Jim, You are beautiful! Only you can spin Clinton into a Republican message.
What does Mr. Piston think?

Joe, thanks for the compliment ... I will have to check with my political sage to see if he agrees. Thanks for being the first to comment.

I think this is Jim's best blog post yet.

Though, I did find it interesting that the best speech of the DNC came from a man who disgraced the office by lying to Congress and the public about the sexual abuse of two women.

Ladies, how’s that republican war on women going? How’s that professional equality thing going? This is the man leading your platform? This is the man we’re supposed to believe about the direction of our country?

Jim,
You can hear what you want to hear, but the message from Clinton couldn't have been clearer: Re-elect Obama. Your one-sided distortion of the message borders on humorous. The Republican party has been hijacked by the fringe elements, including Tea Baggers. The platform is scary. Moderate Republicans (like Olympia Snowe) can't fit in. Good luck with that.

Jim, I don't agree with your politics, but from your posts you seem like a decent person. Why do you consistently use the term Democrat [sic] party when referring to the Democratic Party?

I find it odd that the Democrats will rant up and down that the Republicans are fighting a "War on Women", but then have Bill Clinton come out to speak. Time heals all wounds?

But to continue to highlight how oblivious they are....John Kerry spoke last night. The richest man in Congress. A man who famously parked his yacht in Rhode Island, because the taxes were lower. Doesn't sound like he wants to pay his fair share either.

Can the Democrats even find people who embody the values they uphold? Are they willfully ignorant of mixed messages they sent last night? Or, worse yet, did they just not think the American public was smart enough to see through the hypocrisy?

Jim....wish u had focused on Obama's woeful speech. I actually like Clinton.

Jim - I heard the same speeches you did and I came to very different conclusions. What the heck were you smoking if you think Clinton was telling America to elect Romney? All Clinton did was eviscerate every GOP policy position and assertion. I have no confidence in Romney's ability to be a leader - I do not trust a man who lies the way Romney does. Obama is no ideologue - if that were the case, the whole healthcare reform process would have started out with single payer, not the Romney plan which was based on the 1993 GOP plan which originated with the Heritage Foundation. Obama would not be carrying out drone strikes against the dregs of Al Qaida or giving a pass to the members of the Bush Admnistration who advocated the same sort of torture that was considered a war crime in WWII.

I couldn't agree more.....on all points, really. As a Republican pro-choice woman (yes, my friends, we do exist), I am reasonably disgusted by the Republican platform's stated position on the subject.....and I was utterly outraged at the completely undemocratic situation that took place when voting in the amendments to the Democratic platform yesterday evening. That the latter has not gotten more press and outrage befuddles me and continues to make me scratch my head about media biases (but that's another story altogether).

Clinton, personal indiscretions of the past aside, has certainly been a good leader and I was reminded in his speech the other night of his ability to make people listen and to use logic (a novel concept) to appeal to our intelligence. He is, however, nothing like Obama, so the voice of reason at the DNC was one of the past. That won't help people too much.

As for Romney, he's a leader. Let's not forget that regardless of his personal opinions, gay marriage became legal in MA while he was Gov., and Romneycare was passed. He listens to PEOPLE and leads by enacting our will, not his own. That's leadership.

Finally, I have to respond to UglyHat's comment above about this war on women. Really? What war is being waged on me? Should I get under my desk and hide? I don't get it and frankly, that rhetoric is more insulting than the folks who dish it seem to understand.

Kim, as I responded to Jim O'Connor, there is no intended slight. The Party is referenced in both ways. Since we do not call Democrats, Democratics, I decided to use Democrat Party. I'll use the Democratic Party hereafter if that will undisappoint you.

Jim, it is indeed the Democratic Party, I believe the shortening to Democrat [sic] Party started during the Gingrich era as a type of coded insult, much like we could have experienced in grade school.

In answer to your question, yes I will be voting for Obama for re-election as well as Warren for U.S. Senate and Kennedy for House of Reps. In fact I'll be volunteering for Warren and Kennedy throughout the campaign. I'm a liberal and I think these candidates are very good, frankly I wish they were more liberal. Same with Obama.

Jim, thank you for the clarification. I had no intention of an insult. Henceforth I will use Democratic Party.

We obviously will be canceling out each other's votes, but this is why we have elections. Thanks again for the compliment (my wife was very pleased) and all the best.

Ideology separates us, dreams & anguish brings us together

Very good blog post Jim. Keep up the good work. You know how to get people blogging !

Christine,
Your definition of "leadership" is on the mark. As you say, even Mitt Romney's detractors have to admit that he's a good listener. He worked hard to be bipartisan while governor of MA, which was no easy feat. He cut taxes 19 times, raised our bond rating, balanced the budget, and left $2 Billion in the Rainy Day Fund when he left office. It is often reported that MA was 47th in the nation in job creation during Romney's time as governor, but what is not reported is that unemployment was just above 4%, so it was not a priority to create jobs when mostly everyone was already working, as a small percentage of the workforce always remains unemployed.

Thanks Ed, you are always very kind. Of course, you have seen, and will likely see again, that these pieces are an electronic bullseye for those with a different political philosophy. But, here's the thing that I am hearing much more frequently on an off-line basis. There are many people who are reading these pieces, then watching the commentary as it develops. Most of them are Independent voters and they are getting a good view of the positions of both parties, I am hoping that they find my opinions to be the more reasonable in such a way that it translates into votes for the Republican candidates.

I thought Clinton did a masterful deconstruction of the Republican "budget", such as it is. He laid out the stark scenarios that will face most people if we were to elect the GOP ticket. I hope people are listening. And I am not sure why Obama isn't able to do the same thing. Time to stop playing defense and call out clearly and without confusion the Republican shenanigans just like Clinton did.

There are no ideas on the other ticket other than trickle down economics which has created a less than a third of the jobs in the last fifty years, while democratic policies have created more than two-thirds. Trickle-down is a demonstrated failure. If we give the reins back to you, you'll leave an even bigger mess than you left us in 2009 which is a frightening proposition. That to me was Clinton's basic message.

The Republican party platform acts and behaves that the GOP was constituted in 2009. It's as if the first thing that happened after the big bang (or the great deluge if that's your taste), was the deficit and the Obama administration. Wow, talk about short memories!

Max, thanks again for your comments. I believe, however, that you miss the entire point of what Clinton was saying. Sure, he promoted Obama and derided the Republicans. After all, he was asked to nominate Obama and his job was to throw red meat to the wolves, which he obviously did.

However, perhaps you missed his segue into the practice of governance. He lapsed into the piece where he was Bill talking about Bill and making you realize all over again that you love Bill.

But you don't love Obama. He was very subtly telling the Hall that ideology was a danger and that he succeeded because he got things done (without mentioning Gingrich's positive role, btw. Clinton was to Gingrich what Reagan was to O'Neil).

Obama cannot do that. Obama is not Clinton. Romney can do it, or at least has the better potential. That is what I was hearing - he was making an American speech within the context of the Democrat convention. Democrats are not accustomed to that.

And what's the proof? Obama's speech actually included passages from Carter's 1980 acceptance speech. Check it out - Obama is Carter, not Clinton. The parallels are remarkable, and damning for the Democrats.

So, when it comes to short memories, please consult your mirror. You can recall Clinton, but you have forgotten Carter. Don't you wish Obama had as well?

Sorry, Max, I love your comments, but it is time for a change while America still has a chance. All the best.

Jessica, thanks for your comments. Unfortunately this is severely out of order si I hope you see it.

You seem a bit angry and defensive about Clinton, but he is who he is. And so isn't Obama, and he isn't even Clinton, and he is definitely not enough. Not now, after we have seen him for nearly four years. So, I stand by what I wrote in my piece.

But you ask the reverse question - who would I prefer, Sarah Palin or Hillary Clinton. Asking about Palin is inane as asking about Biden, don't you think? But let me say this about Hillary Clinton. Had the Lefties not caved to some misplaced guilt, and had the Media not taken sides, she would be President today, and she would be a sure bet for re-election. Her views, while liberal, are not radical for America. She is not a class warfare Democrat. She is not a divider or an ideologue and she learned from her husband that talking more sensibly than oratorically leads to better results. And, Hillary would never have insulted our allies, humiliated Israel, bowed to foreign leaders and promoted a Godless America in the Democrat platform.

So - to me the Democrats have themselves to blame for where we are right now.

Oh really? I don't think Carter was a great president, but this whole discussion is in the context of job creation. Want to look at everybody's record including the Republican deity, Gipper himself?

Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

What happened to the separation of church and state??? Why all this God all of the sudden??? PLEASE!! No matter who wins we are done for, the constitution has been stepped all over, Thieves are running the country not true Americans. Republicans/Democrats are not Patriots, they are both giving away our country to the Elite/Corps. Lowering taxes is not going to fix the deficit, it will only make it worse.
All I heard on both conventions was infomercial type of garbage with no actual facts or numbers...what a joke!

The change has begun! It's here. You just refuse to be a part of it! Come on, join up!!
Honestly, all this never-ending talk about the bad "Dems" and their tactics, and the good ole Republicans who never let us down. We really better learn to accept that we are all the same, prone to the same weaknesses and regularly doing good as well. We're living in the immediate (not distant, but immediate) aftermath of the most treacherous regime in American history, headed but by no means master-minded by poor George Bush (who never gets invited to anything! I thought Clinton was so kind to him in his speech). The fact that Bush's predecessor was so successful (in his bi-partisanship, etc.), the fact that there is no living politician in either party who can touch him when it comes to getting a message across, and the fact that his message, right now, is to support a serious, intelligent man who works hard for the MAJORITY of Americans--well, one sees how that is a threat.
Now go ahead, remind us of Clinton's affairs (and that we should care, and that we were right to spend millions trying to impeach him for lying about that); tell me that of course I think this way because I support Obama--reduce anybody who disagrees with you to an unthinking stereotype. But for goodness' sake, these constant calls for bi-partisanship are belied by insidious characterizations and the simple fact that for YEARS now (as Mr. Clinton pointed out), the Republican agenda is explicitly not to play ball.

I agree with Jim Hathaway about Clinton"s speech. It was obvious that Clinton was talking mostly about his own success. He never extolled any of Obama's accomplishments. He did make excuses for Obama's failures. It also seemed that he backhandedly derided him for his extreme lack of bipartisanism. Clinton spoke about his working together with Bush on many issues because that is how to succeed. You should use your best people regardless of their party. Romney understands this too.Obama puts people into positions in his administration based on friendship and party not talent. He is an idealogue. He doesn't deal in reality. In an ideal world all people would be equal. Everyone would have enough money. no one would be homeless. There would be no crime or sickness. The check would actually be in the mail as the saying goes. We could support all the non taxpaying truly needy and also all lazy bums who live off welfare as a life choice and we would never run out of money. the chances of ever succeeding in these goals is zero. That is the problem with being an idealogue.You are destined to fail.Clinton was very steady and clear when he spoke of his own accomplishments. He started to ramble as soon as he started to promote Obama. His demeanor even changed..
The fact that Clinton lied to congress was a definite crime but the fact that he had sex with willing ( and in the case of Monica - predatory ) women was something between him and Hillary. She didn't seem to care.

Ah, it's my liberal friend, David! Welocme to the conversation.

So, you will notice that nowhere in my piece did I disparage Clinton. I offered praise, and agree with you that he has a very keen ability to communicate with America. Bush, in contrast, was very awkward, and it turns out, Obama grossly overrated, the evidence being the side-by-side comparison with Clinton, and the fact that his overexposure has created a sense of National narcolepsy when he speaks.

He is yesterday's news, all Carter and no Clinton - which is more a fact than a criticism, a huge disappointment the same way that Bush was no Reagan because Obama is no Clinton.

The only change I see is that Obama's ideology has been finally discovered to be detrimental to America's economic security. He is all government, all the time - trying to mask his words with euphemisms of "community" and class warfare based taxes on the people already paying the overhwelming majority as "investments"... and kicking God to the curb.

I am sorry, David, but that dog doesn't hunt any more, and most people - not including the people at the DNC, or wishing they were there - have come to the conclusion that saving America does not mean retaining Obama. As Peggy Noonan said this week, it is not government that Americans love, it's America that Americans love. Government is what we got, and what we can change to ensure the rights and freedoms of the individual vs. the creation of even more victims groups.

Jim, I always appreciate what you have to say! Thanks for making me remember why I am a proud Republican again! Actually though I have you and Mr. Obama to thank for that. His poor speech and plea for acceptance of his mistakes the other night, put me (and it seems a LOT of others over the top). We found out the next day the measure of his failed policies. Unemployment at the highest level for the longets period of time since the Great Depression. Hundreds of thousands of new Democrats created by giving up looking for work. (Why should they when they can just go on the public dole?) I love how you don't hear the Dems addressing this issue, especially here on the blogs. The Republican wave is building and it will crash on the White House in November! Go Romney...Go Ryan! Oh and Go Patriots! (All of us from both parties that believe in their candidates. And especially the one playing in Nashville today. Take a break everyone and enjoy the game!)

Change in employment since inauguration. Bush v Obama:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/08/employment-in-two-administrations/

Also tells a nice story about who talks about shrinking government and who actually does it. It is always the case that actual data clarifies the mind and focuses the discussion like nothing else.

If you look at the hard data and take all of the social issues out of the picture, the Democrats have a much stronger track record on economic growth. Many would argue that steps the Obama administration took prevented us from going into a depression. This NPR interview explains it well if you care to listen. http://www.npr.org/2012/09/05/160607524/journalist-evaluates-obama-romney-economic-plans
If the economy and protecting the manufacturing sector are truly the top priority, all you have to do is look at the thriving American auto industry which is a direct result of government and business working TOGETHER to save one the industries that make our country so great.
Seeing a 2013 Chevy Camaro with the top down zooming past me is one of the many reasons I will be voting for the candidate who will do more for our economy. President Barack Obama.

Thanks, Gary - an interesting comment. I wonder while you were watching Clinton if you made the deduction that Obama is not even close to Clinton, and Clinton iand his record are pretty flawed?

The future of America depends on the election. Obama's best days are done and his inability to lead the Country and disregard for the Constitution, while driving our economy further into the tank are what we can look forward to if given a second term (my view).

I hope you change your mind.

Jim why do you make a claim and then when it is refuted with data, stay away from following up?

I have posted the employment creation records of many presidents dating back to the 20s and also compared job creation or rate of job losses in both presidents Bush and Obama's tenure (first terms to date). I think if we are to continue having a discussion, you ought to engage with the data. I look forward to your comments specifically on unemployment.

Max, thanks for your follow up. Here's the thing. It seems that everyone has a site from a source that supports their perspective, then assails everyone for not seeing their proven perspective. Someone in the string was using NPR as a source. At other times people add commnets from Heritage and get pounded for their allegedly slanted data. And, watch when the debates begin - they will devolve into a battle of contradictory "factoids and polls" all trying to peruade everyone of their "truth".

So, it's not that I am averse to data, it's just that we should all be very wary of somebody else's "facts". Hell, Obamacare was passed in part because the numbers on which the cost basis was presented were all incorrect. Purposely?

Right now we are dealing with Obama. He claims to have created 4.5M jobs. Do we believe him? Hell, the math doesn't add up when more that 1.5M new unemployment claims are filed every month and the economy has not produced 150,000 jobs in any month. Heck, we hear that more people hav filed SS total disability claims than have new jobs in the Obama economy. Do you believe all of this? Do you believe anything that anyone connected to government, or a biased point of view, is putting out there
these days?

Forgive my skepticism, which may even be cynicism, on most data we see and hear these days. Btw, I do not see this as a virtue but government has failed us for too long and the Media has covered their tracks. All the best.

Romney endorses Obama's healthcare policy:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/09/romney-would-keep-some-of-obamas-health-care-reform/?ref=global-home

Another change of mind! Why would I want to vote for someone who is copying Obama if I can have Obama himself? This reminds me of when he ran against Teddy Kennedy for the senate, Teddy had a great line (I am paraphrasing here), "Give him another week and he'll probably even vote for me given that he is endorsing my policies" or something like that. Let me see if I can find that clip. Here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECVyuz5iNyQ

Maybe in a week he'll be endorsing Obama.

That line about voting for him is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO5nET45EU4

Andy and Max, thanks for your notes but I think we all get the fact that you have very liberal philosophies. A primary problem of liberalism is that social programs typically begin small and for good reason. Soon, when lawyers start fining loopholes to add classes of recipients, and politicians tap into the entitled groups (or face the wrath of the entitled groups), the programs expand and costs rise much faster, and higher than originally proposed.

At some point - NOW - we must become a more responsible society. We must have a government that meet its Constitutional obligations, and offers social programs for which it can responsibly pay.

Heck, I bet that as parents you face the same issues as all parents - the needs of the family must be met, and the wants of the individual family members must be prioritized and saved for. Poor money management, future planning and decision making can be, and often are disastrous.

Government needs to do the same.

Andy, I must bring up a quick note remembering your sensitivity to disparaging remarks on your blogs. Saying that I should be embarrassed by Rush Limbaugh's remarks about Sandra Fluke is lamentable.

What has Rush Limbaugh got to do with the bodies of work that i have published or the scores of responses I have made to my readers (most of whom do not agree with me), and for which I am fully accountable?

C'mon - you have demanded better for yourself. Otherwise conservative posters may begin linking you with Chris Matthews et. als.

Just saying.

TBH, thanks for that and I am glad to see that you had a classical education.

This is what I heard. Should Romney win he would have the loopholes debated in the public view by the Congress so that the Public could see who was debating on what issues, and how the members actually voted. In so many ways this is not different from candidate Obama's talking about transparency and holding the Heathcare hearings on CSpan et; als - none of which happened, of course.

However, taking your point in the serious manner you extended it, isn't the larger problem these days one of "trust"? Does anyone trust government anymore? So, as soon as Romney puts out something very definitive, the details would simply be assaulted by the other side. This is no different from the Democrats not putting a budget out there so the people could not see where their money was going to be spent before the last election.

I keep urging a saner, more sensible, practical course - as reflected in my piece above. We need a government that may not deliver your preferred result, but you don't want to feel you got screwed in the process.

We just cannot have an endless ... and even growing ... line of people with their hands out, and a diminishing group of taxpayers being told they were somehow unfair, or not paying their share.

You know this ! Everybody knows this! So let's stop pretending and elect a new leader who can do this!.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Thanks again.

Max, thanks again. I don't think anyone can or should believe much of what the government is spewing out these days. I regret that government has sadly earned that mistrust.

Last month, for instance, 96,000 private sect jobs were allegedly created. I say allegedly because the DoL revised the job creation numbers downward (as always) for the prior two months. At the same time, nearly 400,000 people allegedly dropped out of the workforce and another 1,500,000+ filed first time unemployment claims. So, what do we hear - the economy created more jobs and the unemployment rate decreased. You have to admit this just does not compute.

Frankly, I do not see the Republicans as backing away from data based discussions at all. Just listen to Paul Ryan for 5 minutes and you will hear more data-based dialogue than in a month from the Democrats who seem to be incapable of presenting a budget, but quite capable of running up charges on the taxpayer's credit cards.

In sum, there is nothing wrong with the Republican Party, Max. Most Democrats that I have had the experience of "listening to" are quick on the attack that Republicans are cold and heartless, elite and uncompromising at best, and racist, xenophobic, and anti-women at worst. Nobody can possibly believe this - and yet there is this extremism (both sides as noted) that is screaming louder and blunting calmer voices. I don't know about you, but I am sick of this. We need a change to reset the discussion.

If there ever was a time to bring back Celebrity Death match, now is the time!

Thanks, Sembilan, but how about letting all of us share in what you are thinking?

Andy, I will give you this from your response - you are most definitely a liberal. All he best with your upcoming blogs

Agreed, so what do you want America to be from a Liberal's perspective?

I propose to all the people who participate in political debates here to take this fiscal IQ quiz (http://keepingamericagreat.org/what-you-can-do/test-yourself/fiscal-iq/) and evaluate themselves before taking a position on any fiscal issue. They have three categories of scores -- fiscal IQ, fiscal knowledge, and fiscal wisdom. My own scores were 85, 80, and 95.

TBH, thanks for bringing up your BA and liberal arts background. We share that in common. But please, I am begging you, do not try to tell anyone that Mitt Romney is anything other than an exemplary person. My goodness, his life is a model that very few could ever hope to replicate.

I am not aware of his hanging around with Pat Robertson or Steven King, but I don't think you would confuse them with Reverend Wright or Bill Ayres or the cast of characters appearing in 2016, would you?

Despite all of that, John Huntsman constantly made the point during the early Republican debates that the biggest issue facing America was "lost trust" in our government and institutions. He is correct that the respect and trust of government has diminished in our lifetime. This is sad, but government has created this. Just look at all the money being spent to convince the other side that the opposition are evil radicals. This is silly and degrading. As I said in the blog, we want practical, not ideological, and if we do not get the preferred result that benefits us, we do not want to feel like we got screwed either.

What do you want America to be? What kind of government do we deserve? Will you be upset when the Country goes broke from the growing inability to pay for the endless list of social programs?

Thanks again.

FindBalance asks, "Where is this hard data?" (for the claim that you get higher economic growth when democrats are in control). Here is a study performed by JPMorgan and reported by the Post: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/economy-has-grown-the-most-when-democrats-have-been-in-power/2012/04/09/gIQA1VhS6S_blog.html)

Another article of interest:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/ranking-the-presidents-by-g-d-p/

Max, thank you for restating my previous response. But please, the President has submitted a budget - got zero votes from Democrats, who view the actual black and white commitments for added spending to be too toxic for their members to run on. The House Republicans have passed their budget and of course the Senate will not even take it up. Not very responsible.

Now, as to the loopholes, I understand what you are saying. I believe everyone would like more clarity. But what if we do not learn from history. One party should NOT unilaterally decide anything as complex as tax reform, just as one party should never have slammed the door and shoved their bribe-loaded Obamacare down the throats of America. If the politicians serve the people, then we need those Reps closest tot he people make their compromises, or the same thing will happen.

Sorry - but since you are in academe, you know all about Georges Santayana.

BTW, I don't think that is enough to rely on enough voters who dislike Obama. However, Romney is very clearly a somebody with far more experience and capability than Obama - even now. And, Romney does not play golf ... and since he tithes, I don't think there will be much chance of his attempting to foist a Godless society over America as the current incumbent attempted.

TBH - I know Jim did not mean it as a compliment. By the way, this would be a pretty boring blog without someone to disagree with Jim (yes, I am not the only one).

Anyway, to answer Jim's question - I do not think it is unpatriotic to believe in civil rights, due process, a woman’s right to choose, evolution, global warming, and there should be accountability for persons who lie, cheat and swindle and pollute our air and water. I believe there is a role for government as stated in the preamble to the Constitution - "to promote the general welfare". I also believe in compromise and that any solution to our problems must involve all of us up and down the economic ladder.

Saving GM is so much more than stock value. It is about saving all the small business's that thrive only along the pipeline. It is about keeping communities functioning with people employed with jobs that pay a living wage. Do you feel it is EVER a role of government to act to stimulate the economy? Everyone is blaming the Obama administration for poor jobs growth, but when they act to save good paying jobs, they get slammed for that. How do you propose government act in regards to economc or job growth? What steps would you support?

And to answer your question, I think most reasonable liberals and conservatives want the same thing. We want to earn a living wage, live in a healthy community, have good schools and opportunities for our children. We want safe roads and solid infrastructure. And from watching both conventions, we all love our mothers and have excellent choice in music.

Here's where I see the biggest difference. I just ran a 5k obsticle course this weekend called the Diva Dash, there were many different types of women running...some were in teams, some solo, some there to "win", some just to cross the finish line. But I was inspired to see so many people reaching back to help others over the obsticals, even when it meant slowing their own race time down.

From what I've heard from both parties, it seems that *this* particular group of Republican leaders is more about the "go it alone" approach. "My success is based on me alone and my hard work". The liberal approach is more about reaching back to help those who need a boost to get over a hurdle.

I'm all about pulling yourself up from your bootstraps. But to do that, at the very least, you need a pair of boots.

David, this is so out of order, but like Antony, I came to praise Clinton, not to bury him. And here's the thing, and it fits into the Clinton narcissist narrative, seeing Bill and Barrack on consecutive nights gave us a rare opportunity to take the measure of both.

I defy anyone to offer that Obama is in Clinton's class in terms of ability to govern. It's just not there and in that regard, Obama is clearly closer to Carter than he will ever be to Clinton. That is my estimation - and a point that was fortified when I heard Obama's speech played side by side Carter's 1980 acceptance. It was very eerie to hear the same themes, almost to the word. The upside to this is that Obama may really be just another liberal, one standard deviation to the left of Ted Kennedy and not the socialist most conservatives want to believe.

That's the way I saw it David ... Clinton was very impressive. Warts and all, I would bet America would dump Obama in a heartbeat to have him back - including you.

Jim, I get that you have an ax to grind with the UAW and unions in general, but where is the proof that Obama tageted dealerships because they were Republican owned? By proof I mean something more than opinion pieces in the WSJ or Fox.

As for the GM and Chrysler rescues, I believe you'll find that the UAW made major pre-bankruptcy concessions. In any event,had the union pension plans been terminated in the bankruptcies we the taxpayers would have been on the hook for any unpaid pension obligations via the PBGC.

The government had to finance the restructurings because no private lender would do the deals. Don't you think that GM and Chrysler management (In the case of Chrysler, Cerberus Capital-Dan Quayle's firm,) looked everywhere for private financing that would have allowed a conventional Chapter 11 with the attendant benefit of rejecting collective bargaining agreements and pension obligations?

Would you have preferred a straight liquidation of GM and Chrysler?

Sure, had Bush, Romney or another Republican been in the White House the UAW would have likely been crushed with the result being hundreds of thousands of families having to absorb pay and benefit cuts, or outright job losses. Would that have been a good thing? Why?

Jim, please don't misinterpret my comments directed at the Republican leadership I saw during the convention as a personal attack. I have many Republican friends and family who are generous and kind and would certainly lend a hand to someone in need. But I ask you, where is that demonstrated in the party platform? When I am able to have a polite discussion with someone on the other side of the spectrum such as yourself, I find we have much more we agree on than disagree on.

But it seems to me that many of my Republican friends are not seeing how divisive those in the current party leadership are. I can agree that Reagan was one of the best presidents we've had. I voted for Scott Brown in the last election and think he's doing a fantastic job of representing our state. But I am baffled by the rhetoric of repealing the Affordable Care Act on day one.

It was crafted by a conservative think tank. It was a good idea then. It was implemented in MA by Gov. Romney and heralded as a model for the country. But when it was implemented by president Obama, it was reviled as the first step of the apocalypse.

Can you and I agree with Jeb Bush’s comments that the party has become conscripted by those who are more interested in partisanship than in actually rebuilding the country?

"Back to my dad’s time and Ronald Reagan’s time, they got a lot of stuff done with a lot of bipartisan support," he said. Reagan "would be criticized for doing the things that he did."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/us/politics/jeb-bush-takes-aim-at-fellow-republicans.html

I believe we should all take the proverbial knee today.

It is September 11th. We can get back to political discourse tomorrow. Today, we should remember and reflect.

Andy, how passive aggressive. You are shocked, and I should be ashamed.

About what?

That I put out reasonable views each week from the Republican perspective that create significant dialogue? That I respond politely and honestly to the comments coming my way, most of which are not in agreement, and some of which are a touch on the hostile side? That I believe that the Country is on the wrong track and that I am worried about its future, not for myself but for the future generations? That while I understand the desire to have social programs that there must be a corresponding responsibility to pay for them by government?

I might note - and someone else brought up the discussion of God as well - that the Democrats had deleted any reference to God from their platform, all the while ending every speech with "Good bless you and God bless America." So, what is it?

The Republicans made the specific - and limited - point that the founding of this Country was and remains unique in that it is based on the belief that "man" derives his rights from Nature and our Creator ... NOT government. Removing reference to God suggests that Democrats would willingly more to a more monarchic/government-focused system in which individual rights and liberties were granted by government, limited by government and eliminated by government. That is not the America we know - or want (especially if you are a Republican). Thanks again.

As an agnostic, I was excited for the first time that the dems had dropped god and thought this was a move to court the increasing numbers of areligious people like me. I don't have any problems with people of faith at all and i am very respectful of faith itself. What I do have a problem with is the wearing of faith on one's sleeve in a political arena. That gets no sympathy fro me at all. I have no time or patience for the labored displays of faith using props from multiple religions in both party platforms. However, I do realize I am in the absolute minority on this issue.

Jim,
Had GM gone under the result would have been catastrophic. First, all of the GM suppliers would have been hit. In many cases these are also suppliers for other automakers so a GM liquidation would have cascaded to inlude Chrylser, Ford and other automakers with operations in the U.S. Hundreds of thousands would have lost their jobs with a further ripple effect of foreclosures, other business failures etc.

As for your praise of the right to work (for less) states here is another take to consider:
“In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, such as ‘right to work.’ It is a law to rob us of our civil rights and job rights. It is supported by Southern segregationists who are trying to keep us from achieving our civil rights and our right of equal job opportunity. Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining by which unions have improved wages and working conditions of everyone. … Wherever these laws have been passed, wages are lower, job opportunities are fewer and there are no civil rights. We do not intend to let them do this to us. We demand this fraud be stopped. Our weapon is our vote.” MLK 1961

Oh please, how is not wanting to mess around god suddenly translate into a willingness to support a monarchy? It's not an either or proposition. How about a system of govt, in which the rights and liberties are arrived at by discussion amongst a rational and thinking people?

Damon, I do not think I understand what you are saying in terms of the US being seen as a Christian Nation. That was our founding. Should we to denounce this because Muslims will be angry with us? I thought Islam was one of the world's great religions, and one of peace? Please help us to better understand your point. Thanks.

Andy, I am beginning to understand why you must receive comments that irritate your sensitivities on your blogs. You are not passive aggressive as much as you are impolite.

2016 is the documentary of s'Souza's book. I found the documentary very interesting, as have millions of Americans, enough to make it the 2nd highest grossing film o fits kind. My sense is that had the Press done 1/10th the investigation as this one reporter did we all would have been better served. Clinton would have been elected President and likely re-elected in November.

Now, the "God thing". Obama approved the platform with references to God as well as the apparent change of the Party's stance on Israel. The Republicans had zero to do with this, and when these positions were exposed Obama ordered God and Israel back into the platform, but not before God was booed 3 times prior top a vote that looked (charitably) as though God had to be railroaded back into the building.

The post platform reporting covered all of this. It had nothing to do with Rush Limbaugh or Fox News or me.

For the record, I think that everyone on the sidelines reading these back-and-forths understands that your are a liberal and I am not. Thank you for helping them understand the differences, both in philosophy and volume. All the best.

Jim Hatherly asks, "Would you prefer that these rights be bartered about by politicians?" Once again, this is a false dichotomy. Asserting that human beings' rights and liberties were not given to them by an all powerful and all knowing creator does not imply that they must then be granted by an all powerful monarch or benign dictator. Areligious people like me hold that humans are capable of rational thought and unlike the present politicians in congress, are capable (without the aid of god or any such being) through a process of reasoned debate, discussion, and compromise to arrive at a set of basic rights and liberties.

And don't call me an atheist. I prefer areligious or less preferably agnostic. Basically I have no interest in religion. I am indifferent to the existence or the non-existence of god, and since areligious isn't a word, I use agnostic as a close approximation.

Max, thanks and I take your comment regarding terminology. I was not aware of the distinction that you place on the words.

Here's the problem as I see it. In our college philosophy courses we would discuss the true, the good and the beautiful, as if they were so obvious that there would never be a dispute of their truth, goodness or beauty. However, we are working in the real world and the univerals "truths" are subject to interpretation at best, and the objects of corruption at worst.

This is what makes the US great and unque. Our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are natural rights, endowed by the Creator, and not granted, eliminated, or negotiated by politicians or monarchs.

This is not a simple distinction, and it does separate Republican belief (individual liberty) vs, Democratic philosophy (government-focused society). Perhaps tis segues back to the blog and the questions - What do you want America to be, and What kind of government do we deserve? This is really what the election is about - free enterprise or creeping socialism.

Thanks for expanding the conversation.

Jim,
The connection between so called right to work (for less) laws and Jim Crow laws is well established. My quote above was from Martin Luther King. Although MLK spoke of Southern segregationists as supporting right to work (for less) laws, I must add these laws were also supported by northern industrialists

You refer to Volkswagon as a company with the fiscal discipline and culture that could have benefited GM. Hopefully you acknowledge that most VW plants worldwide have union representation (See, timesfreepress.com 8-19-11) and that Germany has mandatory universal health insurance. As does Japan.

Query: .Do you suppose having public universal health insurance provides Japanese and German automakers/manufacturers with a competitive advantage over American companies?

Jim, this is an interesting sidetrip from the blog, and frankly I always wonder why people choose to refer to "Jim Crow laws". What does this have to do with anything? Heck, we are 50 years beyond the Civil Rights legislation of the '60s. This just seems to be a bloody shirt that never stops being waved.

I have no understanding that right to work legislation has any connection with civil rights - only the competitive advantage/disadvantge that one state might utilize, or not, to gain business and jobs for their citizens. In other words, this seems to me to be the usual straw man distraction away from the real economic issues.

I do not proclaim to be anything near proficient in the German economy, but I do recall hearing that the social bite on Germany corporations is very high, so much so that they have a high unemployment rate and German companies locate their manufacturing plants in other countries. Therefore, my response to your final question is no.

Andy, so much more civil, good job.

Of course the Obamas and Democrats would try to deny a documentary that was not the usual superficial view of the President. So much fawning, no little vetting, such limited understanding of him - even today.

I cannot tell if you saw the movie or are reporting on a report. However, D'Souza's background in India is not dissimilar from Obama's father in Kenya in that they both lived in British colonies that were not treated especially democratically by their Overseers. The assertion in the film is that the British colonies were robbed of their natural resources which would be sent to the British factories, converted into goods, and sold back to their colonies at high prices. That Churchill was the PM of Britain when he subdued a rebellion in Kenya weighed heavily on Obama's father, and was part of the reason for his sending the bust of Churchill back to Britain when he assumed office. This concepts of supression - and oppression - were ultimately themes continually imparted to Obama through his early mentors, teachers, and clergy - many whose names are now public. Ultimately, it is D'Souza's view, that Obama's world view emerged from these factors and shape the way he sees the role of government and America.

Don't we deserve to understand the guiding principles of our Presidents as we decide if their leadership and their course for the Nation are appropriate?

Ron, it's good to hear from you. I understand your support for Andy, although to this very day I have no idea of the comments that were made to him that set off the discussion on appropriate comments.

However, under the heading of Stones/Glass House, I was quite surprised by his impolite responses to me in the discussion. It was not even that he was more impolite than other comments that I have received - it was that he had made this a point of significance to him (and you).

In one of my most recent posts a commenter made a very aggressive and impolite post. I responded quickly and politely. His reply was revealing - he thanked me for turning down the volume, and admitted that he was as nasty as others and raised his volume as others responded in kind. Frankly, I am not interested in rude rhetoric, and refrain from that ... which in turn has led to more productive dialogue that the yelling and name calling seen on many other blogs.

That's the way I see it. But hey, as soon as you decide to put something out there that is even a little provocative, you have to be prepared to respond to those who disagree - it goes with the territory. The way you handle it is up to you, and the more you dish it out, the more likely you'll get it back - especially since so many people can simply "hide" behind a pseudonym even as you stand in plain view.

Jim,,You sing the praises of right to work laws and present yourself as anti-union. I get it. But you asked the readers, what do you want America to be? While I wouldn't presume to attempt to change your mind, it is a public forum, and you did ask, so I will respond. In my view right to work laws are properly called right to work for less laws. They are a part of the race to the bottom that I believe we should push back against. Spend some time in Texas or Mississippi or South Carolina and see if you agree.

And by the way, since it is a public forum when you are passing on Fox News or Tea Party talking points, e.g., "I do recall hearing that the social bite on Germany corporations is very high, so much so that they have a high unemployment rate and German companies locate their manufacturing plants in other countries" don't be surprised when you are called on it.

VW has been making cars abroad for decades. Of course it is cheaper to build them closer to markets -- they are now expanding in China and here. Go to Eindoven and other manufacturing cities in Germany and you will not only see high employment, but capacity that is topped out (most manufacturing unemployment is in the former East Germany). This all said, one reason why the quality of VW's is often lacking (I know, I have had several and spent a pretty penney just yesterday getting one repaired) is because they do not always exercise good quality control in these plants.

As for the thought that we could let GM and Chrysler die in the blue states and let them go red state South, that is wishful thinking. When I worked for the Digital Equip Corp I managed several programs in the US which helped build and technologize suppliers to the auto industry. It would take many years to replace the capacity in the North with new capacity in the South given infrastructure, training and other requirements -- frankly the supply chain will just head off shore in too many cases. And, not only would potentially a million or more auto industry and supplier jobs be lost if someone did not pick up the funding of GM and Chrysler quickly (there were no signs anyone would, and conservative and liberal economists agreed) but those providing services to the suppliers would be devastated -- tech consultants and suppliers, shipping companies etc.

TBH, thanks again. I do not believe that 2016 is "true" because so many people have seen it. Bd movies/documentaries die a very quick death. This one was interesting probably because there is such a gap in knowledge about Obama.

I am not disparaging "liberals" as bad or evil - just different from what I am professing. This contrast is very beneficial to the readers who get a chance to see both sides of the issue and determine with whom they agree. Frankly, Massachusetts being such a liberal haven, these discussions are a great opportunity to offer up the line of thought that does not regularly make it into our newscasts or the Globe.

I am not fixated on the God issue - just the reference to the Nation's founding that I have noted on more than a few locations. This is important because it makes our government unique (by and of the people) vs, government-centered.

And finally, as to other blogs, I have to admit that it takes me a while to put together what i believe are interesting, thoughtful and provocative essays - then engage in discussions with scores/hundreds of comments. As a result I do not often dive into other blogs unless they are of high interest to me. And, as a blogger myself, I do not typically comment on another person's blog to avoid the kind of name calling thing that is happening here. We live in the same community - what's the point?

Andy, you are correct that it is fair for voters to assess the character, integrity, experience and leadership of every candidate before they cast their ballot. Heck, whoever wins the Presidential election will be lucky to get 53% of the total - meaning that the balance found him lacking something.

Jim,

In light of recent events, I am curious about your opinion of Obama's handling of Libya and Egypt, and the teachers' strike in Chicago. I think both situations can easily cast him in a negative light. If I remember correctly, McCain led the polls until his ill-timed assessment of the "strong" economy in September 2008. Could this week's events become Obama's "McCain moment"?

Jim, if Massachusetts is such a liberal haven and we are so deprived of differing points of view, how did we elect a self-described "severely conservative" Republican, Morman governor?

Do you think its possible we are not just liberal, but are open-minded?

Can you imagine a severely liberal, lesbian, atheist being elected governor in a red state?

Jim, Didn't mean to insult you, but you are making claims that should be supported, eg., Germany has high unemployment rates, or not made altogether.

Unemployment in Germany is not high. It is lower than the US. Data and truth are very mind clarifying. People who make unsupported claims should try it for a change.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/04/business/economy/joblessness-in-germany-bucks-the-trend-charts.html

Germans have higher marginal tax rates, lower unemployment, higher life expectancies, better health care (the two are obviously related), and nearly the same per capita income as the US. That gives the lie to every single idea that the GOP has been pushing about economic outcomes of taxation policy. I'll now sit back and wait for the spin machine to spin this one. And incidentally, they are also a more godless (whatever that means) society than the US.

Jim,Unfortunately 100% of the Congressional delegation are not Democrats. Hopefully this will change with the election of Elizabeth Warren in November!

Jim, there is much to debate around the whole issue of why US cars came up as inferior to foreign ones twenty years ago. The results the experts I worked with have suggested that these companies were not nearly so hampered by unions and wages as they were by utterly outdated and incredibly wasteful management. They were impossibly slow to consolidate efforts, to apply technology and to work collaboratively with suppliers. Japanese companies had more modern plants and management, as well as engineering and design people who paid much more attention to quality.

As for today, you are not correct in saying that GM has no new 'plans' (or do you mean 'plants') in America. They are opening a huge new stamping plant in Texas. It is spending almost 7bil to upgrade existing plants and expand operations.

In terms of Germany, please point me to a reliable study on the role of taxes in driving manufacturing off shore. As you know, 'taxes' are always a bargaining chip. We are not bailing out one industry after another. We are 'giving away the store' to oil companies, health insurers, farmers, airlines -- and, I guess gave it away to the Erie Canal, railroads, homesteaders, the interstate highway system, etc. It is an over generalization to suggest that only free enterprise made us great. You know that. Surely. The fact that Romney opposed the car bailout the way he did will probably cost him Ohio and the election. Like him or not.

Ron, this is a good point because it was probably management that made the decisions to place Chevette engines in Cadillacs, or to make all the cars in the line look the same, but the quality issues from the line were an issue as was the mounting labor/benefit cost drag in an American car vs. foreign cars.

Not a good combination, and a sign of arrogance that suggested that the future of the American car industry was eternal, quality and cost notwithstanding. Obviously not the case.

I'm glad to hear that GM has a major plant set for Texas (a right to work state, but the way - with no state income tax), but what about the 6 plants in China and the investment in Finland?

However we slice it, something is wrong. I want practical not ideological solutions.

Free enterprise separated us from the world in terms of productivity and innovation and entrepreneurial risk taking and profitability.

Now, as to Romney and Ohio/Michigan - sure, he spoke out with a non-bailout approach. If you are a member of the union, or a dependent of a union member, you obviously don't want your ox being gored. But, that doesn't make it right from the broader economic responsibility perspective. Nevertheless, you are right, Romney has his challenges there.

I agree with much of what Jim said; I wish I could vote for Clinton again. The parties are so polarized today I suspect JFK wouldn't fit in with the Democratic party because he'd be considered too conservative and Barry Goldwater wouldn't fit in with the Republican party because he'd be considered too liberal. I kid you not.

Alan, thank you for getting the point of this blog. For all his obvious flaws, Clinton was excellent at governing. He was everything that Obama is not. Clinton could actually roll up his sleeves, work with Gingrich, and explain how what they accomplished was good for the Country. Obama is a bag of stale hot air, filled with soaring nonsense. In Texas, he would be referred to as all hat, no cowboy.

And, despite the embarrassing daily performance by the disgraceful media that props him up for some inexplicable reason, it is plain that this man needs to be replaced. The current situation in Egypt and Libya only emphasizes his (hopefully only) naive innadequacy - and danger - to America.

What is the fascination with Obama anyway?

Jim, "all hat and no cowboy"? I would say Pres. Obama is more like the sheriff in "Blazing Saddles". I'm reminded of the scene of the woman bringing the pie to the back door and hoping that the Sheriff won't mention to anyone that she was there. There was never a prominent member of the GOP that could seen standing with the President without facing the raised eyebrows of supporters of the GOP. Even Sen. McCain had problems just saying the Sen. Obama was a decent man. From a GOP Congressman yelling "Liar" during the State of the Union to Mitt Romney refusing to say "United We Stand" against an act of terrorism this is the testament of the GOP's belief that politics is more important that what can be accomplished through moderation and comprise.

Colin, good one, thanks - although I don't quite get the pie analogy.

Actually, I recall that McCain was very (too?) positive about Obama during the last campaign. And yes,, even though the congressman from SC was correct, his manners and sense of decorum were out of bounds for the situation. The same is doubtless true of the reporter who shouted a loud question at Obama when he refused to take questions after extending amnesty to children of illegals.

The Romney situation yesterday, however, is different in my view. He had two choices - to speak or be quiet. Either path invited criticism, the latter being the worse course in my view. And what was Romney speaking about ... the same thing his book "No Apology" was about - the disappointment and anger that many Americans feel about a President/Administration that apologizes for America around the world. And, Obama made this even worse by his refusal to meet with Netanyahu in New York, even if he has time for David Letterman.

Now, we can get on Romney, but we can also cite Obama's own very public dismissal of the Bush surge in Iraq (then taking credit for its success), or Harry Reid's (in)famous declaration that the iraq war was lost, even as our military were at risk.

My sense is that these things are happening because the governing process is failing. I wish it were different, but campaigning is not the real world. The real world is the real world and many of us see what we see. Thanks.

Colin, thanks, but I think I need to go back and see that movie. All I remember is Alex Karras punching the bull.

Somehow I think that a lot of people will disagree that Obama has not been an apologist - a major point of contention. His dispute with the surge was in 2003 when Bush was going to order it. It had actually worked by the time Obama took office. And, it was Hillary Clinton in a full throated scream in 2007 saying she was sick and tired of being told that someone who disagreed with the policy of the President was patriotic. She thought it was a very patriotic thing to protest.

And here we are.

Senator Reid's comments were from the position of the Majority Leader protesting the decision of the President. Hell, today we hear the Democrats whining about what the Minority Leader says in disagreement with Obama.

This is also where we are.

Which brings me to your final sentence because I do not know what that means. So, I will interpret it the way I wrote it above - we have a naive ideologue as President. He is not Clinton as much as he is Carter.

Take away the loudest voices from either side and I believe that we want practical, not ideological. We want something that works for both sides, not a my way/highway process.

We are not making progress under this administration - definitely time for a change.

In a post dated, Tuesday, September 11, 2012 at 10:31 pm, Jim Hatherley wrote

“My sense is that had the Press done 1/10th the investigation as this one reporter did we all would have been better served. Clinton would have been elected President and likely re-elected in November.”

Is this statement your original thought and writing, Jim?

In a post dated Thursday, September 13, 2012 at 12:02 pm, Jim Hatherley wrote:

“...the disappointment and anger that many Americans feel about a President/Administration that apologizes for America around the world.”

Please provide examples of Obama’s apologies -- direct quote, source, date, time, place.

Asserting how “many Americans feel” without providing a source -- a poll, a survey, a vote -- would seem to be problematic.

Linda, thanks for your note and the opportunity for me to repeat that all of my writing is original thought, for better or worse. As to your second point, we have all seen the pictures of Obama bowing to the foreign leaders, making speeches that spoke about the arrogance of America.

As to the polls regarding Obama and the way America feels about his, the only one of merit is currently underway now. Frankly, if Obama was as popular as some of the comments suggest), he should be ahead by 20% and the election should be a foregone conclusion.

Jim - Doesn't it concern you that every time Romney tries to address a foreign policy topic, he stumbles? While in England he offended our allies iwith his remarks about the Olympics. Then onto Israel where he made two major missteps: first blaming Palestinian economic troubles on their "culture," then contradicting official US policy by suggesting he would be fine with a unilateral attack on Iran by Israel. (Generally considered bad form for candidates to contradict official US policy while abroad.). Then onto Poland, where he only took three questions from the press, and his press secretary cursed at reporters. Why Poland anyway? Very befuddling. Now he misrepresents the White House reaction on the tragedy in Libya, turning an evolving tragedy into political opportunism, drawn criticism in his tenor even from fellow Republicans. Do you think he is fit to be Commander in Chief with such mis-steps every step of the way?

Thanks for letting us challenge you Jim. When I asked for a serious source on German car companies going abroad per your claim, .no answer. When Linda asks for examples. No answers except for a rather crude generalization about something we are all supposed to know but may not. What I hear are political talking points, not the pragmatic approach (which actually relies on facts, and the analysis of them) you claim your side is taking. I think I saw our President do a slight bow to the Queen of England (maybe wrong about this), but as one who reads the papers, not watching much television, I haven't a clue as to what you are talking about. As for your candidate's recent off the wall comments....I will let the Peggy Noonans and many other conservative voices I truly respect have the day. So, how about some substantive responses that do not put the onus on your readers! This is your blog. Please prove your points. That would make it informative. Maybe one reason you guys have so much trouble in Massachusetts is that we have good schools, good universities and perhaps an informed public. Thanks. Sometimes it means some work, not just a rhetorical flourish here or there.

The timing of Romney's comments about Egypt and Libya in most troubling.

Peggy Noonan, the well-respected Reagan speechwriter, said something to the effect that Romney hasn’t done himself any favors with his comments about the events in Egypt and Libya. She said, “...sometimes when really bad things happen, when hot things happen, cool words or no words is often the best choice.”

I have wondered for a while now about Romney’s choice of Paul Ryan. Romney is a financial guy; why did he need to pick another financial guy as a running mate? Would it not have been more balanced if he had picked a guy with foreign policy experience of which Romney seems to have none? Foreign policy and international events aren't going to sit on the sidelines while Romney fixes the budget.

His choice and his comments makes me wonder if Romney has grasped the concept that the President of the United States is the Commander-in-Chief and leader of the free world.

My wondering doesn’t require the usual Jim Hatherley response. I don’t care what Obama said as a candidate in 2008 or Kerry in 2004. If Obama and Kerry jumped off a bridge, would Romney jump off the bridge also?

Romney could have held his criticism for half a day or a day; his criticism would have been worded differently then. Now his handlers are spending their time responding to this distraction instead of hammering away on the budget. And causes this independent to wonder if Romney is fit to lead.

Paul, Andy & Ron,

Dave Nolta has heard me say this before: perhaps we should just walking away from this and all future blogs by Jim Hatherley.
As he repeatedly makes up facts, refuses to back up his statements and offers insults for responses, why do we participate? Without us, he has no blog. I won't be back.

UglyHat - Here is why it is so troubling....
You expect crazy irrational knee-jerk behavior from ill-educated hoodlums with nothing better to do than cause trouble. You don't expect from the guy who may be the next President of the United States.

P.S. Where did you read that the bodies were "dragged through the streets." On the contrary, I had read the account that Libyans rushed the bodies to a hospital were a Libyan doctor spent 90 minutes performing attempts at resuscitation. This was the act of a cowardly bunch of idiots. It is not representative of the way most Libyans feel about the US. In fact, there is likely to be backlash against these militants, but only time will tell if that happens.

Paul Bishop, from where does your anger come? A liar? Really? Do you even know any Republicans?

David, I have come to appreciate your comments, however occasionally snide, because you get the nuance while so many others just hear noise, and offer anger. Great job in your comments, which are sadly out of order. Of course, I disagree with you, but that would be expected, right?

The following is an article on President Obama's foreign policy that offers facts that Andy and John Sullivan are looking for. John is "befuddled" that Mitt Romney recently visited Poland. Liz Cheney explains, "Ask the Poles and Czechs, two allies we abandoned when we canceled missile-defense systems that the President (Obama) feared would offend the Russians."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444017504577646142541161820.html

Concerned Citizen - an editorial in the Wall Street journal by the daughter of Dick Cheney that cherry picks quotes out of context as well as recycling a neo-con point of view is hardly what I would call "facts".

Frankly - it is the neocons like her father who got us into Iraq in the first place under false pretenses and the majority of the US was demanding that we get the heck out of there long before 2011. It's the same with Ahfganistan. The neo-cons thought we could muddle along there while they focused on nation building in Iraq - which they had planned to do since Bush took office in 2001. Now, the same bunch of neo-cons are Romney's advisors. In this I agree with Ron Paul - it's long past time we got our troops home.

Everyone complains how we spend too much money - but why do we spend more on the military than the rest of the world combined? We end up providing defense for every other industrialized nation and they coast along.

Yes we are getting rid of nuclear weapons, but every president since Ronald Reagan has had the same goal and has negotiated reductions in warheads and delivery systems. We still have 14 Ohio class SSBNs any one of which could blow away every major city in Russia or China, let alone Iran. Even if we just had a few hundred warheads in our arsenal in Ohio class subs, that would be enough of a deterrent. Obama is hardly selling us out by wanting to continue reductions supported by every GOP president for the last 30 years.

Jim, as I had stated, I am a Brown supporter (to which you called ME a liar!).. however I am NOT a supporter of folks like yourself, people whose dishonesty and bluster is clear. You have been asked to back up your untrue statements and you refuse, repeatedly, Jim. Therefore, as we know the realities, we then can conclude your statements are flat lies, and therefore, Jim, you are Liar. Not to difficult to understand.

If you would like to back up you made up numbers and statements, then you may be able to lose that monniker.. but ad infinitum, you only prove it to be true.

Paul, I called you a liar? Really? So, here's the deal. I take accountability for what I present. My name and photo accompany my work, and I actually respond to virtually all the comments/attacks on my semi-conservative posts. I get it that liberals do not agree with me - goes with the territory. And, when I make an error I do acknowledge that (see above in a post with Max as an example).

So, these are my opinions ... connecting the dots as I see, hear and read them in the media.

But a liar? Really? I think you can do better.

Chris L. and UglyHat,
This article is very interesting regarding how poorly protected our Libyan Ambassador and his guards (one of which was a Winchester, MA, native) were, despite the fact of the 9/11 anniversary. A British newspaper is carrying this story as well. I lock up my house better than this...disgraceful! The Obama Administration should be ashamed of itself, including Hillary Clinton, who sounded as if she was speaking to sixth graders yesterday. Everyone knows that the California video had nothing to do with this attack. How dumb does Hillary Clinton think the American people are?

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/12/report-u-s-consulate-in-benghazi-had-no-marine-protection/

So, Andy, which "facts" in the article would you care to refute?

Well Jim, 'there you go again'. First, while Andy and I agree on many things, we do not 'tag team' against you. We do not plan comments in advance and so that charge is ridiculous. A bit of paranoia on your part, if I may suggest some pop psychology. As for the speech you mention, the contents have become wildly exaggerated thanks to a campaign at the time by Sean Hannity and the boys at Fox News. Read it and you will see it was very balanced, with Obama saying that both the European and Americans had not been treating each other with understanding. But 'fair and balanced' is not part of the right wing game and I am sorry to see you falling for it. But this aside, someone could probably buy you a good lunch if they went over American history and looked at the times that politicians of both parties have had to 'apologize' for one thing or another -- or did so to diffuse a situation that could spin out of control. To make this the false anchor point of a political campaign in which the accusing candidate is so devoid of foreign policy experience and knowledge of diplomatic language will make you few friends. Just will give you a lot of dots that are becoming disconnected.

Thanks, Ron, and as I have been saying, this is where we are in America - a divided Nation in which the whole is less than the sum of its parts. I bring you back to my blog and the need to have practical, not ideological, where we need real leadership, not class warfare. Who can do this better? It seems to me that Obama has proven that while he may have some considerable skills, effectively leading this Country into the future is not one of them. I understand that people disagree over this, but his re-election is clearly in doubt when he should be 20 point ahead if his leadership warranted a second tem. That's how I see it, but I realize that Republicans comprise only 11% of the registered voters making the bar for persuasion very high.

Ben, welcome to the conversation and I take your point. However, how many people are trusting the level of reporting that we have been getting in the major publications these days and on the electonic media. The reporters are so obviously biased - witness Jake tapper's admission that the Press supported Obama/sabotaged Clinton in 2008; witness the press conspiring to "gotcha" Romney at his Press Conference on Wednesday. Witness "news clips" by NBC in which they selectively edited comments by Romney to create a narrative embarrassing to him (as when they pieced together the "I like firing people" comment out of context etc.)

Such a disappointment.

Isn't this a big piece of the problem? 50 years ago we believed what we heard on the news and read in the paper (perhaps naively?). Today, the news outlets have become embarrassingly biased. Who do you believe?

We need a fresh start.

Andy, thanks and there is a lot in your last post to which I agree, especially on the need for bi-partisanship. It can be done, because effective leaders make it get done. That it hasn't happened is the open ended question that the voters need to resolve.

In terms of which candidate is better equipped to do this, let me just remind my readers of the closed doors by the Democrats when it came to the Healthcare plan - zero attempt at bi-partisanship. Let me remind readers of executive order exemptions for illegals? This does not inspire trust/compromise. A second term promises more executive orders and disregard of the Constitution.

I do not see the very ideological Obama in the same light as you.

But, that is why we have elections, and especially why this is such a huge one. I ask again, what do you want America to be? What kind of government do we deserve?

Thanks again.

Ben, I think when MSNBC cuts/splices political comments to fit its narrative, that is fact-based distortion. They have been caught twice. The Google producer who made the racist open mike comment about the Republicans and was fired is an example, and Jake Tapper is not a characterization of bias, he is a person who admitted to the bias on a radio program.

As to the Romney press conference, what can be said? This was just embarrassing all around as was every question - asking the same do you regret question instead of questions about his policy.

Whatever we make of it, however, it is a major disappointment. Just as we expect Umpires to call them as they see them, there was a day when we believed that the Press reported the facts, just the facts. Sadly, the media - all of it - has earned our cynicism. Enjoy the weekend.

Jim, Generally Romney doesn't answer questions about his proposed policies. He has yet to put forth a clear and firm position on Afghanistan. He will not provide details on specific tax loopholes he would close. He toughts his experience as a business executive, but his history in that arena is off limits. And as for those tax returns....

Jim, actually Romney has filed an extensive plan during the R campaign, and boled it down to 5 points that he talks about in press conferences and related in his nomination speech. I agree that they tend to be headlines and not nitty gritty details. But then again, "hope and change" was not long on specifics either. Hopefully both candidates will be more specifically challenged during the debate.

I have heard him talk about the loophole issue and I can understand his viewpoint. As soon as he says what they are the Dems will try to hang him with his own noose. We have all been there, seen that. His explanation is to have the loopholes debated in the Congress in front of the people so that everyone can see what is being done and who is doing it. We'll see on that.

As to the tax returns, I would say, what about the sealed records? This is the usual distraction and it comes down to trust. Do you believe that Romney made money, paid taxes and made appropriate deductions? Do you believe that the college records do not not reveal something very damaging to Obama? You know what I would do - I'd have a grand opening of all documents on National TV so that everyone could see what both men are concealing at the same time. Would you be up for that?

Oh Jim, why did I suspect you could not fail to bring in the birther-college record stuff as a response to legit questions about a presidential candidate's tax returns. This is really pretty sleazy and I know you don't want to be that way -- tis a rhetorical diversionary tactic unworthy of you. I just don't get it. As an independent un-enrolled voter I don't want to hear that your candidate is afraid of what people might say about his proposals, or lack thereof. When you go for the big job you have to have the guts to get out there and face down the folks who want to string you up. To want to avoid that in favor of some vague open process proposal is just kicking the can down the road. Right? So, what are the five points? Which ones do you support? Does your local party support them? Were your delegates in favor of Massachusetts supporting the national platform, or did they get under the table to help Scott Brown? Oh, and the put it all on tv thing is a ruse which suggests EVERYBODY has something to hide, though my suspicion is that Ms. Romney, who has clamped down and told us we're not going to learn anything else, would never go for that and it is a waste of your decreasing time for putting forth compelling arguments.

Linda -- no purpose is served by walking away. I will stick around Jim Hatherley's blogs at least until the elections are over. I am here for the same reasons he is, i.e. influence unenrolled voters. I am going to use his blogs as a vehicle to do that. And the best way to accomplish that is by factually refuting of his arguments. In this political season, I believe both sides play fast and easy with facts, but the Republicans are by far much faster and much easier.

Jim,

I’m just getting back to your response of 7:37 am on Friday, September 14, 2012.

Until very recently, I would have easily voted for Romney, now I’m questioning that decision.

Having only some general sense of Peggy Noonan’s background, I think I will accept her observation re: Romney’s comments over your statement that ‘she mispoke”.

I don’t know what you mean when you say Romney was right to pick Ryan because “he was not pandering to a particular "victim's group.” What does a ‘victim’s group’ have to do with my question?

“...but until this week the election was all about the economy.” I never got that foreign policy should not or was not a part of the election. International events simply do not stop. How anyone can see America as the leader of the free world without addressing foreign policy.

My question about Romney’s comments were about the timing -- not the content. I’m not sure he looked Presidential; his media people had to spend a day or day and half responding to questions about his timing. It took him off message and. worse, his comments took him into an area that is not a strength for him. Instead of putting Obama on the defensive, it seemed that Romney’s put himself on the defensive and raised a question about his understanding of international events.

Your mentioning Obama and some meeting with Lettermen doesn’t help me get off the fence I now find myself on about Romney being my best choice.

Dennis, thanks for posting back. This is election is about the future of America. What do you want America to be? If government-centered/income redistributed, vote for Obama; if individual rights and liberties and free enterprise are what you believe is best for America, Romney's the choice - simple. These candidates have their moment and then they leave the stage (a good thing), but America cannot be replaced.

I am completely supportive of Romney's action and I believe I read after her comment that Noonan felt she might have been too quick on the advice. That Romney spoke makes him no different from candidate Obama's slamming the sitting President over the surge in Iraq (that he disapproved, then took credit for without mentioning Bush), followed by his triumphant pre-victory tour of Europe giving messianic speeches, most notably in Germany. Hubris, thy name is Obama.

This election is about the economy. We have an oil-based economy. When there is turbulence in the Mid-East the price goes up; when there is no domestic drilling the price goes up, when the Fed deflates the dollar, the price goes up and when Keystone is killed and fracking is ruled out by the EPA, the price goes up - along with food and products and everything else.

I understand your dillemma, but this was a terrific week for Romney, even if the sycophantic/conspiratorial media would want you to think otherwise. All the best.

Jim,
You wrote, "I believe I read after her comment that Noonan felt she might have been too quick on the advice. " I can't find any reference to that. Could you supply a source?
As an independent, I have long since grown weary of one candidate, or their supporters, justifying bad behavior, foolish comments, actions/inactions by pointing out some transgression by the opposition at some point in the past.
When the helicopters crashed in an effort to free the hostage in Iran, candidate Reagan said "this is a time for all Americans to come together and mourn the dead Americans and pray for the hostages.” Reagan waited a week before he criticized Carter for it. Has Romney studied Reagan?
"This election is about the economy" --- for you. For me -- I'm looking at an even larger picture that includes our role in this dangerous world. Foreign policy has been a major part of the President's role ever since Washington warned us against making entangling alliances.
You state, "when there is no domestic drilling the price goes up..." yet independent sources confirm that more oil is now being drilled in the US that ever before.
I'm disinclined to vote for Obama. Can you stop blaming Obama long enough to convince me that my inclination to vote for Romney is the right choice?

Couple of corrections. Obama questioned the surge in Congressional hearings (along with many others) after Bush-Cheney had claimed they 'kicked A*s'. Later he admitted he was overly critical and befriended Petraeus, who is now one of his close advisers. Romney was mouthing off BEFORE the attacks on the consulate and embassy -- and innumerable conservative commentators have blasted him (and still are) for that, and then doubling down. We should remember that during the Iranian hostage crisis Ronald Reagan treated it as a national problem and refused to attack Carter, even after the rescue failure. As for the 'messianic' speeches (?) in Europe, I have read the German one because my wife was there, and not too long before that I had been in Berlin talking to Germans about their views of the US (very grim thanks to the invasion of Iraq; many were disappointed that while we endlessly scolded Germany for starting WWII on false pretexts we had gone ahead and ignored our own advice.) Actually, Obama gave a rather 'visionary' and positive stump speech, mainly to hundreds of thousands of young people (many jobless) who saw in him a new political generation. The 'messianic' term was applied later by frustrated McCain operatives who were in a real campaign funk, particularly since their candidate was a war hero trapped by Bush's policies. Oh, and to an earlier point, Ann Romney made it very clear the American public would get no new info on family taxes. Fair game she is.

Ron, you are indefatiguable. So, if Ann Romney is fair game even though she is a spouse, not the candidate, does that make Michelle Obama fair game?

Your interpretation of events is different from mine. Obama was a clear vocal opponent to Bush's approach, and the debt Bush amassed which he called unpatriotic. Can you imagine the irony of that, even for a moment?

McCain said it best, politics isn't bean bag and ultimately most/all the candidates do what's in their interest. The voters have the final say. In the last election Obama went to Europe,which hated Bush, and presented himself as the un-Bush. As I recall Brian Williams was chasing after him like he was a teen idol - even if many people felt that Obama was off-base showing up a sitting President. Hey, it worked, so score one for Obama.

Personally, I see nothing worng with what Romney has done. In the end the voters decide. Keep working on the Ann Romney angle.

OK all you Obama lovers if you want indisputable facts go on You Tube. Search for "Obama quotes" and watch the videos. These are actual films of Obama speaking. They are eyeopening and they, and Obama's book show you exactly who this man is. I am so sick of all the misinformed arguing . People just don"t do real research. You must look at all sides. I have examined all the links put on by Max and others. They are from very liberal sites and contain opinions. The charts and "facts" can often can be interpreted multiple ways.
It is true Romney does not have a lot of experience in foreign policy. He just started getting intelligence briefings. He does have economic and managerial experience and we have to solve our money problems How much foreign policy knowledge did Obama have when he was running?
We should all be open minded and research both sides of the question. The videos are of actual Obama actions and opinions. Read his book which in his own words, tells of cocaine use, adoration of Socialist professors and other far scarier tendencies.
Note who he is addressing in each video. He is like a child trying to be loved. He says what he thinks the people he is in front of wants to hear. Truth and commitment to what he is saying are minor to his desire to succeed with his quest for his own and his Dad's adgenda.
A closed mind can't learn anything. and if you are beligerantly attacking the people speaking you have already stopped listening. There is no real discourse.

definitelynotpc: you characterize my data as being from liberal sites. i don't think this is an acceptable method of debate. i have provided data. if you want to refute them, you either tell me why the conclusions i draw from them are incorrect, or refute the data itself. data don't have political labels. they're just a bunch of numbers. so calling it liberal is not debating, but just being lazy.

Ron, as I say, you are indefatigable, and repetitively exhausting.

Forget Mrs. Romney. You brought her up and i never mentioned Mrs. Obama, although the attacks on her are hardly for the obesity situation, but more for her ingratious, "for the first time I am proud to be an American" commentary. There is no forgetting that.

You seem so angry that you don't know that i actually credited Obama with pulling one off in 2008 with his foreign tour because he won. That Romney did the same thing - most assuredly to boost his Jewish vote - in 2012 is no different. The impact of this will be judged up or down by the people in November.

And, why are "we" going back to Reagan, who you now believe was a racist and lucky. Thank you for adding that because it clearly helps define for my readers from where your remarks are coming.

No need for further response - we all get it.

Ben, thanks for your comment. We have here a philosophical issue - ESPECIALLY for the far left and right factions of the Parties. While ardent Democrats want abortion on demand, even partial birth abortions AND for the taxpayers to pay for abortions, far right Republicans believe that a fetus is an individual with the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Clinton wanted to have an abortion standard that was legal, safe and rare. Frankly, this is another example of Clinton's ability to create bi-partisanship as noted in the piece above - which is failing with Obama now.

Check out my most recent piece regarding your other thoughts. Suffice it to say that I understand that we disagree, but that's why we have elections. Enjoy the day.

Ok, last comment. Jim, you guys are always citing Reagan. I was using him as an example of someone who was far more diplomatic than Romney when our country was in trouble and awash in currents over which we have little control...ditto for the Democratic response after his disaster in Lebanon -- and the amazing pass the Democrats gave Bush when he got us into war the way he did. I cite the racism because of Tupelo (and wanted anti-Reaganites who read this to know I am not giving him a complete pass; he played the Southern Strategy race card, that is still being played, to the hilt). This said, Reagan's economic policies would not be acceptable to your party now in my opinion. As for comments about Michelle Obama you must surely be totally zoned or think we are utter fools if you haven't heard Rushbo and other spokespeople for the GOP go after her without mercy because of her stand on health issues (but then Rushbo, ole pill and doctor shopper, goes after folks with Parkinsons). Unlike Obama's world tour and attention in Europe Romney did a pandering snoozer that was a disaster. Just ask British conservatives or look at the polls in Israel. The guy didn't even try to work up a crowd. Even President Bush could go to Eastern Europe and draw adoring crowds. As for being persistent or exhausting, don't you think this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black????? LOL. Oh, and McCain was just parroting Mr. Dooley on beanbag.

Ok, one last final ho ho ho. When you run a blog you run the possibility that folks will disagree and chose arguments they want to use, whether you like them or not. Whether you cheaply psychologize them into anger or not. If you saw the emails and comments I get from 'moderates' and even Republicans who read your stuff you might be in for a rude shock. I agree that people do not want to post if they are accused of being irrational, angry or whatever it is you're suggesting so maybe by doing that to me I will just disappear and what you will get is lovey dovie from true believers.. You claim to be representing a local political party as its chairperson and so many of us respond in terms of what we, sometimes with real difficulty, are trying to figure out what it is you and the organization you represent stand for. As I have said I am liberal on some things, conservative on others, and libertarian on others. That may be hard to believe, but don't confuse it all with some sickness liberals apparently suffer from.

Ron, I claim to be representing myself, and only myself. The Patch asked me to post to balance the political viewpoints, and required the same profile as you provided. Heck, I would far more prefer to be identified as author of, "Daring To Be Different, A Manager's Ascent To Leadership" and sell some books.

But, just as I readily accept challenges to what I write, "straw" arguments like the Reagan as new-born racist and Ann Romney as accountant for her husband can be called to account as well.

But hey, if "moderates" are complaining to you of things I write, they are probably not really moderate at all. And Republicans? C'mon.