders could bedazzle citizens out of their liberties by titillating and intimidating them into becoming bread-and-circus mobs that "no longer possessed that public courage which is nourished by the love of independence, the sense of national honor, the presence of danger, and the habit of command. They received laws and governors from the will of their sovereign and trusted for their defense to a mercenary army ... ."
Gibbon added pointedly that Augustus, the first emperor (I tend to think of George W. Bush when I read this passage), "wished to deceive the people by an image of civil liberty, and the armies by an image of civil government" and that he knew that "the senate and people would submit to slavery, provided they were respectfully assured that they still enjoyed their ancient freedom." Campaigning in an open shirt, as it were, "that artful prince ... humbly solicited their suffrages for himself, and for his friends, and scrupulously practiced all the duties of an ordinary candidate ... . The emperors ... disdained that pomp and ceremony which might offend their countrymen but could add nothing to their real power. In all the offices of life they affected to confound themselves with their subjects and maintained with them an equal intercourse of visits and entertainments."
And so Rome became what Gibbon called "an absolute monarchy disguised by the forms of a commonwealth," not by conspiracy but thanks to a confluence of deeper currents that had enervated people's republican virtues and beliefs.
This, of course, is precisely what Republicans promised, for eight years -- no, for 30 years, ever since Ronald Reagan's winning campaign in 1980 -- that they would save us from, with the help of God, deregulation, and martial valor. They convinced a lot of Americans that it was liberal governmentalists who wanted to coddle them into servitude and decadence.
Plenty of liberal folly reinforced that perception, and Obama wrestles with the burden of trying to dispel that perception even as he tries to make government as pro-active as it truly needs to be. But he also has the burden of most Americans' obdurate refusal to admit that rule by big, private corporations, not government, is ever more confining, intrusive, and even degrading of our virtues and our public courage -- in employment, entertainment, patterns of consumption, even the subtle skewing of public discourse (journalists, write this down!), as well as of government itself.
John Adams wasn't blaming only government when he warned that, "[w]hen the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers, and destroyers press upon them so fast, that there is no resisting afterward. The nature of the encroachment upon the American Constitution is such as to grow every day more and more encroaching. ... The people grow less steady, spirited, and virtuous, the seekers more numerous and more corrupt, and every day increases the circles of their dependents and expectants, until virtue, integrity, public spirit, simplicity, and frugality become the objects of ridicule and scorn, and vanity, luxury, foppery, selfishness, meanness, and downright venality swallow up the whole society."
We are there, I fear. At least, that was my feeling as I watched a President who is as wise as the founders addressing a den of hogs sent there by an American people that seems more deeply beleaguered and befuddled than at any time in my life, which has been long enough to include some pretty bad times.
Over at The Daily Dish, Andrew Sullivan shares my assessment for the most part and responds to this post, adding that the time has come to fight with and for Obama against not only the special interests but the conniving legislators and Justices who serve them.
That kind of mobilization and resistance -- drawing on clean anger from a civic-republican center, if you will -- is what the American Revolution was about. Do we still have the public courage, the sense of national honor, and the habits of command necessary to do it again?
Can't I agree with myself, and you. They are swine. Absolutely. And frauds.
And that is why it is so f--king hard.
Just be grateful you don't have to deal with Bayh, Lieberman, Nelson...and the Republicans.
Obama may fail. He probably will. But only because the American experiment (like that other country you and I know so well) is failing.
January 27, 2010 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, I think we're both right -- and that both sides of you are right.
I do hope that my pessimism is proven wrong, and maybe the right combination of Obama's great leadership and a really desperate crisis (which I think is coming) will bring more people to their senses.
The Republicans now in office will not and cannot change. They're so wired for malevolence and fear that they really wouldn't know how do anything but feed on the immense swamps of those qualities that are being deepened by so concentrations of power in this country that are systematically (if also mindlessly) degrading the American people and then reaching the conclusion that there is no alternative to ruling us by force and fraud.
January 27, 2010 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
What youre saying is completely true. I agreee with you
children health
January 12, 2011 7:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do agree with all the ideas you have presented in your post. They’re very convincing and will definitely work. Still, the posts are very short for starters. Could you please extend them a bit from next time? Thanks for the post.by healthy families and child health plus
March 26, 2011 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is kind you have concern, although
1) You are wrong with you implications, President Obama has supported all of the President Bush 1 and 2 polocies and the corrupt Clinton Polocie that repealed Glass Stegal and allowed the unregulated corrupt 2000 Commodity futures Act. The banks seemingly had no choice, ignored Whistleblowers and something else that I frgot at this momment.
2)President Obama has done the very opposite of every President Obama Elect Promised, both morraly and ethically, on all the important and major issues.
Even though all at TPM appreciate your verball eloquence, I suggest you post on a much less frequent basis other than daily or multiple daily posts and give other eloquent TPM Writers the opportunity to post srticles.
Thank you.
January 27, 2010 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I respectfully disagree.
I value their posts, but then I don't believe you and I have the same values on most issues judging from your postings here.
Kindness and respect is always better than rancor and attempts to demean others.
Blessings.
January 28, 2010 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do not understand your 'Respectfully Disagree' comment. You do not mention one area of disagreement and you only concurr what I have frustratedly stated.
You give me no slack and only render seemingly direct disparging implied ad-hominen remarks upon me. That appears the only intent of your reply towards and upon me.
Very sad appears the correct summation. Incidently, I try to be kind and respectful, therfore I hope you will accept my apologies as it was not my intent to offend you or anyone.
January 28, 2010 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
We're fighting two wars, Sam. Are we doing that with kindness and respect? People in all too many parts of the world and at home live or die based on the priorities the President sets.
January 28, 2010 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
bluebell,
I was speaking of bloggers and if only all we do could be so!
January 29, 2010 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your patience and sorry for the inconvenience!
Best regards, Mary, CEO of youtube to mp3
December 17, 2010 3:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am just trying to compliment your concern is why I am re-posting my concern. Thank you
Sadly and as these are highly educated people, it appeared as hoodwink and with a clear lack of any more fully expected of Democratic Moral Ethics.
(Also, completely hidden from all Executives, Legislatures and including Main Stream Media and apparently disguised as a rebuke was another seemingly compliment and concurrance to all to our Supreme Court Members and our US Senate Judicary Committee who according to all these highly distinguisehed and highly educated prople overturned a 200 year Democratic Process.)
Also as a direct support of my allegations is that Prsident Obama did not respond to me, his Briefing Book and the over 300 Orgainizations that have continually wrote him for almost 2 tears for President Obama to support his WRITTEN AND VERBAL PROMISES!!!! to the National Whistleblower Center for the 'FEDERAL EMPLOYEE WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ENHANCEMENT RESTORATION ACT' of 2000,01,02,03,04,05,06,07,08,09,10.
In my sad procrastination, my hoodwinking allegation appears that it may be seemingly kind to the eventual forthcomming comments and future TPM blog comment replies.
1) Simply, In a viable Democracy Everyone is entitled to Food, Shelter, Clothing and which includes reasonable (Health) care.
2) The refusal to allow cruel and unusual punishment as a crime or as an appeal, is a crime, especially within the enactment of the Death Penalty, period. The enactment of the Death Penalty or threat thereof is not supported by any concept of any viable Democracy, Law or Religion, period.
January 27, 2010 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, go spam somewhere else, or at least get back on your meds. This is getting truly annoying.
January 28, 2010 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you a lawyer for the health care industry or what?
If so, why and how did you find the time to reply with your ad-hominen, no substance dishonest and disparaging remarks?
Enlighten us.
January 28, 2010 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Enlighten us."
"Us?" How many of you are in there, anyway?
January 28, 2010 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your 61 'handle' must refer to a age or graduation?
Tell us of any Fiduciary duties, endeavors and/or respectful rsolves you have upheld, supported or have any respect for?
Simple question. Can we expect a reasonable answer from you or only your continued nonsense ad-hominen remarks.
January 28, 2010 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
(2 Timothy 3:1-5) . . .But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, self-assuming, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up [with pride], lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power; and from these turn away. . .
I suspect when it is evident the final chapter on the American experiment is about to be written; the unifying religion of these scoundrels will be Patriotism
"These are the gentry who are today wrapped up in the American flag, who shout their claim from the housetops that they are the only patriots, and who have their magnifying glasses in hand, scanning the country for evidence of disloyalty, eager to apply the brand of treason to the men who dare to even whisper their opposition to Junker rule in the United Sates. No wonder Sam Johnson declared that "patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." He must have had this Wall Street gentry in mind, or at least their prototypes, for in every age it has been the tyrant, the oppressor and the exploiter who has wrapped himself in the cloak of patriotism, or religion, or both to deceive and overawe the people." Eugene Debs
January 27, 2010 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some one say it take one to know one.
January 28, 2010 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Sleeper,
The only thing I can disagree with (not endorse for most part) is the allegation regarding 'the frauds'. They don't pretend, nor do their actions protray them to be anything but what they are - for the most part narcissistic egotists whose only agenda is personal gain and greed. And they sit on both sides of the aisle! (Okay yes, one side does seem have the majority.)
That said, thanks for post and agree about your thoughts on President Obama.
Appreciate.
January 28, 2010 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
You hit it out of the park! Yes, it is personal greed and arrogance that are the root of the problem, or to put it in more basic terms, our Congressmen are human beings. I doubt that more than a small percentage of us could survive being in Congress without taking the opportunity to secure our future by working with the corporate pimps that roam that building. Just remember, if the go along, and don't rock the corporate boats, they are assured of financial stability for their remaining lives. And, most are also assured of keeping their cushy jobs as long as they want them. How many human beings could resist that?
What is needed is a vigorous prosecution of bribery offenses, along with a beefed up legal definition of bribery to include acting in favor of those who provide rewards for doing so. Minus that, nothing is going to change.
January 28, 2010 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you high? Have you lost your mind?
You sound like Chris Matthews getting a tingle up his leg.
Obama is "Truly as wise as our founders"? Even he has been admitting that he muffed this whole year.
Are you kidding?
Then this "pearl"...
It is unprecedented and a much bigger departure from decorum for a President to slam a recent ruling of the Justices as they sit in the front row in order to goad his Congressional lackeys to taunt them. What a boor and complete political dunce. For the love of god, does he not realize that Kennedy wrote the decision and is his only hope of a swing vote? What a fool.
If he thinks congress can get around Kennedy's decision now, Obama just sealed his own fate.
So let me get this straight. Obama is as wise as Adams, Hamilton, Franklin and all the founders combined, but...
1. The legislative branch is not worthy of licking his wingtips
2. You like seeing a sitting President trash talk with and taunt the Justices of the Supreme court "To their face" (as you put it), who also are not worthy of breathing the same air
3. The American people who by every conceivable poll disapprove of his performance, disapprove of health care reform, think his Stimulus package was a boondoggle and a failure, consider his latest class warfare tirades as anti-business and think he is clueless on security issues ....are all unworthy of his epic wisdom
What world is worthy of such a font of light as this One?
If there is a better world than ours where he will fit in, maybe it is one where public servants understand that they serve the people,..if mere mortals exist in this world he seeks.
Then after cheering on his taunts to the unclean masses you go on and on about tyranny and despotism being the logical result of George Bush's so-called "swagger". If what you just described in Barack Obama is not swagger, no...its worse, its gall and arrogance on a level I have never seen in a state of the Union.
Yet after describing this man as some Philosopher King that the entire rest of the government and a majority of the people disagree with or are not worthy of is so much wiser than everyone, and you claim to be afraid of the delusions of your fellow Americans that might fall into Despotism?
I think you need to read those books on the founders again, but the book is upside down my friend. Washington's 5 minute SOTU was the model of Presidential modesty. This was Swagger on a level never seen before.
This man is politically tone deaf and he is on a suicide mission, if this is the path he has chosen.
Your blindness that would characterize him as the one eyed man in the land of the blind is the equivalent of the story of the mother that saw her clumsy son in the marching band and said, "Look honey, our son is the only one that is in step".
If anyone else saw what you did, I truly do fear for the fate of our Republic.
January 28, 2010 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, most people here and elsewhere did see exactly what was in post. Could it be possible that you are the one whose perception is negatively skewed?
Really, please stick to facts, instead of snarky attempts to denigrate and demean. If you did this, perhaps there could and would be the opportunity to discuss instead of just diss.
January 28, 2010 1:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't fault someone who might say they agree with his policies or his goals. Reasonable people can differ on what direction our country should follow. The President even said at one point that reasonable people in this body can have sincere disagreements of the role government plays in our lives. What I do find disturbing is for someone to portray him as above the entire political process and someone who is so touched in a supernatural way that it gives him some sort of entitlement to disregard the democratic process that gave each one of these legislators and Justices the privilege and duty of serving the people they represent. Every President I have disagreed with in my lifetime had a certain awe for the dignity of this office and the responsibility they have to serve all of the people.
What I saw tonight was him flipping the bird to the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States and saying he doesn't care what the people want, he is doing things his way. When he said "with all due deference to the balance of powers", he basically said, the deference that is due is not much. His arrogance and Chutzpah might be cheered on as fighting back by some, but what is really disturbing is for someone to watch this strutting and backhanding of the will of the people and come away wanting to quote our founders and claim that if we don't give this unpopular President what he wants, we will fall into despotism.
This kind of apocolyptic hyperbole has now become commonplace in the current political environment, and it is dangerous and divisive. Pass Stimulus or we fall into the "abyss" as he said. Pass HRC or the nation goes "bankrupt". Disregard the will of the people and obey the Philosopher King or we will fall into despotism. This is madness. And then shrouding it all in the language of our founders.
I can see reasonable people disagree on policy or on policies mentioned in a speech or whatever, but this doomsday talk is dangerous and it scares the American public. If tonight was red meat for you, the people were hoping to have fears allayed. This will only make fear itself more than our only thing we have to fear. The people have had enough.
January 28, 2010 2:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't agree that Obama was "flipping the bird" to the Supreme Court; if anything, it is these radical-activist judges on the conservative majority who have made a mockery of the principles of "original intent" and stare decisis they had claimed to revere. Since 2000 the Supreme Court has been disgracing itself, and, while Obama was right not to say anything that strong, he was quite right to call attention to it.
Most of the people who lead the United States Government in Washington, whether as Justices or as Congressmen or, indeed, as toilers in the Executive Branch, or who spend their time inWashington commenting on government or trying to influence it, do not, for the most part, have any inkling that it is suffering a crisis of legitimacy that is approaching breakdown. They are too much immersed in a self-reinforcing house of mirrors to realize that, basically, the strength and efficacy of the American state in anything like itse present form is running out like a fast tide. The reasons are many, but they share in the blame. Obama does see this, and, if anything, he has been too temperate about it.
January 28, 2010 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
It seems as though your argument is if the Commander in Chief, the head of the executive branch, doesn't like a ruling by the Justices, he is not only justified in slamming them to their faces in the State of the Union, but that the Justices somehow deserve this and worse. Then you close by saying he has been too temperate. Are you arguing that he should have been more insulting to them? I think the biggest insult is for a low grade constitutional law professor to stand up in a constitutionally adorned procession and lecture the highest and most august judicial representatives in the world about his petty whims. If Joe Wilson was disrespectful to another branch of government, Obama was a petulent boor and a disgrace for what he did.
Part of the 220 year tradition of the SOTU is that the three branches meet in the presence of the Press and the people and we all demonstrate some form of respect for the dignity of each of these 5 entities that are present. Your argument seems to be that occasionally if one of these branches through the process of carrying out their duties as they see them, is some how distasteful to you, that this dignified manner that we have expected for 220 years should be thrown out the window, in order to give them a jab they deserve.
This is an emotional response and if it were to be done by your opponents, as many believed it was with Joe Wilson, you would be outraged. The fact that it was premeditated and directed at the traditionally muzzled SCOTUS is even more despicable.
If this is the argument you are making the next step is raucus shouting like the British Parliament and eventually fist fights like those on the floor of the Legislative bodies of Taiwan or South Korea.
We have traditions for a reason. Once again, this being that you claim is the wisest man in the room, who claimed he wanted to change the tone and usher in a new era of unity, just made a divided nation even more divided, through his own childlike temper tantrums.
January 28, 2010 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone else think TJKING should be annointed:
THE VERBOSE CHIHUAHUA
....choice excerpts (who could seriously read his crap in total?)
TJKING's guy, George W. did not 'swagger', no he was the one who lied about WMD and scared us with visions of mushroom clouds, sought approval for invasion a few weeks before an election in a move of political jujitsu, made the decision to send thousands of Americans to their deaths in an unnecessary war that was supposed to pay for itself, approved torture of US prisoners flushing the reputation of America down the bloody drains of Abu Ghraib, had a birthday party as the residents of New Orleans struggled for their lives with a FEMA run by a failed horse show lawyer and crony of Bush, started two wars and finished none, taunted terrorists to 'Bring 'Em On' while Americans were in the field in foreign lands, coddled corrupt governments in Afghanistan and Pakistan, declared 'Mission Accomplished' in May 2003 before over four thousand more Americans would die in Iraq, nominated his unqualified personal lawyer to the Supreme Court, and on and on.
TJKING is not a person in touch with reality, as with our other Chihuahua reading his blather or responding to him is a waste of time.
January 28, 2010 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
First, so Kennedy will vote not on whether something is constitutional or unconstitutional, but because he wants to get back at Obama for attacking him in public for something former SCJ Sandra Day O'Conner is on the warpath against as undermining the judicial branch this country (vast majority of non-federal judges have to go through election process)?
Much of what your slant is based on the premise that the vast majority of people, the "will of the people" is against his entire agenda.
The vast majority of Democrats in this country still support him. Independents are split 50/50, and of course the Republicans truly don't like him (we are divided nation, suprise). So there isn't some grand "will of the people" that stands against Obama and his agenda. And the polls, which you are fond of it seems, shows that roughly 70%+ thought it was good. One of those polls, CBS News, showed 83% approved of his proposals and 70% of the speech watchers "believe that Obama shares the same priorities for the country as they do. Only 57 percent thought so before the speech." So even before the speech, there wasn't some grand "will of the people" opposed to his direction and agenda.
http://www.newkerala.com/news/fullnews-39552.html
Appears to me that you should first look at your own hyperbole before casting that particular stone.
January 28, 2010 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You'll find that many, if not most, of TJ's points dissolve like the mist if you give them a moment's thought--as you and Jim and Noble just did.
January 28, 2010 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for describing the speed, in this case a moment, that it takes for facts to enter your brain and become lost in the fog.
January 28, 2010 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kennedy obviously believes strongly in the judicial decision he authored. It can't be said this was Scalia or Thomas. This is the same swing vote that the left regularly lauds as the moderate that has moments of brilliance as he sides with Ginzburg and Stevens.
If Constitutional law lightweight, who last night mistakenly confused the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, is willing to stand up and lie to the rabble about the SCOTUS so his sychophants could jump up and taunt them,... If he wants to stand up and say, these people that are taunting you are going to come up with a legislative workaround to undermine the core of what Kennedy wrote, It only makes sense that Kennedy will recognize immediately that what Obama is saying is,...
"I don't respect your authority, Justice Kennedy, and I am not going to respect the balance of powers, nor I am I planning on an exchange that shows I am dealing in good faith to respect the differences between these three constitutional bodies. What I am doing is trying to steamroll you and straight arm your deeply held beliefs, because I consider them to be illegitimate"
It is clear, if a President starts out a give and take in such a disingenuous manner, he has already thrown down the gauntlet that he is not looking for common ground on core principles and merely searching for ancillary adjustments that will make the three bodies come into agreement, He is starting out by completely delegitimizing Kennedys entire argument. Kennedy and any Justice in this position will not be expecting a legitimate exchange, he will be looking for a threat, a vendetta, a scam and a hoax to come his way. Which is what Obama said last night.
Your ridiculous projection is quite revealing. What we saw last night was a petulant child throwing a tantrum and lashing out at people that he thinks have wounded him. One hell of an impressive messiah.
January 28, 2010 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is perfectly operating within the balance of powers. To direct Congress to legislate new rules that will limit the power of corporations to influence elections, and so to level the playing field so that democracy can work, is not undermining the authority of the Supreme Court.
The idea that corporations (which are abstract legal constructs) are entitled to individuals rights such as free speech is as great an abstract construct as is there is, i.e. we say it is so so it so. But tomorrow they could say it isn't so, and then it wouldn't be so.
And so in this entirely abstract world of constructs, Obama said simply that their personal interpretations (constructs upon constructs) had over-reached. So while the principle is true, there has to be limits.
Just as their is the limit of yelling fire in a crowded movie house, or bringing a gun into a courtroom. Merely legislative moves to deal with the outcomes of the rulings around constitutional freedoms.
In this case, the Supreme decided to ignore the reality of the consequences of their decision, that ultimately there is nothing in the constitution that deals with corporations so any freedoms given to them is a-constitutional - neither constitutional nor unconstitutional.
(and personally - if Kennedy truly believes corporations and individuals should be treated as equals, he doesn't deserve that much respect.)
January 28, 2010 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree as most blog comment replies on this website have been to support the 'We the People' and Aunt's and Grandma Millie's (one of many who was expected to suffer from Enron schemes) from our complete dishonest behavior of our US Executive, Legislature and Judicial Branches of our US Government.
Aunt Sam your only comment have been to disparage others. There have been many past and recent comments on this website and many other websites that 'We the People' have no forthright forthcomming to vote for in the future and with overwhelming expression of regret for many past decades of votes which appears to leave a choice to vote for the Devil or not vote.
AUNT SAM, PLEASE TELL US ABOUT YOUR PAST AND FUTURE VOTES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AUNT SAM, PLEASE TELL US YOU POSITION OF THE FACTS AND AS TO YOUR DISPARAGING ATTACKS AND THE SUCCESSFUL ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF YOUR PAST AND FUTURE ACTIONS AND VOTES.
January 28, 2010 2:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, gee, so glad you asked.
But first, why don't you deliver specifics as to the disparaging and other negatives I've proffered. Starting with what specifically in any comment to you did you find so disparaging and go on from there?
Disparage = disrespect, disdain, stigmatize.
I respect one's opinion and freedom to speak, but do not condone non-fact based insults, rhetoric nor lack of civility.
I have reviewed my comments on this post and do not believe I have disparaged - but disagreed.
*****************************************
i.e.: response to King: Gee, most people here and elsewhere did see exactly what was in post. Could it be possible that you are the one whose perception is negatively skewed?
Really, please stick to facts, instead of snarky attempts to denigrate and demean. If you did this, perhaps there could and would be the opportunity to discuss instead of just diss.
*********************
And if you have time for this, might I respectfully suggest you take same amount to work towards helping achieve some of the positive goals cited in SOTU?
January 28, 2010 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
And my response to you top of comments:
************
I respectfully disagree.
I value their posts, but then I don't believe you and I have the same values on most issues judging from your postings here.
Kindness and respect is always better than rancor and attempts to demean others.
Blessings.
*************************
Wow, sorry to be so disparaging?!?
January 28, 2010 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
My apologies that I am apparently unable to accomodate your requests and apparently for the same reasons as;
1) Unfortunately you are unable and/or unwilling to provide any facts,
2) The only readily apparent and available substance is your continued ad-hominen disparaging attacks directly upon me and most all other comments and now with sarcasm and Dictionary referrals and instructions.
Again, you probably are not accomodative to my suggestions, although as a few suggestions;
1) You do not have to reply to me directly and others for that matter, simply provide your own suggestions, views, accomplishments and any success you may have obtained and as the President Obama Speech you apparently love so much and where President Obama said to our US Legislatures (or as seemingly implied anyone)'TO STOP THESE PERSONAL ATTACKS' simply bring your 'IDEAS' TO PRESIDENT OBAMA AS HE CLEARLY STATED HE IS 'WILLING TO LISTEN'.
AGAIN, AUNT SAM, IT IS NOT MY INTENT TO OFFEND AND I APOLOGIZE IF YOU ARE OFFENDED AS IT IS NOT MY INTENT TO OFFEND ANYONE.
AGAIN, HOPEFULLY YOU WILL NOT FURTHER ATTACK, DISPARAGE AND BE DIRECTLY OFFENSIVE TOWARDS ME AS YOU HAVE CONSISTENTLY DISPLAYED IN WITHIN THIS MR. JIM SLEEPER TPM CAFE ARTICLE.
Again, my apologies for any discomfort and any or the offensive inconvenience upon you within my blog comment replies.
January 28, 2010 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, how about this, I just won't acknowledge your existence. That will circumvent any perception, real or trumped up, that I am in any way disparaging you and yours.
Since you are unable or unwilling to put forth specifics, I will stillltell you my record on voting:
I am a registered Independent.
I voted for Obama, never voted for GWB.
I endorse all the President put forth in SOTU except have concerns and not on board regarding implementation of new nuclear power plants and have yet to have facts on validity of clean coal energy, so cannot support until I do. Not clear on the extent of drilling and will wait until obtain clarification before I jump on board.
I believe Obama inherited horrific mess and believe the vast majority of repubs and some dems have proven to be more concerned about personal agendas and own gains than what is best for country and Americans.
Realize this is very condensed, but delivers sense of my stances.
Have a nice day.
January 28, 2010 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Aunt Sam if you are truthful in the fact that you will not further post a direct reply blog comment to my blog comment replies to this Mr. Jim Sleeper TPM Cafe Article.
Again thank you for your implied promise to not post your views and comments directly to me within this Mr. Jim Sleeper as from my view they do not contain any sufficient relevant facts.
Incidently, I would never imply, impose or directly ask anyone as to how they voted. Your allegation is wrong and/or misintrepreted and clearly and unmistakeably out of context. Again, the many of formidable blog comment replies on the TPM Website for years have clearly expressed disatisfaction with outcome of there votes and also the corruption invloved in the voting system and thoughout our US Government. Many blog comment replies have mentioned extreme sadness and apathy towards our 'We the People' Voting privilages with there mentions of not to vote in the future and/or have to vote for the lesser of 2 evils = implied 'the devil'.
Aunt Sam, I wish you every success in your future endeavors. I hope and within your implied promise to me and if it not an inconvenience upon you and TPM that you continue to learn (as your comment that I very briefly read implies) and express your views and concerns.
Thank you. I am relieved and continue to pray to hope that we are all hoping for the best.
Again, my apologies for any of my insensitives on your behalf.
Thank you.
January 28, 2010 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
A frequent post writer on this TPM Jim Sleeper blog wrote this in one place:
And in another place this frequent TPM Jim Sleeper blog post writer has written:
I humbly point out what seems to be an inconsistency, only because TPM blog commenter
Aunt Sam has previously recused herself from further direct comments directed toward aforementioned frequent blog post writer on TPM Jim Sleeper blogs.
-- ARG
January 30, 2010 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you may be trying create an argument and assumptions that are neither accurate and/or out of context.
As far as I comprehend there has been no exclusion of anyone to blog comment on this website and TPM, Mr Jim Sleeper Authored Article.
I have not fully read your blog comment replies, although I presume Mr. Jim Sleeper and many others wish you the best.
From my view I have said or done nothing to offend you. If you feel I have offended you, please accept my apologies as and again it is not my intent to offend anyone.
January 30, 2010 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also in further review of your seemingly expressed thorough??!! review is that, please notice I distinctly did not apply a QUESTION MARK to your above reference and distinctly applied !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! exclamations NOT A DIRECT MANDATE OF A QUESTION AS YOU DELIBERATELY HAVE IMPLIED.
And again and as I presume you well know, I have absolutely not intended to exclude anyone, period, to a Jim Sleeper or any TPM Post and as you well know, I have no such authority, whatsoever to do so.
I have never requested or suggested to complain to TPM, period. Even though it may not have been your intent, please allow me to request that you more appropriately in the future try to not create decension or arguments towards and upon me that appear unwarranted and/or unnecessary.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
January 30, 2010 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
In my effort to be more pleasing and where applicable, complimentary to your concerns.
Aside from the perceived and well mentioned allegation from many as to the aspect of the presumed voting apathy that the choices may be to either not vote (as seemingly reported more than 50% do not vote) and many remaining voters have expressed to not vote again and/or have to choose between the lesser of two evils or devils.
Additionally and somewhat from context and that there are many views that our US Government is being held nugatory....... is that there is a seemingly reasonable concept and to be presumed from reasonable persons and myself that a Candidate whom hoodwinks or deceives a Voter is unethical and/or may be criminally unethical (and which may also seemingly leave the voter as a victim and/or unintended victim).
This is a very brief and hurried reply from recollection of a prior blog comment reply of years ago on TPM from me. Please allow me to apply any necessary retractions, corrections and/or sugggestions that may be necessary and/or for further review.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
January 30, 2010 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. The speech was honest and masterfully delivered, but it will not change anything. The saboteurs can't be shamed into doing what's right for the American people.
January 28, 2010 2:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't put Bill in the same class with Obama. Still, so many time I watched Clinton's attempts to take the high road fail while the other side wielded their brickbats. The pres needs to sit some Senators and Senate leaders down and talk nice to them while being fully prepared to bang some heads, LBJ style. This if he expects to get anything done. The intramural conflicts between so called Democrats must be aknowledged and addressed, within those walls. The consequences for acting otherwise are clear to us all. (Ronnie's use of direct addresses to the people isn't, for future use, a bad idea either.)
January 28, 2010 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee thanks, Mr Sleeper. Now I'm really depressed!
January 28, 2010 3:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
What has changed for me, though, is my growing (hardening) conviction that the chamber he was speaking to is stuffed to its gills with frauds.
Jim, this may be your best and truest (and also saddest) post yet on TPMCafe. You often refer others to posts you've made in the past. Let me refer you to one I made last May. It may offer just a ray of hope--but the question then becomes how do we get the spirit described in my May post to rise to the national level?
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/p/u/purple_state/2009/05/america-at-its-best.php
January 28, 2010 7:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
PurpleState, The post you made in May shows how the government closest to the people even has the same tendency for big wigs to attempt backroom deals that may not be in the best interest of the people. But as you noted, with a dedicated and dutiful populace as it seems you are lucky enough to be a part of, there is a better opportunity to short circuit the big wigs, who may be well meaning, but do not represent the people. Thanks for reminding us of the power inherent in our most humble examples of our democratic traditions.
January 28, 2010 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post, Jim.
As always, very thoughtful and heartfelt.
And accurate.
January 28, 2010 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well done. I think Obama will continue to struggle the balancing act of being a statesman, attempting to guide the country in both its internal and external affairs, while at the same time being the party's leader, keeping in mind that the politicians need to get elected and that coalitions will need to be made not only acoss the aisle but also within the party.
I also think one of his biggest struggle is balancing being president of the entire country and an elected Democratic president. Especially since he was successful both during the primary and the general election because he was able to bring a coalition of people -- conservative, independents, liberals -- together. Of course, his strongest and largest group are those who identify themselves as Democrats.
So he promised to close Gitmo. But the legislators push back. And the polls show an overwhelming support for the continuation of Gitmo. It is the right thing to do, but there will be political fallout (in large part because of the residue of fear that the previous administration left behind). Does he listen to the people or does he do now what he believes is in the best interest of the US in the long run rather than wait a little while before pushing the issue again?
In the end, he needs Congress to get its act together. And as you said they won't do that until the people push them. And they won't push them, at least not in a sane and progressive manner, until they become more engaged and informed on the issues. I ain't holding my breath.
January 28, 2010 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe in part I am confirming your summation and any apathy or pessimissim that may have been perceived.
There have been many, in summation, confirming blog comment replies on this website for many years, such as;
1) If you continue or make worse the Bush policies, 'You Own Them'.
2) It is not the Action that undermines our Democracy, it is the reaction that undermines our Democracy.
It has also has been mentioned many time on this website that several of our previous decades of Leadership within our Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches of our US Government have failed.
I continue to Pray to Hope that within the enourmous advances in many areas including our Communication and Technologies that the Democratic 'We the People' common sense in our Republic will soon prevail from our Leadership.
Thank you.
January 28, 2010 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
What the heck is "we the people" common sense? When I see the term common sense thrown around in such cases, too often it is a way of indicating a distrust of intellectualism. "We the people" common sense can be said to have led a many of folk to make their decision of Bush over Gore, not over policy issues, but because Bush seems like the kind of guy you could have a beer with.
People complain about politicians spewing out lies and obfuscation (and I have complained myself), but the sad reality is that too often for a politician to stand up and say what it really is, to take the necessary steps in order to make the sacrifices that will lead to a healthier country, that are immediately "punished" in the polls and the election booths.
Is it "we the people" common sense that will lead a community to rise up in outrage over a base closing, when it has been shown that it is unnecessary expenditure and supporting our continued huge debt, while at same time expressing outrage over that huge debt?
January 28, 2010 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for your reply.
Please, first, foremost and most importantly, please accept my apologies if in any way I have indicated a distrust of Intellectualism.
I would like to respond and say much more and answer all questions. Unfortunately, I have tried my very best (and for many decades) and have apparently done all I am capable of within my limited position.
Again, thank you for your response and my apologies for any incorrect perception.
My apologies for any insensetivity that may have been interpreted from my hurried, impromptu and frustrated blog comment replies.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
(I assume I may continue to suggest that I certainly will continue to listen to any reasonable suggestions as to how I may more fully and best support our great 'We the People' Democratic Country that is supposed to properly and forthrightly uphold our US Constitutional Democracy, Bill of Rights, (Civil Rights) and our Declaration of Independence endeavors with Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness for all (and with the proper and forthright respect to God, Man and Country.)
January 28, 2010 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The best way to fully and best support our great We the People Democratic Country is to finds ways to inspire the people to fully engage the issues and politics, while at the same embracing facts, curiousity, sacrifice, creativity, compassion, and open-mindedness. Godspeed.
January 28, 2010 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many of the formidable blog comment replies on this relatively new Blog Media Website have mentioned these exact concerns and intrusted with their votes of our Leaders to accomplish and maintain these very issues of embracing trust within the facts.
Unfortunately most blog comment replies agree and the facts suggesting to tend to support the failures within many of our most important issues from our Elected Officials and Leadership within the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches of our US Govenment and suggesting more noticably and/or notably within the recent decades.
Also and as you may well know there are many formidable blog comment replies that indicate they Voted and for a well promised, defined and expected certain direction and received another and/or received the same continuing and/or opposite of what they believed they where promised within the trust of their Vote.
Good luck and best wishes for proper and forthright successful worthwhile accomplishments within your inspirational quest endeavors.
January 29, 2010 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kindness and respect is always better than rancor and attempts to demean others.
Smeg Dishwasher
September 16, 2010 5:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
You helped me a lot indeed and reading this your article I have found many new and useful information about this subject. the diet solution program
April 3, 2011 1:34 AM | Reply | Permalink