Home › Blogs › Jai Ho Tied's blog ›

A Night In New York

Submitted by Jai Ho Tied on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 08:48
in

There’s a long list of reasons why the Republicans are no longer seen as a serious political party by a growing number of people. One of these is that they tend to pick the most inane things to make a big deal of. Now they are upset about Barack Obama taking his wife out for an evening in Manhattan–something which I love to do whenever I get the chance.

The last Republican president lied us into a war, undermined our national security, disgraced our country by resorting to torture, interfered with stem cell research, and wrecked the economy.

Barack Obama had took a night off in New York City and they really think anyone is going to be upset.

It gets even worse. Republicans tried to get people to oppose Obama and back them because, for one evening, Obama did something which was somewhat (but hardly extraordinary) extravagant.  For Republicans to  make such an argument takes about as much chutzpah as for them to attack a Democratic nominee with claims of racism.

 

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Bush

Submitted by Inigo on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 13:19.

Bush spent 1,050 days on vacation during his two terms.  One night out for the Obama's isn't going to mean the end of the world.  I doubt he's ignoring any important PDBs or wasting his time clearing brush planted by the secret service.

It is not that he took a night off

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 14:38.

It is that he went to a city. You see, small towns good, cities bad. Or at least, that's the way the Republicans spin it. Obama is our first truely urban President, and that takes a lot of getting used to for some folks.

 

 

Excuse Me?!?

Submitted by Cahnman on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 15:22.

How did our last Republican president lie us into war?!?

Don't have time to list them all, there are 953 documented lies

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 16:04.

These guys have document 953 Bush Administration lies about Iraq. Here is their summary of the tops from the run-up to the invasion:

  • On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney's assertions went well beyond his agency's assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from?' "
  • In the closing days of September 2002, with a congressional vote fast approaching on authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, Bush told the nation in his weekly radio address: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year." A few days later, similar findings were also included in a much-hurried National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction — an analysis that hadn't been done in years, as the intelligence community had deemed it unnecessary and the White House hadn't requested it.
  • In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: "Sure." In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of "compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda." What's more, an earlier DIA assessment said that "the nature of the regime's relationship with  Al Qaeda is unclear."
  • On May 29, 2003, in an interview with Polish TV, President Bush declared: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories." But as journalist Bob Woodward reported in State of Denial, days earlier a team of civilian experts dispatched to examine the two mobile labs found in Iraq had concluded in a field report that the labs were not for biological weapons. The team's final report, completed the following month, concluded that the labs had probably been used to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons.
  • On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement "probably is a hoax."
  • On February 5, 2003, in an address to the United Nations Security Council, Powell said: "What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources." As it turned out, however, two of the main human sources to which Powell referred had provided false information. One was an Iraqi con artist, code-named "Curveball," whom American intelligence officials were dubious about and in fact had never even spoken to. The other was an Al Qaeda detainee, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who had reportedly been sent to Eqypt by the CIA and tortured and who later recanted the information he had provided. Libi told the CIA in January 2004 that he had "decided he would fabricate any information interrogators wanted in order to gain better treatment and avoid being handed over to [a foreign government]."

Happy now, you clueless wonder?

 

Where to begin?!?

Submitted by Cahnman on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 16:52.

One of my petty annoyances about the Bush admin. was the degree to which they overrelyed on the WMD argument in preperation for removing Saddam from power.  There were so many other arguments to be made for removing Saddam from power that WMD should have been a sidenote.

That said, on WMD, everyone else in the world thought he had the WMD the United States thought he did.  Furthermore, we did find WMD in Iraq, just not in the quantities we thought we would find them in.  While the United States was ultimately wrong about the quantity of Saddam's WMD, it's worth noting that there is a HUGE difference between being mistaken and engaging in deliberate deception.

Furthermore, although they weren't involved in 9/11 specifically, the notion that Iraq wasn't working with Al Qaeda is rediculous.

The worst thing the allegations you provide prove is that dictators have an inherent interest in convincing the world they're stronger than they really are.

Then again, the history of Western Liberals sucking up to brutal dictators isn't flattering....

You call it a "petty annoyance"?

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 17:31.

One of my petty annoyances about the Bush admin. was the degree to which they overrelyed on the WMD argument in preperation for removing Saddam from power. 

You call lying to Congress and the American people and costing 4,000 soldiers their lives a "petty annoyance"? I call you a ****.

There were so many other arguments to be made for removing Saddam from power that WMD should have been a sidenote.

None of which would have been approved by Congress - so the Bushies went for the lie instead. So much for the strength of your case for removing Saddam.

That said, on WMD, everyone else in the world thought he had the WMD the United States thought he did. 

Nonsense. The intelligence community made it clear that they had no proof, and that what was being touted as "proof" was anything but.

Furthermore, we did find WMD in Iraq, just not in the quantities we thought we would find them in.

More lies. That link to a FOX News story is about a small amount of rubbish that predated that first Gulf War, was not in useable condition, and was probably there only becasue it had been forgotten about, and could not have been used by anyone against anyone. So, not a weapon, not capable of destruction.

While the United States was ultimately wrong about the quantity of Saddam's WMD, it's worth noting that there is a HUGE difference between being mistaken and engaging in deliberate deception.

There is also a huge difference between being alive and being dead, and having all your limbs, and having one or more missing. Thousands of miliary and their families are now dealing with that reality becasue the Bush Administration willfully overlooked the flimsiness of their "evidence" in their rush to do what they had wanted to to from Day One: become a "War Presidency".

 

 

Cahnman, The claims by

Submitted by Jai Ho Tied on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 17:48.

Cahnman,

The claims by Santorum and Hoekstra to have found WMD turned out to be untrue. Even the US government during Bush’s second term that there were was no WMD at the time of the war, as noted in the report of the Iraq Survey Group.

Not only is it untrue that Iraq was working with al Qaeda, the US played right into al Qaeda’s hands. Overthrowing secular governments such as the one in Iraq was a major goal of al Qaeda. To al Qaeda, both Iraq under Saddam and the US were enemies. The 9/11 commission as well as many Defense Department documents and the report on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence all dispute the claims of a connection.

If you want to attack western liberals for sucking up to brutal dictators, linking to an article on a British journalist who died in 1957 is hardly a meaningful attack.

Democrats were sure there were WMD's

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 23:08.

Nando wastes time trying to pin this on Bush. Gore, both Clintons, Kerry et al are on record as saying they were sure the weapons were there before Bush took office. What a crock. And they all voted for the war.

Please don't try to revise history.

Nando

Submitted by chemjeff on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 23:24.

Oh, don't be so hard on Nando.  He is just doing his job as a loyal foot soldier for Daily Kos.

yeah, it was a common case of groupthink.

Submitted by Knackers on Mon, 06/08/2009 - 15:00.

lord save me from idiots!

Where were the complaints

Submitted by Libertarian Bob on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 16:54.

Where were the complaints from the RNC when Bush flew Air Force 1 to his ranch something on the order of 77 times?  Where were the complaints from the RNC when Bush played golf  while ignoring the memos stating that Bin Laden was going to hijack planes and fly them into buildings?  Where were the complaints from the RNC when Bush played hide and seek flying around the country in AF1 while our country was under attack? Where were the complaints from the RNC when Bush played guitar in California while New Orleans was drowing? Where were the complaints from the RNC when Bush admitted to breaking laws via illegal wiretaps and torture tactics? AND Where were the complaints from the RNC when Bush sat by while our economy tanked? The RNC and the Republican Party is nothing more than a joke.

More Seriously

Submitted by Cahnman on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 17:06.

You know just as well as I do that a memo that says: "Bin Laden determined to strike in US; possibly using airplanes" doesn't reveal which airplanes Bin Laden specifically intends to use.  Furthermore, prior to 9/11 no one would have thought an airplane hijacking would result in said plane being turned into a missle.

Cahnman, It did not matter

Submitted by Jai Ho Tied on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 17:51.

Cahnman,

It did not matter that the memo didn’t say which airplanes. As Al Gore described in The Assault on Reason, there was plenty which could have been done with the information available. Many of the 9/11 hijackers were already on government watch lists. Others shared frequent flier numbers or the same address as the hijackers. A concentrated response might have uncovered the attack and prevented it--as the Clinton administration responded to intelligence and prevented the planned Millennium attack

It wasn’t only the daily intelligence brief which Bush ignored. The Clinton administration turned over plans for dealing with al Qaeda to the Bush administration. The Bush administration ignored the plans (and even tried to deny receiving them until evidence that they had received them was confirmed). Bush was basically on vacation for the first eight months of his presidency with respect to defending the nation.

Cahnman, an Arab hijacker in

Submitted by Monique I on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 18:53.

Cahnman, an Arab hijacker in 1993 took over a French airliner and threatened to turn it into a missile.  The Israelis responded by armoring the cockpit doors of El Al planes.  Americans did, er, nothing.

This is why, unlike JHT, I blame both the Clinton and Bush administrations for inattention.

Using an airplane as a

Submitted by Jai Ho Tied on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 19:09.

Using an airplane as a missile was hardly an unheard of idea. Just earlier in the year, the pilot episode of The Lone Gunman (a spin off of The X Files) which aired on March 4, 2001 involved using a plan as a missile aimed at the World Trade Center.

In retrospect it certainly would have been preferable if Clinton had taken even more action, such as armoring cockpit doors. Still the difference is that the Clinton people did take a considerable amount of action against terrorism, despite opposition from Republicans in Congress. Clinton did actually propose increased security for airplanes. The airline industry opposed the plans and the Republicans who controlled Congress went along with them. Similar issues had also come up under George H. W. Bush but Bush had no interest in the issue and it got buried.

While Clinton did take some actions, even if not enough, to counter terrorism, in contrast Bush ignored the issue before 9/11 and grossly mishandled it after 9/11.

P.S.

Submitted by Cahnman on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 17:09.

With all due respect Mr. President, why didn't you wait another week when the Greatest Baseball Team of all Time Would be in Town and you could check out the sweetest new stadium in the world?!?

Well, he and Michelle saw a

Submitted by Isaza on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 17:41.

Well, he and Michelle saw a superbly directed and acted August Wilson’s “Joe Turner’s Come and Gone.”  It’s been Nominated for 6 Tony Awards. Wison is the Shakespeare of the 20th century when it comes to the breath and depth of the plays he wrote:

“The late August Wilson apparently considered Joe Turner’s Come and Gone his “most accomplished play.” Now that Lincoln Center Theater’s revival has opened at Broadway’s Belasco Theater, in a remarkable production directed with boldness by Bartlett Sher and acted by a company unafraid of unleashing outsized emotions, there can be little argument of that statement. Indeed, on the basis of this sympathetically probing treatment, the drama — albeit one packed with abundant comic flourishes — can absolutely be ranked alongside the best pieces of American theater ever written.” ~ Reviewed By: David Finkle (www.theatermania.com).

Also notable is that Bartlett Sher, the director (who won the Tony Award last year for South Pacific)  is the first white director to helm a Wilson play in such a major production — an idea the playwright might not have approved of if he were alive. However, Sher does a masterful job with masterpiece.  The Obamas, I’m sure, saw and experienced something they will long remember last night.

Yawn

Submitted by Cahnman on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 18:32.

Nothing against Broadway, but the single greatest entertaiment opion in New York City is on 161st st in the Boogie Down....

Well, some of them freaked

Submitted by Isaza on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 17:32.

Well, some of them freaked out about him putting mustard on a hamburger.  Their freakout threshold is obviously set so low that I’m surprised the mere thought of a Supreme Court nomination didn’t make their heads explode (or maybe it did).

What is wrong with you people

Submitted by Monique I on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 18:49.

What is wrong with you people who are complaining that he went on a date night? Who cares if it was in new york, chicago or washington..it was his date not yours? And the whole night was not paid for with tax payers dollars…every couple needs a date night and when you are the president of the US im sure you need it more than most couples! Give the guy a break he was doing something nice for his wife...maybe if every wife/husband that opens her or his mouth to cry about him having a date night took that same time and effort and went on a date night with there significant other maybe everyone would be a lil happier? I know I took my hubby out to see a movie last night…and love is in the air here...try spending more time loving life..not hating on others for living theirs'!

 

Don't get me wrong....

Submitted by Cahnman on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 20:59.

I respect the fact that anyone has the right to take their wife to NYC.  Beyond that I suggest you have fun while you're in town.

Having said that, it makes ZERO sense to me why you would go out of your way to visit NYC when the Yankees are out of town.....

me, I find baseball deathly boring.

Submitted by Knackers on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 09:36.

then again, the Pens are down in the Cup... *sigh*

It grows on you

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 23:00.

I used to feel the same way, but now somehow having the Astros on in the background just makes Summer special. Of course, this is a tough year to be an Astro's fan . . .

I think the President should go out more often.

Submitted by Joseph Hertzlinger on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 00:29.

It's when he's at work that I get nervous.

Qualifications for posting on Next Right

Submitted by Joseph Hertzlinger on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 00:31.

Should we allow people who don't know the difference between Type I and Type II errors to post here?

most americans don't know that much statistics

Submitted by Knackers on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 09:37.

(I was trying for about five minutes to put significance into that ... I fail at stat jokes).

A mistake on my part

Submitted by Joseph Hertzlinger on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 21:42.

I meant to post that on one of the "Bush lied us into war!" threads.

There is a trade off between sensitivity and selectivity. If you set the bar too low, you end up invading a typographical error (Iraq instead of Iran). If you set the bar too high, you ignore evidence of a planned attack.

You can avoid both errors at the same time only if you're a magician. Personally, I don't believe in magicians.

vacation double standard

Submitted by chemjeff on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 03:30.

Personally I don't mind that Obama went on a date in New York.  What burns me up the most is the transparent double standard on how the press deals with Obama's vacations and how they dealt with Bush's vacations.  Not only was Bush criticized for the number of vacation days he took, he was castigated for taking vacation days while we were at war, while the economy suffered, while anything bad happened whatsoever.  As if Bush manning the White House 24/7 would have made a difference with the stock market!  And, of course, this completely ignores the fact that NO president EVER gets a REAL vacation day, they are always on the job.

But instead, Obama goes on vacation in New York, on the public dime, while at the same time our economy is doing poorly and when Obama himself chides CEOs for going on Las Vegas retreats on the public dime!  When will we be getting the NY Times editorial criticizing Obama for taking time off, tying up already snarled downtown Manhattan traffic, on a selfish trip while our brave soldiers are dying and our fellow citizens are struggling to make ends meet?  Because that is exactly what they would have written had Bush done the same thing.

Oh, and let's not forget that Obama went to play golf on Memorial Day.  If any Republican had done that, it would be viewed as sacrilegous.  But not Obama, he's above such criticism.

Chemjeff, This is the second

Submitted by JHT on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 09:24.

Chemjeff,

This is the second time you have responded by distorting what the opposing viewpoint is rather than actually responding to the issue. I will not waste my time on any further comments from you which resort to this.

Nobody criticized Bush for taking an occasional day off. He was criticized for both taking a record number of days off and for neglecting important work while on vacation. Obama did neither. There is no double standard here. Nor would anyone have attacked a Republican for playing golf on Memorial Day. This is a clear example of right wingers attacking Obama because they desire to attack him for the sake of attacking him, regardless of the validity of the attack.

Tying up snarled downtown Manhattan traffic? How hypocritical can you get. This sort of thing is almost commonplace in Manhattan, and people seemed excited by having Obama go by.

vacations

Submitted by chemjeff on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 18:09.

This is the second time you have responded by distorting what the opposing viewpoint is rather than actually responding to the issue. I will not waste my time on any further comments from you which resort to this.

Oh my.  Well I guess I'll just have to break out the William F. Buckley Thinking Cap from now on when I'm in your illustrious presence.  My apologies for attempting to bring humor to this very important and serious discussion regarding President Obama's date night in Manhattan.

Nobody criticized Bush for taking an occasional day off. He was criticized for both taking a record number of days off and for neglecting important work while on vacation.

Ha!  You do realize, of course, that Presidents don't ever get a real vacation day?  That they are always on the job?  Bush chose to spend a great deal of his time working at his ranch in Crawford rather than in the White House.  This was portrayed by the left as Bush lounging around and watching football or something, by snarky comments like "Bush: The Vacation President".  You tell me: if it's so ridiculous to criticize a president for going on vacation, why did so many in the left and in the media obsess about it when Bush did it?  I'll tell you why: because it was just another stick they used to beat Bush over the head with.  You know, with probing questions like: "But with the situation in Iraq so critical, shouldn't the president be at the White House?"  So why would it be unfair for a conservative to ask the same of Obama: "But with the situation in North Korea so critical, shouldn't the president be at the White House?"  I didn't ask that question - again I don't mind that he went on a night of fun in Manhattan.  But after the past 8 years of the left criticizing Bush for every little misstep, it hardly seems like an unfair question.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

And please, tell me what work Bush neglected because he chose to spend time working in Crawford rather than in DC.  Now be specific, we are talking about a very serious issue - vacation time!

Nor would anyone have attacked a Republican for playing golf on Memorial Day.

Well, that's your opinion.  I'm highly skeptical of your claim.  There's a clear double standard in the press, especially with this current press corps, which fawns and slobbers over Obama like they're in love.  Here's just one example of the MSM's description of Obama's December vacation in Hawaii:

"The Obamas are waking up to this, Kailua Beach, with 2 ½ miles of pure white sand. At the end sits the family's vacation paradise."

"It's a home fit for a king. It's a place where royalty actually gathered. So it's -- I think it's pretty fitting that we'd have our next president spend some time here and try to relax."

"After a flurry of press conferences last week, Mr. Obama is laying low on the golf course, and this is the only suit he's expected to wear.

[FOOTAGE OF OBAMA IN SWIM SUIT]"

I cannot recall the MSM describing any vacation taken by any former president, Republican or Democrat, in such glowing terms.  And nowhere did anyone say anything about the president, or even president-elect, spending time in such a lavish resort at the same time when the economy was doing so badly.  Remember, this is the same guy who, just a few months later, would chastise corporate CEOs for giving themselves bonuses and for going on getaways to Las Vegas while their companies struggled.

Obama, who has called Wall Street bankers "shameful" for giving themselves $18 billion in bonuses, told NBC Nightly News on Tuesday that executives at financially strapped firms should not be living "high on the hog."

 

This is a clear example of right wingers attacking Obama because they desire to attack him for the sake of attacking him, regardless of the validity of the attack.

No, this is a clear example of "turnabout is fair play."  I'm not saying it's logical and reasoned debate according to Marquis of Queensbury rules.  It is, however, politics.

Tying up snarled downtown Manhattan traffic? How hypocritical can you get. This sort of thing is almost commonplace in Manhattan,

Really?  Hmm...

"As Republicans get excited about converging on Madison Square Garden to bask in the political limelight this month ... a recent survey by a Manhattan public relations firm found 83 percent of those polled do not want the Republican convention in town. When asked why, more than half, 53 percent, were worried about traffic, street closures, and security hassles," reported New York City's ABC affiliate.

Yeah I'm sure that those 53% who were concerned about 'traffic, street closures, and security hassles" did not have politics on their mind at all when answering the survey question.  Nope.  Not one bit.

and people seemed excited by having Obama go by.

They didn't seem to be excited this time when Obama appeared to go by.

Now, to address your original points, which I thoughtlessly neglected the first time around.

There’s a long list of reasons why the Republicans are no longer seen as a serious political party by a growing number of people. One of these is that they tend to pick the most inane things to make a big deal of. Now they are upset about Barack Obama taking his wife out for an evening in Manhattan–something which I love to do whenever I get the chance.

First off, to say that Republicans are making "a big deal" over this vastly overstates the case.  Yes it warranted a press release from the RNC and criticism over the cost.  That's it.  Besides, don't you think that is what the opposition party is supposed to do - keep the president's feet to the fire?  Do you really think Obama should be immune from criticism over how much his vacations are costing the taxpayers?  Should he get a blank check to go on vacation wherever he pleases without regard to cost?  And if Republicans don't make these points - again, without making an excessively big deal about it, but politely pointing it out nonetheless - then who do you expect will do the job?  The slobbering MSM which has fallen in love with Obama?

The last Republican president lied us into a war, undermined our national security, disgraced our country by resorting to torture, interfered with stem cell research, and wrecked the economy.

Well!  Talk about "distorting what the opposing viewpoint is".  You sure have some chutzpah.

1. Bush did not lie us into any war.  That is not just my opinion, that was the finding of the Senate committee investigating the prewar intelligence.

2. Undermined our national security?  Like, no terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11?  Hmm that's a dubious proposition.  Perhaps you could elaborate on this one.

3. On torture: Well I've written quite a lot about torture in this blog.  Suffice it to say, there is a difference between the legal definition of torture and what individuals emotionally understand to be torture.  The legal definition of torture is narrow and reserved for especially heinous acts committed with specific intentions in mind, not run-of-the-mill random violent behavior, and not even necessarily behavior that shocks the conscience.  I have no doubt that waterboarding shocks your conscience, as it does mine.  That does not mean it meets the legal definition of torture.  You can say it was wrong, unnecessary, did more harm than good, etc., and i'd agree with you on pretty much all those scores.

4. On stem cells: Look, Bush took a compromise position.  He actually funded embryonic stem cell research.  Yes he did!  He just didn't fund the further destruction of embryos.  Which is exactly what I would expect from a president who has a deep respect for life.  Reasonable people can of course disagree on whether that was the appropriate thing to do.  But please at least recognize these life/death issues are actually quite serious and complicated.  To blithely dismiss Bush's position as being naked interference (presumably for partisan gain) is to demonstrate your fundamental lack of gravitas on this issue.

5. On "wrecking the economy": You mean, like record highs for the stock market?  You mean, like getting the economy back on its feet after the dot-com bust and the 9/11 attacks?  I will be the first to confess that many of Bush's economic and fiscal policies were misguided.  But to say that he "wrecked the economy" is a huge stretch.  If anything, the collapse of the housing bubble, fueled by easy credit (the province of the Federal Reserve, not Bush) and by bipartisan support for encouraging home ownership even among those who couldn't afford it, contributed the most to our current economic predicament.  But I'm sure you and your lefty friends will continue to lazily blame it on "greed" and "lack of regulation".

Since you are clearly not in favor of "distorting what the opposing viewpoint is", I'll just take this as a one-time slip-up on your part and give you an opportunity to correct yourself on your characterization of the Republican record.

For Republicans to  make such an argument takes about as much chutzpah as for them to attack a Democratic nominee with claims of racism.

Set aside for the moment the claim that Sotomayor is a racist or not.  Are you suggesting that Republicans should not attack any Democratic nominee as a racist, even if that nominee really is a racist?  Seems to me that you are getting dangerously close to stereotyping an entire class of individuals.  Since I'm sure that's not your intent, perhaps you could explain more fully the situations under which you would find it accurate for Republicans to criticize a Democratic nominee with claims of racism.

And, thanks for providing the occasion to discuss this extremely important topic of presidential vacation days.  Next I'm sure we'll be discussing that other vitally important topic, presidential pet preferences.

Another chemjeff masterpiece

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 22:56.

Thank you for researching and verbalizing what so many of us think.

As I recall, Bush was lazy and inattentive for spending time in Crawford. We all know that if those of us that are simply management sales pukes (speaking for myself) can keep up with a Blackeberry and a laptop, the POTUS probably can do the same, given the technology available.

n/p

Submitted by chemjeff on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 23:16.

No problem.  I don't expect JHT to actually respond to all that, but maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised.  After all, he wanted a serious response!