Jamesb101.com

commentary on Politics and a little bit of everything else

A President’s Day Quiz from MyDD.Com…….Try it?

From Charles Lemos over @ MyDD.Com……

Happy President’s Day!

Here’s a Presidential trivia quiz, some easy, some rather obscure ones. Each President is the right answer only once.

  1. Barack Obama and Abraham Lincoln were each elected from Illinois but neither was born there. Name the only President born in Illinois.
  2. This President had the shortest retirement of any President dying just 103 days after his term had expired. He was also the only Speaker of the House ever elected President.
  3. Name the only President with a PhD. He earned his degree in History at Johns Hopkins.
  4. At 5’4” he was the shortest President though he stands tall in our Constitutional history.
  5. This President was described by one of his political opponents as “a man who steps out of the shower to take a piss.”
  6. An accidental President, he was the last sitting President to run for the nomination of his party and not win the nomination. If it helps James Blaine would win the nod.
  7. The first President not to be born in one of the 13 original states.
  8. The last President to be a slaveholder.
  9. Though James Madison withdrew a nomination that likely would have been rejected by the Senate, this President was the first to have a nominated cabinet member formally rejected by the US Senate. The rejected nominee was Roger Taney who would later become a member of the Supreme Court.
  10. A number of Presidents never held elected office before winning the presidency but who was the first president not previously elected to any other public office? He was also the last Southerner to win the White House in the 19th Century.
  11. The only President whose mother tongue was not English.
  12. The only President to also serve on the Supreme Court.
  13. This President was accused of fathering a child out of wedlock and taunted with the slogan: “Ma, Ma, where’s my Pa?” When he won, the retort came back “Off to the White House, Ha Ha Ha.”
  14. This President once served as ambassador to Colombia. In fact, that post was his last government office before being elected President.
  15. This President coined the term “Founding Fathers” using it in his Inaugural Address.
  16. The first President born in Texas though he grew up elsewhere and was elected President from yet another state.
  17. At the time of this President’s death, he was serving in the House of Representatives. After suffering a cerebral hemorrhage on the floor of the House, he would die in in the Speaker’s Room inside the Capitol.
  18. This President was administered the oath of office by his father. He is one of seven Presidents to have retake the oath of office.
  19. At his Inauguration, this President insisted on having Barbados Rum served perhaps because that was the only country to which he had ever travelled.
  20. The only president to have held the office of President Pro Tempore of the Senate.
  21. The first President born west of the Mississippi. Though President Obama has claimed the title of the first Pacific President, this man arguably has a better claim having grown up in Oregon and gone to college in California. He was also the first President to be elected from California. And like Nixon, the second Californian to win the White House, a Quaker.
  22. While six Presidents served as Secretary of State before being elected President and while two served as Secretary of War only one held both posts.
  23. The last President to have served in the Civil War. His campaign for the Presidency is generally considered the first modern campaign even though he never left his porch to campaign.
  24. The first President to live in the White House who his second night in the White House penned this pray. “Before I end my letter, I pray Heaven to bestow the best of Blessings on this House and all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise Men ever rule under this roof.”
  25. The first President to have a telephone installed at the White House. He was also one of four men to win the White House without winning the popular vote.
  26. Washington refused to accept a salary but only one other President has refused to accept a salary as President donating it instead to charity.
  27. The only President elected directly from the United States House of Representatives.
  28. This President wrote in a letter to another President that he held that “a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing.”
  29. The last Whig to be President of the United States.
  30. Of the four US Presidents to win a Nobel Prize, the only one to win it after his term in office had expired.
  31. This President while in office wrote in a letter that “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government for white men.”
  32. The only President to have been a Rhodes Scholar.
  33. His inauguration was the first to be televised nationally.
  34. The first President to hail from Pennsylvania and the last to be born in the 18th century, he was the only bachelor President and is ranked by most historians as the worst ever.
  35. Shortly after being elected President, this President told a Pastor and a leader of a poverty abatement program that he “didn’t understand how poor people think.” He later described his wealthy backers as “the have mores” and his “base.”
  36. This President described being President as: “Being president is like being a jackass in a hailstorm. There’s nothing to do but to stand there and take it.”  In the end, he chose to not run for re-election.
  37. At 42 years, 10 months and 20 days, he was the youngest President. Of his Presidency, he later wrote “I did not usurp power but I did greatly broaden the use of executive power.”
  38. One of two Quaker Presidents, he’s the only person to be elected twice to both the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. And he’s the only President to have resigned the office.
  39. One of the shorter Presidents at 5’6”, this President hailed from Indiana. He is only one of four Presidents to win the Presidency despite losing the popular vote. He was also the grandson of a former President.
  40. One of eight-left handed Presidents (six since the end of World War II) and one of seven Presidents who had to retaken the oath of office but this President is the only President to win a Grammy.
  41. The only President to hail from New Hampshire, he was attacked for being a “doughface” (a Northerner with Southern sympathies). He’s also the only President to affirm rather than swear the oath of office.
  42. The only President born in Nebraska, he was a well-respected House Minority Leader whose goal in life was to become Speaker of the House. He never did, but instead took an unusual route to the White House.
  43. This President said of conservatives: “A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk forward.” He also reminded his antagonists that “Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth.” Words our current President might considering quoting.
Advertisements

February 15, 2010 Posted by | Education, Government, Other Things, Politics | , | 2 Comments

More again…. on Dan Coats……..

This guy is the gift that keeps giving……He just needs to drop out already……

This from BlueIndiana, @ Mydd.Com……

If there was any doubt that Dan Coats had cut all ties with his “home” state, this damning footage from a North Carolina event in September of 2008 makes it clear that he had no use for Hoosiers until he thought he might be able to win a senate seat.

Check this from YouTube…….

Wow. For what it’s worth, even conservatives in the state have been unimpressed with the Carpetbagging Coats experience. In fact, even the crazy tea-baggers are fed up with the charade.

These insiders are making a major mistake if they feel that the grassroots patriots, who want to see Mr. Bayh head into retirement this year, will accept another DC insider, who spent years as a lobbyist, being dragged into the race. The GOP insiders are making a major mistake if they believe that a candidate who has not lived in our state for the past 10 years – is who the grassroots base will support. The perception that Mr. Coats is being chosen by DC insiders is alienating him from the very base of grassroots support that he will need to win the primary and the general election.

And this is coming from a guy who advocates armed resistance to the federal government.

Merlin…..The Republican’s need to leave Evan Bayh alone….They have no one to mount a credible race against him…..

Wow. For what it’s worth, even conservatives in the state have been unimpressed with the Carpetbagging Coats experience. In fact, even the crazy tea-baggers are fed up with the charade.

These insiders are making a major mistake if they feel that the grassroots patriots, who want to see Mr. Bayh head into retirement this year, will accept another DC insider, who spent years as a lobbyist, being dragged into the race. The GOP insiders are making a major mistake if they believe that a candidate who has not lived in our state for the past 10 years – is who the grassroots base will support. The perception that Mr. Coats is being chosen by DC insiders is alienating him from the very base of grassroots support that he will need to win the primary and the general election.

And this is coming from a guy who advocates armed resistance to the federal government.

February 6, 2010 Posted by | Government, Media, Men, PoliticalDog Calls, Politics, Updates | , , | 2 Comments

A little more about Dan Coats…. who’s running agianst Sen. Evan Bayh in Indiana……….

From  desmoinesdem over @Mydd.Com…….

Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana dodged a bullet recently when Representative Mike Pence decided against challenging him, but today former U.S. Senator Dan Coats, who retired in 1998, will announce plans to run for this seat. Chris Cillizza handicaps the race:

While Coats give Republicans a very credible challenger to Bayh, the Democratic Senator is no slouch. Bayh’s obvious strength is his financial prowess as he ended 2009 with $13 million in the bank and his sterling electoral record that includes two terms as governor and two terms in the Senate.Bayh’s biggest potential weakness is the fact that he hasn’t run a truly competitive race in decades and may not have the fire in the belly to do so now given that he weighed retirement earlier in this cycle.

Coats will also have to answer a few basic questions. He does not currently live in the state (GOP sources say he and his wife had long planned to move back), is a federally registered lobbyist and, for someone who left office expressing a disdain for fundraising, will have to do lots of it to get competitive with Bayh.

Cillizza doesn’t mention a few other problems for Coats, like how he minimized the threat from Al-Qaeda. When President Bill Clinton ordered air strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, Coats said, “The president has been consumed with matters regarding his personal life. It raises questions about whether or not he had the time to devote to this issue, or give the kind of judgment that needed to be given to this issue to call for military action.”

Jonathan Singer also noted on his Twitter feed that Coats was in charge of getting the unqualified Harriet Myers confirmed for the U.S. Supreme Court. That effort didn’t go well, and President George W. Bush ended up withdrawing Myers’ nomination (which is how we got Samuel Alito).

The Dog pointed out the Meirs connection on 2/1/10……(Mydd spelled it wrong it’s Meirs…not Myers )

February 3, 2010 Posted by | Breaking News, Government, Media, Men, PoliticalDog Calls, Politics, Updates | , , | 2 Comments

A little more about Dan Coats…. who's running agianst Sen. Evan Bayh in Indiana……….

From  desmoinesdem over @Mydd.Com…….

Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana dodged a bullet recently when Representative Mike Pence decided against challenging him, but today former U.S. Senator Dan Coats, who retired in 1998, will announce plans to run for this seat. Chris Cillizza handicaps the race:

While Coats give Republicans a very credible challenger to Bayh, the Democratic Senator is no slouch. Bayh’s obvious strength is his financial prowess as he ended 2009 with $13 million in the bank and his sterling electoral record that includes two terms as governor and two terms in the Senate.Bayh’s biggest potential weakness is the fact that he hasn’t run a truly competitive race in decades and may not have the fire in the belly to do so now given that he weighed retirement earlier in this cycle.

Coats will also have to answer a few basic questions. He does not currently live in the state (GOP sources say he and his wife had long planned to move back), is a federally registered lobbyist and, for someone who left office expressing a disdain for fundraising, will have to do lots of it to get competitive with Bayh.

Cillizza doesn’t mention a few other problems for Coats, like how he minimized the threat from Al-Qaeda. When President Bill Clinton ordered air strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, Coats said, “The president has been consumed with matters regarding his personal life. It raises questions about whether or not he had the time to devote to this issue, or give the kind of judgment that needed to be given to this issue to call for military action.”

Jonathan Singer also noted on his Twitter feed that Coats was in charge of getting the unqualified Harriet Myers confirmed for the U.S. Supreme Court. That effort didn’t go well, and President George W. Bush ended up withdrawing Myers’ nomination (which is how we got Samuel Alito).

The Dog pointed out the Meirs connection on 2/1/10……(Mydd spelled it wrong it’s Meirs…not Myers )

February 3, 2010 Posted by | Breaking News, Government, Media, Men, PoliticalDog Calls, Politics, Updates | , , | 2 Comments

Thoughts on the Healthcare Bill……….

From  Jonathan Singer, over @ MyDD.Com……

Adding 15 Million to the Rolls of Medicaid, CHIP…..

Ezra Klein is getting pessimistic about the chances healthcare reform will pass based on comments by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, and I don’t think he’s wrong to be.

But at the risk of beating a dead horse, I really think it’s worth considering what is being given up by giving up on healthcare reform: The prospect of advancing the cause of universal healthcare.

The Senate bill is not a perfect bill — but it is a bill that does a lot of good. Looking at just the toplines, the bill will ensure that 30 million more people have health insurance than currently do today. In doing so, the bill would also decrease the deficit by more than a trillion dollars over the next two decades.

Many have chided the Senate bill for not including a public option. This of course overlooks the fact that the House was unable to round up even a simple majority for the type of robust public option — one with rates tied to Medicare — that could actually help reduce costs. Nevertheless, this is a fair criticism.

That said, this criticism does miss a key aspect of the Senate healthcare bill: Half of those 30 million newly covered under the legislation would be enrolled in a government program. Here’s the relevant portion of the CBO score (.pdf):

By 2019, CBO and JCT estimate, the number of nonelderly people who are uninsured would be reduced by about 31 million, leaving about 23 million nonelderly residents uninsured (about one-third of whom would be unauthorized immigrants). Under the legislation, the share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage would rise from about 83 percent currently to about 94 percent. Approximately 26 million people would purchase their own coverage through the new insurance exchanges, and there would be roughly 15 million more enrollees in Medicaid and CHIP than is projected under current law. [Emphasis added]

Enrolling 15 million more Americans in a government healthcare program, as well as enabling an additional net 16 million to access health insurance — in the process increasing “the share of legal nonelderly residence with insurance coverage from about 83 percent currently to about 84 percent,” while also reducing the deficit by more than $1 trillion — still seems like a worthwhile achievement, even if not a perfect one. And considering that the alternative appears to be doing nothing, or close to it, I’m not sure that it doesn’t make sense for the House to pass the Senate bill.

The Dog agrees……..

February 2, 2010 Posted by | Government, Healthcare, Law, Media, Politics, Polls, The Economy, Updates | , , | 5 Comments

Healthcare…and winning….An opportunity lost?

From Josh Orton over @ MyDD.com…..

Obama today:

The component parts of this thing are pretty similar to what Howard Baker, Bob Dole and Tom Daschle proposed at the beginning of this debate last year. Now, you may not agree with Bob Dole and Howard Baker and Tom — and certainly you don’t agree with Tom Daschle on much …

(LAUGHTER)

… but that’s not a radical bunch. But if you were to listen to the debate, and, frankly, how some of you went after this bill, you’d think that this thing was some Bolshevik plot.

(LAUGHTER)

No, I mean, that’s how you guys — that’s how you guys presented it.

And so I’m thinking to myself, “Well, how is it that a plan that is pretty centrist …”

No, look, I mean, I’m just saying — I know you guys disagree, but if you look at the facts of this bill, most independent observers would say this is actually what many Republicans — it — it’s similar to what many Republicans proposed to Bill Clinton when he was doing his debate on health care.

So all I’m saying is we’ve got to close the gap a little bit between the rhetoric and the reality.

I’m not suggesting that we’re going to agree on everything, whether it’s on health care or energy or what have you, but if the way these issues are being presented by the Republicans is that this is some wild-eyed plot to impose huge government in every aspect of our lives, what happens is you guys then don’t have a lot of room to negotiate with me.

I mean, the fact of the matter is is that many of you, if you voted with the administration on something, are politically vulnerable in your own base, in your own party. You’ve given yourselves very little room to work in a bipartisan fashion because what you’ve been telling your constituents is, “This guy’s doing all kinds of crazy stuff that’s going to destroy America.”

And I — I would just say that we have to think about tone.

It’s not just on your side, by the way. It’s — it’s on our side as well. This is part of what’s happened in our politics, where we demonize the other side so much that when it comes to actually getting things done, it becomes tough to do.

I think all that’s true. But you know what else? Turns out it’s a winning strategy for Republicans. The health care bill is nationally unpopular and legislatively dying (at best). Their prospects in November have improved.

Yes, Republicans have left themselves with little ability to compromise, but it’s not in their interest to compromise. And that Republicans would demonize the policy and misrepresent Obama was entirely predictable. Maybe they earnestly disagree with the proposals, or maybe they’re just self-interested and cynical. It doesn’t really matter – they’re not going to vote for health care reform. Whether they’ll compromise is not unknown. They won’t.

And yes, we need to change how Washington works. Without question, our political discourse needs to communicate to voters with honesty and respect.

But we also need to provide health care to uninsured Americans. So in the end, while it’s satisfying for our president to be right…to take the high ground in the argument about process, it’s not going to pass health care.

For that, you actually have to win.

Note.….The Dog added the color highlights…as a comment on the piece…..

January 30, 2010 Posted by | Family, Government, Healthcare, Law, Media, PoliticalDog Calls, Politics, Polls, The Economy, Updates | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Counterpoint….an confirmed Liberal and Progressive’s view of yesterday’s loss…..

This from Jonathan Singer over @ Mydd.Com……

Last night was a surprise to many — not in the sense that the day before it was inconceivable that a Republican could win in Massachusetts, because it was becoming increasingly evident in the waning days of the campaign that he had a serious shot at winning, but rather because Republicans have had such difficulty in federal elections in the state in recent years (notwithstanding their very real ability to win in non-federal gubernatorial elections, including every one from 1990 to 2002).

But watching Scott Brown’s press conference this morning, it’s easy to see why voters found him to be compelling. He, like few others, was able to appeal to all sides without firmly placing himself in either camp. Conservatives will claim him as one of their own, and his victory was no doubt significantly aided by the widespread support of an emboldened Right. Yet at the same time, Brown was not antagonistic, stating during the campaign and since that his election was not a referendum on Barack Obama, not running any ads on the topic of healthcare reform (which is understandable given the difficult position the combination of Republican opposition to reform with Brown’s previous support for a similar measure put him in).

So my first thought is, it will be very interesting to see how Brown is able to maintain his balance. He did so far this morning in his press conference, projecting at once the populist sentiment that helped draw him strong supporters — but also the conciliatory tone that made him palatable to a great number of Independent and even Democratic voters. But as difficult as this is on a rhetorical level (and I don’t mean to understate its difficulty), when the votes actually start coming on tough issues and Brown will either have to assert himself as someone willing to deal (which could depress his base) or as someone unwilling to deal (which could make him unelectable come 2012), it won’t be nearly as easy to appeal to everyone.

That said, while Brown’s victory may not have charted a legislative path for his party, it appears to have charted an electoral one: Say enough to fire up the base, but not so much as to turn off swing voters. The folks at First Read have it right: “In fact, this serves as a bit of a warning for national Republicans: Chris Christie, Bob McDonnell, and now Scott Brown won not by attacking Obama, but rather by downplaying their GOP ties and riding an anti-incumbent wave. None of them went out of their way to attack Obama; the national party wants the media to believe this is a referendum on Obama, but the campaigns themselves were referendums on the political process — whether in Washington, Richmond, Trenton, or Beacon Hill.”

For the Democrats, it’s clear that running as the establishment isn’t going to work in 2010. Voters are in an anti-incumbent mood (see not only Jon Corzine but also Mike Bloomberg), and aren’t going to be warm to coronations. What’s more, running is necessary. Martha Coakley held, through the Sunday before election dayless than one-third of the events Brown did, holding 19 events after the primary compared to the 62 held by Brown. The electorate isn’t going to simply hand Democrats victories. It’s not going to happen. (Similarly, maligning star athletes from the city probably isn’t going to woo many voters.)

But beyond that, and on to policy, my sense is that the Democrats are going to take the licks they’re going to take, and that as much as legislators believe they can inoculate themselves by voting “no”, if there is an anti-Democratic sentiment in 2010 there’s going to be an anti-Democratic sentiment that hits just about everyone regardless of their votes. No doubt the Democrats are in a dire position. But it’s hard to envision a situation in which getting less done — particularly not passing healthcare reform, and fast — helps the party electorally. Voters aren’t clamoring for a continuation of the current situation in the country, they are clamoring for change. And change doesn’t occur by sitting on one’s hands.

So it should not surprise you that I’m still in the camp including Josh Marshall, Ezra Klein and a great many others who believe the best course of action for the Democrats to pass healthcare reform — and fast — then move on. There is simply no political upside in getting nothing done.

January 20, 2010 Posted by | Blogs, Media, Other Things, Politics, Updates | , , , , | Leave a comment

Counterpoint….an confirmed Liberal and Progressive's view of yesterday's loss…..

This from Jonathan Singer over @ Mydd.Com……

Last night was a surprise to many — not in the sense that the day before it was inconceivable that a Republican could win in Massachusetts, because it was becoming increasingly evident in the waning days of the campaign that he had a serious shot at winning, but rather because Republicans have had such difficulty in federal elections in the state in recent years (notwithstanding their very real ability to win in non-federal gubernatorial elections, including every one from 1990 to 2002).

But watching Scott Brown’s press conference this morning, it’s easy to see why voters found him to be compelling. He, like few others, was able to appeal to all sides without firmly placing himself in either camp. Conservatives will claim him as one of their own, and his victory was no doubt significantly aided by the widespread support of an emboldened Right. Yet at the same time, Brown was not antagonistic, stating during the campaign and since that his election was not a referendum on Barack Obama, not running any ads on the topic of healthcare reform (which is understandable given the difficult position the combination of Republican opposition to reform with Brown’s previous support for a similar measure put him in).

So my first thought is, it will be very interesting to see how Brown is able to maintain his balance. He did so far this morning in his press conference, projecting at once the populist sentiment that helped draw him strong supporters — but also the conciliatory tone that made him palatable to a great number of Independent and even Democratic voters. But as difficult as this is on a rhetorical level (and I don’t mean to understate its difficulty), when the votes actually start coming on tough issues and Brown will either have to assert himself as someone willing to deal (which could depress his base) or as someone unwilling to deal (which could make him unelectable come 2012), it won’t be nearly as easy to appeal to everyone.

That said, while Brown’s victory may not have charted a legislative path for his party, it appears to have charted an electoral one: Say enough to fire up the base, but not so much as to turn off swing voters. The folks at First Read have it right: “In fact, this serves as a bit of a warning for national Republicans: Chris Christie, Bob McDonnell, and now Scott Brown won not by attacking Obama, but rather by downplaying their GOP ties and riding an anti-incumbent wave. None of them went out of their way to attack Obama; the national party wants the media to believe this is a referendum on Obama, but the campaigns themselves were referendums on the political process — whether in Washington, Richmond, Trenton, or Beacon Hill.”

For the Democrats, it’s clear that running as the establishment isn’t going to work in 2010. Voters are in an anti-incumbent mood (see not only Jon Corzine but also Mike Bloomberg), and aren’t going to be warm to coronations. What’s more, running is necessary. Martha Coakley held, through the Sunday before election dayless than one-third of the events Brown did, holding 19 events after the primary compared to the 62 held by Brown. The electorate isn’t going to simply hand Democrats victories. It’s not going to happen. (Similarly, maligning star athletes from the city probably isn’t going to woo many voters.)

But beyond that, and on to policy, my sense is that the Democrats are going to take the licks they’re going to take, and that as much as legislators believe they can inoculate themselves by voting “no”, if there is an anti-Democratic sentiment in 2010 there’s going to be an anti-Democratic sentiment that hits just about everyone regardless of their votes. No doubt the Democrats are in a dire position. But it’s hard to envision a situation in which getting less done — particularly not passing healthcare reform, and fast — helps the party electorally. Voters aren’t clamoring for a continuation of the current situation in the country, they are clamoring for change. And change doesn’t occur by sitting on one’s hands.

So it should not surprise you that I’m still in the camp including Josh Marshall, Ezra Klein and a great many others who believe the best course of action for the Democrats to pass healthcare reform — and fast — then move on. There is simply no political upside in getting nothing done.

January 20, 2010 Posted by | Blogs, Media, Other Things, Politics, Updates | , , , , | Leave a comment

The Right Wing campaign is alive, and out in there in the hustlings…..check it out……

While the media may showcase middle to left things…the right moves quietly and in earnest…here’s some of the stuff going on around the country from Charles Lemos over at mydd.com..

Here’s the link……

December 18, 2009 Posted by | Government, Media, Politics, Religion, Taxes, The Economy | , , , | Leave a comment

Obama and Healthcare promises………

Jerome Armstrong over at mydd.com posts a list of promises that President Obama made out on the campaign trail and has not apparently kept…..and I’m not really surprised….at the end of August of this year I did a post in which I pointed out that Obama really wanted a Healthcare Bill period……Obama has had experience as an Illinois legislator and a US Senator…..he knows the game….there was no way in hell that he would stake his bill on concrete promises he made during the campaign….he knew when he made those statements that he would not have too much control on what would come from the congress as a bill for him sign………

So…..I really don’t see what the crying is about from p[progressives and the left of the democratic party…..Barack Obama is the president…presidents are politicians…and politicians practice politics which is the art of compromise…..And the final bill will be a compromise between literally thousands of people and political, business and people interests…..

As much as I wanted a bill to make sure that every person in America can get quality healthcare, I am a realist…it is just not gonna happen that way…..

This is the American way…..and this what we have to work with……

October 18, 2009 Posted by | Healthcare, Politics | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment