I don’t believe you’ll ever find a video of George Bush claiming he got Khalid Sheik Mohammed, nor will you find him incessantly bragging about it. The vocabulary of Barack Obama, on the other hand, sees two words used far more than any others.
“I” and “me.”
From Yahoo answers in 2009:
Why does Obama use the word “I” so many times in his speeches?
The “Best answer”?
That is what an arrogant narcissistic person does….
2010: The I’s Have It: Obama Uses ‘I’ 43 Times in Baltimore
2012:
2014: ‘I,’ ‘Me,’ ‘My’—Obama Uses First Person Singular 199 Times in Speech Vowing Unilateral Action
“I” ended the war:
“I” got Bin Laden
It’s always that way. Me, me, me, I, I, I.
Until something goes awry. Then the Obama pronouns change to “they.”
President Obama largely blamed the United States’ intelligence community in an interview broadcast Sunday for giving an incorrect assessment of the capabilities of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
“Our head of the intelligence community, Jim Clapper, has acknowledged that, I think, they underestimated what had been taking place in Syria,” Obama said on CBS’s “”60 Minutes.”
Obama said ISIS, also known as ISIL, went “underground” when United States forces fought al Qaeda in Iraq in the last decade.
The problem is that we do know Obama has been receiving briefings on ISIS for some time.
A former Pentagon official confirms to Fox News that detailed and specific intelligence about the rise of ISIS was included in the PDB, or the President’s Daily Brief, for at least a year before the group took large swaths of territory beginning in June.
Maybe if Obama had attended those security briefings he would have know about ISIS. Barack Obama is a narcissist – and I’ll say it again- he’s so self-consumed that I also believe he is a sociopath.
First to take credit, first to dodge blame.
And you have to love this:
Obama: “I got Bin Laden BUT YOU didn’t Build that Business”
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
The problem goes beyond on whether he took his daily intel briefings. It is known he would rather read those briefings, and those briefings must be submitted to him electronically. It allows him to read what he wants to read. His staff caters to him on that, saying his time is valuable. It is also known he’s a poor listener and intellectually lazy. When he does take a brief, he rarely asks questions. His staff rarely asks questions. Essentially, he has all the traits you don’t want in a president.
Good morning Dr. J,
You might also find interest in Eli Lake’s piece:
Why Obama Can’t Say His Spies Underestimated ISIS:
Here’s the 60 Minutes interview.
Also, Hot Air noting the “they”
Look at exactly what Obama said.
Obama said on CBS’s “”60 Minutes.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Clapper has acknowledged that OBAMA THINKS that THEY (Clapper, et al) underestimated what was…..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, Obama wants things all distilled down to a 1/4 page ”memo” with two or three boxes he can pick to check off.
But that’s no excuse for Obama being so out of the loop that he doesn’t even know what ISIS is up to.
And now Obama is talking (again) about merely pushing ISIS back, not eradicating them from the planet.
Well, perhaps we simply cannot afford to keep dropping $1.5 million dollar bombs on old used pick-up trucks and buildings ISIS stole from other people.
Without ”boots-on-the-ground,” that’s just about all we can do.
@Nanny G #3:
“Without ”boots-on-the-ground,” that’s just about all we can do. (bomb them)”
I agree with that.
Obama was elected at least in part because he promised HIS constituency to bring our boys home. He has been honoring that commitment to the continuing displeasure of the more hawkish factions of his own party as well as to displeasure of the entire Republican party. (Note that the primary goal of the party that is OUT of power is to damage the party that is IN power. It is a rather unfortunate feature of our two-party system, but as BOTH parties seem to enjoy playing the game this way, I can’t see that it will change any time soon.)
At this point, the Democratic Party probably believes that if a Democratic president puts combat boots back on foreign soil, Democrats would lose all hope of ever winning another election of any sort, just as the Republican Party turns on any of its members who support gay marriage. Both issues are “litmus tests.”
Apart from the purely political motivation, Obama might also be considering the potential consequences of starting a ground war with 1.6 billion Muslims. He MIGHT understand that as we kill ISIS members, more of those 1.6 billion other Muslims will turn INTO ISIS members. (It’s a bottomless pit – the proverbial “tar-Baby.”) Obama must ALSO know that any such adventure would drag on indefinitely and that WE would tire of the exertion well before THEY would. And he CERTAINLY understands that if he waits until a REPUBLICAN president takes on the burden of a ground war against Islam, the Democratic Party will be strengthened immeasurably, as America’s distaste for prolonged war cannot be overstated.
Politics may not result in the most effective foreign policy, but then again, the principal purpose of politicians is to get and stay elected.
Well, done, George.
Politics weighs heavily in Obama’s decisions.
But one problem.
NOT killing ISIS led to the ”tar-baby” effect.
While ISIS seemed unstoppable foreign Muslims flocked to fight with them.
But once we started targeting ISIS that ”tar-baby” effect slowed.
(It was also helpful for ISIS to admit that European ISIS recruits were simply cannon fodder to be killed in front lines. Add to that, the escaped ISIS fighter who admitted to being repeatedly sodomized by ISIS leaders, video’ed as being sodomized, then emotionally blackmailed into becoming a suicide bomber for ISIS.)
So, the bloom, if there ever was one, is falling off the rose.
Real sadists will be drawn to ISIS.
But they do NOT make up the vast majority of Muslims.
So, you can see, I disagree with you, and Obama, if that’s really coming into consideration.
ALL of Islam will NEVER follow ISIS.
Muslims, for the most part, are far too passive.
(Do you recall ”Islamic Rage Boy?” He was PAID to come to demonstrations and emote for whatever Islamic imam wanted him. Paid rabble are quite common in the forefront of Islamic riots.)
@George+Wells:
Basically you are admitting that Democrats place their own power as priority, over and above, national security. Of course, you never fail to try to equate any issue to that of gay “marriage” which, if not defeated, radical Islam will take care of post haste.
So the answer is what? To roll over like a whipped dog and hope we get our bellies scratched?
Radical Islam has to be defeated and air strikes are not going to do the trick. Obama should be (although he’s not) putting our national security before any political agenda. Once again we see the actions of a radical Muslim classified as “work place violence” although we know better.
We must kill them, George. All of them until they back off just as they did at the gates of Vienna. We must bomb them, use our troops to kill them, make sure that the payment for an Islamic caliphate is so great that even the Islamist will think twice about the worth of 72 virgins.
In the case of Obama, who is term limited, our national security should be his primary concern. It is not, and because of that he will go down in history as the worst president this nation has ever had the misfortune of electing.
For all who get tingly feelings over ” boots on the ground ” i.e. Combat troops
Iraq has stated quite clearly NO
now some here probably think that an actual invitation is not required but they are probably the same ones who believed that rubbish about how we would be welcomed as liberators.
How’s this : anyone who wants boots on the ground. Just lace them ip and march over that would show us all what you really think. Maybe Dr j can shit his lucrative office and do some volunteer work in the battle zone
Also Dr j if you bothered yo google it you would find Obama uses “I ” just about as often as Reagan did
It is just your perception of frequency that makes you think it is more
You are obsessed with him
@John:
The ineptness of Obama to reach a SoFA in Iraq is exactly what led to this mess. Deny that all you want, but the proof is in the pudding.
ISIS is a threat, it is here and it will kill Americans. Look no further than Oklahoma. ISIS/Al Qaeda will not do another 9-11 but rather use individual terrorists such as those who killed Americans at Fort Hood and the Boston Marathon. And the JV POTUS will continue to call that “work place violence” in his attempt to not go after this nation’s enemies.
@Wordsmith:
I am voting “bullshitting”
@George+Wells:
And golly, he’s NOT bringing our boys back from Afghanistan. He got himself a SOFA to relax upon.
@retire05 #6 :
“Basically you are admitting that Democrats place their own power as priority.”
Well, yes, I think I said as much – THREE times in that post – because that’s how politics seems to work here in America.
When Republican Rand Paul advocates isolationism, he does so with a belief that such a policy best serves our national interest, and when Republican John McCain advocates going to war for 100 years, he also thinks that his approach to foreign policy is the best for our national security. Both of these two opposing opinions are crafted by their adherents to appeal to their respective constituencies. They cannot BOTH be in the best interests of our National Security. They ARE both examples of conflicting ideologies that help get their advocates re-elected.
As I said, this is the stuff of politics.
It stinks.
I don’t like it.
But it’s here to stay.
Get over it.
@George+Wells:
And neither one of those men are President. Or has a Cabinet position.
They are but two of 100 member body. But we do have a right to expect the President to act in the best interest of the citizens, not play petty politics for power.
@retire05 #12:
“But we do have a right to expect the President to act in the best interest of the citizens, not play petty politics for power.”
Interesting that “petty politics” might be OK for senators and representatives, but not for the president. Must be a case of ethical relatively.
Yes, you DO have the right to expect that. In our great environment of free speech, you even have a right to DEMAND it. But I doubt that you have a good REASON to expect it.
All the same, I’ll remember what you said the next time a Republican president does something stupid.
Telling the enemy of your plans for bombing is a sure way to waste ordnance.
If we go back in history and visit with a man who was a personal confidant of Hitler, we could learn how to conduct a bombing campaign. Albert Speer was an architect, but he was a genius at getting bombed out munition factories back on line in two or three days, to the astonishment of the Allied generals. Unfortunately, he used the best tradesmen and techies from the slave labor pool, and accomplished the unbelievable over and over. You would think the geniuses in Washington might consult the writings of this man to see if there was some key to bombing instead of using the bomb the Hell out of them strategy of WWII. During his 20 years at Spandou Prison, Speer wrote the key to winning a bombing campaign in his book, “Inside the Third Reich”.
He above all men in the Reich could see why the war was extended two years because of the incompetence of Allied bombing. He maintained we would bomb the ball bearing factories and knock them out, but he and his crew would arrive and the Reich would be making ball bearings within 48 hours. We would then move on to the tire factories and bomb them and the same scenario would be repeated. We tried to bomb all munitions and wasted time firebombing Dresden and Hamberg to needlessly incinerate humans, when we only had to keep the ball bearing factories under a bombing raid every few days and the war would have ground to a halt in 45 days. An army cannot move without bearings, trucks, planes, trains they all need a tremendous amount of bearings to be operational.
Now ISIS isn’t an army like the Reich, however they have key elements of supply and logistics, but if you want to waste time bombing empty buildings and Toyota trucks, it will be a long stupid finish to a war, much like the war in Europe.
@George+Wells:
Remember that all you want, George. Remember it until Hell freezes over, if you so desire. But once a man/woman is elected to the highest office of the land, they no longer represent just the party ticket they ran on. They should represent all of us, and that includes making sure that all of us are as secure as possible.
Obama is such a partisan hack that he is willingly allowing our security to be threatened to play to his anti-war base. He’s not looking at his legacy as what it will really be, but what he thinks it will be playing to the choir.
Good point and perfect point on Speer and allied bombs.
Islam is NOT a religion of industrial production or even of entrepreneural activity.
And jihadis are the least productive of all Muslims.
ISIS are looters.
If they need it and don’t have it, they surround it and fight then take it.
IF we bomb some of it away from them, they simply repeat the process.
@John:
Here’s a bulletin for you, John. When we have an actual leader and if a national security threat is perceived in Iraq, the United States of America will not give a shit what Iraq’s opinion on what we should do is.
@George+Wells:
In the midst of the 2004 Presidential election, when Iraq was the primary political topic, Bush decided to win the war in Iraq was more important than the election. He proposed the surge, doubling down on what the left had made sure was an unpopular war. Bush felt winning national security was more important than winning the election.
Really? You’re still bitching about Obama getting Osama? Get over it, he did. And yeah, Bush created the ENTIRE mess with his war based on lies. He destabilized the region for decades to come.
And to continue with this ‘narcissist’ crap proves you’re Fox News/Krauthammer lap dogs and would rather follow the lies than seek the truth.
This video pwns you. So, you better not watch:
Colbert Proves Krauthammer Is a Bigger ‘Narcissist’ than Obama
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/colbert-proves-krauthammer-is-a-bigger-narcissist-than-obama/
@Wordsmith:
The outrage grows.
Obama is full of shit.
I think it is pertinent to ask WHY Obama won’t take in-person daily intelligence briefings, taking them in writing instead.
On this very issue MailOnline’s inside the WH source requested anonymity…….
@Retire#15:
“They should represent all of us”
Of course I agree with that. What you are saying is true. Unfortunately, presidents find that it isn’t always possible to represent ALL of us. Bush pushed (unsuccessfully) for a US Constitutional Amendment forbidding gay marriage. On divisive issues, it isn’t always possible to represent both sides equally. (Yes, gay marriage is a small detail, but it makes the point.)
“He’s not looking at his legacy as what it will really be”
I suspect that Obama believes that his ground-breaking (albeit late) support of gay rights issues and his Affordable Care Act (however flawed) will constitute the larger part of his legacy. He likely thinks that both initiatives will make further progress in the future and that he will be given credit for having played a positive role in them. The future may not unfold as he predicts, but no president is gifted with a crystal ball, and as you have repeatedly pointed out, neither are we.
@Bill #17:
“In the midst of the 2004 Presidential election, when Iraq was the primary political topic, Bush decided to win the war in Iraq was more important than the election. He proposed the surge, doubling down on what the left had made sure was an unpopular war. Bush felt winning national security was more important than winning the election.”
Exactly right.
Didn’t Nixon resign because he thought that securing reelection justified breaking the law and got caught red-handed? I doubt that his actions (other than his humiliating resignation) were in the best interest of national security, although he probably thought otherwise. Don’t politics and criminal behavior make cozy bedfellows?
Bush made his share of mistakes. All presidents do. But he did some things right, and once he started his wars (right or wrong), he was right to pursue them. I give him credit for that.
@Nanny G #19:
“I think it is pertinent to ask WHY Obama won’t take in-person daily intelligence briefings, taking them in writing instead.”
He’ll be writing his memoir soon, and written notes assist the quest for accuracy. Otherwise “”You’re lying! No, YOU’RE lying!”” ends in a draw.
@Skookum: #14
You make a very good point, Skook, which requires just a little common sense. Unfortunately such is not gained through a brief experience as a community organizer.
And to make sure this narcissistic and self-serving Administration remains incompetent and otherwise occupied, we have Obama-handler Valerie Jarrett appearing on “The Good Wife.” . . . . Why not? The Pres. doesn’t do anything while the Nation haemorrhages on all fronts, and much of the world is in trouble or is on fire, so . . . why shouldn’t she play at acting?
Many of us posted on FA, years ago, of the potential outcome from “broadcasting” exit intentions from Iraq. ISIS timed it exactly as we predicted terrorists would do. And here we are. Obama is responsible for these massacres. Weakness with such enemies, NEVER works out. Iran is the next big calamity for the West.
@Nanny+G: I have attended TS intel briefings at CENTCOM. It is not enough to provide the written brief, the verbal explanations make sure the intel is communicated. Providing written information that is not comprehended is not communication.
We have all figured it out by now… Obama is of the ‘ruling class’…His ‘goals’ are NOT ‘OUR’ goals….He continues to stall, and LIE. Who is this person and who does he ‘really’ work for???? Obviously not for the United States.
@This+one:
Amusing how liberals get their policy views from funny men. Now, I think Krauthammer should be impeached… oh, wait, he ain’t President, is he?
@George+Wells:
I find it not just a little disgusting that anyone would accept Obama missing intel briefings so he could get them electronically and cut and paste for his retirement-fund history-altering memoirs. Of course, you are probably right about that, since appearing in person at these briefings might draw unsolicited advice and recommendations he would later have difficulty denying he knew anything about… like with ISIS.
We could call that “plausible incompetence”.
@Bill #27:
(next)
@Bill #27:
“I find it not just a little disgusting that anyone would accept Obama missing intel briefings so he could get them electronically and cut and paste for his retirement-fund history-altering memoirs.”
I don’t believe that my comment included anything about my ACCEPTING this, did it?
“He’ll be writing his memoir soon, and written notes assist the quest for accuracy. Otherwise “”You’re lying! No, YOU’RE lying!”” ends in a draw.”
No, I didn’t think it did…
Obama probably thinks he’s just covering his ass.
“We could call that “plausible incompetence”.
Obama probably thinks it’s more like “plausible deniability.”
History will conclusively prove which one it really is.
@George+Wells: Acceptable and acknowledged that that is not your view. Disgusting nonetheless. This seems to be yet another segment of his administration that puts personal politics above all else.
@Bill:
Agreed.
Let us remember, Obama did indeed kill Osama; in fact, Obama could have killed him while he was on the golf course, but his advisors thought it would have diminished the “optics”.
skooksjournal.com
@Skook #32:
Obama no more killed Osama Bin Laden than Bush killed Saddam Hussein.
“Optics”? Are you thinking that Optics are an unforgivable evil?
Wasn’t the famous photograph of the Marines raising the Stars and Stripes atop Mt. Suribachi on Iwo Jima actually the second flag that was raised, precisely because the first flag wasn’t impressively large enough?
We’ve certainly had our share of presidents who directly caused a whole lot of bloodshed, but I can’t say that very many of them actually get wet, sticky human blood on their hands. But when presented with the opportunity to create the OPTICS of having materially contributed to our winning a bloody confrontation, most of our leaders jump at the chance.
Those ”optics,” included Obama later making his ”Osama bin Laden is dead…..” remarks that helped in the midterm elections.
But what new ”optic” can Obama come up with to overcome the tax-flight that has cost Dems in
NY (27)
MA (9)
NJ (12)
PA (18)
OH (16)
MICH (14)
IL (18)
all these congressional districts?
And how can Obama deal with all these NEW congressional districts in
Utah (4)
Georgia (14)
AZ (9)
SC (7)
?
http://washingtonexaminer.com/northeast-loses-40-of-house-seats-as-people-flee-high-tax-states/article/2554143
Obama is wagging all the dogs furiously trying to find the one that will help him the most.
@Nanny G #34:
You might care to note that ALL of the states you point to as having lost population are in the more Northern, cooler states, while ALL of the states you list as having gained population are in the Southern half of the country and are correspondingly warmer. State tax rates undoubtedly influences some population migration, but so does the high cost of heating in the winter. Additionally, Arizona’s growth is fueled in large measure by senior citizens’ attraction to its warm winters and low humidity – two weather factors that are high on the wish list of seniors with respiratory issues and enough money to do something about it. Retirement communities will soon be Arizona’s largest industry.
But I think that you may be overestimating Democratic concern for this loss of representative numbers in the North. If the people who are moving are net Democrat, they will add to the Democratic ranks in the states that they move to, ultimately shifting the balance of representation in those states more to the “left”, while if they are net Republican, their movement will leave the states that they left even more solidly Democrat. Gerrymandering can have a limited effect of under-accounting for some of the people who move, but ultimately, the balance of power in the House of Representatives will not shift unless the relative numbers of Democratic and Republican voters changes. Unlike Presidential contests, the outcome of House contests are largely determined on a one-person, one-vote basis. If some Democrats move from Massachusetts to Arizona, Massachusetts Democrats will be sorry to see them go, but Arizona Democrats will be happy to welcome them. Can you now see how this ISN’T a problem for Democrats?
Plausible incompetence!! Now 0-blama can’t keep up with his own lies!!
@George+Wells:
No, there was no one to take the photograph the first time. Why do people want to make up history?
#Randy #37:
“No, there was no one to take the photograph the first time. Why do people want to make up history?”
I’m not making anything up. READ:
“The famous photograph taken by Rosenthal was the second U.S. flag-raising event of the day. A U.S. flag was first raised atop Mount Suribachi soon after the mountaintop was captured at around 10:20 on February 23, 1945. Lieutenant Colonel Chandler Johnson, the battalion commander of the 2nd Battalion, 28th Marine Regiment, 5th Marine Division, ordered the commander of Easy Company to send a platoon to capture the mountain.[8] 1Lt. Harold G. Schrier, executive officer of Easy Company, volunteered to lead a 40 man combat patrol up the mountain (he replaced the wounded Third Platoon commander).
Lt. Schrier assembled the patrol at 8 am to begin the climb up the mountain. Lt. Col. Johnson (or the battalion adjutant) handed Schrier a flag saying, “If you get to the top put it up.” The 2nd battalion adjutant whose job it was to carry the flag, had taken the 54-by-28-inch (140-by-71-centimeter) flag from the battalion’s transport ship to Iwo Jima, the USS Missoula.[9] Lt. Schrier successfully led the combat patrol to the top. The flag was attached to a pipe, and the flagstaff was raised by Lt. Schrier assisted by his platoon sergeant.[10]However, on February 25, during a press interview aboard the flagship USS Eldorado about the flag-raising, Platoon Sergeant Ernest Thomas stated that Lt. Schrier, himself, and Sgt. Henry Hansen (platoon guide) had actually raised the flag. Lt. Schrier who received the Navy Cross for volunteering to take the patrol up the mountain and raise the American flag, would later receive a Silver Star Medal while commanding a rifle company on Iwo Jima.
The first photographs of the first flag flown on Mt. Suribachi were taken by SSgt. Louis R. Lowery, a photographer with Leatherneck magazine, who accompanied the patrol up the mountain.[11][12] Others present at this first flag-raising included Cpl. Charles W. Lindberg, Pfc. James Michels, and Pvt. Gene Marshall, the E Company, 3rd Platoon radioman sometimes disputed as Pfc. Raymond Jacobs.[13] However, Pfc. Raymond Jacobs (F Company, Second Battalion, 28th Marines) has been identified as being the radioman present during the first flag raising. This flag was too small, however, to be easily seen from the nearby landing beaches.”
@George+Wells:
And there is logic in moving from a high heating cost state to a state with high air conditioning costs? I think not.
And what do these states have in common?
NY (27)
MA (9)
NJ (12)
PA (18)
OH (16)
MICH (14)
IL (18)
All forced unionism states.
And these states?
Utah (4)
Georgia (14)
AZ (9)
SC (7)
All right to work states.
There is no study done that shows that liberals are moving out of liberal states to conservative states. On the contrary, it is conservatives fleeing the high tax/forced unionism states which increases the number of Congressmen in red states and reduces the number of Congressmen in blue states.
@retire05 #39:
Hey, I’m old fashioned. In Virginia, I use a fan more often than an air conditioner, and I KNOW that the fan uses much less energy than the air conditioner OR the heat. But for the sake of this discussion, I’ll GIVE you that point. Free and clear. And for the sake of expedience, I’ll grant the stuff you said about unions, too.
But my arithmetic still says that if REPUBLICANS leave blue states and move to red states, the Blue states won’t lose their Democratic reps, they’ll lose their REPUBLICAN reps. The reps they lose will be the ones that the Republicans who moved were represented by = Republican reps.
As long as the net number of Republicans remains the same, and the net number of Democrats remains the same, in the WHOLE country, there won’t be a significant shift in the balance of power in the House from a shift in demographics.
How are you missing that?
BTW, I wish ALL Republicans would move to red states and ALL Democrats would move to Blue states. That way, Gerrymandering would be dead, and we’d have one-man-one-vote way better than we have now. So, HEY! REPUBLICANS! Y’ALL MOVE TO TEXAS, Y’A HEAR??!!
(And Democrats in Texas, y’all sneak out quick!)
@George+Wells:
And the reps that blue states lose, do to a loss in population, will be gained by red states, due to an increase in population. So red states gain Republican Congressmen, and consequently gain more power in the Congress with greater representation while blue states are left with a smaller number of Congressmen, albeit Democrats.
How are you missing that?
@George+Wells:
From your mouth to God’s ears.
@George+Wells: No optics are an ongoing joke of the Obama Administration; since, everything is programmed to yield the maximum effect for the president. How could he have spiked the football, playing the duffer’s fool while America’s Arch Enemy is having his brains and heart shot out.
The second flag raising could have been ordered by almost any field grade officer or maybe even a staff NCO. The conditions of combat and the high mortality rate make confirmation of the order impossible to trace, but it wasn’t the president who ordered the second flag raising. He was too busy taking advice from his Soviet Advisors. refer to “Body of Secrets”, the declassification of KGB files and the Venona Cables.
@Skook #43:
“The second flag raising could have been ordered by almost any field grade officer or maybe even a staff NCO. The conditions of combat and the high mortality rate make confirmation of the order impossible to trace, but it wasn’t the president who ordered the second flag raising.”
No argument there. And I’d point out that when I made the original comment about “optics”, I was pointing out that “optics” play a role more often than just in Obama’s presidency. The Iwo Jima example was just the first bit of odd “optics” that came to mind, and perhaps I could have searched a database and found more recent examples – I haven’t made a career out of concerning myself with “optics”. Wasn’t Bush’s decision to stand IN FRONT of a banner proclaiming “Mission Accomplished” a bit of very unfortunate “OPTICS?”
I posted my #38 information regarding the Iwo Jima “optics” issue because Randy had attacked me with the obviously incorrect
“No, there was no one to take the photograph the first time. Why do people want to make up history?”
My information proves that there WAS a first photograph of a FIRST FLAG-RAISING, that the first flag WAS judged to be too small, and that the SECOND photograph of the SECOND, LARGER flag being RE-RAISED was the photograph that became famous. That’s “optics” pure and simple, no matter how you cut it.
Obama has plenty of faults deserving attack, and I’m not perfect, either. But Randy’s attack on the historical accuracy of my Iwo Jima remark was wrong, and I proved it. Case closed.
@retire05 #41:
Dear Heart,
The number of Representatives in the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES is set by law at 435. Has been since 1911.
At this point in time, our (USA) population is a bit North of 330 million. That breaks down to approximately 758,000 persons per representative. RIGHT?
OK, now, if exactly half of the country’s population is Democrat, and exactly half of the country’s population is Republican, NO MATTER IN WHICH STATE THEY RESIDE, there will be approximately 217.5 Republican representatives and approximately 217.5 Democratic representatives in the US House of Representatives, presuming that both Republicans and Democrats vote in the same proportion.
If Republicans leave New York, New York doesn’t lose Democratic Representatives, it loses Republican representatives. And those Republican representatives that New York loses are the same ones (in number) that Arizona gains when those New York Republicans move to Arizona. That’s because every net change of 758,000 persons nets a change of ONE representative, irrespective of the direction – North or South – that this migration occurs.
No matter how or where you shuffle Republicans, they will only receive one Republican Representative per 758,000 persons.
NO NET CHANGE.
Show me where this model is wrong!
@George+Wells:
Redistricting.
Let’s take a solid blue state and a solid red state; New York and Texas, with a combined equally split 50 Congressional seats.
New York loses 758,000 in population. The state is redistricted and loses one Congressional seat reducing it (hypothetically) from 25 seats to 24 seats. Texas gains 758,000 in population, the state is redistricted and goes from 25 seats to 26 seats. Now instead of being a 25-25 split, it is a 24/26 split. That is a net gain of two Congressional seats for Republicans as red states generally elect Republican Representatives.
As blue states lose population, they loose the number of Congressional seats they have traditionally held, being a gain in Congressional seats for the red states as their population increases.
There is a population shift going on right now that benefits the Republican Party. Now, you can stick your head in the sand and deny that, but it remains fact.
Blue states have yet to learn that high taxes, forced union membership and nanny state policies drive people away. That is why people, who have moderate utility expenses in California will move to an area like northern Utah where their fuel costs are greater. They would rather pay home heating costs than taxes and forced union dues.
@retire05 #46:
If you are convinced that you can squeeze more Republican representatives out of the same number of Republican voters by moving them to Red states, then by all means move every Republican that you can find to Texas. Please, be my guest.
You might succeed in scaring some stupid Democrats into believing that they have something to worry about when voters move, but I’m not one of them.
Do you think that if you move enough Republicans back and forth enough times, there will be no Democratic representatives left in the House?
It sure sounds like it.
@George+Wells:
I have no control over where people live. It is not a matter of “me” moving people around. People live in areas that best serve their interests and the interests of their families.
Well, goodie, goodie for you. But facts are hard things to dispute, and the fact remains that oppressive blue states are losing populations. Those who subscribe to the liberal point of view are more than content to remain where they are, but conservatives are not.
It is sad, that when presented with actual examples of how population movement can affect the Congressional split, you refuse to accept it. To say that the split will remain the same is a fallacy. Members of Congress do not follow their constituents as those constituents move to another state. My example of New York/Texas is a valid example of how one party can lose representation while the other party gains representation.
If you think that people don’t vote with their feet, I would point you to the 2010 elections where Republicans pulled off the greatest rout since 1938. Why is that? Part of that is because of the population shift. How many electoral college votes has Texas gain due to the population shift?
To use another example; Texas has seen a huge increase in population in the last ten years. And during that time frame, Texas has elected even more conservatives, and became even redder in 2012 than it was in 2010. It has gained in Congressional seats, while other, blue states have lost Congressional seats. Those are facts that you can ignore, but cannot deny.
@retire05 #48:
I neither ignore or deny that. New York lost red representation, and Texas gained red representation. The Democrats stayed where they were and held on to the blue representation that their numbers deserved, at one rep. per 758,000.
At this point I wonder why you think that YOUR analysis would worry Democrats, even if it IS correct that moving Republicans can cause Democrats to lose representation by simply moving to another state. Democrats are already hopelessly behind in the House of Representatives, and there is absolutely no chance for them to “retake” the House, no matter where Republicans collect themselves. Democrats understand this. So why should they fret?
For that matter, I’m fine with the House remaining in Republican hands. If Congress goes Democrat, and we get a Democratic president, the country gets screwed. It’s happened before, and it’ll happen again.
@retire05:
Here’s an interesting legal question that came up the other day:
At the moment I am married to Paul by virtue of a same –sex marriage legally performed in the state of Maryland.
At the moment there is an older woman who would like to marry me in the state of Virginia so that I could gain access to her Social Security Survivor Benefits and easily inherit her assets upon her death.
I have received legal counsel that, aside from the obvious moral conflict that such an arrangement would create, there would probably NOT be a LEGAL obstacle. I am offered pro-bono representation if such an arrangement should come under legal challenge.
The advice that there would be no legal problem is because the Maryland marriage was the first one I entered and so would be the one that Maryland considered legal, and Maryland would NOT recognize the second one because it conflicted with the first. On the other hand, Virginia is prohibited by statute and constitutional amendment from recognizing the Maryland marriage, so THAT state would not oppose the second marriage.
The Maryland marriage gains me access to government employee health insurance through Paul’s employment and group auto insurance rates through our insurer’s family rate policy.
The Virginia marriage would gain me access to the respective WIFE’S Social Security Survivors’ benefits because Social Security benefits are statutorily tied to the marriage laws of the state of residency.
If the Supreme Court decides that gay people have a constitutional right to marry, Virginia would have to recognize the Maryland marriage, and the Virginia marriage would need to be annulled because it would come into conflict with both states’ anti-polygamy laws. But if the Supreme Court upholds the right of states to forbid gay marriage, there is no legal obstacle to being married to these two different people in these two different states. One state recognizes one marriage, and the other state recognizes the other marriage.
This is why the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA needs one single law governing marriage in all 50 states. Any other arrangement is BS.