:)

I can and do deny that was happening

Then I can only be kind to you and conclude you weren't paying any attention whatever.

"Dantheman; You may not like the facts, but denying they ARE facts, ain't the way, Bro./"

Funny you should give this advice, as you've made a career of doing the opposite.

"You can't deny the FACT that the screaming among the far left had already begun by this point, eight years ago, regardless of what the polling data was suggesting."

I can and do deny that was happening (and using CAPS does not make anything a FACT). To the contrary, Bush the Younger had an extraordinarily easy honeymoon period. Anyone who was opposed to him was derided in the so-called liberal media as a sore loser who needed to get over the election, rather than someone who had real differences of opinion. Bush got most of his agenda through (NCLB, tax cuts, etc.) in the first 6 months with significant Democratic support. Care to lay odds on that happening with the Republicans?

And no, I do not know what happened re gold and the dollar; something dreadful, right? I mentioned Nixon in regard to the opening to China, something that, in those times, a liberal Democrat could not have done.

Your perspective seems to me to give you a distored view. Nixon was no conservative. He was like Bush (either one) at best a centrist, being a liberal Republican from SouCal. Would a conservative imposed the socialist disaster of wage and price controls, for example?

No.

There were and are two wars, long wars--that he decided to fight without raising taxes. That wasn't a smart thing to do, I think.

Not needed. What would have been better is limiting social spending through that period.

It will take a liberal Democrat to contain social spending, is all I am implying.

Well, I'll buy into this to some degree, but it has more to do with political realities rather than the ideology of the individual. Certainly, putting the brakes on social spending will require Democrat buyin, but whoever will lead that charge, I'll gurantee you it'll never be Obama. Rather, it'll end up being a blue dog.

Dantheman; You may not like the facts, but denying they ARE facts, ain't the way, Bro. Example; You can't deny the FACT that the screaming among the far left had already begun by this point, eight years ago, regardless of what the polling data was suggesting.

If it is passed, and perhaps you and I would be happy with re-legislation that shaved it back a bit, I still think the best path forward is to assert confidence.

This is about the narrative and the animal spirits.

Maybe I'm getting a little Realpolitik here, or perhaps even Machiavellian, but I think we're all better off if you pretend to like the stimulus, and the debt reduction plan, and then work to go further.

There is momentum involved, and conservatives or libertarians who dig in their heels for a train that left yesterday ... not so effective.

Sam, what choice do we have but to give him a chance? BTW, how old are you? Do you understand what happened when Nixon severed the last dollar links to gold?

I'm 68. And no, I do not know what happened re gold and the dollar; something dreadful, right? I mentioned Nixon in regard to the opening to China, something that, in those times, a liberal Democrat could not have done. It was Nixon's conservative cred that allowed it, is all I was saying. It will take a liberal Democrat to contain social spending, is all I am implying.

sam, et al, President Obama is apparently opposed to capitalism, and therefore, in my view, freedom, so, no, I don't have to give him a chance to make things perhaps irredeemably worse at my expense to see if it works.

Ah, Charles, c'mon. Here have Dr. Doom, Nouriel Roubini, well-known socialist, arguing for a temporary nationalisation of the banks, and their subsequent resale, as the "market friendly" solution to part of the problem. All this crap about Obama being a socialist and being opposed to capitalism is just that, crap. He's trying to find some way to save capitalism. You veering close to Alan Keyes. I thought better of you.

Oh, and please point to an instance where socialism has made things better. If you are going to propose Sweden or something like that, please remember to fully credit the free ride they have gotten from the US for defense spending, aid programs, and technology when doing so and let me know who's going to give us the same free ride now.

Isn't this why we should buy (or pretend to buy) Obama's stimulus, and then step up to buy (or pretend to buy) his deficit reduction plan? He seems to be stating the goal many of us endorse: counter-cyclical government spending.

I really think that Obama skeptics should step up to endorse the deficit plan and then move the ball further down the field if that is their goal.

Perhaps you've neglected the idea that there was a bit of a war that occurred during his watch?

There were and are two wars, long wars--that he decided to fight without raising taxes. That wasn't a smart thing to do, I think.

But my point was, you were just wrong to say that "every time this stuff's been tried, it's been a blinking disaster". Flat wrong.