appeal2reason:

"Torture played no role here. The intelligence stream which led to bin Laden's death originated last November, long after torture was stopped by the Obama administration."

Of course torture played no part, but Reps started taking credit in less than 24 hours after Obama's announcement. Cheney and his daughter are on a media blitz giving torture the credit for OBL. Funny how they'll take credit for getting OBL but not for the crappy economy Bush left behind for O to mop up.

Republicans will reach back in time to take credit but not responsibility. Aren't they suppose to be the "personal responsibility" party?

The minute I heard O's announcement Sunday night, I KNEW the Republicans would go into a tailspin. I bet there were tons of freaked out Reps up all night Sunday trying to figure out how to spin this in their favor. Sad that the best news for the country as a whole is the worst news for the Reps. Obama was wise to keep this plan so quiet; I don't think he could trust the Republicans any more than he could trust the Pakistanis. That's something both the Republicans and Al Qaeda have in common: they both want to see the American president fail.

Don't expect the Reps to give credit where it is due, that would require more integrity than most of them possess. Bush reacted with class, and surprisingly, so did Cheney, that really surprised me given how he attacked Obama almost on a daily basis when he first took office. But now the Cheney's have gone on their Reinstate Torture Tour, so I guess the moment of graciousness has passed. It was nice while it lasted.

Anon ONE:

Re:

"If I go through this and substitute (or flip / flop)the words conservative and liberal it pretty much sums up how I feel about Liberals. The first paragraph is also how I feel about this particular blog."

By all means, if that's how you feel, then say so on your own instead of piggy-backing on someone else's post.

BTW, the OBL house thing was great.

WT Wrote:

The lack of dialogue and learning is the most disappointing thing here, but I see it on just about all blog sites. I've learned things on this blog, not much recently, but in the past I did, and it's fun when folks take the time to engage others in reasonable and smart dialogue, but that definitely is the exception.

IMO, the biggest difference between conservatives and more liberal people is that liberals are open to new information and will adjust their worldview in response to it. Conservatives, not so much. When conservatives are confronted with information that doesn't support their beliefs, they tend to just discredit or dismiss it outright; I've seen it a hundred times. The liberal traits that conservatives call flip flopping I call adaptive; the conservative traits that they proudly call steadfast I call calcification. Liberals are more willing to evolve and change, conservatives tend to calcify. (Sorry, Anon ONE, but you are very rigid.)

-------------------------

if I go through this and substitute (or flip / flop)the words conservative and liberal it pretty much sums up how I feel about Liberals. The first paragraph is also how I feel about this particular blog. (Now, WT, before you accuse me of plaigarism, I have properly credited you with the original content)

Anonymous | May 9, 2011 10:06 AM

"I also saw over the weekend several interviews with ex-CIA types, Rumsfeld (hey! Wasn’t he actually there?) and ex admin people who affirmed the value and use of the “enhanced” methods. So, to use your juvenile taunt, YOU can’t prove it wasn’t useful!"

And YOU can't prove it was. Absence of proof is not proof. Just because it was in a "mix" doesn't prove one particular method was superior.

You betcha Rumsfeld was there, and of course he is going to support water boarding, it happened under his watch, but this wasn't the only "enhanced" method used, there were many. A reasonable person realizes it's impossible to sort ONE method out of dozens that were applied hundreds of times and say, "hey, this one alone did it." Rumsfeld, along with others in the Bush administration, will never admit this. If there is evidence that torture played a part in capturing OBL, we've yet to see it. Can you produce such proof?

Rumsfeld, btw, still insists water boarding WASN'T torture, so the guy has yet to pick a lane--it wasn't really torture, but if it was, it worked so it's all good. Anyone from the Bush administration can hardly be considered a unbiased source of the efficacy of torture, some of them are still under investigation and trying to keep their butts out of hot water.

I don't care about Holder, either. Anon ONE brought him up. But I did hear what Panetta said, and his position is clear to everyone except those who have a personal interest in justifying the actions of the Bush administration. So if you exclude those folks, which is just about everyone on the right, you're left with the fact that we really don't know, probably never will. I'm willing to leave it at that--it may have, it may not have, we simply don't know.

But whether it did or not is irrelevant to the Obama administration. Even if there were concrete proof that torture produced useful information, Obama has denounced it and said this is "not who we are". So regardless, it won't get repeated on his watch.

Regarding your last comment about the shooting of bin Laden being illegal, I heard this a bunch of times over the weekend, most notably from Chris Wallace when he interviewed Tom Donilon, Obama's National Security Advisor on Fox News Sunday. Wallace repeated this twice, "you say water boarding was illegal, but you get to shoot bin Laden?" It was great, Wallace sounded like a 10-year-old, "we can't torture them but you get to shoot them in the face? NO FAIR!!" Great stuff.

BTW, you still haven't answered the million $ question: if the information that caught OBL on Sunday was obtained during torture, why didn't the Bush administration use it to get him years ago?

This is the fallacy in your argument, and the reason why no Republicans will answer it. Bush failed to get OBL because torture did not produce the intel he needed to do so.

I agree with What the. I'm new to this whole blogging thing so I'm not as articulate as she is. Everyone else refers to what the as she so i guess i will too. What i see here on the blog though are a lot of people attacking her instead of the argument. Same with me. I posted several comments about how i thought the Bush and Republican economic policies were bad news. Anonymous called me greedy and dense but did not reply to any of my later posts that showed that under Bush we lost jobs when he said we had gained them. It seems a lot of people don't want to see/hear facts. There's no dialogue or learning. If a liberal changes his mind after learning new information he's called weak or "flip flopping.' If a conservative stubbornly holds on to outdated information or discredited theories, hes called steadfast.
And with the racist thing. claimsmark clearly let it slip with the affirmative action statement. it came after a brief rant and opened my eyes to what he really feels. Obama could, and did, catch Osama bin Laden but his detractors won't give him any credit. Just more and more about how Bush deserves all the credit. Even though the White house in 2002 refused the addition of 1,000 marines to secure the trap at Tora Bora. And even though the Bush administration disbanded the CIA task force looking for bin Laden in 2005. Again, facts that should sway opinions will just be ignored.

I've read the majority of WT's posts over the past several months - not everything, but certainly a significant number - and what I've found is that she makes a good many points that most on this blog simply won't acknowledge because of it's readerships heavily Republican base. I don't agree with every thing she says, but regardless of WHAT point she makes, it seems there is someone (usually many) waiting to take issue with absolute statements that she can't possibly be right because her points don't fit with the GOP party line.

I agree with What the .... quite often - but even when I don't, I find the majority of her detractors to be less than open minded and in some cases downright arrogant in their belief that they are always ABSOLUTELY right, and she is always ABSOLUTELY wrong. This simply is not the case.

Before I get jumped on here - there are a few posters who engage in reasonable discussions - however, even in those cases, it is rare that they will acknowledge that any pro Obama or pro Democrat idea has any merit whatsoever, and that is simply untrue. Sometimes there are Republicans with excellent points and considerations, and the same goes for the Democrats. When it all falls back on to talking points and rhetoric - it becomes a waste of time.

Anon ONE:

And I keep coming back for the same reason. I've seen tons of factually wrong statements on these blogs, and when I read things that I know aren't true, why shouldn't I correct it? Facts aren't malleable like opinions, they either are or aren't real. Aren't you interested in knowing what is true and what isn't? Don't you care?

The ugly reality of the torture debate is the Bush administration committed crimes by water boarding and the only thing keeping the lot of them out of jail is Obama's campaign promise to not go after individuals in the Bush administration for it, to, in his words, "look forward, not behind". Republicans have been trying to justify water boarding ever since, from insisting it's not really torture to insisting torture works (like they're doing now), but they've never been able to prove it produced anything of value. This latest attempt is just more of the same.

You're right that since the Obama administration denounced the use of torture, they would probably be reluctant to admit it was effective. But you're wrong that Obama is in a tough spot. He is in possession of the torture "reports", and those reports don't support what Republicans are claiming. The best Eric Holder could say, when asked if information obtained through water boarding assisted in locating bin Laden, was that he was "unsure". That's probably as good as it will get, we'll probably never know for certain either way. So for Republicans to claim that torture worked and led to Sunday's event is at best wishful thinking, at worst an unsubstantiated lie. They're glory grubbing.

Republicans are the ones in a tough spot. They'll probably spend the rest of their lives trying to legitimize their use of torture; that's why they keep bringing it back for debate. Obama succeeded where Bush failed, that's gotta hurt, I get that. But I do see this as a pathetic attempt to get credit they don't deserve--haven't you been annoyed at what you perceive to be Obama's not giving credit to the military? So why aren't you as equally annoyed by the inability of many Republicans to give Obama the credit he is due?

The Republican response has been bitter, just bitter. Palin couldn't even say Obama's name, she thanked Bush instead. And did you hear Rick Santorum this morning? "Obama didn't do the hard work, all he did was say 'yes'." Like all this was planned without Obama's knowledge and they just ran it by him at the last minute for approval. And Santorum says Obama doesn't know what it takes to run this country? Obama has just shown he knows first hand what it takes. I understand that Santorum has as much chance of being president as Mickey Mouse, but at least show some class, people. At least have the class to be gracious. Even Bush and Cheney managed that.

Wt Wrote:
And on it goes. This will probably be a he said/she said thing for quite some time, between those who defend the Bush administration's use of water boarding as a success (see? torture worked, we were right to do it!!) and those who see this as a pathetic attempt by Republicans to take credit for something they didn't do (me).

----------------------------

and will remain a he said/she said thing As referenced by your use of sources such as CNN, MSNBC, and a White House Deputy director. Very convenient for a group that has been against the use of enhanced interrogation. Obama's in a tough spot - he and his people have claimed waterboarding was illegal, so for them to admit any usefulness won't ever happen.

You're certainly welcome to disagree - that's what this is about. The reason I keep coming back is your seeming desire to not just disagree, but to try to prove yourself right and everyone else (or at least anyone opposed to your view) wrong.

"You might want to read wt?s threads form beginning to end (and several threads).

She oft does an immediate fallback to racism, either directly or inferred, early in the threads when others don’t see things her way OR don’t appear to worship Obama. Than, as the thread goes on, she partially backs off to a softer statement (as you describe above)."

So I took Angry Anon's advice to Reasonable Anon and quickly reviewed all my posts on this thread.

I stand by my comments. Racism did not come up until the Donald Chump discussion. I said Chump's and Robertson's attitude is racist; the birthers not. Whatever it is Angry Anon is going off about did not happen on this thread, as far as I can tell.

So if Angry Anon is ranting about racist comments he says I made on other threads, then by all means find them and post them here. We'll discuss.

And racism against whites is called REVERSE RACISM. Racism refers to discriminatory practices by a group in the majority against groups in the minority, which in the U.S. has traditionally been whites discriminating against other ethnic groups. When minorities discriminate against whites, it's referred to as reverse discrimination. Your specific comment was:

"I always found it interesting that Bush's grades at both Ivies ended up being as good as, or better, tan both Gore & Kerry. Heck,until that came out I remember vividly how the press was always talking up the brilliance of those two and the non-brilliance of Bush.Hmmmmm, that wasn'tracism, was it?"

No, it wasn't racism. It wasn't even reverse racism. I really don't know what you're talking about.

Anon ONE:

I seriously do hope they ask Obama about this, because everything I've heard over the past week, including statements from the White House itself, indicates this claim is unsubstantiated. Eric Holder has already weighed in on it.

This was started by the right within 24 hours of OBL's death. Here is Rep. Steve King on Bill O'Reilly Monday night, claiming OBL was found as a result of information obtained years ago through torture:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDi-wfjzMfs

By Tuesday morning, Fox News’ Fox Nation website was claiming that water boarding led to the death of Osama bin Laden.

Like I stated in a post earlier this week, Sunday's successful raid has been a PR nightmare for Republicans. It was unthinkable to give Obama credit. The right has been defending the illegal use of torture by the Bush administration for years, and now they're using it to claim credit for the Obama administration's success. However, reports on what was obtained through water boarding show that little, if any, of this information facilitated Sunday's operation.

The Obama administration directly disputed these claims on Wednesday, two days before the WSJ article appeared. Here is a report by CNN in response to King:

"Here's what we do know, at least according to current administration officials: They argue that torture played almost no role in getting to bin Laden. In fact, two of the most high-value detainees -- KSM and bin Laden chief operations man Abu Faraj al-Libi -- actually lied about the important courier when asked about him.

They were dismissive about his importance, and didn't identify him beyond the nickname the CIA already knew. The key here: The CIA already knew that the courier had been a KSM protégé.

"It was their lies that alerted us," said one senior administration official with knowledge of the operation. All in all, Mohammed had been waterboarded 183 times -- and he still lied. "The help that KSM provided was inadvertent," this source said. "He didn't know what we knew."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/05/04/borger.torture.debate/index.html

In an interview with Mika Brzezinski on MSNBC:

"White House deputy national security advisor John Brennan Tuesday knocked down the myth that waterboarding provided crucial intelligence that led to the location of Osama bin Laden."

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/05/obama-advisor-waterboarding-didnt-lead-to-bin-laden-kill/

And on it goes. This will probably be a he said/she said thing for quite some time, between those who defend the Bush administration's use of water boarding as a success (see? torture worked, we were right to do it!!) and those who see this as a pathetic attempt by Republicans to take credit for something they didn't do (me).

I'm not surprised this story was run in the Wall Street Journal, given that it's now owned and controlled by Rupert Murdoch, the same guy who owns and controls Fox News. It's very easy to dismiss the WSJ as a publication for Reich wing propaganda. I can play your "discredit the source" game too.

One last thing: you're probably not aware of this, so I'm giving you a heads up so you're not surprised if it's discussed in the 60 Minutes piece: in the first days after Obama took office, he directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden a top priority. Bush had lost interest in finding bin Laden a year after 9/11, by then he had already turned his attention to Iraq and making a case for war there.

I think this is the primary reason the Obama administration succeeded where the Bush admin failed: Bush took his eyes off the prize; Obama didn't.

An additional thought on this comment:

"If you know that OBL is inside a building and you have an elite force like team 6 at your disposal, please tell me how this is a tough decision? . . . Had he not made the decision he would have been derelict in his duty."

You may want to goggle the battle of Tora Bora, 2001, for some background. Bush had the U.S. military in the mountains of Afganistan with OBL within reach, but withdrew the troops rather than pursue him. Why Bush chose not to pursue at that time is debatable, but it has been said since that Bush and Rumsfeld were derelict in their duty for allowing OBL to escape. I'm not making a judgement here, these decisions are always more complicated than they appear to us armchair patriots. The point is these decisions are not as simple as you seem to think they are.

Anon ONE:

Geez, feeling a little bitter? You did sound decidedly unimpressed by the bin Laden news. It is a big deal on multiple levels, the most obvious being that Obama sent our military into a sovereign country without their knowledge or consent and killed people. In many parts of the world, this would be considered an act of war. Not a "tough decision"?

"I hope that Obama remembers to thank the troops and the guys actually in harms way."

He already has, multiple times, as I've already told you. But if you spend most of your time with conservative stations, you'll never hear this.

So we're back to the lamestream media thing again? Alert Sarah Palin! Suit yourself, I thought it would be informative. Now I'm off to catch the GOP debate on Fox. Unlike some people, I'm willing to at least give an opposing viewpoint a shot. If the candidates debate the issues with each other, it should be good. If this debate dissolves into an Obama bashing contest, I'm turning the channel. But at least I tried.

WT:

Forgot One Myself.

I wonder if 60 minutes will Ask Obama to reconsider his administrations stance on harsh interrogations now that it has been determined that Bin Laden's whereabouts were obtained from Khaleid Sheikh Mohammad. KSM gave up vital information due to these interrogation techniques which led to Bin Laden's demise.

The WSJ has an opinion pieced that opines the following:

Consider how the intelligence that led to bin Laden came to hand. It began with a disclosure from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), who broke like a dam under the pressure of harsh interrogation techniques that included waterboarding. He loosed a torrent of information—including eventually the nickname of a trusted courier of bin Laden.

That regimen of harsh interrogation was used on KSM after another detainee, Abu Zubaydeh, was subjected to the same techniques. When he broke, he said that he and other members of al Qaeda were obligated to resist only until they could no longer do so, at which point it became permissible for them to yield. "Do this for all the brothers," he advised his interrogators.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703859304576305023876506348.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

I'll bet that Eric Holder won't be interviewed alongside Obama?

Wt Wrote:
Anon ONE:
Forgot. Regarding your earlier statement that you thought O's decision to send the military into Pakistan without that country's knowledge to take out bin Laden wasn't a big deal, 60 Minutes is doing a segment on it this Sunday. It's probably worth a watch.

-----------------------------

I don't recall ever claiming it wasn't a "big deal" - did I say this somewhere else?

I do remember writing: "I applaud Obama for actually giving the order to get Obama, but do you really think that ordering the capture or killing of this madman was a tough decision? Who wouldn't order the capture of Bin Laden?"

If you know that OBL is inside a building and you have an elite force like team 6 at your disposal, please tell me how this is a tough decision? We expect our President's to make these decisions and again, I applaud Obama for making the decision. Had he not made the decision he would have been derelict in his duty.

As for 60 minutes doing a story on this???? Wasn't 60 minutes (II) the "news" organization that broke the Bush documents??? How did that work out for them?

Obama will probably be interviewed by Steve Kroft again, a very conservative web site had the following to say about Kroft and his 60 minutes interviews of Obama.

There's a wide swath of issues that Kroft avoided – every social issue from abortion to homosexuality to affirmative action; every concern about taxes and federal spending and regulation; and major areas of liberal ambition like health care and global warming. Kroft also completely avoided Obama's state legislative record in Illinois and scandal figures from Reverend Jeremiah Wright to Tony Rezko to William Ayers. This raises the question of whether CBS agreed to interview Obama with the condition that some questions were off limits – or worse, that conditions weren't really needed since CBS wanted to make history instead of news
http://www.mrc.org/specialreports/2010/SyrupyMinutes/SellingObama.aspx

Or how about Dan Rather on 60 minutes (II) with the bogus story of the Killian Documents claiming Bush was unfit for duty? Not one of 60 minutes finest moments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/60_Minutes_II

But yes, I'll watch the 60 minutes story. I hope that Obama remembers to thank the troops and the guys actually in harms way.

You might want to re-read what the's .... posts - she only says she see's racism in the extreme stance some are taking on the Harvard Grades vs. Papers issue - and she specifically said she didn't see any evidence that racism plays a part in the Birthers issues.

The truth is, there are some people who will never accept anything Obama does because they are racist, there are others who never will because they are ultra conservative, and there are some who wouldn't accept anything anybody did because they believe the entire world is out to get them.

Racism is certainly NOT the only reason anyone has for questioning Obama, but it is a factor for some, and some others like to play on that to their own advantage, even if they aren't truly racist themselves.

Unless I have misunderstood something along the way - What the has always said that there are people who hate Obama for reasons of race, and others who have other reasons to question his presidency - but I have never heard her say that racism is the only reason that not everyone loves him. That tends to come from those who claim to hate him for whatever other reason they've chosen.

To imply that What the pulls racism into every discussion is inaccurate, but that may be what you are seeing. If that's the case, I'd do a very deep self examination of my own reasoning if I were in your place ...... we do tend to project onto others the flaws we see in ourselves.

Anon ONE:

Forgot. Regarding your earlier statement that you thought O's decision to send the military into Pakistan without that country's knowledge to take out bin Laden wasn't a big deal, 60 Minutes is doing a segment on it this Sunday. It's probably worth a watch.

JQP:

Well said.

The certificate of live birth and the newspaper announcements WERE enough to satisfy the intelligent and curious, and Obama, as one of those intelligent people, knew he had satisfied the burden of proof. Having to release the long form was a sad admission that he had overestimated the intelligence of many Americans and underestimated the lengths to which his detractors would go to delegitimize him. I think what this says about us as a people is depressing, that the use of basic common sense and logic has deteriorated among so many Americans to this extent.

Anon ONE:

Ok, I looked into the Kerry vs Gore vs Bush grade thing when the other poster mentioned it. Bush and Kerry did their undergraduate work at Yale, Gore at Harvard. Kerry had a grade average of 76, Bush had a 77. So technically, Bush's was higher than Kerry's, but for all intents and purposes they would be considered equal. (If Bush had the 76 instead, how much importance would you then put on that 1 point?) Gore had a 2.2 GPA to Bush's 2.35. Interestingly, tho:

"Gore arrived at Harvard with an impressive 1355 SAT score, 625 verbal and 730 math, compared with Bush's 1206 total from 566 verbal and 640 math. In his sophomore year at Harvard, Gore's grades were lower than any semester recorded on Bush's transcript from Yale."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A37397-2000Mar18

So what this tells me is that Gore was a major screw off in college, he definitely wasn't working up to his potential. Kerry and Bush probably were too to some degree, this is not atypical for boys. Usually more beer is consumed than knowledge until they reach the point where they either have to shape up or leave.

But this does support what I said in my last post, doesn't it? Bush was on par with his peers of the same age, he wasn't any dumber than everyone else, in fact, he was doing better than some. So why then, when compared to Kerry and Gore, was Bush perceived to be the dimmest of the three? Because he was a Republican and the other two weren't? You really think this was all there was to it? You don't even consider the possibility that his public personae could have had something to do with this perception? Clinton wasn't asked to make his college grades public, nor Bush 41, nor Reagan. Just Bush43. What was different about W. that made people doubt his academic credentials? You may call this partisan belittling of Bush, but I believe that if Bush's public speaking ability had been on par with Kerry's and Gore's, the grade thing never would have come up (and before you make another list, yes, I do remember Gore's "you are all happy campers" comment).

And yes, we do agree that getting into an Ivy League school and staying in are two separate achievements. Unfortunately, Chump and Robertson don't agree with us, at least where Obama is concerned. If they had just asked for proof that Obama was qualified to GET in, that would be fine, that's what was asked of Bush. But for Obama this isn't sufficient, they need further proof that he was actually qualified to STAY in, that the profs and the administration did not collude to give the black guy an unearned pass through law school. We will have to agree to disagree, to me this is racist. I don't see it any other way.

BTW, the brainiac is at Northwestern, the Ivy League of the midwest, and she has had a straight A average for two years. She is on the Dean's list. But then her scholarship is dependent on her keeping up her grades, so she doesn't have the luxury of being a screw off, something that I doubt either Bush, Kerry or Gore had to worry about.

I get it WT, I just don't agree with you - that's all. If the basis of your argument is that Bush's schooling should be questioned because he sounds stupid when he speaks, while Obama's is only being questioned because of racist undertones then I disagree with you.

Whether we like it or not, today's political climate demands openness for all things that never used to be questioned. You commented that none of the other 43 white men had this type of questioning, it's a red herring argument. None of the other 43 White Presidents carried around a "blackberry" or regularly used twitter or any other social networks either - times change. As far as I know, none of the other presidents have ever released their college transcripts - if Obama doesn't want to either that's fine by me. If he is intimidated by those who do he should refuse to cater to them.

I suppose it's one of those agree to disagree times (again). Probably the most loaded term anyone can use is a racism charge, closely followed by an emotions charge as you said to me, "your emotions are carrying your thought. I can assure you I have neither (not implying you thought I was racist). just surprised you only see things one way.

My original intent was simply to point out that getting in to an ivy league school is one achievement, but STAYING in after that is quite another - something both Bush and Obama have done. I think we agree on this aspect? If belittling Bush makes your case then I would point out that at least Bush had better grades than Kerry, Gore, and on and on it would go. I'd be curious to know your thoughts on someone who gets C's in an Ivy league school - are they just average, or do you give them credit for graduating? Would you be disappointed if your kids graduated Ivy League with C's? Remember the old joke about what they call the person who graduates last in their medical school class?..... They call them Doctor!

Anonymous | May 4, 2011 7:28 AM

Oh for God's sake. You're still on the birther issue!

Obama did not "pop up out of the blue on a national level" when he ran for president. He had been a U.S. Senator since 2004, that's serving on a national level.

I don't see what you're complaining about. I have already said that I did not consider the birther issue to be based in racism; I clearly stated this in my post to Anon ONE. I think it arose out of the fact that one of Obama's parents was not an American citizen. You think it arose because Obama lived outside of the U.S. for a time. Fine, both are good reasons. But neither reason is based in racism. So find someone who thinks it was and yell at them.

Anon ONE:

No, you're still not getting it. And I think it's because you don't want to get it, you prefer to argue. You're so offended by the racist charge that your emotions are carrying your thought.

I'll try one last time:

The Dems gleefully questioned Bush's credentials because his verbal gaffes made him look uneducated. He graduated from two Ivy League schools but still managed to sound like he just came off the ranch. He often did not SOUND presidential, his gaffes were ridiculous and embarrassing and persisted throughout his entire 8 years in office. I don't think Bush was stupid, he wasn't a star pupil at Harvard like Obama was, but he wasn't an idiot either, he was an average guy with average intelligence and abilities, maybe even above average in some areas. But his lack of mastery of the English language hurt his public image and served as a constant target of ridicule for his opponents.

Let's face it, being able to communicate well is a important part of the job description. And Bush often didn't do it well.

Obama isn't being questioned on his academic credentials because something about his public personae indicates a lack of education. In fact, Obama's opponents criticize him for being too analytical and "professorial". Obama joked about this at the White House Correspondents Dinner, remember?

So why are Obama's credentials being questioned? As payback for Bush, because the Dems questioned his? Well, if this is the case, then explain this important difference: Bush was asked to SHOW his grades. Obama is being asked to PROVE his grades.

This is exactly what Chump and Robertson have been asking for. They not only want to see Obama's grades, but they want to see his "papers", as Robertson put it, proving he in fact did earn the grades he got. Chump has said he wants to see Obama's tests, assignments, homework, the physical papers with the A's on the top, to prove that Obama actually did the required work and wasn't given an affirmative action "pass" through Harvard, even though nothing of the kind exists.

This is above and beyond anything that was said of Bush. Bush was asked to show the grades that got him into Harvard, but he was never asked to "show his work" once there to prove that he wasn't given a pass. That's the difference here. The black guy is being asked to prove himself in ways that no white president ever has, not even Bush. And that's what's racist about it.

I'll leave you with this tidbit from the Pain at the Pump thread on 4/12:

By claimsmark | April 26, 2011

. . . So you go blame Fox News for the poor approval ratings of this incompetent failure of a president. Meanwhile I will continue to believe he (Obama) is an unaccomplished beneficiary of affirmative action throught out his life.

See? Unaccomplished beneficiary of affirmative action. Despite all of Obama's accomplishments, despite a law degree from Harvard, despite graduating with honors, despite his election to the senate and then presidency. All people like this see is a black person in an important position and they immediately think "affirmative action, they're unworthy. End of story".

Honestly, if you can't see the inherent racism in this attitude, then there's nothing more to say.

To Anonymous | May 3, 2011 9:46 AM:

I replied to you in my post of 5/2 at 2:27 PM. You may be confusing my post to another anon as a reply to you. As the moderator suggested, perhaps you should use a more distinctive screen name to avoid confusion or "deflections", whatever that means.

At any rate, I'm not following most of your comments. I have absolutely no idea what this paragraph means:

"Fourth,, living in several areas (yes,even continents) at a young age, with little hoopla as would follow a famous family (say,a Kennedy or Bush) could confuse some people (rightly so --- please don't demean them en masse). This would be even more acute when there is little to no access to hard data."

Obama has only lived in the U.S. and Indonesia. I've moved around more in the U.S. than Obama has. I have no idea how living in different areas makes one unqualified for Harvard.

There would be no racism involved between Gore, Kerry and Bush unless one of them were black.

So what if Hillary was the originator of the birther issue. Has she kept it going for the past three years? Nooooo. It was hijacked and raised to its current level of hysteria by the far right fringe, which until recently included most of the Republicans in Congress and Donald Chump.

You'll be in for a long squat and watch if you expect a "timely answer" to Obama's academic credentials. The rules regarding this are the same for Obama as they were for the 43 white presidents who came before him. Unless someone leaks them as was done with W's grades, your only option is to throw on a sheet and join Chump and Robertson on that ride to Harvard.

Anon ONE:

You're making it into a religious experience. Quietly means without fanfare, without anyone else knowing but those who needed to know, basically Obama and his inner circle of advisers (see the pic in today's Sun) and the military involved. Not the Congress, not the Pakistanis, not NATO.

And perhaps you're missing some other basics: Obama had been made aware of bin Laden's presence at this house last November. His military advisers wanted to go in and bomb the place, but O said no--that would have obliterated evidence and caused collateral damage. So he requested an alternative plan be devised and chose to wait and watch until the time was right to act. The SEALS actually had time to practice the assault. Even the burial at sea was pre-planned. That sounds like classic Obama--cautious, thoughtful, patient, and when the time is right--decisive. And it worked perfectly.

I know some on the right such as Limbaugh are lying through their teeth to their idiot audiences about Obama's bin Laden announcement being like something Chump would say--all me's and I's. If you missed the announcement on Sunday night, find it and watch it. Obama gives credit where credit is due more than once--to the military, to those who collected the intel, to the soldiers who performed the raid. But the fact is none of this would have happened without his involvement and executive order, and if the raid had failed, Obama alone would have been responsible for the failure, not the military, or the SEALS, or the CIA. Just him. So yes, Obama did take a risk in going for it. There are never any guarantees that things will work out the way one plans.

I think this success is a nightmare for the right. It's just killing them to give Obama any credit at all. But if it had failed, they would have enthusiastically given him all the blame.

So you did catch the Donald Chump roast at the White House Correspondents Dinner. The guy is such a narcissist that he didn't have a clue until that moment that he was the biggest joke in the room.

Karma. Gotta love it.

WT Wrote: "Don your sheets and hoods, boys, and ride to Harvard and DEMAND to see his records. Interrogate and terrorize all his past professors, get those confessions! And don't forget to leave a cross burning on the lawn.

--------------

Wow, and you told ME to take a deep breath? Obama's not being treated any differently than Bush was - tell me you don't remember the Dems questioning Bush as a "legacy" at Yale.

When someone levels a racism argument there is never a response that will appease the accuser. You leveled the racism charge and I don't think there is anything that anyone will ever say to make you see it any other way. I disagree that race played a part.

So let me know if I have this correct?

If anyone questions Obama's academic standing it is based on Racism, and if anyone questions Bush's academic standing it is because Bush was a winner in the "sounding stupid" (your words) category so he must have gotten in by some other means? Do I have it right?

Moderator:

G. W. got his undergraduate from Yale in 1968, where he majored in history. He graduated from Harvard Business School in 1975 with an MBA.

Anon ONE:

On the speaking thing, you know very well Bush's problem with the English language went well beyond misspeaks, he had a flair for mangling the language. That's why there were terms for them, they were called "Bushisms" or "Bushspeak". Bush's are too numerous to list here, but I can direct you to websites that have them all if you're interested in reliving the fun. I'm happy to concede that when it came to sounding stupid, Bush won hands down. That was his biggest problem.

WT wrote: "quietly and decisively evaluating intel and authorizing a covert attack in Pakistan to take out Osama bin Laden

--------------

quietly? you make it sound like a religious experience. Yes, Obama may have been evaluating intel, (do you think he had some help, or is he a genious in this department as well?) Don't forget, he did take some time out from his planning to attend the correspondents dinner settling his score with Trump.

It may have been a simple oversight on your part, but I think we should give "some" credit to the actual military personnel who gathered the intel that Obama quietly evaluated. Oh yeah, how about the guys that stormed the compound - decisive indeed. I applaud Obama for actually giving the order to get Obama, but do you really think that ordering the capture or killing of this madman was a tough decision? Who wouldn't order the capture of Bin Laden?

WT Wrote: Compare this to Obama, whose brilliance is apparent every time he speaks

-----------------------------
Brilliance? how about these quotes from Obama?

"It's like — it was like Special Olympics, or something." — Barack Obama, responding to a question from Jay Leno on NBC's Tonight Show about his shoddy bowling game.
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1887005_1887004_1887007,00.html

"I've now been in 57 states -- I think one left to go." --at a campaign event in Beaverton, Oregon

"In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died -- an entire town destroyed." --on a Kansas tornado that killed 12 people (2008)

"We're not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that's fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you've made enough money. But, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it if you're providing a good product or providing good service. We don’t want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy." —on Wall Street reform, Quincy, Ill., April 29, 2010
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/barackobama/a/obama-isms.htm

I think Obama's made some gaffes as well, not everything he says is "Brilliant".

You wrote that, "I think the birther thing came up mostly because Obama's father wasn't an American, not because he was specifically black."

So are you saying that Trump's Birther case is only based on racism, while anyone else's birther case is "partly" based on racism? Why you are hanging your hat on a racism angle is beyond me. Yeah, maybe it played a small part, but not to acknowledge that this is today's political climate is pretty short sighted.

I did like when Obama called Kanye West a "Jackass", but I wouldn't call that a brilliant statement. Please don't construe my comments as any attempt to promote Trump - he's a jackass as well. There are probably 50 reasons to hate Trump for his antics towards Obama - why have you claimed that it was only about Racism? Doesn't make sense.

Anon ONE:

Maybe a better term for this is "political racism"? These questions wouldn't be coming up if it weren't for politics, but no other politician has ever had his birth records questioned, nor his academic worthiness to the point of alleging his alma mater perpetuated a fraud, even tho we've had presidents before him with credentials that were even more suspect. Race is definitely a component here.

I think the birther thing came up mostly because Obama's father wasn't an American, not because he was specifically black. If O were white and his father were, say, French, I think the birther thing still would have been pursued by his political opponents saying he was really born in France and was an unAmerican socialist, just like with the Kenyan thing. So I wouldn't label the birther thing racist, even tho I believe many racists did jump on board with it.

But claiming Obama didn't earn his academic credentials is a very different allegation. The Dems questioned Bush's credentials because, let's face it, his verbal gaffes made him look like the dimmest bulb in the pack at times. We heard phrases like "is our children educated". Compare this to Obama, whose brilliance is apparent every time he speaks. Yet it's Obama who has to prove himself? Bush refused to release his grades and that was fine, Obama refuses and, as Anon below stated, now it's simply "intelligent and curious people" asking the question and " I would also fully expect them to get timely answers." Two completely different sets of standards for two men in the exact same situation. That's what racism is.

"As for me, I am open to the suggestion that if there were a modern candidate who is known to have lived on three continents in their young ife, regardless of sex or color or religion, that intelligent and curious people wold ask the same question. I would also fully expect them to get timely answers."

What? What does "lived on three continents" have to do with anything?

First of all, Hawaii is not a continent. Is it, however, part of the U.S. So I think it would be more accurate of you to have said "lived in two countries". Again, what does having attended an Indonesian school for a time have to do with his I.Q.?

W. Bush was asked for his academic records and refused to release them, his got leaked. Why didn't you expect Bush to give timely answers? Especially after his grades prior to Harvard were leaked and it showed a straight C student, certainly not up to Ivy League standards. Why didn't any of you demand to know how Bush got into Harvard with such grades? Because he didn't have "foreign cooties" from having lived abroad for a time? So you're saying this isn't because Obama had a Kenyan father, it's more of the Obama-is-foreign-he's-not-an-American-thing? That's what the birther movement was about, and it's been dispelled, at least for normal people. You're going to have to get a new schtick.

It's racism, whether you realize it or not, try as you might to give it a different label. Trump didn't use Obama's Indonesian schooling experience as an excuse for his comments, he didn't even try to label it as a valid inquiry. It's the same old same old: the black guy has to prove his credentials, none of the 43 white guys before him did.

Besides, Anon ONE is correct: you're also accusing Harvard of fraud. And how did such an unworthy person manage to graduate magna cum laude? Unless Harvard is perpetuating a fraud here too and made this up for Obama because they KNEW he was going to be the 44th President and wanted him to look good? Seriously?

I'm not calling you a racist, mind you, but I definitely am calling Trump one. And Pat Robertson, he stated he wanted the same proof of Obama's Ivy League worthiness and didn't use the Indonesian schooling thing as an excuse either. And it shouldn't be an excuse to judge Obama by different standards, O was only there for two years as a child and spent the rest of his life in American schools, some of them the best America has to offer. At least it's refreshing to see their racism for what it is, and not masquerading as something else.

WT Wrote: "They want to have it proved to them that a black man can actually be smart enough to get into and graduate magna cum laude from an Ivy League school."

---------------------

I'm not going to defend trump in any way - "Chump" is a good word for him. I know David Letterman alluded to a racist slant as well, but I don't agree with you on this level of disgust. You may be venting, but your post makes it seem that the only reason, only basis, only possible answer is because of racism?

I think the same motivation that Obama's birth was questioned was the same motivation dems used to question Bush's military record, and his school record. Disgruntled Republicans, just like disgrunted Democrats, keep repeating the same story hoping something will stick.

And in both cases I chalk it up to politics - nothing more.

Anon ONE:

Oh no, you got me started on the birth certificate and Donald Chump! I'd boycott his reality show except I never watched it to begin with.

I think I know why Obama didn't release it sooner--he underestimated the craziness of the American people. We're showing the world that American exceptionalism means exceptionally nuts! No wonder we can't sell the idea of democracy to other countries, who would want it after watching us?

I remember when you made the comment about Ivy League schools on this blog before and it's still right--getting in can be a lot easier than staying in. The birther thing can be dismissed as crazy, but demanding to see proof that Obama was eligible to be at Harvard is just pure racism, it can't be dismissed as anything else.

None of the 43 white presidents before Obama ever had their American citizenship or academic credentials questioned. A white guy gets into Harvard because his father went there and he's called a "legacy". A black guy gets into Harvard because his father went there and he's called an "affirmative action admission". Obama was actually a legacy admission just like G. W. Bush was, Obama Sr. graduated from Harvard with a degree in economics in 1965. Obama's father could have benefited from affirmative action, but Obama Jr. was a legacy. Why isn't Chump asking to see Bush's Harvard record to prove he was qualified to go there? Because Bush isn't black.

So now its finally out there in all its bare-faced ugliness and the far right isn't denying it any longer--Chump and Pat Buchanan and all the rest are racists, pure and simple. They want to have it proved to them that a black man can actually be smart enough to get into and graduate magna cum laude from an Ivy League school.

Did you catch the video of Chump's speech in Las Vegas recently? What a sideshow. He actually said he would swear when making demands to other countries. Yeah, that'll have them shaking in their shoes. And the rest of the world is watching THIS, too. I'd be depressed if I weren't already so embarrassed.

who the?

Of course Dems display bad manners as well. But I started off just talking about legal challenges to elections. And it does seem to me that Reps are willing to fight election results much more than Dems are.

I was listening to the radio the other day and the Prosser/Kloppenburg case was being discussed along with other famous recounts. Reps demanded recounts in 11 states after Kennedy's 1960 win over Nixon, including Texas where Kennedy led by 45,000 votes. The Reps demanded a recount when Ford lost to Carter by 9,000 votes in 1976. So it doesn't look like the Dems started it in 2000, the Reps started it way before that.

Unless a count of the number of challenges filed by each party has actually been done, we have no way of knowing who does it more.

WT wrote to Who The: I see bad manners by the GOP in general hit new lows since Obama's election.

---------------------------------------

From your perspective I can see why you think this, however I believe the Republicans simply stooped down to the level that the Democrats set the preceding 8 years. Doesn't say much for either group, but certainly didn't start with Obamas current presidency.

Democrats called bush an "idiot" and had no qualms about it because they simply claimed they were speaking the truth! In other words, dems can say whatever they want if they claim it (falsely) to be true. Republicans hold Obama accountable in the same way and suddenly it becomes bad manners, One idiot Republican calls O a liar during the state of the union and suddenly all democrats are aghast and appalled. Of course these are the same democrats who saw nothing wrong with Clinton "visiting" with Monica in the oval office - after all that was just a "private" personal matter.

I think the press holding presidential "feet to the fire" did start during Nixon, but as a result of all the criticism they received for giving JFK a pass. Nixon was only a too willing figure, but was targeted in response to the press being perceived as complicit.

Who the?

You're talking about a period of time when there were better manners in politics PERIOD, just not by the GOP, but by everyone. There was more respect and reverence for the presidency and those who held it. Look at JFK's philandering. I read years ago that many members of the press heard the rumors but did not report on it, in fact, they helped suppress it. Would that happen today?

I think respect towards the presidency changed after Richard Nixon's shenigans. That started the downhill slide, I think the media and press has had a different relationship with presidents since.

I see bad manners by the GOP in general hit new lows since Obama's election. The name calling by other members of Congress, the demagoguery over his policies, the Joe Wilson moments, show an attitude towards the presidency that would have been unthinkable 50 years ago.

Oh please, if Gore had been declared the winner under the same set of circumstances, with the dimpled and pregnant chads and all, Bush would have challenged it too. Anyone would have; it was a mess.

You criticize Gore for challenging an election but make excuses for Coleman. You may not like Coleman as an example, but the example is epic. It's what he did, and Republicans supported it for as long as they did because they feared a Democratic super majority after Arlen defected.

I don't believe that Dems do legal challenges over elections more, what I've seen over time indicates otherwise. When Foley conceded to Malloy I was surprised because it was out of the norm, especially with the state GOP pressuring him to continue fighting. But when you consider that Foley had already pumped $11 million of his own money into his campaign up to that point, it made sense.

If you have something that compares the number of Rep/Dem legal challenges, I'd be interested in seeing it.

It started in 2000? You mean with the Bush/Gore Florida hanging chad incident that Gore conceded to Bush for the good of the country? I haven't seen many Republicans put the good of the country ahead of their own interests lately.

I have no idea who leads the pack in legal challenges to close elections. But I do know that when a Democratic challenger upsets an expected Republican victory and the outcome is close, all hell breaks lose and the legal challenges will drag on as long as the money does. Look how long Coleman used the courts to delay Al Franken from being seated--6 months. Gore conceded to Bush after 1 MONTH. Big difference, don't you agree? And I remember Joe Wilson claiming he would take his loss to Murkowski all the way to the Supreme Court if he had to, and the only reason he didn't was because his party, and his donors, refused to fund him.

At least the Democrats are showing they can be sore losers too.

T.B.:

Regarding what I said earlier about how Dems should challenge the Wisconsin supreme court election results just on principle (the principle being "What Would Republicans Do"?), it looks like the Dems have decided to play the same time consuming, tax payer money-wasting game that the Republicans have whenever they lose a close race:

"Wisconsin Supreme Court challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg asked election officials Wednesday for a statewide recount in her flagging upset bid against Justice David Prosser, a race that marked yet another front in the fight over Republican Gov. Scott Walker's polarizing union rights law.

Final county tallies compiled last week showed Prosser held a 7,316-vote lead over the little-known state attorney. The margin is within one-half of 1 percent of the total votes cast, entitling Kloppenburg to a statewide recount at local governments' expense.

Kloppenburg said at a news conference that her campaign detected "widespread anomalies" in the election around the state. She didn't directly answer questions about whether she felt she could make up 7,000 votes, saying instead she wants to shine light on how the election was conducted.

"Wisconsin residents must have full confidence that these election results are legitimate and that this election was fair," Kloppenburg said.

State election officials said the recount would likely begin next week. They planned to file a request with a judge on Thursday seeking permission to clear voting machine memory cards so local clerks can start counting again.

Prosser's campaign has been pressuring Kloppenburg to give up, saying the margin is too great to overcome and a recount would cost taxpayers. His attorney has said he would challenge any recount request."

Kloppenburg is entitled to a recount, so she's going to have one regardless of the cost, just as Republicans have always done. She has also requested an investigation of voting procedures in Waukesha County.

So we've got an investigation, a recount, and several motions being filed with judges. Awesome! Looks like the playing field is beginning to level . . . . .

T.B.:

I hear you, but still, Walker defying the rule of law the first time WAS facist behavior, more facist than anything we've seen that earned Obama that label. So is openly violating a state's constitution to do as you please after taking an oath to uphold it, as the Gov of Florida has done. Accepting this kind of behavior encourages more of it, and the far right excels at creating hysteria about the false fascism of others while actually doing it themselves.

I also disagree that the Left's reaction to the union busing in WI was "over the top". Walker campaigned on getting concessions from the unions; he did not campaign on eliminating them. The union busting law was a REAL issue; we've seen the right go way over the top on imaginary issues like death panels, Obama's place of birth and sharia law in the U.S. At least the Left's complaints are grounded in reality.

You are right, of course, that Wisconsinites who disagree can vote out or recall Walker and many of the Republican legislators and reverse what they have done. But this doesn't make Walker's actions any less outrageous to them. I'm no fan of unions, but they have the right to make their displeasure known.

And the supreme court election should have been a slam dunk for the incumbent, but he was sweating it until those "misplaced" votes were found. And over a dozen districts that went red in the mid-terms went blue again, so I think this does send a message anyway. I don't believe there was any foul play involved with those uncounted votes, but I still think Democrats should play it like the Republicans always do--hold up the election results as long as possible with investigations and legal complaints, just like the Reps did with Al Franken and Joe Miller did with Murkowski, if only to make the process more difficult.

I know this attitude isn't helpful, but the Left has tolerated the Right running amok and using whatever tactics they can to try to get their way. I think it's time the Democrats gave back; this would even the playing field.

Ok, this is the second time on this blog I've seen the word "capping" used.

I saw this term used also on the Budget Battles Line Drawn thread:

By Anonymous | April 15, 2011 8:33 AM:

"No matter how you cut it, he apparently thinks it is more important to capping then to lead."

Even though the above sentence is grammatically mangled, can anyone here tell me what "capping" in this context means?

Thanks in advance.

And I notice you completely ignored the two paragraphs where I discussed product regulation and only commented on the sex issue.

I rest my case.

And I always remember to tip wait staff. Seriously, I am not sure who has the sex hang up. I recall that this is often a subject and belief you like to impart on and attribute it to Republicans. I find that very interesting.

T.B.:

Of course I know better. I'm assuming most of the conservatives/Republicans on this blog know better too, but that hasn't stopped them.

I just think it's amazing how much drama we got from the right over O's health care reform: socialism, fascism, Marxism, Stalinism, gangster government, etc etc. But a couple of Republican governors actually DO act like gangsters and dictators, and the silence from these same people is deafening. I think this needs to be brought to our attention.

You say that true fascists don't honor judicial decisions. Need I remind you, Scott Walker didn't honor the judicial decision at first. The judgment specifically included wording that prohibited him from implementing the bill ("the further implementation of 2011 Wisconsin Act 10 is enjoined"), but he did it anyway. He had to have this repeated by the judge with the threat of consequences a second time before he stood down. That is fascist behavior, he should have respected the rule of law the first time. And Rick Scott of Florida HAS violated his state's constitution several times since he took office, and he and his administration have just shrugged it off. Can you imagine the hysteria that would have ensued on the right if Scott were a Democrat?

I certainly am not "mocking" Ryan's budget; I'm taking it very seriously. But it has many gray areas that are not being clarified by Ryan which appear to be sticking it to the elderly. Without clarifying these areas, I doesn't have a chance with the Dems. It may be a good start, but that's exactly what I said about O's health care reform, and you saw the response I got to that.

Claimsmark:

Sorry that you took offense, but there IS a difference between things and behaviors. As a society, there are clearly some things Americans realize are appropriate for government to regulate, and most Americans enjoy the protections those regulations afford.

Like the lead in paint you mentioned. Lead causes damage to developing brains, so regulation prohibiting it in children's toys and things that children have known to ingest, like paint peelings, is regulation that most people agree is beneficial. I doubt many parents would prefer to expose their children to something that would harm them. Same with food standards regulation, most Americans enjoy knowing that the ground beef they are buying is actually beef, that the milk they are buying is actually milk.

Having said that, I realize that in many areas regulation has gone too far. Toilets, shower heads and light bulbs are probably in this realm. The purpose for these are to promote water and energy conservation, but I see the point that people should be given a choice where and how they want to conserve, if at all, and be able to buy what they want. The prohibition on raw milk is another. Just slap a warning label on it like we do with alcohol and cigarettes and let people take their chances drinking it if that's what they want.

But this hang up many Republicans have about the sexual behavior of others amazes me. That is SO intrusive, wanting to use government to regulate the most intimate personal decisions. That is much more of an infringement on personal liberty than are toilets and light bulbs.

I'm glad you get a kick out of reading my posts. I'll be here all week; try the veal!

I would really be miserable too what the ? if life was seen solely as being Democrat or Republican dogma. My point is I do not want under any circumstances the government in every room of my house and all aspects of what I do with my life. But more importantly, I do not want self serving self styled intellectuals such as you explaining the difference between things and behaviors as if one is okay for the government to regluate and one is not. This is what happens when you are a champion of a political party. Everything is politics and I think that would be a sad way to live. You are really too much sometimes. I will say you have a very unusual way of processing things and I get a kick out of reading the result often.

Psyche:

I think it's more than just a rumor. I've read articles that claim China holds $450 billion in Fannie and Freddie bonds. This article is from February of this year:

China's government, one of the biggest holders of debt from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, voiced confidence that Washington would continue to stand behind the US mortgage giants' obligations after the Obama administration outlined options for phasing them out, The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday.

The Obama administration issued a white paper Friday on plans to reduce US government involvement in the mortgage market . . . But the White House's report emphasized that it "will not waver from its commitment" to ensuring that the two "have sufficient capital to honor any guarantees issued now or in the future and meet any of their debt obligations."

In it's statement, China's State Administration of Foreign Exchange (SAFE) "took particular notice that the US government's commitment to support [Fannie and Freddie] hasn't changed."

http://www.myfoxla.com/dpps/money/chinese-express-wary-faith-in-fannie-mae,-freddie-mac-debt-dpgonc-km-20110213_11863801

Sounds to me like the Chinese have been guaranteed the safety of their Fannie and Freddie investments.

Claimsmark:

Toilets, lightbulbs, shower heads, and paint are THINGS, not behaviors. Who people choose to marry, how they manage their reproductive lives, when they choose to have sex (yes, this too. There is a Republican candidate in Alaska, Don Haase, who endorses premarital sex be made illegal) are all BEHAVIORS. Far right Republicans are determined to control private individual behavior, especially ones relating to sex.

What is it with sex and the far right Republicans? They must be an extremely repressed bunch. Why else are they so obsessed with what other people do in private?

Anon:

Some Republicans are practicing fascism, and I gave examples of some. It looks like we can add you to that list.

As per the definition you posted, one of the traits of fascism is "emphasizing an aggressive nationalism." Exactly. Just like today's far right Republican's demand an unquestioning adherence to the the doctrine of American exceptionalism and denounce those who hold alternate views as "un-American." You just referred to me, someone who has alternate views, as a "red", meaning a communist, an un-American. That's fascism. You, my dear, are a fascist.

Thank God we have the Constitution to protect us from people like you!

The demand for regulations covering private behavior? Are you kidding me? You think this is Republican montra? The government is in every room in your house my friend and it is because of people like What the ? who believe she and others are so powerful we can make our continent into a rain forest or desert based on our living habits. Now you are irriated because the government wants to control private behavior. Have you been living under a rock. Hilarious insanity. Your light bulbs, your toilets, your appliances, shower heads, the paint on your walls, behavior and why not MORE behavior for regulation?

Global warming is nothing more than more than one more example of lousy science being used to exploit a particular agenda.

Regardless of what man does or doesn't do the climate of earth will continue to change just as it has many times in the past.

Oh good grief, here were go again with the RIOTS IN WISCONSIN!! It's amazing how Scott Walker himself denied there were any riots or violence--another word used a lot by right wing media to describe the goings on there. No one was arrested, tons of toddlers were in attendance, free pizza was given out, music was playing--but when liberals do this it's a RIOT?

I have news for you--not all the protesters in Wisconsin were liberals. Tons of union workers are Republicans and Independents also--or at least they WERE Republicans and Independents, no telling now. The only "news" outlet to claim there was violence and riots was Faux News, and that's why when they showed up to report from the Wisconsin Capitol, protesters stood in the background chanting "Fox lies!, Fox lies!"

So get a clue--you've been had. Some of you conservatives really do HATE INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, don't you? It shows.

P.S. You all will be denying global warming until you're treading water. Then you'll find a way to blame it on the Democrats!

I'd like to hear you be more specific on Ryan's budget proposal. Welfare reform and tax reform are generic terms that can mean ANYTHING, what specifically are his proposed reforms? I know one of his reforms is to drop the top income tax rate from 35% to 25%.

And I know one of your factors is a misnomer: health and retirement security. Ryan's reforms actually create LESS SECURITY in health care for the elderly. His proposal is to end Medicare as we know it and replace it with a voucher system that seniors can use to purchase health insurance on the open market. Ryan's "reform" doesn't guarantee that these vouchers will cover the cost of insurance, they will just be used to "offset" that cost. So if seniors can't afford to pay the price gap, they will go without insurance. And we will be in a worse place than we are now, because then seniors will join the rest of the uninsured in emergency rooms across the nation, and the cost of their care will be picked up by taxpayers, just like now. How is this reform?

The issue will most likely go away because you'll be the only one talking about it. It's a dead issue.

T.B.,

An excellent starting point should be a governing principle that SECA funds can only be used for "incubation"... to help get people and organizations with new ideas off the ground and on their feet along with some breathing room to develop their own funding or revenue source.

Another excellent starting point would be to create a SECA Review Commission. Each city council member would be given the opportunity to appoint 2 or 3 Naperville residents to such a review commission. Residents would serve rotating 4 year terms and be limited to serving 2 terms in their lifetime. The idea is to get a good mix and cross section of what Naperville residents need or want. The Review Commission would make recommendations to the City Council. The City Council can accept or reject Review Commission recommendations only. The City Council would be prohibited from modifying Review Commission recommendations or taking any formal action not approved by the Review Commission.

Having said that there should also be:
1. a maximum annual dollar cap, something like $50-75,000 that any single organization can be awarded per year when the intent is for a multi-year funding request. Each subsequent funding year is evaluated independently,

2. a lifetime maximum dollar cap, something like 5 times the annual dollar cap, that any single organization may be awarded thru multi-year funding requests,

3. a maximum dollar cap of $350-$450K for any single special project or a unique request one time request. The same organization would not be able to submit multiple requests in one year or multiple requests over a period of years for the same project or phases of a project. The same organization could submit a different request each year for a totally new and different project that is unrelated in any way to an earlier project. Such special projects or unique requests would be further limited to permanent "bricks and mortar" type projects that would enhance and improve the community with a strict limitation that no more than 3% of the grant may be spent on any kind of administrative cost. Such projects must have an independent third party review to ensure a reasonable lifecycle of 50 years with appropriate contractural guarantees or bonding as well as up front disclosure of any future liability or operational costs, and

4. the dollar amounts stated previously may be adjusted annually by the City Council prior to each year of funding provided such increases are limited to no more than the lesser of 3% or the actual CPI for the preceding year.

Yes, it is time to clean up the SECA slush fund once and for all time. The above would be simple steps to take to ensure good and responsible government is using such funds properly and wisely in the bet interest of the citizens of Naperville.

If the City Council isn't willing to accept these kinds of reform measures then we should probably just demand the SECA tax be entirely repealed.