8bitagent wrote:I hate to say it, but count me in as one of those li'bruls who almost wants Romney to win. Not at all out of spite of Obama, because I do think Obama has some good points and has been ok when it comes to women/gay/etc issues.
He's a total non-entity, and a bad president, if you ask me.
Some desirable stuff comes with the partisan territory, though, if that's what you mean.
But because maybe it'll finally wake up the left. just to the smarmy mouthy Obamabot liberals who tell people like me to shut it and fall in line, they need a cold hard wake up call.
I honestly have no idea who you're talking about.
* There are a relatively small number of Democrats (by "relatively," I mean "relative to the total") who root for their political party the way other people root for their sports team. And I assume that they're carrying on with that during this election cycle as usual, amongst themselves.
* There is no left to speak of in this country.
* Liberals, smarmy or otherwise, account for less than twenty percent of the electorate.
* Obama's approval rating hasn't been over 50 percent since 2009 for more than a minute.
* And the general tone of Obama campaign coverage that I've seen has been lackluster-to-negative. Like, for example,
this...:
The best case against the Obama administration
The strongest case against the Obama administration’s economic policy goes something like this:
Early on, the Obama administration misunderstood the unusual nature of the crisis. You can see it in its forecasts, which predicted a rapid, “V”-shaped recovery even if Congress didn’t pass a stimulus bill. And you can see it in the administration’s policies, which focused on supporting the financial system while it kickstarted growth by putting people back to work, handing out tax cuts and stopping state and local governments from laying people off.
The precise nature of the administration’s misunderstanding was that the key problem was household debt, and until that problem was solved the economy couldn’t recover. But while it had a clear strategy for attacking bad debt in the banking system, and a clear strategy for attacking the fall in consumer spending, it never had a clear strategy for reducing housing debt.
Instead, the administration believed that the best and fairest way to fix the housing system was to fix the economy. If people had jobs and tax cuts and unemployment insurance, they would be able to pay their mortgages and they would be able to buy new homes and that would take care of the housing problem.
That did not take care of the problem– it did not come close to taking care of the problem.
So one view is that the administration basically got the crisis backward. You couldn’t fix the housing crisis by fixing the economy. You had to fix the economy by fixing the housing crisis. And the administration’s housing policy wasn’t anywhere near sufficient to do that. This mistake was doubly disastrous because monetary policy, which would normally be a huge driver of recovery, typically works through the housing market, encouraging consumers to buy new homes while interest rates are low. Leaving the housing market’s dysfunctions to fester also meant that the Federal Reserve’s efforts to lower long-term interest rates had little affect on the economy.
In this morning’s New York Times, Binyamin Appelbaum tells the story of the administration’s disappointing housing policy response. It’s worth reading alongside Zach Goldfarb’s September look at the same subject. Together, the articles make an ironclad case that the Obama administration’s housing policies failed to fix the housing crisis, in part because they never really tried to fix the housing crisis.
...from Ezra Klein (more at link), to say nothing of the
Times piece he refers to there.
Obama represents this fake, facebook/twitter/dubstep/autotune pop music/zoned out zombie with apple product headphones in their ears bullshit period I really really really dislike.
^^I recognize that as a right-wing talking point, but otherwise, again, have no idea who you're talking about.
I mean he doesn't but he's part and parcel to everything.
Oh! Okay. Gotcha. I know the feeling.
If Ted the Unabomber didnt commit heinous acts of violence, I'd say his thoughts on what's going on with technology and society should be studied.
Well. His thoughts didn't commit the heinous acts of violence. so go for it, I say.
