Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

karynnj

(59,475 posts)
17. You likely have been too influenced by Fox News
Fri Dec 16, 2011, 09:55 AM
Dec 2011

1) Solyndra is a green energy company that received a grant and failed. Congress passed legislation that called for grants for green energy as part of the stimulus. It is not the least surprising that a company, even with a grant, could fail in what everyone knows is the toughest economy in recent times. As to top people in the company being Obama donators - I would bet they contributed to Kerry and Gore as well. It is hard to imagine that, having a passion for environmentally clean energy, they did not see that the Democrats were much more in line with their values.

2) Fast & Furious is an idiotic, immoral program, started when Bush was President in ATF. The Republicans blocked not just Obama's choice to head ATF , BUT Bush's choice to head the ATF. ( http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/06/nation/la-na-atf-director-20110907 ) This because the NRA has been against everyone nominated. Though Senator Grassley says that not having a confirmed head would have not made a difference, that is speculation. Note that the acting head was also only part time. It would seem that a confirmed, full time head of the organization would have more authority to set the agenda. The problem here is that ATF is a troubled organization - and it was so in the 1990s. The NRA's actions precluded the possibility that a good, strong head could have reset the organization's goals. The real problem is that the NRA, not wanting any regulation of guns, used its power to make the organization dysfunctional.

3) Indiana primary fraud is the dumbest Fox claim I have heard - and there's a lot of competition there. The fact is that they found TWO invalid signatures in a 150 signature sample. Then they declared this meant Obama should not have been on the ballot. The fact is that there always are some invalid signatures - which is why all candidates gather more than are needed and eliminate the obvious ones. Here, using the fraud rate identified, it is well outside the 95% confidence interval that Obama had insufficient signatures. (Here is what I wrote then - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=828461&mesg_id=828499 ) Beyond that, it was incumbent on his opponents or the state to challenge the petition and none did.

4) Executive overreach - Uhmm, it is hard to out do the Bush administration on this. Not to mention, the right pushed Alito onto the Supreme Court even though he was a proponent of the unitary executive. Senator Kerry and others passionately and eloquently spoke of the danger of moving in that direction.

5) Politicized DOJ - You mean pushing federal DA's to open investigations and make indictments - that did not have merit to hurt candidates in the opposing party in the mid terms? That did happen and they were caught at it, but that was the Bush administration in 2006, not Obama. (Small side fact, it was Chris Christie's office that investigated Senator Menendez, who was running in 2006 - the case dropped as having no merit after Menendez was elected.

6) Health insurance costs have risen fast for years. The fact is your costs would not have remained constant if there were no law passed.

7) 5 Trillion spent? The President does not have the power to spend money that Congress does not legislate. Not to mention, a large part of what was spent was for the two wars that started in the Bush era, including one that was not necessary. It is entirely likely that had Bush not diverted troops and resources to Iraq, that Afghanistan would have ended in his first term. He also might not have outsourced the capture of Osama Bin Laden and his key people to warlords that weeks before were allied with the Taliban. Not to mention, the Bush tax cuts, which were rammed through the Senate under reconciliation, were unaffordable. (This also led to the passage of the Byrd rule that bills passed under reconciliation must lower the deficit. ) The United States has never fought a war while cutting taxes. Yet Bush refused to even reduce the tax cuts to pay for the war - he threatened to veto the $87 billion supplemental if Congress paid for it that way. (So, like Kerry, he also had two positions on the $87 billion. Our financial standing now would have been better if Bush and the Congress would have taken the position Kerry voted for. )

No. There are no countervailing checks or independent institutions anymore. leveymg Dec 2011 #1
Exactly right n2doc Dec 2011 #6
Everyone in the Exec. Branch is now immunized, past, present, and (they hope) future leveymg Dec 2011 #13
Yes. There are a class of people that are immune at the top. mmonk Dec 2011 #15
Then, there needs to be a way for the community to police them, even if the police won't. leveymg Dec 2011 #18
Is this a scandal/corruption-free administration?! FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #2
Starting to wonder. now_zad Dec 2011 #3
Yet no one has been indicted, so what's your point? FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #4
you think lack of indictments means lack of corruption???? bowens43 Dec 2011 #12
You think these republicans would give the D's an inch to hide behind? FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #24
You sure have all the Faux Snewz talking points doc03 Dec 2011 #7
You likely have been too influenced by Fox News karynnj Dec 2011 #17
Thank you, thank you, thank you - n/t coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #30
When are we getting the Ignore function back for dissimulators? - n/t coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #29
No. But it's an interesting take on our justice, xchrom Dec 2011 #5
I wouldn't consider "number of indictments" to be a reliable metric. gkhouston Dec 2011 #8
U.S. slips to historic low in global corruption index joshcryer Dec 2011 #9
No one is indicted for anything anymore. JoeyT Dec 2011 #10
no. bowens43 Dec 2011 #11
Care to back up that "no" with some evidence? n/t GoCubsGo Dec 2011 #14
Second Terms Are When The Scandals Flare Up... KharmaTrain Dec 2011 #16
I'd wait for convictions, since innocent until proven guilty, so indictments aren't final treestar Dec 2011 #19
Yes deaniac21 Dec 2011 #20
Sweet Mr Dixon Dec 2011 #21
sure looks that way. mopinko Dec 2011 #22
The jury is still out. hughee99 Dec 2011 #23
Yet, it happened in real time during all the other administrations. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #25
So are you wondering who got the worst scandal PR while in office hughee99 Dec 2011 #27
At least, not likely. (nt) (nr) T S Justly Dec 2011 #26
Carter was pretty clean but we have little way to know since the overall coruption levels are way TheKentuckian Dec 2011 #28
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Is the Obama administrati...»Reply #17