You sure Eastwood knows that? He made a remark saying that it wasn't a good idea for lawyers to be in the White House. If he is on Romney's team, does he know that Romney has a law degree from Harvard, same as Obama?

See, I never thought it was a good idea for attorneys to the president, anyway.

I think attorneys are so busy -- you know they're always taught to argue everything, always weigh everything, weigh both sides. They are always devil's advocating this and bifurcating this and bifurcating that.

That's funny, because that sounds exactly what Romney does all the time. Romney's flipfloping is tantamount to Eastwood's characterization of attorney behavior.

You sure Eastwood knows that?

...Romney has a law degree from Harvard, same as Obama

Romney's flipfloping...

You know what's nice? He has flipflopped so many times there's actually a WIKI page dedicated to them:

Political positions of Mitt Romney

How was Obama unsuccessful as a community organizer?

Actually that's a wiki page about his political positions. Are there any "flipflops" you had in mind? (Don't forget that one may take one policy stance at the state level but a different one at the federal level and still be perfectly consistent.)

Here is one take on Obama's community organizing efforts:

The long-term goal was to retrain workers in order to restore manufacturing jobs in the area; Kellman took Obama by the rusted-out, closed-down Wisconsin Steel plant for a firsthand look. But the whole thing was a bit of a pipe dream, as the leaders soon discovered. "The idea was to interview these people and look at education, transferable skills, so that we could refer them to other industries," Loretta Augustine-Herron told me as we drove by the site of the old factory, now completely torn down. "Well, they had no transferable skills. I remember interviewing one man who ran a steel-straightening machine. It straightened steel bars or something. I said, well, what did you do? And he told me he pushed a button, and the rods came in, and he pushed a button and it straightened them, and he pushed a button and it sent them somewhere else. That's all he did. And he made big bucks doing it."

That, of course, was one of the reasons the steel mill closed. And it became clear that neither Obama nor Kellman nor anyone else was going to change the direction of the steel industry and its unions in the United States. Somewhere along the line, everyone realized that those jobs wouldn't be coming back...

...A staple priority of organizers like Obama was the summer-jobs program. In the 1980s the jobs were administered by the Mayor's Office of Employment and Training, or MET...MET officials agreed to open the new office. Obama had an accomplishment to point to.

"Our kids were able to go there, sign up, and get their summer jobs," Lloyd told me. "It was fantastic to me, I just felt like -- oh, it meant so much to us."

The very first thing is a flipflop on Agriculture, which has nothing do with the federal vs. state distinction.

National Review Bryon York link, forget that.

The very first thing is a flipflop on Agriculture...

National Review Bryon York link, forget that

What's really pathetic is that you imagine that plainly partisan rhetoric from plainly partisan sources can and should be taken as Truth.

Which part was inaccurate? If none, then it's the truth.

Which part was "accurate"? If none, then it amounted to partisan gibberish.

Based on your statements, I would have to guess that most New Jersey Democrats not only read National Review religiously and believe everything its most biased columnists say in anger, but when they don't have time to read they watch Fox News religiously and believe whatever Mike Huckabee has to say. If Mike thinks Todd Akin's remarks about "legitimate rape" were reasonable, can I safely assume you think so too, like most other "New Jersey Democrats"?

Which part was "accurate"?

If Mike thinks Todd Akin's remarks about "legitimate rape" were reasonable...

Since he was accurately portrayed as "community organiser in Chicago" you figure anything else said about him was probably accurate too? I have this really great car I'd like to offer you...

Show some respect for former Governor Mike Huckabee, for goodness sake (or at least spell his name right). He would count as being on Romney's, Eastwood's and your team as well.

Since he was accurately portrayed as "community organiser in Chicago" you figure anything else said about him was probably accurate too?

Show some respect for former Governor Mike Huckabee, for goodness sake (or at least spell his name right). He would count as being on Romney's, Eastwood's and your team as well

I needed to offer nothing in rebuttal of National Review, as its columnists have made it abundantly clear they see themselves as right-wing propaganda organs.

If you think you "don't have a team", you have lost your ability to parse your own writing. When I mentioned your team first, you answered "indeed", but now you imagine you haven't been trashing Obama and blindly supporting Romney. As if.

I needed to offer nothing in rebuttal of National Review...

When I mentioned your team first, you answered "indeed"...

If "successful community organi[sing]" would be impossible in your book, why should I make any effort to explain or define these terms?

Reread my post #35 and your answer in post #44. "Delusional", eh?

If "successful community organi[sing]" would be impossible in your book...

Reread my post #35 and your answer in post #44. "Delusional", eh?

One can safely assume that any definition I had been so foolish as to offer of "successful" community organising would have met with your disapproval.

But since responding to you and your questions seems to have become my first priority on TnT, I will offer my opinion that "successful" community organising should be judged almost exclusively by its political results. If, after organising your community, it votes to put you in public office, you have been "successful" in your community organising efforts.

You could be Romney for all I know, but my post #35 certainly didn't limit itself to Romney. I was discussing his "team", which included "all Republicans" (not just Clint Eastwood or Mike Huckabee), including you (oh, yeah, you don't count yourself as Republican just because you defend Republicans and other hard-rightists incessantly on TnT, you think of yourself as "New Jersey Democrat"). You responded "Indeed" without apparently thinking about what you were saying "Indeed" to. That wasn't my fault, of course.

To summarize:

1. Obama's "community organising [sic]" was a success not because it had any positive effect on the "community," but because it furthered Obama's political career. If that's your definition of success I can hardly argue with your conclusion.

2. I am not a Republican and have never been. Your belief that I am is a figment of your imagination. (For the record, from my 18th birthday until the 2008 primary I have always been registered to vote without any party affiliation. I only became a Democrat when I entered the polling station on primary day to vote against Hillary Clinton - New Jersey allows independent voters to register for a party on the day of a primary.)

1. You asked for MY definition and you got it. Why not offer one of your own?

2. Your regular defences of Republicans and hard-rightists (excepting Mike Huckabee, whom you plainly despise) make you look like you SHOULD be Republican, if you were more honest with yourself. (Yeah, I know, if my grandmother had testicles, she would have been my grandfather.) At least now you have more reasonably identified yourself as "Independent" rather than "New Jersey Democrat" which was ridiculous on its face.

I am totally cool with your definition of Obama's success. In fact, it is, I think, refreshingly honest to point out that President Obama places his own ambition for power above all other considerations.

What you call my defenses of Republicans is nothing more than correcting the disingenuous and/or misinformed comments by some TnT users. If suggests that a Republican is equivalent to a Nazi, for example, it is a defense of that Republican to point out the absurdity of the comparison, but that is not the same supporting that Republican in particular or Republicans in general.

My vote against Hillary Clinton was indeed quixotic, but most votes are.

It would be even more refreshing if you could acknowledge that most politicians place their own ambitions above all other considerations.

What I call your defences of Republicans would actually be defences of Republicans, never of Democrats. You could just as easily correct disingenuous or misinformed opinions of hard-rightists as of leftists, but you choose not to. Ever. Claiming otherwise would be disingenuous.

What I call your defences of Republicans would actually be defences of Republicans, never of Democrats. You could just as easily correct disingenuous or misinformed opinions of hard-rightists as of leftists, but you choose not to. Ever. Claiming otherwise would be disingenuous

And, of course, you NEVER correct Alf, because after all Obama really deserves to be labeled "Communist", eh?

Did he label Obama a communist?

On multiple occasions, but I guess you don't read his stuff. ;>)

Can you point to one or two?

Really recently, try reading his diary entry "You didn't originate that" and his post #8 in that thread. But less recently, if you say you haven't seen him refer to Obama as Communist on multiple occasions, you either don't read his posts or your disingenuity has been showing again.

He said that Obama has expressed "Comunist sentiments."

He has previously used "Communist Obama" more than once. Please, how deep into disingenuousness do we need to get here? We both know you wouldn't criticise Alf no matter what he said, and that you never have.

The only person to use the term "Communist Obama" on Trees and Things is you. Go look it up.

I used it because it has become so common in right-wing circles.

And what do you think your bosom buddy was trying to say when he wrote his article about that Radical Communist who "originated" Obama's "you didn't build that" meme? I suppose he didn't really mean anything, eh? And I suppose he also didn't mean anything by post #8.

You see and hear what you like, and dismiss what you like. Next time you tell us about Alf's brilliant scientific thinking relating to black peoples' IQs, I'll remember this conversation.

I used it because it has become so common in right-wing circles

And what do you think your bosom buddy was trying to say when he wrote his article about that Radical Communist who "originated" Obama's "you didn't build that" meme?

Next time you tell us about Alf's brilliant scientific thinking relating to black peoples' IQs...

I can't figure out how to search past TnT comments, so you can say anything you like about previous discussions and get away with it. I know I have read Alf accuse Obama of both Socialism and Communism, but who really cares besides us anyway? I also remember discussions of IQ tests on both Plastic and TnT in which you sided with Alf in his "scientific" stylings, but again I can't access such discussions. I suppose it doesn't really make any difference anyway.

Elizabeth Warren? When were we discussing HER? I thought that was all about Barack Obama. Maybe "New Jersey Democrat" needs to be amended to "Massachusetts Independent" instead.  

I also remember discussions of IQ tests on both Plastic and TnT in which you sided with Alf in his "scientific" stylings

Elizabeth Warren? When were we discussing HER?

I'll put them back in, if you like. You sided with Alf in his "scientific" stylings when he was claiming that (culturally-biased) IQ tests that show blacks with lower average IQs than whites have any significant social meaning. Other people accused you of racialism on Plastic for that, but you don't remember what you don't want to remember.

I thought Obama's ideas came from Radical Communists, per Alf.

Did you ever present any evidence that IQ tests are culturally biased? Alf, as I recall, presented good reasons to think they are not, or that such tests used in the past are no longer the norm.

He DOES remember! I have deleted "disingenuous" in honour of your candour.

Let's not discuss IQ tests here, though. Alf will no doubt find other articles on that subject and we can resurrect it then and start from scratch.

The website says that link is temporarily not working, so I was only able to read the section you quoted.  In what sense did Obama fail as a community organizer there?

If you think setting out to bring back high-wage factory jobs and then settling for a very modest expansion to a city make-work program for youths is a success, then you should vote to reelect President Obama.

Like I said, I could only read the part you quoted.  I thought the first part was a reference to campaign claims and the second part was something he'd done while in Chicago.

Look, I am willing to cut the guy a lot of slack for being naive at 24. But that he seems not to have learned anything useful in the subsequent decades is pretty sad.

If you think setting out to do something impossible and then settling for something actually doable constitutes failure, then you should go back to reading National Review.

I don't read National Review. Thanks for the advice, though.

You don't READ it, you just QUOTE from it freely? What does that say about you?

It says I use Google and National Review was the best source I found, i.e., mainstream media sources pretty much ignored Obama's lack of experience.

If you can only make your anti-Obama points by quoting sources whose bias against Obama would be obvious to anyone, maybe you don't qualify as "Independent" any more than you qualify as "Democrat".

Again: what in the National Review article was inaccurate?

If someone quoted to you from Mother Jones, you wouldn't respond to questions like this one. National Review has consistently been dominated by right-wing propaganda for many years, especially during election cycles. I don't care to bother with their columnists, who search only for ways to put Obama down without regard to truth or facts.

Even you know that what NR claimed Obama was supposedly trying to do couldn't have been done by anyone, any more than King Canute could have prevented high tide. Pinning any argument on that was patently ridiculous.

In terms of accuracy, Mother Jones is hardly in the same class as National Review.

In any event, if you cited a piece in Mother Jones and asked me to identify inaccuracies, I am certain I could do so.

Even you know that what NR claimed Obama was supposedly trying to do couldn't have been done by anyone

I agree. Mother Jones seems lots more reliable than National Review.

His "stimulus" was what Keynesians like Reagan would have endorsed. Maybe he was supposed to be blind to experiences of Reagan and FDR.

There is no good evidence that "stimulus" ever worked. If you believe Reagan was a keynsian, you are either ignorant or delusional.

I know you have nothing left to say when you start in with "ignorant" and "delusional". How dare I impugn your Republican God's reputation. Tell us about being "Independent" one more time...

We've run this thread to well over 100 posts and we've gotten to where we have nothing left to say. I know you feel as impelled to answer me as I do to answer you, but let's forget it already. Good night.

Reagan's economics were supply-side. If you don't know what that means you are ignorant; if you think Reagan was a keynesian you are delusional.

If you think running up 1/3 of America's total national debt in eight years in response to economic crisis wasn't Keynesian, YOU are delusional, dear sir. Meanwhile, I can't get either you or Jack to tell me if you favoured those then-giant Reagan deficits at that time or not. I assume you were alive then (I think of you as being my age), and I assume you had political opinions then. Do you remember, have you put it all behind you, or were your views at that time inconvenient now?

As to National Review's trashing of Obama, against my better judgment I finally read it, just for you, and was unsurprised to find myself reading mere partisan polemics. My precise complaints? Misdefinition and moving goalposts.

What do community organisers do exactly? (You had enough sense to ask this question, although you have no useful answer of your own.) Depending on what you want to prove, you can claim they do almost anything or almost nothing. I can only think of one "job" remotely similar: union organiser. If "results" (higher standard of living for workers, more jobs, etc.) defined "success" in union organising, most early (and beloved) union organisers plainly "failed", yet their efforts were essential to later union "successes".

Generally, people who graduate Harvard Law School after running its Law Review end up working 80 hours per week at some huge firm in New York or DC, where they make oodles of money en route to partnership. So why would someone like Obama have chosen "community organising" as his "profession" instead? I would answer that he must have had politics in mind from day one, like so many other legally-trained people. In that context, "community organiser" might as well be called "political apprentice". You try to meet lots of people, try to get them to work together with you on something (anything), and get them to think of you as someone they like and that would adequately represent their interests. If "results" alone matter, Obama's later election to various political offices would be proof of his success in learning his chosen profession and in reaching out to local voters.

But Byron York's first task in trashing Obama (and he had no other point) was to define "community organising" as some sort of employment with tangible goals that can either be reached or not reached. If York (arbitrarily) claims Obama's true goal was to bring back (forever lost) manufacturing jobs, then he can claim that Obama's "failure" to do so was proof of his failure to organise his community, as if Obama could have brought back manufacturing jobs if only he had "organised" more effectively. (Does anyone really think Obama could or should have convinced his community members to accept Chinese- or Mexican-level wages so as to make steel manufacturing more profitable in America? Does anyone really think reducing American workers to sub-poverty levels would actually have saved American steel-making anyway?) So York starts his polemic with misdefinition and continues by moving goalposts.

Democrats pull similar tricks with respect to Romney, for similar purposes. Romney, born into enormous and old wealth and thus oblivious to middle class struggles, could be tarred exactly as Bush Jr was: "some people are born on third base and go through life thinking they hit a triple" or "he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth". Their unspoken assumption that rich people owe society more than middle-class people informs criticisms that Romney never "built" anything with his money (never hired thousands of workers in pursuit of any entrepreneurial vision), that rather he disassembled existing businesses and ate their carcasses and then stashed his ill-gotten gains offshore to avoid taxes, a la Gordon Gecko. If you (started to) read that sort of plainly partisan polemic in Mother Jones (ridiculous assumption, since you wouldn't be reading anything like that voluntarily), you wouldn't get through one paragraph before you would recognise that what you were reading was partisan tripe. Yet so lost have you become in your own partisanship (you "Massachusetts Independent", you) that you can't detect BS if it comes in your preferred flavour(s). Too bad, but what can I expect these days?

"What 'flipflopping'?"

Ho ho! Priceless.

Obamacare: good for states, evil for feds.

Abortion: He was for it before he was against it.

Zyx: New Jersey Democrat.

Obamacare: good for states, evil for feds

He didn't, except that Romneycare in Massachusetts can't reasonably be distinguished from Obamacare, except in that Romneycare covered birth control without any complaints from anyone.

...Romneycare in Massachusetts can't reasonably be distinguished from Obamacare...

Wow, you suddenly seem to understand my last post. Who would have figured?

So, do you ever quote publications that don't proudly appeal primarily to right-wingers?

Also: Romneycare didn't tax tanning salons.

Huge differences. No wonder Romney now opposes insurance mandates after enacting them in Massachusetts.

Given artificial tanning's many health benefits, I just can't understand why health care legislation would mention tanning salons. Next they'll claim that cigarettes cause cancer and heart disease and should be taxed at rates that take into account their effects on public health costs or something.

No wonder Romney now opposes insurance mandates after enacting them in Massachusetts

...should be taxed at rates that take into account their effects on public health costs...

He has been trashing Obamacare since he started his campaign, promising to repeal it, and he has said he opposes federal health insurance mandates repeatedly. (Do you believe him?)

Are you seriously suggesting that NO analysis was done? On what basis? Raw prejudice?

He has been trashing Obamacare since he started his campaign, promising to repeal it, and he has said he opposes federal health insurance mandates repeatedly

Are you seriously suggesting that NO analysis was done? On what basis?

When I referred to this very distinction between federal and state (state good, fed evil), you claimed you didn't know what I meant. I guess you were just being disingenuous.

Some "precise" number would have been picked in any event, and no matter what it was you would have considered it random and proof that no analysis was done.

When I referred to this very distinction between federal and state (state good, fed evil), you claimed you didn't know what I meant

Did he?

...no matter what it was you would have considered it random...

Romney tries to forget Romneycare. I doubt he says anything about it these days. Sort of like not saying anything about whether American troops should remain in Afghanistan beyond 2014.

Any number selected would have been "arbitrary" in your book, whether research had been done prior to its selection or not.

Romney has addressed the federalism aspect of health insurance mandates in the past.

Yes, he has... This is from the conservative source Weekly Standard:

"Health care is simply too important to the economy, to employment and to America's families to be larded up and rushed through [Congress] on an artificial deadline. There's a better way. And the lessons we learned in Massachusetts could help Washington find it.

"No other state has made as much progress in covering their uninsured as Massachusetts....Shortly after becoming governor, I worked in a bipartisan fashion with Democrats to insure all our citizens....For health care reform to succeed in Washington, the president must finally do what he promised during the campaign: Work with Republicans as well as Democrats.

"Massachusetts also proved that you don't need government insurance. Our citizens purchase private...insurance. There is no `public option.'...

"Our experience also demonstrates that getting every citizen insured doesn't have to break the bank.  First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages `free riders' to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others...."

Roughly eight months later, in the immediate aftermath of Obamacare's passage, Romney called for repealing "the worst aspects of Obamacare," saying that he hoped we could ultimately "repeal the bad and keep the good." When comparing his Massachusetts health care overhaul with Obamacare at that time, Romney said, "I like some of the similarities."

On Meet the Press:

In a June 2009 appearance on "Meet the Press," Romney touted both his plan and the Wyden-Bennet plan as models for national health care reform, both plans include a individual mandate. Romney's previous support for a federal mandate makes his health care positions even murkier, and has sewn doubt among conservatives that he will repeal the most controversial elements of the President's plan.

Reason.com - another conservative, libertarian source says:

Romney may not have ever said "I support a federal mandate to purchase health insurance" in so many words, but if you look at his record, it's hard to conclude that he did not support copying the Massachusetts plan at the federal level, including the mandate--which is essentially what Democrats did with ObamaCare.

It's just damn disingenuous to say he never said "indivdual mandate" but his healthcare plan hinges on it.

Romney may not have ever said "I support a federal mandate to purchase health insurance" in so many words

Also,

Shortly after becoming governor, I worked in a bipartisan fashion

Yet has he mentioned Romneycare even once since he started running for his party's nomination? He must not feel particularly proud of his handiwork, eh?

I have no idea what he feels proud of. He does strike me as easily bright enough to understand that Massachusetts is not the USA and that being a president is a different job than being a governor.

He also strikes me as bright enough to understand that if he actively took credit for Romneycare, almost no one would take his attacks on Obamacare seriously.

"...except in that Romneycare covered birth control without any complaints from anyone."

I know Massachusetts well enough to know that your statement is entirely false.  The Left majority would have proclaimed it too little no matter how much,  and the minority Right would have decried it as both too much and wrong-headed.  

Of course, in Massachusetts, there is no such thing as too much government anything, unless it slows down your trip to the Cape on weekends.  Even Whitey had the sense to take a helicopter.

Perhaps I overstated my case. What I was trying to say was that Romneycare covers birth control and that that requirement remains in force.

Beyond making one speech that wasn't vetted on one occasion? At that rate, almost every Republican politician of any stature would also be "on Romney's team" (especially including former mayors of small California cities).

Hey, at that rate, YOU might be on Romney's team.

...almost every Republican politician of any stature would also be "on Romney's team"...

Obama maximised his tan some 51 years ago. Maybe he should have gotten off that beach at birth. (Probably lots of hard-right adherents would enthusiastically agree.) No racialism there, just saying.

No racialism there...

Everybody loves jokes about black people being tan enough already and not needing any more beach time.

Yeah, state governor as Jersey Shore-imitating wannabe thug.  So endearing.

So endearing

It was OK. At least Romney had the balls to let Clint Eastwood speak. Just a few months ago the regulars, Rush, Cheney and  many other republican spin masters were highly irritated by his Super Bowl commercial touting the American auto industries come back. (must not make America look good while Obama is Prez)

It showed some class as far as presenting Romney not buying the bullshit many control freaks in his party are all caught up in. Unfortunately it is all anyone will remember of the convention. The rest of the speeches by these boring pathological liars was just very uninteresting and hardly worth sorting out the bullshit.

Clint was the best idea Romney has had, It would be hilarious if he used Clint's tactics in the first debate.

I was playing along, novy.

Oh, so it was Alf's sock puppet.

I have no idea.

Do you "play along" with anyone else? If you do, I hadn't noticed.

Are there any other posts like that one?

Are there any other posts like yours? Are there any other posters like you?

The point is that "the people who are supposed to be able to hear it" do not hear it. It is entirely in the fertile imagination of the ones who are obsessed with race: the "progressives."

People that live luxurious lives where they aren't subjected to racism tend to be ignorant and oblivious to it in any of its forms.

It seems they also tend not to be racist, unlike many "progressives."

They're oblivious to their own racism.

That's a perfect accusation: no evidence makes it impossible to disprove.

There's plenty of evidence of it, they are just oblivious to it.

Do you think there's nothing racist about stuff like this?

Remember when some Tea Party racists spit on a black congressman?

I live a (relatively) non-luxurious life, and am subjectyed to no readily discernable racism.  Does that make me tend to be ignorant and oblivious to it in any of its forms?

Or does it make you no less wrong?

BTW, I am subjected to racism on a regular basis.  The salient differences are 1) I'm not significantly disavantaged by it, 2) I have enough other advantages to not feel much pain from it, and 3) I do not return the favor.  Other forms of discrimination do cause me trouble, but so far I'm managing quite well, so I can only be prepared for the inevitable.

In my post I was saying that living without racism is a luxury.

Does that make me tend to be ignorant and oblivious to it in any of its forms

Higher probability that it does, yes.

The salient differences are 1) I'm not significantly disavantaged by it, 2) I have enough other advantages to not feel much pain from it, and 3) I do not return the favor.

Are you disadvantaged by it at all?

Other forms of discrimination do cause me trouble, but so far I'm managing quite well, so I can only be prepared for the inevitable.

What other forms of discrimination are causing you trouble?

While I think it's pointed to more often than it occurs, the idea that it doesn't occur is a stretch.  I've certainly had people who presumably assumed I was on "their side" speak in code to me, and there've also been cases where I was the person being kept out of the loop and didn't even realize what someone was saying until later.

... the idea that it doesn't occur is a stretch

"Dog whistles" are like good sarcasm or satire or parodies. For those to work, some people have to get them and others don't.

It's certainly stuff posted to boards for commercial gain, and likely wouldn't have been posted otherwise, so it meets that part of the definition.  As you say, it's requested information, so it doesn't meet that part.  On balance, I would say that it depends on whether the recommendations are genuine or not, which we can't really tell.  A non-spam post also should have said what was good about the recommended cigars, rather than asserting that everyone would like the same type.