Greg I dont understand your views on Sarah Palin. You seem to not like her, but mention her every other day. And you often criticize the media for following her, yet concede that she's a potential nominee for 2012.

Wow, that didn't come out right. It should read, Greg, why put up a blurb about Palin, followed by a blurb about how Palin is playing those that post blurbs about her? Is it irony? Do you need the clicks?

Senator, mind if Dems hold their vote on the $250,000 threshold before you aggressively promote your very own brilliant plan?

_______________________

In NY, 250K for a two-income family doesn't go very far.

So, a compromise makes sense.

Besides, many democratic Senators do not want to cast a vote on the 250K level - going into tough re-election fights. You rarely consider the situation in 2012 for the democratic Senators in their re-election prospects.

"Chuck Schumer is working very hard to create the impression that a lot of Senate Dems support his compromise proposal to end the Bush tax cuts only for those over $1 million."

Democrats have perfected the art of negotiating with themselves. The GOP just stands there and waits until the Democrats cave in. This political party does not get it and neither does this president: Without Liberals you have NOTHING. And you are about to see just what that means.

"Senator, mind if Dems hold their vote on the $250,000 threshold before you aggressively promote your very own brilliant plan?"

If only there had been a time, in the last 2 years, when the Democratic caucus had 60 votes, and an overwhelming House majority to take care of this Tax issue. Who knew they were set to expire? If only there'd been some warning. Pity.

That Capeheart column on "I won" is laughably inept, as laughably inept as Greg's assertion that the criticism of Obama "ridiculously bogus."

Not arrogance, Capeheart says, no, no, no. Just good "fiesty leadership." And he seems to believe the massive electoral repudiation the Dems just suffered is irrelevant to Obama's absolute authority to decide "which ideas" to accept.

I swear, WaPo publishes some of the most risible online hackery. You couldn't even make up such inept nonsense and be believed.

Well, I have one of those good-news, bad-news stories to report. Remember way back in time 3 months ago when there was oil drifting onto the beaches of Grand Isle, LA from the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico? Well, the good news is that we won't have to worry about oil polluting the Louisiana Coast much longer. The bad news is that the reason is that global warming means that there will not be a Louisiana Coast much longer, at least not where it currently exists.

Obama's "making work pay" tax break for middle income families expires in a few weeks. But that was just for families making up to $150,000 a year. If it had included millionaires, maybe there would be juice to re-up that cut too, but it didn't, so it will just be allowed to expire quietly.

No hurry. It's not like there's an astronomical amount of coastal real estate at risk in the U.S. We can certainly afford to spend a trillion or two relocating New York, Boston, New Orleans, Norfolk, Miami, Houston ...

There is, of course, nothing illegitimate about conservativism nor is that an implication in title or subtitle. But as John Danforth and a lot of other conservatives have pointed out, what the *modern* party has become is something quite other. And ya know, if I'm going to take a reading on the state and past of conservativism in the US, I'll probably go with Danforth rather than yourself.

For bernie's edification, several snippets from a book by the evidently insecure Robert Byrd.

"This green and arrogant President had made a U-turn on our tradition of working with our allies . . . ."

"Little in the White House catalogue of arrogance, however, can match the initial attempt to create an Office of Homeland Security."

"Continued Bush insistence that there was not enough specific information to cause him to react to warnings smacks further of the detached and arrogant approach with which this President conducts his duties."

"In only two short years this reckless and arrogant administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years."

-- all from Losing America: Confronting a Reckless and Arrogant Presidency.

We can certainly afford to spend a trillion or two relocating New York, Boston, New Orleans, Norfolk, Miami, Houston ...

____________________________

I can not tell you how much of a ridiculous and silly statement this is.

New York is WAY above sea level - and there is no danger of it flooding - AT ALL

The elevations of the other cities is much higher than you think too.

The predictions of the sea level increasing - even they were true - would NOT flood these cities. This is a perfect example of how the global warming people have just thrown aside facts - or refused to verify anything.

Clearly, sea levels are not coming up 3 feet - as the most dire predictions state - but EVEN IF they did, that would NOT flood any of those cities.

The predictions of a Global warming crisis has become completely silly.

It's a Chesterton trope. The point is those who "believe in themselves" without also humbly giving credit to God, grace, good fortune, the help of those who went before, etc.. were candidates for, at the least self-deceit, at worst monstrous criminality.

"It's a Chesterton trope. The point is those who "believe in themselves" without also humbly giving credit to God, grace, good fortune, the help of those who went before, etc.. were candidates for, at the least self-deceit, at worst monstrous criminality."

Chuck Schumer is working very hard to create the impression that a lot of Senate Dems support his compromise proposal to end the Bush tax cuts only for those over $1 million.
----------------------------------------------

And this of course was the guy being widely touted as the preferred replacement for Harry Reid just a few short weeks ago. It is to laugh.

However, it can be pointed out that Obama has an unrealistic time frame for transition to the Afghan Security Forces - and because it is being rushed, people are being let into the Afghan forces who are not properly vetted.

The killer was one of these people - the liberals ALL have blood on their hands - for pushing the pull-out before things are properly ready.

We had a "debate" here some time back in which, I think fair to say, Scott and I proved as well as anyone can prove such things on in blog comments, that bernie's thesis that the GOP has "moved radically right" since Reagan and Goldwater, while the Dems have stayed straight and true, is 180 degrees wrong. It is, objectively measure, a complete reversal of reality.

Not sure what I think Byrd would have thought about his party in this regard. Honestly, I think he was sufficiently partisan that he never, ever would have turned publicly against it. He was a thorough-going big government guy, but I don't recall where he was at on some of the more radical notions of his contemporary party.

(Well, that was rather a dull response. But I lack a pithy one on Byrd. I just know he hated GWB with a passion and wrote himself a book on presidential arrogance.)

However, it can be pointed out that Obama has an unrealistic time frame for transition to the Afghan Security Forces - and because it is being rushed, people are being let into the Afghan forces who are not properly vetted.

The killer was one of these people - the liberals ALL have blood on their hands - for pushing the pull-out before things are properly ready.

Boston was great once we got there...full 1/2 hr stop on the Pike at the 84 merge in Sturbridge then slowwwwww all the way in.

Dinner for 27 taoist 'rents, aunties/uncs, bros/sisses, cuz, nieces/nephs. 3 Birds smoked outdoors, also vegan fare. Touch football on the pitch @ Nobles School in Dedham. No politix @ table, much nostalgia for those absent, lots of lies to the younger attendees re: past hijinx mostly involving adult libations, our parents apparently knew what we all were up to 35 years ago anyway. Y'know, a delightful time.

@Ethan - actually, I find Bush now considerably more humble in demeanor than while running for and then in office. That's understandable in that he no longer has to present a certain sort of portrayal of self.

I am getting tired of the American exceptionalism dream, but whatever. I would suggest that you who DON'T wonder about it, travel the third world. While we do a lot for many of those people, we have wrought much of what they have now to bear. Being a grown up means taking responsibility for your actions. I suggest if American did that, we'd be a far more respected nation.

I was living on E.65th&Lex when Berkowitz was at large. First job out of school, short money (& that recession was almost as bad as the present), and a that guy running around. The City simply sucked then. Moving to Boston was like going to Jamaica, mon.

"What kind of patriot refuses to pay taxes or lift a finger to support his country or help his fellow citizen?"

If you're talking about federal income taxes, then about 47% of the population fits the bill; maybe none of them are patriots---I wouldn't know about that.

"What kind of patriot slanders his commander-in-chief with ridiculous lies?"

No patriots with whom I'm familiar. I guess that leaves out you bozos who continally slandered GW Bush and, to this day, whine about how he lied us into war. Maybe you ought to sign up for some sort of government service or even become a missionary. It might make you a better person.

Howler of the day. As Kevin_Willis responded, waterboarding is not considered torture in some circles. And Shaikh Mohammed gave up a great deal of actionable and reliable intelligence in response to being waterboarded. Earth to Ethan: if it hadn't worked, they wouldn't have kept doing it.

Then comes the money slide, titled: "What's in Store for the Obama Administration," with photos of President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Generals Omar Bradley and George Patton in uniform.

"Speaker Boehner is our Dwight Eisenhower in the battle against the Obama Administration. Majority Leader Cantor is our Omar Bradley. I want to be George Patton - put anything in my scope and I will shoot it."

I would ask whether you have ever listened to an Obama political speech, but it's obvious you have no concept even of what arrogance is, just from the supposed Bush example you cite. Beyond that, I am in no mood to waste my time answering insincere questions from irrational persons.

Funny, I don't remember any sitting members of Congress saying that what is in store for President Clinton is that they will "put anything in [their] scope and [they] will shoot it."

I don't remember sitting Republican congress members calling President Clinton a tyrant, do you?

I don't remember whole swaths of the Republican Party -- including elected officials -- saying that President Clinton might not be from the United States, or that he might be hiding his birth certificate, or that he is hiding his college transcripts, or that he wasn't vetted by the media, or that he is actually in cahoots with terrorists, do you Troll?

There was the whole "Mena, Arkansas" thing along with a wierd video, sponsored by, I think, Richard Scaife, about how the Clinton's had people killed in pursuit of their various political ambitions. Also, the Vince Foster suicide was rather fertile ground for "criticisms" of 'ol Slick Willie.

And if I'm not mistaken, Democrat's did not support Bush 43's re-election. If memory serves, Mr. "Selected, not elected. Thank God for Diebold cheating, Bushitler, 9/11 was an inside job" Bush wan't even nominated by the Democratic party in the 2004 election. The Democrats opposed him and ran someone against him! Shocking I know.

Opposition is opposition. If it makes you feel better to think that all of Barry's opposition is race related, go ahead. In the end though, I think you miss out on a lot of information.

It's symbiotic. Post anything about Palin and you'll have a million people there to defend her or praise her about whatever. I'm sure the press would gladly deal with a few angry words to get all those clicks.

Again, I don't remember any of that coming from Democratic elected officials, do you?

"Opposition is opposition"

Correct. Opposition is opposition. Opposition is not "he is a tyrant and therefore anything that he puts in front of my scope I will shoot it."

That is not opposition, it is reckless, intellectually immature, and runs counter to every principle that this democratic republic was founded on. And you know that to be the truth, whether you're a "Cracker" or not.

What, specifically, has Obama said that is more arrogant than Bush's telling America's adversaries to "Bring it On"?"

Absolutely nothing. This is the new FOX News meme that is being repeated by the Conservative Fan Club. It's just throwing sh** against the wall and seeing what sticks. Don't you remember that the original meme is how Obama went on an international apology tour?

Yeah, Bush shouldn't be called a Nazi, but why do you have a problem when Hillary says that Bush wasn't elected fairly? He wasn't. You had a Supreme Court ignore all precedent, ignore Florida's right to conduct its own election, and even go so far to say that the ruling should not be used as a precedent for future cases.

Yeah, Bush is no Nazi, but he wasn't elected by the rules of the Constitution.

I am about a third of the way through your book recommendation by the former Cigna PR exec. It wouldn’t be fair to critique it without having finished it, so I will hold off on that for now. But I just couldn’t resist addressing the 8 “rhetorical tricks” that he notes are basic “propaganda ploys”. What was most amusing to me about the 8 “tricks” is that they represent an almost perfect encapsulation of your standard methodology here in this board.

“1) Fear: Organizations with the most to lose are most likely to resort to fear mongering…It may also vilify a specific cause or even a specific person in order to create the desired point of view.”

You routinely promte fear over the future of the nation due to the “modern conservative movement”, and barely a day goes by in which you do not vilify one of a few favored targets...Kristol, Murdoch, Rove, etc.

“2) Glittering generalities: This approach uses strong, positive emotions by using words and phrases like “democracy”, “patriotism”, and “American way of life.””

You regularly make appeals to the choices made by “democracy”, the “community”, or “the people” in order to defend your policy preferences.

“3) Testimonials: Celebrities or recognized experts are frequently recruited or hired to provide testimonials about a product, cause, company, organization, or candidate”.

I would guess that between 80% and 90% of your contributions on this board consist of you linking to and quoting from a few favored writing celebrities of the left…Benen, Sullivan, Tomasky.

“4) Name calling: Blatant insults can be a very effective public relations tool…negative terms tend to stick, even if they are undeserved.”

Again, you routinely resort to name calling of your favorite demons, referring to them as “vile creatures” or some such. For example, just tonight you called Murdoch a “psychopath”.

“5) Plain folks: Any time a business executive poses with rank and file employees or customers, he or she is claiming to be “of the people”.”

Well, OK, this is not so much you. Your standard schtick actually oozes with condescension, if not outright contempt, for regular folks, so you get a pass on this one.

“6) Euphemisms: PR practitioners often select words that obscure the real meaning of action or concepts.”

This is you all the time. One great example is your repeated attempts to portray socialized medicine as a “consumer choice” made by “the community”, thus obscuring that the introduction of socialized medicine comes as the result of coercion, not choice. Another, just this weekend, was your attempt to portray the taking of money from one person in order to give it to another as the “redistribution of power”, a very obvious attempt to obscure the real meaning of the act of taxation and wealth redistribution.

“7) Bandwagon: The overriding bandwagon message is that everyone else is doing or supporting this – and you should too.”

Again, one of your standard attempts to justify socialized medicine is to cite all the other nations that have it. Americans shouldn’t object to Obamacare because Canadians and Brits and Israelis are happy with their health care. This is a regular Latham routine.

“8) Transfer: Similar to testimonials, the transfer approach involves the approval of a respected individual or organization.”

I admit that I don’t get this one or how it differs from testimonials, so I can’t cite any examples of you doing it. Perhaps you can show us how you use this it?

In any event, I think it will be a fun exercise going forward for other posters here to monitor and note your use of the various propaganda techniques. You are, afterall, our resident propaganda expert, an expertise obviously developed after much practice.

There's an interesting piece and interview at Forbes re Assange. No more secrets I guess. I'll bet it's BofA.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Early next year, Julian Assange says, a major American bank will suddenly find itself turned inside out. Tens of thousands of its internal documents will be exposed on Wikileaks.org with no polite requests for executives’ response or other forewarnings. The data dump will lay bare the finance firm’s secrets on the Web for every customer, every competitor, every regulator to examine and pass judgment on.

Admire Assange or revile him, he is the prophet of a coming age of involuntary transparency. Having exposed military misconduct on a grand scale, he is now gunning for corporate America. Does Assange have unpublished, damaging documents on pharmaceutical companies? Yes, he says. Finance? Yes, many more than the single bank scandal we’ve been discussing. Energy? Plenty, on everything from BP to an Albanian oil firm that he says attempted to sabotage its competitors’ wells. Like informational IEDs, these damaging revelations can be detonated at will."

The New York Times should review its policies - and the US government should review the terrorism laws to see if the New York Times crossed the line into aiding terrorists by releasing this information from wikileaks

@lmsinca: "Does Assange have unpublished, damaging documents on pharmaceutical companies? Yes, he says. Finance? Yes, many more than the single bank scandal we’ve been discussing. Energy?"

I wonder what the hold up is on releasing them. Does information want to be free, or doesn't it? What's the delay in revealing the truth behind banks and pharmaceutical companies (which I anticipate will not be pretty, but may still be very interesting). Is he holding out for cash or something?

I don't get this, myself. I don't see him as arrogant. Indeed, Bush came across as more "arrogant" (re, bring it on, and wouldn't I like to see a little more of that level of cowboy arrogance out of Obama, yes I would). Advancing big pieces of legislation, even against opposition, is not arrogant, it's ambitious. "The difference is, you've got me," is a little smack talk, it's a little appeasement, and, given the 2008 election, is was reasonably for him, at the time, to consider himself as asset in the midterms.

If Obama was a little more arrogant, he might show a little more leadership. Or maybe not. In any case, I don't see him any more arrogant than any other politician with the chutzpah to run of president of the United States. A little more humble in some respects.

From what I read, what they receive is like a huge information dump and they have to go through all of it before releasing it. They have so much information now they've had to close down the incoming for awhile in order to go through all of it, plus they're always on the move.

"Taegan Goddard flags a fascinating Chris Christie factoid that suggests serious national ambitions: His staff is tasked with filming Christie "moments" that are quickly disseminated to conservatives across the country."

It's worthwhile looking at the etymology of the term. It's a form of the verb "arrogate"... "to claim unwarrantably or presumptuously; assume or appropriate to oneself without right: to arrogate the right to make decisions."

There's the nuance in there of not merely being snooty (professors, Frenchmen) but also of claiming/presuming some position or power while not really deserving it.

"Yeah, Bush shouldn't be called a Nazi, but why do you have a problem when Hillary says that Bush wasn't elected fairly? He wasn't. You had a Supreme Court ignore all precedent, ignore Florida's right to conduct its own election, and even go so far to say that the ruling should not be used as a precedent for future cases.

Yeah, Bush is no Nazi, but he wasn't elected by the rules of the Constitution.

Of course, that wasn't the point, but you could hardly be more wrong. I carefully read all the court opinions involved, and there isn't much room for debate that the 7 justices who agreed that the Florida Supreme Court's ruling was unconstitutional and contrary to Florida's own law were right. Even liberals Breyer and Souter agreed to that much; they simply disagreed as to the remedy.

I'd encourage you to read the Florida Supreme Court's opinion sometime. It is a shamelessly dishonest piece of hackery. No suprise that the justices were all Democrats.

The SCOTUS decision was not unprecedented, as you claim. Read the opinion. You'll see precedents. Was the ultimate issue a new one? Sure. But the various questions that had to be answered leading to it were not. That's how it usually works.

To a reasonable and competent person who's read the opinions, it's clear as well that it wasn't SCOTUS but FLOTUS that tried to usurp the right of Florida's citizens to vote for POTUS. FLOTUS simply ignored Florida election law to get the result it wanted. It's crystal clear.

And what isn't debatable is that recounts by Gore-friendly media after the fact showed that Bush in fact won the state anyway.

It must have been hard when you saw Gore a few yeas later shrieking and spewing spittle that Bush had betrayed his country, or when you read about his attempted rape of a masseuse, or you saw his thoroughly debunked fantasy film, and you realized just what a great statesmen had lost in 2000. But he did lose, and you should accept that FACT.

Gerson's column today (is he appearing more often than previously?) is titled "Tea Party complications".

This could be interesting, I thought. As we've all talked about here for a while, there certainly are some of those complicator thingeys in the works for Republicans after feeding this beast.

And Gerson, give him credit, finally gets down to the big complication facing the GOP now that they have the beast close at hand...

"Will Tea Party revolutionaries view this as victory? Will they be tempted by the Ross Perot option - a third-party movement that would increase the odds of Obama's reelection?"

Yes. That was the danger implicit in the enthusiasm of the Ron Paul contingent, particularly given the broad dissatisfaction with the Bush administration within the base and the more moderate demographics. It was why, as we learned from TP organizers in California and elsewhere, GOP representatives arrived at the early TP meetings expressing their concerns of a third party dynamic.

@bernie: "I shall read this book on the Holocaust and from it I will draw the lessons that demonstrate how the person who recommended it is himself a Nazi."

Now, I'm just a simple, unfrozen caveman. You're world is scary and unfamiliar to me. But I'm pretty sure Scott was calling you a propagandist, not a Nazi. Propaganda is not the exclusive purview of Nazis (or anybody else).

Scott - when I see some serious address to the substance of the Cigna exec's story, if you proceed in anything like an honest manner (which isn't looking likely at this point) we could perhaps have a conversation. But right now, you're doing nothing that deserves my attention.

BTW, you owe me $14. I saved you 12 bucks by getting it on my Kindle instead of the hard copy. But I will settle for the cessation of your advocacy for "redistributing" my (as yet un-specified) vast political power.

I find your lack of detection of arrogance in Obama sad and inexplicable (waters receding, campaigning to Berliners, "don't do much talkin', I don't wanna hear much talkin'," you have to ride in the back, insulting (and lying about) Justices in the well, on and on), but what puzzles me more is the idea that "bring it on" was arrogant.

How would you answer my 9:57 questions to Ethan, taking into account a definition of arrogance like Bernie's above, which seems adequate? And then, what do you find wrong with "bring it on" in light of your answer about those other historical declarations of defiance?

There is an aspect in which the US might be badly disadvantaged as we move forward. If the huge and influential energy companies (and related interests) find it in their immediate interests to maintain the status quo, then changes towards new arrangements in energy production and distribution and use are going to be inhibited. If other nations are less beset by such institutional inertia, they'll very likely be able to move more quickly into these new areas.

An advantage that the US had earlier in time was just that sort of "youthful" and unemcumbered zest and freedom to do new things and move in fresh directions. That's an advantage which sooner or later will fall to others simply as a matter of inevitability. And maybe the sclerosis is setting in already.

Btw, I assume you know that references in my questions to Ethan, but just in case someone else doesn't, to save look up time, they are:

Gen. McAauliffe sent back the one-word note "Nuts!" in reply to the Germans' demand for surrender.

Churchill's speech I assume pretty much everyone recalls in generalities.

Phillip II sent the Spartans a demand for submission saying something like, "You are advised to submit, because, if I enter your land, I will slaughter your armies and enslave your people," and the Spartans sent back the reply "If."

I wasn't seeking your attention, Bernie. You really need to get over yourself. As I have said may times before (what does it take, really, to get through to you?) you can respond to me or not as you like...I really don't care. I gave up on any serious discussions with you about anything long ago, when it became apparent that you evade, dodge, and run away from any challenge to your faith(s).

Tomasky is most surprised by the lack of anything terribly meaty in the wikileaks docs and goes on to say...

"The surprising thing is that the release of a quarter-million unvarnished and unedited cables that were designed for private consumption only don't offer more shocking revelations. Just imagine if a quarter-million private documents from the business world were suddenly made public, as Julian Assange now promises. I'll bet any of you dollars to donuts that those papers will prove to be more surprising than these have."

This strikes me as a sound prediction. There was, I gather, a fairly low level of secrecy status to what was released and as it involved State missives, a lot of it is gossipy stuff. But depending on what kind of docs get released next, the potential for important revelation is high.

"If the Democrats could somehow link the pay freeze to jobless benefits extension, then that would maybe be worth it politically. People care a lot more about jobs right now than the deficit. But the Republicans won't negotiate, even though Obama here has adopted one of their positions. From the Politico story linked to above:

And Obama's attempt to find common ground ahead of the meeting — his last-minute embrace of a two-year wage freeze for federal workers — was met with skepticism by some Republicans, who are irked by Obama's failure to credit them for the proposal during his brief remarks Monday.

"This was a pretty obvious missed opportunity," said a GOP leadership aide. "If you're going to embrace a proposal that Republicans have made in the past, why not say so? Why try to hog all the credit? Communication is like bacon — it makes everything better. But this was just ham-fisted."

I see. So the substantive point doesn't matter because he failed to give the poor babies credit. Boo hoo.

What a bunch of silly, unserious people. That America is confused enough to think these people deserved more seats in Congress is testament to just how weak the Democrats are."

Well, sorry about that. But I'd argue even the "waters began to recede" comment is a naive expression of hoped for collective change--a misplaced sense that the entire country had finally come to its senses and decided to abandon materialism and live on collective farms and he was just a part of that. Plus, I suspect Axelrod wrote the line. But sweeping rhetoric is par for the course in presidential campaigns. And it was essentially a statement, when it comes down to it, that he was going to pursue climate legislation once elected. I think lots of politicians engage in questionable phrase turning. But I don't think Obama is exceptionally arrogant, even compared to recent presidents, or exceptionally cocky (especially not now).

Start with questioning the premise. Admittedly haven't seen all the news surrounding the announcement, but here's how Reuters reported GOP (and Dem) reactions:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AS3AY20101129

Don't see too much "skepticism" there.

"I see. So the substantive point doesn't matter because he failed to give the poor babies credit. Boo hoo."

He probably should quote some Rep who actually said that if he wants to attribute it, rather than just making up words and putting them in unspecified persons' mouths. Ironic that he would write this childish tripe and follow with calling the unidentified nonspeakers silly and unserious.

Then ask yourself, if Obama were really about rising above partisanship and accepting all good ideas from all sides, why wouldn't he give credit where it was due? Key word "If."

Btw, on Obama arrogance, how about his reacting to the election results by asserting that they were due only to people's frightened failure to understand how good and successful his policies are, and perhaps his failure to spend enough time on messaging, rather than anything to do with substance?

Great response, no? People are basically stupid and afraid, and I am not sufficiently focused on politics. How humble.

Start with questioning the premise. Admittedly haven't seen all the news surrounding the announcement, but here's how Reuters reported GOP (and Dem) reactions:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AS3AY20101129

Don't see too much "skepticism" there.

"I see. So the substantive point doesn't matter because he failed to give the poor babies credit. Boo hoo."

He probably should quote some Rep who actually said that if he wants to attribute it, rather than just making up words and putting them in unspecified persons' mouths. Ironic that he would write this childish tripe and follow with calling the unidentified nonspeakers silly and unserious.

Then ask yourself, if Obama were really about rising above partisanship and accepting all good ideas from all sides, why wouldn't he give credit where it was due? Key word "If."

Btw, on Obama arrogance, how about his reacting to the election results by asserting that they were due only to people's frightened failure to understand how good and successful his policies are, and perhaps his failure to spend enough time on messaging, rather than anything to do with substance?

Great response, no? People are basically stupid and afraid, and I am not sufficiently focused on politics. How humble.

We can certainly disagree about Obama. But I think it would actually be difficult to find parallels to many statements he has made, going back to the campaign, that assign to himself, personally, a grandiose power and role, as if the country's coalescing around him personally, as the embodiment of the best of America, was the key to healing the very planet we live on. That's pretty much what he expclicitly said.

I think this is form of rhetoric rather unique in American history, and that Hillary was not inventing unfounded an unfounded criticism when she parodied his campaign's hubris as suggesting the sky would open, choirs of angels would sing, or whatever her line was.

And I do think his and the Dem leadership's legislative behavior was extremely arrogant in, for example, the passage of Obamacare by hook or by crook when it was very clear the public was against it, and Massachusetts had even sent Scott Brown to replace Ted Kennedy, the godfather of government health care, in reaction to the legislative movement. They showed that they truly didn't care what the public thought. As Pelosi said, they were going to realize the Founders' promise (!) of government health care despite any opposition -- my nomination for the moment of maximum hubris 2008-10.

QB, the fact that you lump Bush's absurd "Bring it on" (which led to a surge in attacks on the military, if I'm not mistaken) with those other military moments is absurd to the point of delusional. "Bring it on" was not only incredibly arrogant and brash, but it was incredibly stupid and accomplished nothing other than putting our American men and women at an increased risk. In case I need to remind you, QB, we lost 4000+ men and women in Iraq and we got NOTHING out of it.

Kevin, I agree with your post on this matter, and it was well-stated. I think President Obama COULD use a little more fire in his belly. When he has that fire he is clearly at his best. But, to my point, having passion and confidence is not the same as being brash, obnoxious and arrogant like Bush was and Cheney was as well.

QB, the fact that you lump Bush's absurd "Bring it on" (which led to a surge in attacks on the military, if I'm not mistaken) with those other military moments is absurd to the point of delusional. "Bring it on" was not only incredibly arrogant and brash, but it was incredibly stupid and accomplished nothing other than putting our American men and women at an increased risk. In case I need to remind you, QB, we lost 4000+ men and women in Iraq and we got NOTHING out of it.

Kevin, I agree with your post on this matter, and it was well-stated. I think President Obama COULD use a little more fire in his belly. When he has that fire he is clearly at his best. But, to my point, having passion and confidence is not the same as being brash, obnoxious and arrogant like Bush was and Cheney was as well.

@qb: "And I do think his and the Dem leadership's legislative behavior was extremely arrogant in, for example, the passage of Obamacare by hook or by crook when it was very clear the public was against it,"

I personally don't consider failing to fold immediately in the face of opposition as arrogance. I think it was ambitious, and tenacious, perhaps, but there was also a great deal of compromise to make it happen . . . and I'm pretty sure it would have passed with a straight up and down vote in the senate. Most of the American people are opposed to extending tax cuts for the rich--do you think the Republicans are arrogant for trying to hold on to those? I don't.

"and Massachusetts had even sent Scott Brown to replace Ted Kennedy, the godfather of government health care, in reaction to the legislative movement"

I also think it was a reaction of Martha Coakley. You want to see arrogance and entitlement in politics, just look to how Coakley and the Dems ran their campaign against Scott Brown and how Coakley just presumed that, since she had a (D) next to her name, that senate seat was hers, and let the peons eat cake. I don't think arrogance is an accurate description for a failure to immediately surrender against political opposition . . . or terrorists, for that matter, so I don't have a problem with "bring it on" or "mission accomplished", personally.

But, for some people, it seems anything short of immediately capitulation in the face of any opposition is "arrogance". ;)

What is the difference, to the undeluded, between "bring it on" and the other responses to aggression that I listed?

""Bring it on" was not only incredibly arrogant and brash, but it was incredibly stupid and accomplished nothing other than putting our American men and women at an increased risk."

How was it arrogant? That's the question. Can't explain that, I gather?

Accomplished nothing? How would you measure that and prove it? Putting people at risk? Really? You seriously think that those three words put people at risk they weren't at before? That OBL and the jihadi terrorists weren't at war with us until then? talk about delusional.

"In case I need to remind you, QB, we lost 4000+ men and women in Iraq and we got NOTHING out of it."

No, you can't "remind" me of something that is just your foolish opinion and not a fact.

HEY, KIDS! Here are some jaw-droppingly stupid quotations from the distinguished convicted felon from Texas!

This is Tom DeLay explaining the massacre at Columbine High School in 1999:

"Guns have little or nothing to do with juvenile violence. The causes of youth violence are working parents who put their kids in daycare, the teaching of evolution in the schools, and working mothers who take birth control pills."

This is Tom DeLay explaining why he didn't fight in Vietnam:

"So many minority youths volunteered....that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like myself."

This is Tom DeLay on his job description:

"I am not a federal employee. I am a constitutional officer. My job is the Constitution of the United States. I am not a government employee. I am the Constitution."

This is Tom DeLay on why America had to invade Iraq:

"We're no longer a superpower. We're a super-duper power."

This is Tom DeLay talking to three young Katrina evacuees at the Astrodome in Houston:

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.