If you are talking about bunting to move a runner forward rather than always trying to swing for the fences I can see your point. Maybe because I grew up as a 1980's Astros fan and was an early 2000's Twins fan too I actually like to see sound baseball played with sac bunts every now and then rather than just trying to hit it out of the park every at bat. Taking a big swing can lead to a homerun but more often than not it ends up in a strikeout. And to a certain point he is right that the party is about him. He is the president and as such he is the face of the party for better or worse. Further as president he can take a couple of routes. One is to be uncompromising which might sound good to ideologues but keep in mind given the make up of Congress even when there was a Dem. 60 vote majority (a majority that included Lieberman and Blanche Lincoln) it was very unlikely anything gets done. Or he can try to figure out a way to get things done. Keep in mind that since FDR LBJ got the most passed from a progressive agenda, interesting enough Nixon got a lot of progressive polices passed too, and he was the consummate back room dealer compromiser. Even if the USSC rules against him Obama has done something that no Democrat president has been able to do since LBJ, pass a major piece of legislation moving forward the progressive agenda. This next election is going to be very close with the Romney camp throwing unbelievable amounts of money against him. Resources are limited and fighting the recall in WI is a distraction at best. Would you rather have Obama taking big ideological stands or would you rather have him win re-election?
Your criticism is thoughtful and lucid, and I am forced to consider it. Where much of the guilt lies is in my innate tendency to be a maverick. When I read the board pontifications of how wise and strong Obama is, I am naturally inclined to pick up a sharp stick with which to poke holes. Sometimes my forays send me much farther to the right than I actually am, but I confess it is fun. Nonetheless, in truth, I do not agree with Obama's policies, domestic and foreign, and find the team and associates with whom he surrounds himself anathema.
I think we all dig into our positions and take a bit of pleasure needling the other side. I mean, I'm guilty of that as well - and I've needled both sides a lot. And I certainly know something about taking things to an extreme as well. I'd just say it might be interesting to engage with your counter-parts in a more constructive dialogue if you really want them to see your side of why you disagree with his policies. Some of the broad stroke attacks that occur on both sides only result in each side writing the other side off as uneducated idiots. But I don't think the real debate is about Obama or what sort of leader he is, or really about dems vs. reps. I mean, the health care plan proposed by Obama was literally crafted by Republicans not too many years ago. Isn't it just weird that people now call it socialism when at the time it was crafted it was hailed as this breakthrough conservative alternative to solve the health care crisis that Hillary so incredibly failed to do??? Separate out politics, what's really the best course for this country? I support Obama/dems not because I am a liberal, but because I have concluded that it's what is best for the nation and myself in terms of creating a sustainable longer lasting nation. I think Republicans have moved to far to the right because of the Tea Party...that in reality moderate Republicans aren't that far off from Obama's positions but are forced to take more extreme position or face challenge from a tea party candidate in the next election cycle...and indeed moderate Republicans are a dying breed. Anyway, I like I said, I do the same things. I get annoyed with bigtexx and just reduce my posts to smackdowns and such. But in reality, it's rather unfulfilling since it doesn't really influence or change anything.
This probably doesn't deserve its own thread so resurrecting this one. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/fir...used-campaign-finance-criminal-scheme-n135801 Report: Scott Walker Accused of Campaign Finance 'Criminal Scheme' By Mark Murray Prosecutors have alleged that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker -- up for re-election this year and mentioned as a possible presidential candidate -- was part of a "wide-ranging scheme" that illegally coordinated fundraising for the 2011-2012 recalls in the state, newly released documents show. These prosecutors argue that Walker, a Republican, and his top aides worked with outside conservative groups -- like Wisconsin Club for Growth -- in these recalls, including Walker's own 2012 recall (which he won). They cite one email that Walker sent to prominent Republican strategist Karl Rove on May 4, 2011 during the state Senate recall elections highlighting Walker adviser R.J. Johnson's importance in leading the coordination effort. "Bottom line: R.J. helps keep in place a team that is wildly successful in Wisconsin. We are running 9 recall elections and it will be like running 9 Congressional markets in every market in the state (and Twin Cities)," Walker said to Rove in an email. These documents were unsealed as part of a lawsuit by Wisconsin Club for Growth trying to halt the state's "John Doe" investigation into these campaign-finance allegations. This isn't the first time this year a document release has caused problems for Walker. In February, thousands of pages of emails from a separate investigation suggested coordination between Walker's then-county-executive office and his 2010 gubernatorial campaign team. Democratic National Committee press secretary Michael Czin said in a statement that Walkers's alleged action is a "clear violation of the public's trust." "For years, Walker has refused to answer questions about his conduct," he said. "Now that prosecutors have alleged criminal conduct by Walker, it’s time for him to come clean to the people of Wisconsin and face the consequences, whatever they may be.”
I believe that decision is under appeal. At least part of it - demanding that prosecutors destroy all the evidence they collected - was put on hold by the appeals court. Not sure what the status of the rest of the appeal is.
the DA couldn't indict so they used discovery to terrorize Walker for three years judge finally shut them down in May Walker is the left's white whale. They can't vote him out, can't recall him, can't criminalize him.
You said the same thing about Chris Christie, who is currently beached, when the bridge scandal first arose.
I'll remember to bump this when the fat man gets his own cable news contributor gig in 2017 (presuming he's not indicted first.... )
you might find this useful: [rquoter]A Basic Primer On The Scott Walker Case For Ignorant Reporters JUNE 20, 2014 By Gabriel Malor I’m going to tell you a true story, and then tell you how the news media is covering it. This is a true story: in 2012, Democratic district attorneys in Wisconsin launched a secret probe known as a John Doe investigation with the goal of proving that conservative groups illegally coordinated activities during Gov. Scott Walker’s recall election. They issued more than 100 subpoenas, demanded the private information of conservatives and conservative groups, and actually conducted secret raids. And under state law, individuals who were targeted or witness to the investigation were forbidden from making knowledge of it public. Fortunately, judges saw right through this partisan abuse of power. Early this year, a state judge, ruling in a secret proceeding, quashed the subpoenas and all but ended the investigation. According to the judge, “the subpoenas do not show probable cause that the moving parties committed any violations of the campaign finance laws.” This started the unraveling of the John Doe investigation that had many conservatives fearing they would be targeted for subpoenas and raids next. In February, a conservative activist and group filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the partisan district attorneys who had pursued the John Doe probe. In short order, a federal district court judge held that the plaintiffs “are likely to succeed on their claim that the defendants‘ investigation violates their rights under the First Amendment, such that the investigation was commenced and conducted ―without a reasonable expectation of obtaining a valid conviction.” In other words, at this early stage of the civil rights litigation, it looks to the judge as if the Democratic district attorneys abused their power and chilled conservatives’ free speech rights. Accordingly, the federal judge ordered that the John Doe probe must cease, all the seized property be returned, and all copies of materials be destroyed. After a short trip to a federal appeals court, the federal judge reissued his order that the John Doe probe cease. Most recently, that appeals court has ordered some of the previously secret probe documents disclosed to the public, including an unsuccessful defense that the John Doe investigators made to one of their secret subpoenas. In their attempt to get a subpoena, which was rejected by a judge for lacking probable cause, the partisan investigators claimed that Walker was involved in the so-called conservative conspiracy. And that is where the litigation stands as of today. Having launched a secret probe that has now been shut down by both the state and federal courts, the Democratic district attorneys find themselves the subject of an ongoing civil rights lawsuit for infringing the First Amendment rights of conservatives. But that is not how the media have reported the case. Upon the unsealing of some of the probe documents by the federal appeals court, the media worked itself into a frenzy claiming that Walker was part of a criminal conspiracy. The media claim was based entirely on the subpoena document that was denied by the state judge as failing utterly to demonstrate probable cause to believe a crime occurred. In short: the judge, looking at all the evidence, found no reason to believe that a crime had occurred. That has not stopped the media from falsely implying otherwise. This is largely accomplished by playing with verb tense. For example, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel kicked off this infuriating libel with a piece that claimed, “John Doe prosecutors allege Scott Walker at center of ‘criminal scheme.’” The more accurate word, of course, would have been “alleged,” past-tense with the addition of the words “in denied subpoena request” or perhaps “in failed partisan investigation” or even “in politically-motivated secret investigation rejected by the state and federal courts.” The New York Times, trumpeting the story on today’s front page, also uses the present tense to give the wrong impression. The piece begins “Prosecutors in Wisconsin assert that Gov. Scott Walker was part of an elaborate effort to illegally coordinate fund-raising and spending.” Again, the true story is that this took place last year and was ended by the courts. You’d have to read all the way down to the tenth paragraph to learn that the subpoenas weren’t granted because there was no probable cause to believe that a crime had occurred. Oddly, the Times piece muses on the electoral consequences for Walker in the third paragraph. The media obsession with Walker is no coincidence. Liberals are still stinging from their failure to recall him in 2012 after he successfully curtailed union abuses. And they sense that he could be a formidable contender for the White House in 2016. That the John Doe probe simultaneously harms him, suggests widespread wrongdoing by conservatives, and raises the campaign finance bugaboo makes this story the almost-perfect storm. The inconvenient fact that the investigation was cooked up for partisan purposes, has now ceased, and has impelled a federal civil rights lawsuit will go unmentioned in the papers.[/rquoter] http://thefederalist.com/2014/06/20/a-basic-primer-on-the-scott-walker-case-for-ignorant-reporters/
^ I didn't find that very interesting; I'm vaguely familiar with how these things work. Seems like quite a massive blunder by Scott Walker & his bros in filing the civil rights lawsuit allowing these damaging documents to be made public. I guess they figured it was worth it given the alternative of a possible stint in the big house. I find this more interesting:
The media's use of present tense ("prosecuters allege", "prosecuters accuse") is hilarious, given the case ended and no charges were filed. If anything it will be a replay of Duke lacrosse or Ted Stevens, where prosecutors are in trouble for abuse of power.
The case didn't end, they quashed a couple of subpoenas and got a preliminary injunction. Whether it's the end is to be determined. Your track record for these types of predictions is truly horrifyingly bad - basically you're a giant jinx. Walker will probably get life in prison now.
Unclear - I don't believe it was ever tested really. What I can say with certainty is that it's not over yet. What I can also say with certainty is bye bye to Walker as a national political figure. It's over. Good luck in November. He's going to need it.
