WDEL Blog: Allan Loudell

President Obama's Gaffe-fest on Leno

Since I never watch late-night television, I completely missed this in the first wave of news coverage: The breadth of President Obama's gaffes during his August 6th interview with comedian Jay Leno, arguably more factual misstatements on a single occasion than EVER delivered by Joe Biden, George W. Bush, or Dan Quayle.

President Obama confused the Winter Olympics with the Summer Olympics, when he cited summer sports. (Of course, the greater point was the Putin government's punitive crackdown on gay & lesbian activists and the inference Russia might discriminate against athletes based on sexual orientation.)

When asked about improving the nation's infrastructure, the President goofed on the geography, placing Charleston, South Carolina; Savannah, Georgia; and Jacksonville, Florida along the Gulf coast.

President Obama also claimed Russian President Vladimir Putin once "headed up the KGB". (I confess I thought that too.) Putin only rose to the rank of lieutenant-colonel.

Then, a probably unwise comparison: "The odds of people dying in a terrorist attack are still a lot lower than in a car accident, unfortunately." (Is that fortunate or unfortunate?)

From The DAILY MAIL on line:


Some bloggers thought the terrorist/traffic death comparison was the worst...


Of course, the conservative media-monitoring site, News Busters, is having a field day...


Posted at 7:34am on August 8, 2013 by Allan Loudell

<- Back to all Allan Loudell posts

Comments on this post:

Mike from Delaware
Thu, Aug 8, 2013 9:15am
I too don't generally stay up that late to watch Leno; sometimes catch his monologue on XFinity TV at a more civilized hour.

I too thought the same thing about his unfortunate remarks about terrorism and car deaths.

I did read about Obama's visit to Leno, and yes, he really does need a telepromter. He's just not an off-the-cuff type of man. He graduated from an Ivy League university and apparently is a lawyer [must not be a trial lawyer as his lack of oratory skills in persuasion is nil]. Obama is more of a lecturer in a college classroom. He simply presents his point-of-view with no emotion, just bland, just-the-facts-ma'am sort of presentation. He surely is not a preacher, so he hasn't made much use of the "bully pulpit" during his term other than maybe causing more of a racial divide in the Trevon Martin / George Zimmerman case. Not a positive thing to have done, in my opinion.

One can't help but ask this tough question; would the national media [other than Fox] have not bashed Obama's lack of being able to speak without someone else writing a script for him to read, and his many mistatements, IF he were not Black? The media had a field day with Bush Jr., as he can barely string two complete sentences together. Or Rick Perry in the debates who also apparently is not as smooth on the off-the-cuff verbage as most politicians. Definitely Sarah Palin wasn't spared the media's barbs, and Joe Biden's foot-in-mouth comments are a mainstay for the media. Most of us can remember how brutally Dan Quayle was treated by the national mainstream media, yet Obama seems to have that "teflon" coating on him. The media seem to saying that if you can't speak well off-the-cuff without putting your foot in your mouth, you're stupid, unless you're Barack "Barry" Obama. Allan's link above showing that the big 3 morning shows ignore the Obama gaffes on Leno's show proves my case.

Again it seems that political correctness rears its ugly head. Why does it have to be racial if someone does not agree with Obama or think he's the most brilliant Prez ever? Why can't someone voice that [nationally] without being tarred and feathered as a racist in the national mainstream media? This attitude has done more to widen the racial divide than anything. Until we are ALL free to speak our minds without the fear of being tarred and feathered as a racist, homophobe, sexist, or whatever, open/honest discussion where we can grow and get past all this stuff is impossible.

I've defended Obama many times here; have also disagreed with him many times here; but if I said some of this in a national media setting, I'd be labeled a racist and have Al Sharpton picketing outside of my home. The experience that many white Americans have experienced during the Obama years of this lack of being able to voice their disagreement with the current Prez openly could cause them to think twice before electing another black person as President.

That would be an unfortunate thing, because that black person might be the best person in the pack of candidates to lead our nation. So we need to somehow stop seeing each other by race, color, sex, faith, or lack of faith, and instead see the person, his/her education, work background, what he/she has accomplished in life, any government experience and what he/she accomplished as that leader [like a governor or senator], essentially what that person brings to the office of President. This isn't a beauty contest, but a hiring by the voters of who the next chief executive [CEO] of the nation is going to be. Corporations don't pick their CEO's by how sexy the person is, or how cool the person is, or by that person's color, sex, faith, etc. They pick who they believe to be the best qualified to lead their company to make profits. Should we as a nation do less????

It's time to get past this crap and start being able to speak freely and openly about our thoughts, so we can get passed this racial divide. Bottom line, we're all in the same boat and we need to be working together as equals. If one group has more freedom to speak out than the other, the group not free to speak will harbor more and more resentment towards that other group. THAT is not going to close the racial divide.

Obama will end up with two legacies: First, he gave us health-care [some will see this as a good thing - I'm in that camp; and others won't], and second, his Presidency rather than bringing the nation closer together, instead, widened the racial divide. That second legacy is a pretty sorry statement to make about a DEM President.

Thu, Aug 8, 2013 9:17am
I am turned off by our Head-of-State appearing on such shows. Picture QEII clowning around with Jay Leno! It gives me joy that he messed-up so thoroughly and so often. He should spend more time at the White House working for a living.

It also points out that he cannot speak without a teleprompter. If he has trouble in that area, he should avoid talking in front of the media when he cannot have one. I don't fault him for this difficulty. Some people can do it; some cannot. But I do fault him for lowering the image of the Presidency.

Thu, Aug 8, 2013 9:24am
I haven't watched Leno in a while but did stay up to see 0bama on his show...the gaffes were embarrassing but the blatant NSA lies were offensive to the intelligence of Americans (left and right)

Here is an article at ProPublica (not remotely Conservative site) that points out this president's blatant hypocrisy on the topic of spying on US citizens:

Thu, Aug 8, 2013 9:25am
Jay Leno makes me almost want to believe in hell. This unprincipled, back-stabbing office politician stole The Tonight Show from David Letterman (and then stole it again from Conan O'Brien). He and the first affirmative-action president, who went onto betray the progressives who deluded themselves into rapture over the idea of "the first African-American president," who promised an "open administration" and has become more repressive and secretive than the Stalin-era Kremlin, the two of them deserve each other.

The backlash over Ford's deal to pardon Nixon give hope than Obama may some day end up in jail and the most criminal politician since Tricky Dick. And let's hope Leno and his motorcycle end up splattered over some road in Southern California.

Mike from Delaware
Thu, Aug 8, 2013 10:31am
Billsmith: Would you clarify for me, the areas where Obama has betrayed Progressives?

He was able to get a form of national health-care [granted both he and most Progressives would have preferred a Single Payer System, but 1/2 a loaf is better than no loaf and given the DEMS have been trying since the years of Harry Truman to get any sort of national health-care system started, I'd see that as a real victory].

Obama and the DEMS have moved the ball down the field quite far in terms of LGBT issues as more and more states are now allowing gay/lesbian marriages, also the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" thing in the military has ended, so LGBT folks can now legally come out of the closet in the military without any problems.

So from where I sit, it would appear that Obama and Company have done a lot of things Progressives wanted done [that a GOP Prez probably wouldn't have bothered with].

I'm not sure Obama is quite as repressive as Stalin [maybe your comment was meant as hyperbole] as millions were murdered during Stalin's reign of power, unless you're counting the millions of unborn babies aborted each year in the US. But that didn't start during Obama's terms and he sure doesn't have the power to end abortion as the Supremes have said its not unconstitutional to get an abortion. Basically each state gets to limit abortion as long as that state doesn't cross constitutional lines in doing so.

Thu, Aug 8, 2013 1:17pm
When I looked up the topic for today, I couldn't believe it... Really? What a gigantic overstatement: "Arguably more factual misstatements on a single occasion than EVER delivered by Joe Biden, George W. Bush, or Dan Quayle."

Not to mention, but all of you who piled on, only one of whom watched the interview, adding stuff that had no relevance. Unfortunately that is human nature and if Allan was trying to generate interest, the hits on this topic, compared to all others he's posted this week, sort of bear the judgment that he really is catering to the lowest elements of the U.S. population, which in this case would be my fellow commentators. (Mr. Pizza surprisingly excluded)

The reason for my disbelief was that those who watched the interview... literally thought Obama nailed it. It was an amazing talk, covering the breadth of life in America, and was exceeding long... It takes a lot to get a gaffe past an astute person, but all of these supposed gaffes were not picked up until haters of Obama had a chance to go over the transcript... And then, they really had to bend over backwards three or four times to make it stick...

Let's go through them.....

Exhibit A: President Obama confused the Winter Olympics with the Summer Olympics,

Here is the full transcript...

Leno: Do you think it will affect the Olympics?

THE PRESIDENT: I think Putin and Russia have a big stake in making sure the Olympics work, and I think they understand that for most of the countries that participate in the Olympics, we wouldn’t tolerate gays and lesbians being treated differently. They’re athletes, they’re there to compete. And if Russia wants to uphold the Olympic spirit, then every judgment should be made on the track, or in the swimming pool, or on the balance beam, and people’s sexual orientation shouldn’t have anything to do with it. (Applause.)

Leno: Good enough for me.

We’ll be right back. We’ll talk about the economy when we come back.

Who but the stupidest fool in Christendom would think he is mixing up summer and winter Olympics? He is clearly talking about the spirit of the sport, and incorporating the memories of recent American victories or just last summer. One really has to stretch truth to its lowest level to call that a gaffe. That isn't journalism. It is pure libel.

Exhibit B: the President goofed on the geography, placing Charleston, South Carolina; Savannah, Georgia; and Jacksonville, Florida along the Gulf coast

Here is the transcript:

Leno: You mentioned infrastructure. Why is that a partisan issue? I live in a town, the bridge is falling apart, it’s not safe. How does that become Republican or Democrat? How do you not just fix the bridge? (Laughter and applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: I don't know. As you know, for the last three years, I’ve said, let’s work together. Let’s find a financing mechanism and let’s go ahead and fix our bridges, fix our roads, sewer systems, our ports. The Panama is being widened so that these big supertankers can come in. Now, that will be finished in 2015. If we don't deepen our ports all along the Gulf -- places like Charleston, South Carolina, or Savannah, Georgia, or Jacksonville, Florida -- if we don't do that, those ships are going to go someplace else. And we’ll lose jobs. Businesses won’t locate here.

So this is something that traditionally has been bipartisan. I mean, it used to be Republicans and Democrats, they love cutting those ribbons.

Leno: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: And we’ve got a bunch of construction workers who aren’t working right now. They’ve got the skills. They want to get on the job. It would have a huge impact on the economy not just now, but well into the future. So I’m just going to keep on pushing Republicans to join with us, and let’s try to do it.

Once again... only the worst human being could make the assumption that Obama made a gaffe here... Every person listening verbally knows the ----- in the transcript stands for the word "and".. He took a breath right there!...
So everyone listening interpreted it this way:

If we don't deepen our ports all along the Gulf (and)--- places like Charleston, South Carolina, or Savannah, Georgia, or Jacksonville, Florida --- if we don't do that, those ships are going to go someplace else. And we’ll lose jobs. Businesses won’t locate here.

And that, my silly friends, is a very factual statement.

Exhibit 3: Claimed Russian President Vladimir Putin once "headed up the KGB". (I confess I thought that too, per Allan Loudell) Putin only rose to the rank of lieutenant-colonel.

Check out this fact: On 25 July 1998, Yeltsin appointed Vladimir Putin head of the FSB (the successor agencies to the KGB), the position Putin occupied until August 1999.
That is the reason Allan (myself and Barack) thought he was head of the KGB. Anyone paying attention to global politics in the 1990's (it looks like only Allan and I were) knows full well the KGB was alive and well in its successor organizations. Probably more appropriately said, would have been "he was their head of intelligence", but all insiders know, He was really the head of the KGB.. That is a complete factual statement. It is not a gaffe at all.

Only the stupidest person in Christendom would dispute that. Sigh... I'm sure some here will try.

Exhibit D: a probably unwise comparison: "The odds of people dying in a terrorist attack are still a lot lower than in a car accident, unfortunately." (Is that fortunate or unfortunate?)

here is the full transcript:

Leno: What do you say to those cynics who go, oh, this is an overreaction to Benghazi -- how do you respond to that?

THE PRESIDENT: One thing I've tried to do as President is not over react, but make sure that as much as possible the American people understand that there are genuine risks out there. What's great about what we've seen with America over the last several years is how resilient we are. So after the Boston bombing, for example, the next day folks were out there, they're going to ball games. They are making sure that we're not reacting in a way that somehow shuts us down.

And that's the right reaction. Terrorists depend on the idea that we're going to be terrorized. And we're going to live our lives. And the odds of people dying in a terrorist attack obviously are still a lot lower than in a car accident, unfortunately. But there are things that we can do to make sure that we're keeping the pressure on these networks that would try to injure Americans. And the first thing I think about when I wake up and the last thing I think about when I go to bed is making sure that I'm doing everything I can to keep Americans safe. (Applause.)

When one listens to the tape, it is obvious that the President means it is unfortunate that people die in either terror attacks or traffic accidents. If you don't think it is unfortunate to lose someone in a traffic accident, just ask the Vice President what it feels like. He knows. Sorry, but only the stupidest people in Christendom would think that it is "fortunate" that people get killed in either a car accident or terror attack.. Both are unfortunate, and that is exactly the point being made on tape.. Notice not one person notices or gasps; the audience goes right along because, we all know exactly what he meant. This in no way can be considered a gaffe. It is an acknowledgment of tragedy, pure and simple.

Exhibit E: Earl brings this up, not Allan... the blatant NSA lies were offensive to the intelligence of Americans (left and right) Before you read further, I might add this is a whole different topic than gaffes, and Earl and I would probably disagree only over the word "blatant", but with enough argument, we might come to an agreeable definition...

The transcript:

Leno: It's safe to say that we learned about these threats through the NSA intelligence program? Is that a fair assessment?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, this intelligence-gathering that we do is a critical component of counterterrorism. And obviously, with Mr. Snowden and the disclosures of classified information, this raised a lot of questions for people. But what I said as soon as it happened I continue to believe in, which is a lot of these programs were put in place before I came in. I had some skepticism, and I think we should have a healthy skepticism about what government is doing. I had the programs reviewed. We put in some additional safeguards to make sure that there's federal court oversight as well as congressional oversight, that there is no spying on Americans.

We don't have a domestic spying program. What we do have are some mechanisms where we can track a phone number or an email address that we know is connected to some sort of terrorist threat. And that information is useful. But what I've said before I want to make sure I repeat, and that is we should be skeptical about the potential encroachments on privacy. None of the revelations show that government has actually abused these powers, but they're pretty significant powers.

And I've been talking to Congress and civil libertarians and others about are there additional ways that we can make sure that people know nobody is listening to your phone call, but we do want to make sure that after a Boston bombing, for example, we've got the phone numbers of those two brothers -- we want to be able to make sure did they call anybody else? Are there networks in New York, are there networks elsewhere that we have to roll up? And if we can make sure that there's confidence on the part of the American people that there's oversight, then I think we can make sure that we're properly balancing our liberty and our security.

Line by line all are true. Notice this line: " We put in some additional safeguards to make sure that there's federal court oversight as well as congressional oversight, that there is no spying on Americans."

He doesn't say there is no spying on Americans. He says we put in additional court and congressional oversight to make sure there was no spying on Americans... (Correctly meaning the oversight is there, it is just ineffective in making sure it did not happen; essentially shifting the blame to Congress and the courts for not catching it.) True but devious. Likewise, in the next line, where he says we don't have a domestic spying "program". There is no program.. there are mechanisms (cough, cough) but there is no program. True, but devious. Then he states... "none of these revelations have shown the government has abused these powers, but they are significant powers". Which so far is true. We don't have evidence of a case where someone was imprisoned for something they said years ago caught in the data banks. But that does not mean it isn't being done. What we do have is evidence that the potential is there for abuse, and I'm not sure if Allan is yet aware, but it looks like in Delaware that cracks in that morality of not abusing that power, are beginning to show. In other words, we really don't have to fear our federal government, (it's scope is too big), but we do have to fear our neighbor who wants to know our business and now has access through his buddy at the state police data bank, which is tied into the federal repository... Scary stuff.

And so, the facts are that these were not gaffes at all, but were misconstrued by selectively twisting the transcript, or taking it too literally in some cases without accounting for human speech, makes all those taking it at face value (Mike, the wise exception), suckers (to use a term from the forties, lol)..

You were baited, took the hook, line and sinker... and now you've been gaffed and hauled upon the boat...


"and yes, he really does need a telepromter. He's just not an off-the-cuff type of man."

Actually without a teleprompter, he does very well...

Leno: Now, I've seen Michelle tease you about your gray hair. You have a bit of silver in your hair. Do you tease back?

THE PRESIDENT: No. (Laughter and applause.) That's why we're celebrating our 21st anniversary. (Laughter.)

Leno: As I'm married 33 years, I know exactly what you're saying. (Laughter.)

"would this be excused IF he were not Black?"
It appears that conservatives are the whole problem; they live in a world of their own fabrication, not everyone else.

"Allan's link above showing that the big 3 morning shows ignore the Obama gaffes on Leno's show proves my case."

Actually they don't report on fabricated news. It wasn't a story. They usually don't make up news out of nothing. They report things that "really" happened, you know, as in "real" life? They aren't Breitbart.

"It also points out that he cannot speak without a teleprompter." He is far more eloquent and a much greater speaker than George W. Bush or Dick Cheney. That is superfluous criticism at its worst.

He did quite well, actually. Just shows that life would be so much better without Republicans making up lies over anything and everything... There is no story here at all. Just propaganda...

Here is the full transcript...


i don't have time right now to look it up, but can anyone tell me whether the Daily Mail broke the story, or was it just picked up by them from their monitoring of the Republican propaganda sites alluded to in Allan's piece above? T did notice the story did NOT make it into the Guardian? Looks like their filter system is working well as the big 3 American networks...

However... the headline in order to reflect the accuracy this station usually exhibits, should have at least, the words "Conservatively alleged" inserted before the gaffes, since it is only a bizarre mind who would rationally come to that conclusion.

Mike from Delaware
Thu, Aug 8, 2013 1:36pm
Kavips: You're overstating this. Obama DID say "unfortunately" at the end of that terrorist/car accident statement. He probably didn't mean it that way, but it IS what he said.

He could have said "and also". However, Yes, hearing the words vs. reading them can make a difference [sarcasm is difficult to pick out in the written word vs. hearing the voice inflections; just as listening to him on radio vs. watching on TV also makes a difference [think JFK vs. Tricky Dick in 1960].

Most of us here were commenting on what we read here. So don't get all insulting that we don't have the time to spend or waste, to go and ferret out the show and sit there watching it.

The way the words were presented here are what I, and probably most here, based their comments on.

I know you believe Obama walks on water; I don't. I also don't believe he's evil. I agree with him some times and other times not.

By the way, I voted for Obama in 2008, no Sarah Palin. I didn't vote for Obama in 2012. I'm NOT a Republican, I'm a registered Independent and vote for who I believe will do the best job in each election.

Look, you are an Obama fan; sure, to your ear, he nailed it. For the rest of us, we may be a bit more objective. To each his/her own.

Thu, Aug 8, 2013 1:48pm
kavips: I said I haven't watched Leno in a while but did stay up to watch him interview the president...Leno asked more "real" questions than I have heard any "reporters" ask of our leader.
I also tuned in earlier the same night to watch CNN do some actual reporting on the "phony" Benghazi story...

Thu, Aug 8, 2013 1:55pm
...just re-read kavips' post...you said "none but one"...guess that was me (my bad).

Mike from Delaware
Thu, Aug 8, 2013 3:32pm
Kavips: If I get time tonight, and the bigger issue will be, IF I remember, I'll try to find Leno's show on XFinity and see if I can just watch the Obama segment without having to watch the entire show [Leno's monologue and Obama would be fine, but I'm not usually interested in his guests so usually only watch the monologue.) If all that happens, I'll gladly offer a critique from having watched the Prez on TV vs. reading the written version tomorrow. That way his voice nuance, facal expressions, etc., can also be added to the mix, which can make a difference [again JFK vs. Tricky Dick in 1960]. The radio audience thought Nixon won the debate; the TV audience thought JFK won the debate. I wonder who the newspaper-only folks [who didn't listen or watched, but only read their comments the next day in the printed press] thought won the debate? Maybe Allan knows the answer to that trivia question. Sorry Allan, I've got no station cup or tee shirt to give away for your answer.

I agree that Bush Jr. and yes, Cheney too, are not great speakers. I do give the Prez credit that he can at least put two complete sentences together unlike Bush Jr. Obama can present his ideas, but he's just not a compelling speaker. Reagan and Clinton knew how to close the deal, get you to want to do it their way. Obama just doesn't have that ability, especially with those across the aisle. Clinton [Gingrich] and Reagan [Tip O'Neal] seemed to be able to do that.

Thu, Aug 8, 2013 7:12pm
Obama at this point is irrelevant and is not worthy of the amount of discussion wasted on this page.

Thu, Aug 8, 2013 9:56pm
While I disagree with Putin's crackdown on gay and lesbian activists, I still consider it a lesser evil to gay marriage.

Mike from Delaware
Thu, Aug 8, 2013 11:21pm
Kavips: I remembered and did watch Obama on Leno via XFinity TV online.

When I'm wrong, I'm the first to admit it. The Prez did a good job. I listened for some of those sentences that had caused this discussion and the unfortunately didn't come across as had been suggested when heard in context to the rest of the sentences and the tone of voice used, etc.

The ... from the transcript wasn't an AND. It was barely a pause, there he did misspeak, granted it would have been better to have said something like, with the Panama Canal being enlarged, we should be making our ports on both the Gulf Coast and the East Coast suitable to handle those super tankers. What he did say did imply that Charleston, SC, etc, were located on the Gulf Coast. But this was live TV, and its not a big deal that his sentence wasn't perfect. Talking off the cuff is risky and such mistakes can happen. This, if nothing else, showed folks that Obama is human.

My guess is that he meant both east coast and gulf coast ports. My guess also is that if that had been Bush Jr. messing that up, the mainstream media would be pointing it out and the DEMS would make hay over it. In this case, its the GOP and conservative media making hay over Obama's verbal missteps. Bottomline, those were minor mistakes in the heat of the moment that aren't a big deal, in my opinion.

The other mistake is apparently Putin hadn't been the head of the KGB, but was a Lt.Col., but the point was Putin was in the KGB as a high official.

If you've never given a speech or sermon before a live audience [congregation] then you may not realize it is easy to misspeak, and in a live interview even easier.

I understand why Obama went on Leno. A far younger audience [the group who voted for him] watch such shows and do not watch NBC news or any of the other network newscasts. The other thing is Leno didn't ask any gotcha questions. They were good questions that touched on many of the big issues without trying to trip Obama up. This wasn't a hostile interview. Leno provided the Prez with an opportunity to joke around a bit [I got a chuckle out of Obama's reply about Michelle]. All married men understood his point and probably chuckled. It showed a lighter side of Obama that we usually don't get to see.

This interview was for Obama like Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich doing an interview on Fox. A friendly place where you can take the time to present your views where you won't be interrupted or cut off so you can speak beyond a sound byte with no gotcha questions. So as GOP folks tend to prefer Fox and if possible avoid the other networks, I can totally understand why the Prez avoids Fox and prefers such a venue like Leno and Letterman.

The thing that surprised me about none of the morning news shows doing a story about Obama on Leno was that even NBC's Today show didn't use that opportunity as a cross promotion of their popular late night show, an opportunity missed in my opinion. Obviously the other networks didn't want to promote the Leno show and since the nothing drastic was wrong why give NBC's show free promotion on their network.

So yes Kavips, watching the interview was far better than reading about what he said. It was worth the 30 minutes, in my opinion. Leno's monologue was good too. He did take a couple of shots at Obama and got some laughs from the crowd there.

Fri, Aug 9, 2013 1:13pm
Just got back to this. thanks for all the follow up. In honesty, I was acting with more bravdo than usual as one often does with friends who know when on is and is not serious. But is was a cold shower to see this thread taking a turn completely different from the reality experienced the night before. And yes, Earl, you were the one I singled out who actually did watch the interview.

I just wanted it to be a reminder how all of us, yes, myself included, often jump out with our opinions long before we have control of our facts. And it is not just us. It appears our entire media, even society, has moved in that direction (exceptions here of course) where opinion is more relevant than fact. I remember fondly how the news heard growing up was deemed trustworthy, and emotional. Huntley:. Repeat, the President is dead (JFK). head bows, glasses come off and eyes get wiped. Now, to see the same would disgust me, and make me think it was only being done as fake showmanship to achieve greater playbacks and affect the ratings. My, how we do live in a corporate world.

I guess some of us will always fight against turning Bedford Falls into a Pottersville. Sigh, I'll probably always be one of them.

And just a thoughtful comment on the point that Obama seems to walk on water for me. And the idea that I am a liberal. I would tweak that, and admit that on this forum that would be the conclusion on might make, just from how the views stack up comparatively. However, I would tweak that as being thoughtful, not being a pusher for one argument over the next. As a thoughtful person, I see what seems to work and push for that over what doesn't seem to work in the past. The reason I tend to speak up for the current administrations over those set up to restrict him, is because the past didn't work out too well when we had unlimited opportunity to try the other way. Deeper in the past, I wore a different hat; back when we thought the New Deal and bank constrictions and stringent regulations were the cause of slow growth, and hindered capitalism. I have seen the damage of what we proposed, and have since changed my mind. A little alcohol is great, but one has to be able to stop. Sometimes one can get too much of a good thing.

When the current admin starts going the wrong way, as has Obama on education, on wiretapping, and on not raising taxes quick enough, as has Markell on education, privatization, or dismantling the Coastal Act, I'm still pretty good at shooting poisoned darts.

There are policies that are good for our nation, readily seen from our past history, and should be implemented regardless of which party is the one proposing them. That's my real view. For the most part, on this blog that would make one think I thought "Obama walked on water"... Lol.

Fri, Aug 9, 2013 1:21pm
This thought just came to me. In the past, I pushed for an expansion of corporate interest based on my American model of what works best for a society, is a balance of interests between three entities: government, corporate/financial, and We, The People. Earlier in my life, I pushed for corporate expansion to achieve that balance. i still believe in that exact same model; only now, it is the corporate influence that is ballooned and now needs to be trimmed back a little to achieve equilibrium. As a bench mark, I believe we achieved that equilibrium during the nineties.... Looking backwards through time, that theory seems to have some merit.

Sat, Aug 10, 2013 2:29am
Kavips: You could be partially right. However, government is a much bigger problem and if something meaningful isn't done about it, it won't matter how you balance everything else.

Mike from Delaware
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 9:35am
Kavips: Good comments in your last two posts. Thanks for the clarification. So you do disagree with Obama on some things.

I also agree with your comment about balance between government and business, and that the business side has ballooned out of control. Again, some market driven {capitalism] and some government run/supported [socialism], the best of both worlds and hopefully none of the negative parts from either. That's where I believe the nation needs to go. That's just one reason why I'm not a DEM or a GOP, but an Independent. The DEMS generally want to go too far to the socialism side and the GOP generally want to go too far to the market driven capitalism side. Balance, I believe is the key, but hard to find.

Sat, Aug 10, 2013 1:07pm
Mr. Pizza. It just hit me that coming from Belarus would explain your innate paranoia of government. It all makes sense now.

Mike, I used to think it was an engagement between to bi polar powers, business and government, but that model really didn't fit the reality, because it leaves out the American People. We sit on the sidelines while those two battle things out. A bipolar (two party) system is fraught with instability. Think back to the Iron Curtain years and Vietnam. If Russia gained a country (Cuba) that meant the US lost a country (Cuba). If communists attack South Vietnam, it means the Russians will win again unless we jump in and stop it. (That was the impression back then, not the reality we can now see)... If Americans set up a base in Heidelberg, The Russians counter with one in Nuremberg. etc. Cuba sent soldiers to Angola. We sent supplies to arm resistance... Basically every gain was a loss for the other side.

People, probably you included, saw the ultimate settlement, nuclear war, as a very real possibility. I know there were times I'd look at the sky back then and say to myself or those with me, "what if the Russians were sending their first strike right now, and our defense was headed their way, and we were living our lives here as normal not knowing a thing about it".. So I guess, others probably did too.

Meaning we were going to war over some Russian trawlers if they did not turn around...And Fortunately they did.

Mike from Delaware
Sat, Aug 10, 2013 4:30pm
Kavips: we did come close a couple of times of the unthinkable back then. Thankfully neither side wanted a nuke war - mutual self destruction thankfully kept both sides from going to the mat & doing the unthinkable.

Sun, Aug 11, 2013 9:57pm
Now, here was the brilliance of Richard Nixon. Apparently it was his original idea and he brought in Kissinger to implement it. The idea was that if you bring Red China into the equation, and have three independent powers instead of two, you tame things down. Primarily by taking out the option of leashing a catastrophic first strike, everyone sort of settles down and does business with each other. It works like this. No one can win against the other two. If the US Attacks the USSR, China sides with the USSR and we cannot win against both. If China attacks the USSR, the US sides with the USSR, and that's the end of China. The idea was that if anyone attacked anyone else, you had two giant powers to fight back, instead of one. The fact that China was more sympathetic to the US than to its fellow communistic USSR, made that threat credible. The USSR did not really have to worry about a surprise attack across the plains of Europe or across the Amar River, and the period of détente was born.

It was a brilliant plan. It is to everyones advantage to keep the other two from joining together, so every member tries hard to appease all the others, but not to play favorites in order not piss off a potential and necessary future ally. The consequence is a lack of hostilities against each other; and a lack of third world power grabbing. Which is primarily what occurred.

Nixon was brilliant.

It is a similar three way split that defines our lives today. Corporate, Government, and We, the People. When one of those gets too big, the other two need to whittle it down. Right now, corporate is the bloated one. Suffering are the people. So people and the government need to unite to trim corporate back to where it needs to be. Back To where all are in balance. If Government gets to big, it is the people and corporate who combine to counter and make it smaller. If the people get out of hand, as in a French, Russian, or Chinese revolution, it is up to the government and corporate to unite and quickly take them down.

Using this model and the financial data, it is pretty obvious that our businesses have taken over our lives. To get that back, where we can earn higher wages, have a better quality of life, and earn a respectable retirement, the corporate model has to give a little. As people united, our method of doing that, is through passing laws by our government which balances the playing field more in our favor.

How long do we continue? Until the economy tells us it is time for another adjustment..

Mike from Delaware
Sun, Aug 11, 2013 11:04pm
Kavips: interesting commentary.

Tue, Aug 13, 2013 1:19am
Not sure if anyone's caught this, but Delaware's Senator Carper got bashed by all four postal unions for his bill( S. 1486 )to demolish the Post Office as we know it.


"The Carper-Coburn bill would give USPS tools to slash postal employees’ pension and health benefits by
making these federal employee benefits subject to interest arbitration. No other federal employees face such a
burden – including Members of Congress and their staffers"

That might make an interesting interview Allan.

Tue, Aug 13, 2013 7:50pm
In 33 years as a unionized postal employee, I never have taken anything the APWU says very seriously. I'm not going to change now.

Tue, Aug 13, 2013 11:47pm
Pizza. I really don't know much about them. Why would you not take them seriously? I'm curious...

Add your comment:
Attention: In an attempt to promote a level of civility and personal responsibility in blog discussions, we now require you to be a member of the WDEL Members Only Group in order to post a comment. Your Members Only Group username and password are required to process your post.

You can join the WDEL Members Only Group for free by clicking here.
If you are already a member but have forgotten your username or password, please click here.

Please register your post with your WDEL Members Only Group username and password below.

Copyright © 2014, Delmarva Broadcasting Company. All Rights Reserved.   Terms of Use.
WDEL Statement of Equal Employment Opportunity and Outreach