PDA

View Full Version : Da Trib finely speeks da troot!



LWW
09-19-2011, 11:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When Ronald Reagan ran for re-election in 1984, his slogan was "Morning in America." For Barack Obama, it's more like midnight in a coal mine.

The sputtering economy is about to stall out, unemployment is high, his jobs program may not pass, foreclosures are rampant and the poor guy can't even sneak a cigarette.

His approval rating is at its lowest level ever. His party just lost two House elections one in a district it had held for 88 consecutive years. He's staked his future on the jobs bill, which most Americans don't think would work.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>The vultures are starting to circle. Former White House spokesman Bill Burton said that unless Obama can rally the Democratic base, which is disillusioned with him, "it's going to be impossible for the president to win."</span> <span style='font-size: 17pt'>Democratic consultant James Carville had one word of advice for Obama:</span> <span style='font-size: 26pt'><u>"Panic."</u></span>

But there is good news for the president. I checked the Constitution, and he is under no compulsion to run for re-election. He can scrap the campaign, bag the fundraising calls and never watch another Republican debate as long as he's willing to vacate the premises by Jan. 20, 2013.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>That might be the sensible thing to do. It's hard for a president to win a second term when unemployment is painfully high. If the economy were in full rebound mode, Obama might win anyway. But it isn't, and it may fall into a second recession in which case voters will decide his middle name is Hoover, not Hussein. Why not leave of his own volition instead of waiting to get the ax?</span>

It's not as though there is much enticement to stick around. Presidents who win re-election have generally found, wrote John Fortier and Norman Ornstein in their 2007 book, "Second-Term Blues," that "their second terms did not measure up to their first."

Presidential encores are generally a bog of frustration, exhaustion and embarrassment. They are famous for lowest moments rather than finest hours. Richard Nixon was forced to resign in disgrace, Reagan had the Iran-Contra scandal, and Bill Clinton made the unfortunate acquaintance of Monica Lewinsky.

Administration officials get weary after four years and leave in droves. The junior varsity has to be put into service. New ideas are hard to come by.

Someone said that when a man is smitten with a beautiful woman, he should remember that somebody somewhere is tired of her. Likewise, the most inspiring presidents get stale after years of constant overexposure.

In the event he wins, Obama could find himself with Republicans in control of both houses of Congress. Then he will long for the good old days of 2011. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner will bound out of bed each day eager to make his life miserable.

Besides avoiding this indignity, Obama might do his party a big favor. In hard times, voters have a powerful urge to punish incumbents. He could slake this thirst by stepping aside and taking the blame. Then someone less reviled could replace him at the top of the ticket.

The ideal candidate would be a figure of stature and ability who can't be blamed for the economy. That person should not be a member of Congress, since it has an even lower approval rating than the president's.

It would also help to be conspicuously associated with prosperity. Given Obama's reputation for being too quick to compromise, a reputation for toughness would be an asset.

As it happens, there is someone at hand who fits this description: Hillary Clinton. Her husband presided over a boom, she's been busy deposing dictators instead of destroying jobs, and she's never been accused of being a pushover.

Not only that, Clinton is a savvy political veteran who already knows how to run for president. Oh, and a new Bloomberg poll finds her to be merely "the most popular national political figure in America today."

If he runs for re-election, Obama may find that the only fate worse than losing is winning. But he might arrange things so it will be Clinton who has the unenviable job of reviving the economy, balancing the budget, getting out of Afghanistan and grappling with House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. Obama, meanwhile, will be on a Hawaiian beach, wrestling the cap off a Corona. </div></div>

OW! (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-chapman-obama-reelection,0,622512.column)

Soflasnapper
09-19-2011, 11:36 AM
The Chicago Tribune did not say this. It's not an editorial of the paper. It is the work of a man who is unlikely to agree with the Tribune's editorial board endorsement of Obama in 2008.

Why? Because this man is a conservative, based on his bio. Contributed writings to the American Spectator, the National Review, and the Weekly Standard, and also served as a fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institute? Conservative.

So, sky blue, sun yellow, conservative says Obama ought to resign. Amazing!

LWW
09-19-2011, 12:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Chicago Tribune did not say this. It's not an editorial of the paper. It is the work of a man who is unlikely to agree with the Tribune's editorial board endorsement of Obama in 2008.</div></div>

So this was a lie?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">S<span style='font-size: 14pt'>teve Chapman is a member of the Tribune's editorial board and blogs at chicagotribune.com/chapman</span>

schapman@tribune.com </div></div>

I wonder how he got a Tribune e-mail address ... or posting on the Tribune web site?

Soflasnapper
09-19-2011, 01:19 PM
He's a member of the editorial board, yes. One voice, one vote, among many others on the board.

He's also an Tribune columnist as well.

He wrote this as a personal column, and it was not published nor endorsed as a paper editorial, which the editorial board would have to approve by majority.

Someone writing his personal column, even if he/she is a member of the editorial board, is not speaking for the paper, and is rather putting forward an individual's perspective.

LWW
09-19-2011, 03:00 PM
You said it wasn't an editorial of the paper ... kwitcher yoosin dem weezel woids.

And, FWIW, I has confoimed from a Chicaggan dat dis eddamatorial was also distributed to millions in da print voision.

Soflasnapper
09-19-2011, 05:01 PM
Yes, the regular columnists that are published by a paper are put into the op/ed section, and printed, and distributed with the rest of the paper.

However, as George Will does not speak for the WaPost's editorial board in his regularly published column there, neither does this man's personal column do the equivalent in his case.

Just as Danish columnists or even editorial boards do not speak for Americans.

ugotda7
09-19-2011, 07:57 PM
Please just stop, you're embarrassing yourself.

Qtec
09-19-2011, 08:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ugotda7</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Please just stop, you're embarrassing yourself. </div></div>

Maybe he will if you will?

Q

LWW
09-20-2011, 12:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ugotda7</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Please just stop, you're embarrassing yourself. </div></div>

He's merely following orders.

Soflasnapper
09-20-2011, 10:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ugotda7</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Please just stop, you're embarrassing yourself. </div></div>

Now? Why stop now?

If The Tribune thinks this is the policy they'd urge upon Obama, they'd publish an actual editorial approved by enough of the editorial board saying this. They have not. Have they?

Soflasnapper
09-20-2011, 11:59 AM
Please just stop, you're embarrassing yourself.

Clarence Page bio, showing he's a member of the editorial board. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-clarencepage,0,3614106,bio.columnist)

If a columnist who is an editorial board member is speaking for the paper (its editorial board, at least) when he writes his regular column, then Clarence Page's columns speak for the Chicago Tribune just as much as this guy's do.

Which is absolutely true, in that neither of them speak for the editorial board.

Editorials are usually unsigned, and appear as identified editorials. That is when you know the paper is speaking in its own voice. The only individual voices that can be taken to speak for the paper would be the editor, or the publisher.

If you think the columnist in question is somehow far different from Clarence Page in speaking for the paper, on what basis do you claim that difference?

Somehow, if I linked to a Clarence Page column talking his typical pro-Obama position, and claimed it was the CHICAGO TRIBUNE saying it rather than just he alone saying it, I think I'd be corrected, and correctly so.

nAz
09-20-2011, 01:58 PM
! dude you got a lot of patience with people... how do you do it?

Soflasnapper
09-20-2011, 02:12 PM
I usually edit out the obscenities in my responses before I post them. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/shocked.gif

Gayle in MD
09-20-2011, 02:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: nAz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

! dude you got a lot of patience with people... how do you do it?

</div></div>

Yes he does!!!

Both Sofla and Q, are excellent at shooting down all of the intentional lies of the RW Sheep, which means, every single thread they post!

G.