Politician: (n) a shameless scoundrel

They are repulsive people, these politicians. Truly, stomach turning.

That's why he's president; he can say something like that with a straight face.

Old quotes

1) A politician is an animal who can sit on a fence and yet keep both ears to the ground. (Anonymous)

2) A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman, of the next generation. (James Freeman Clarke)

From *The Devil's Dictionary,* by Ambrose Bierce:

Politician, n. An eel in the fundamental mud upon which the superstructure of organized society is reared. When he wriggles he mistakes the agitation of his tail for the trembling of the edifice. As compared with the statesman, he suffers the disadvantage of being alive.

Kuehn:
But quoting the one sentence makes it more salacious than the full paragraph actually was.
But the one sentence was still accurate.

The real grit in this quote though isn't that Obama would support a big government hand-out loaded with extra pork so as to make it bi-partisan (aren't all farm bills bi-partisan?) but as Daniel said, very surprising that the quote got out there.

But there's enough people in the public and media already ignoring his record overall, so this quote is just for the amusement of blog nerds like us.

I don't really fault the president(s) so much
We know.

RE: "But the one sentence was still accurate."

Oh sure, it's definitely accurate. Just make sure you don't just read "farm subsidy" into "farm bill" and stop there. Based on the chatter this had generated on The Atlantic's blogs, I think that's what a lot of people are doing.

Really, DK, I'm embarrassed for you. You really are making Al Gore look like a genius by comparison to you.

Nobody but you, in a desperate and ham-fisted attempt to defend the Chosen One, is reading anything into anything else.

It is a simple irony. Obama implores us to reject the special interests by pandering to the special interests. Get it? Simple. Not deep. Not profound. Simple and funny.

If I was the one reading things into it, then tell me - what special interests are you thinking that he's talking about?

Are you incapable of simple inference?

The only interests he seemed to be talking about was recipients of food stamps. Whatever your impression of the program - and I'm sure people have a negative impression of it on here, and that's fair enough - "recipients of food stamps" is a really weird special interest group in the sense of a rent-seeking population that we normally talk about it.

If methinks isn't talking about that and is thinking of something else entirely - like farmers - then that's the whole reason I asked the question, and the whole reason I raised the issue of the wider context of the statement in the first place.

OK, so your answer to John K's question is "yes".

No, it's "no". I'm quite capable of simple inferences. My concern is that you saw the simple inference, didn't find it politically convenient, and contrived a far less simple inference.

But it's hard to tell since you keep going on and on about Al Gore and The Chosen One and whatever else in an attempt to dodge the point at hand.

I'm deeply touched and amused by your concern.

You get "deeply touched" by the weirdest things.

How long can you hold your breath?

Okay. I've finally lost all respect for the guy.

Jesus H. Christ, I can't believe I voted for him.

This is almost unbelievable. This is sickening. He made that remark while giving a speech on food shortages during Thanksgiving.

This is a sentence from the preceding paragraph:
As a result of rising costs on everything from health care to gasoline, more and more Americans can't afford to put food on the table

THAT'S AMAZING!

Here's the link from his site:
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/11/21/obama_sta...

Yeah the statement is ridiculous. I've heard a similar statement from a so called economist not long ago Debt is debt. Many economists couldn't stop laughing since then.

I am shocked that he actually said it. Normally I am lacking in any sort of reaction to what a politician spews forth from his venomous tongue. But this one tickled with a far more ironic flavor than the usual. I'm delighted to hear that I can trust my elected representatives to watch out for my interests by not pandering to lobbyists.

Politicians love their word games.

Good to keep in mind that the farm bill is about a lot more than farm subsidies.

If you read the entire statement, it's clear he's not refering to farm subsidies - he's talking about food stamps and food security programs (there's more than enough in that for you guys to complain about anyway!).

It's a horrible statement... I can't believe it got past his PR guys. But quoting the one sentence makes it more salacious than the full paragraph actually was.

I don't really fault the president(s) so much as Congress for farm subsidies. Obama and Bush have both consistently proposed cuts, but it just never gets past Congress. Part of me says they should veto it until the cuts do go through Congress (although I'm not even sure that would work - they may be able to easily override a veto). And while the proposed cuts could be even deeper, the fact that they continually fail in Congress makes me wonder if Bush and Obama proposed the minimal cuts they did simply for practical reasons - it was the only cut they thought they had any chance of passing, and they prefered some improvement to no improvement at all.

Anyway, it's terrible policy all around - but I always blame Congress more than the President for the farm subsidies. And it's not just an Obama thing, for those who might assume that. Bush gave it a shot too. But as Megan said on Sullivan's blog, the problem boils down to: "farm states wield disproportionate, bipartisan power in the Senate, and Americans think that farmers are really, really cute".

Keep in mind that Obama said that as a senator, not a president. And also remember that, as a corn-state senator (and Iowa caucus participant), Obama was a vocal advocate for ethanol subsidies in the farm bill and a friend of Archer Daniels Midland (from whom he accepted cut-rate rides on corporate jets). I don't think there's any way to give Obama a pass on this one.

I agree - and I'm not trying to give him a pass. I swear, even when I concur that "it's a horrible statement" you guys act like I'm defending him.

I'm just saying let's not read more into it than is there. As bad as it is, it's pretty mundane when you read the full statement. But then - getting worked up over the mundane is how politics is done these days, so I guess I shouldn't be too surprised.

I'm just saying let's not read more into it than is there. As bad as it is, it's pretty mundane when you read the full statement. But then - getting worked up over the mundane is how politics is done these days, so I guess I shouldn't be too surprised.

Jesus H. Christ.

A.) Nobody got worked up about this except you. Everyone else just laughed and shook their heads until you began your mental oragami. It's amusing but weird.

B.) The only one who read anything into anything else is you. Nobody else read anything into anything else and you are not the only person here who knows what's in the farm bill.

DK: Yes, I am definitely defending him against extraneous potential accusations at the same time I am criticizing him for relevant issues.

You're getting yourself all worked up over potential accusations? And in the next breath you agonize over what you imagine other people read into your man crush's statements?

DK:It's the assumption that that's what he's saying that is getting this relatively mundane statement so much press in the last two days.

How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that what's getting him all the press is not the farm subsidies in particular but the idea of standing up to special interests by pandering to special interests? It's amusing but also tedious that so many people have to explain, re-explain and explain again simple things to you.

OMG.

"And in the next breath you agonize over what you imagine other people read into your man crush's statements"

He is dreamy, isn't he?

I'm just enjoying the irony of such a long diatribe that starts with "Nobody got worked up about this except you"

Now try to see the irony in Obama's statement and I'll know you're making progress.

I agree - and I'm not trying to give him a pass. I swear, even when I concur that "it's a horrible statement" you guys act like I'm defending him.

Well, but you are defending him even while agreeing his statement is horrible. And, you know, even reading the rest of Obama's remarks that follow doesn't really help. That's because even in the narrow context of food programs in the farm bill, you're still talking about special interest payoffs. A quick google turns up this, for example:

------------------

"The food currently provided through the National School Lunch Program has not kept pace with what we know today to be truly healthy and nutritious food. Rather, the foods provided in the program under the guise of good nutrition—chili cheese dogs, pepperoni pizza, cheeseburgers, and pork chops—are there to prop up farm incomes and are part of the problem that has created a generation of overweight children," Jennifer Keller, registered dietician with the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), told The Final Call.

According to PCRM, federal policy—heavily influenced by the meat and dairy lobbies—literally forces the Secretary of Agriculture to favor beef, pork and other high- protein foods over healthier items when purchasing surplus commodities for federal feeding programs.

As a result, in 2001 the USDA spent $350 million on surplus beef and cheese—more than double the amount spent on fruits and vegetables. Federal policy also prohibits schools from serving soymilk or other nondairy beverages as part of a subsidized lunch unless a child brings a doctor’s note saying he or she has a medical reason not to drink cow’s milk.

http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article...

------------------

dk must agree and disagree at the same time, it's his style.
You'd be better off if you simply ignored him.

re; "Well, but you are defending him even while agreeing his statement is horrible."

Yes, I am definitely defending him against extraneous potential accusations at the same time I am criticizing him for relevant issues. If Obama stepped up the war in Iraq and was subsequently accused of stepping up the war in Iraq and kicking puppies, I would also simultaneously defend him against the charge of kicking puppies and attack him for stepping up the war in Iraq.

RE: "That's because even in the narrow context of food programs in the farm bill, you're still talking about special interest payoffs."

Also guilty as charged. I'm perfectly happy with people knowing that I am defending the special interest group of food stamp recipients. I would not defend them in all times, circumstances, or issues, but I would defend them. Forgive me if I want to distinguish what kinds of special interests I'll defend.

You said, "If you read the entire statement, it's clear he's not refering to farm subsidies"

Even if you're right about that, your defense of obama rings hollow. Your conclusion would be stronger if he'd said "To help address this, we need to stand up to the special interests, bring Republicans and Democrats together, and immediately pass the food assistance bill I've introduced so we can separate help for the poor and needy from the farm subsidies and other special interest pork that's in the farm bill." That's not what he said, so your conclusion sounds like wishful thinking (unless you can read his mind retroactively).

The only thing that's really clear is that he was pandering to his audience. After all, emphasizing food assistance is a very popular thing to do around Thanksgiving.

Definitely! A great rewording. If he had said that, I probably wouldn't have called his statement "horrible". Since he didn't, I did call it "horrible".

OK, since he didn't say something along those lines, why/how do you conclude that he was somehow not including the farm subsidies in the farm bill when he made the statement he did? I don't see your logic. Do you think he forgot about them?

I doubt he'd make such a statement or think such a thing about farm subsidies himself, but I think it's "horrible" because despite that he was too afraid to take this opportunity to confront the issue of farm subsidies. What's unclear about that?

Aren't you the first to refuse to guess what's in the hearts and minds of someone else? Why abandon that position now?

Yes, I am definitely defending him against extraneous potential accusations at the same time I am criticizing him for relevant issues.

But what he is being criticized for is the absurd idea that passing the farm bill could, in any way, be seen as 'standing up to special interests' when everybody knows it is stuffed with special-interest goodies and when some of the most expensive ones (ethanol subsidies) were promoted by Obama himself. He's clearly guilty as charged.

And even beyond that -- food assistance programs in the Farm Bill are often used as yet another way to subsidize ag interests (as my link pointed out) at the cost of providing poor nutrition to aid recipients.

But even that aside -- how could defending the food stamp program be seen as 'standing up against special interests'? Just exactly which special interests stand to benefit from cuts in the food stamp program?

RE: "But even that aside -- how could defending the food stamp program be seen as 'standing up against special interests'?"

How many times do I have to say I thought it was a terrible statement for it to start sinking in with you? I DON'T think defending the food stamp program can be seen as 'standing up against special interests'. I never said it could be seen as 'standing up against special itnerests'.

My only point is that this isn't Obama claiming that handing out farm subsidies is 'standing up against special interests', which is significantly more salacious and ironic and ridiculous. It's the assumption that that's what he's saying that is getting this relatively mundane statement so much press in the last two days.

Thank God you swooped to clear clear that up with obfuscation.

Yes - we know nuance doesn't sit well with you.

Isn't referring to yourself in the royal "we" a little obviously imperious, DK?

oh and, your majesty, I know you're busy educating everyone by dispelling assumptions about which president is responsible for farm subsidies and all, but you should probably read the initial post more carefully before you launch into your essay. Obama said this when he was a senator, not the president.

"Obama said this when he was a senator, not the president."

Right - he said it in 2008. So?

He said it in November of 2007.

Aha - The Reason article was just from 2008.

Do you have any idea why methinks cares so much? I didn't think anyone was under the impression he was president when he said this.

What is the difference if he was President at the time? I agree that there was more to the quote, but that is irrelevant. Sure, the other programs are part of his agenda and have arguably more merit than the farm subsidies. So what? The sentence about the farm subsidies was not taken out of context. This sentence is what he means. So when our President, who wields an unruly amount of power and influence, talks about limiting special interests' influence yet equates special interests with taxpayers to fund "the people," farmers, it is concerning. Why would you not care? Every one of this President's actions has favored special interests. So when he says he does not respond to special interests, it makes sense to call bullshit. He is a liar--or just a politician. He is no better than the rest. Why are you defending this? It does your case no favors.

*sigh*

This is great. You see, the Farm Bill is stuffed with so much unrelated crap and so much pandering to so many special interest groups that politicians can claim to want to pass the farm bill for whatever reason they think will gain them the most political points. This makes the farm bill very convenient for all concerned - except the taxpayers, of course. Saint Obama can pay off a million special interest groups while claiming to do it all for the feeble poor.

Of course, welfare recipients are a special interest group. More to the point, the people who pimp them out as part of their rent seeking efforts are. The poor actually receive very little of every dollar that is taxed away from us. But, if you object to the demeaning and unnecessarily expensive programs that are in the Farm Bill or stupidly suggest it's far more efficient to just give the poor the money and let them decide how to spend it, you are clearly a heartless asshole. After all, just giving the poor the money doesn't provide rents for the poverty pimps and the vast bureaucracy they set up to "help" the poor.

But, Danny the useful idiot wants us to buy into the fantasy that there aren't any special interests involved and Barry's support of the bill has nothing at all to do with subsidies to ConAgra.

See? I can also torture the subject for 18 paragraphs!

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/11/21/obama_sta...

Here's the full statement. I'm sure there are lots of fallacies in it, but no fallacies about subsidies.

Tell me when you find something in there about farmers, farm subsidies, or any "special interest" other than the "special interests" of food stamp recipients. All I'm saying is that if people knew that all Obama was talking about here was food stamp recipients they would be chuckling less. Food stamp recipients are a considerably more sympathetic "special interest" than farmers receiving government paychecks.

The farm bill has farm subsidies! We have a case of bootleggers and baptists, and the tax-payer foots the bill. Yes, both food stamp recipients and farmers are special interests, so Obama is not standing up against special interests. Rather, he is standing up FOR HIS special interests. Just because you feel that one of his special interests deserves our help, doesn't make Obama more honest. However, none of this is surprising.

RE: "Sure, the other programs are part of his agenda and have arguably more merit than the farm subsidies. So what? The sentence about the farm subsidies was not taken out of context."

No, that's my whole point. There was no sentence about farm subsidies. There was a sentence about the farm bill and people mistook that for being about farm subsidies. If you read the whole paragraph you'll realize he wasn't talking about the subsidies at all. The problem is, some people don't realize there's a lot more in the farm bill than farm subsidies.

Granted - it was still a bad statement, if for no other reason than that Obama should have known that when people hear "farm bill" they think "farm subsidies", and that when people hear "Rs and Ds working together" they think "some sort of special interest is involved".

RE: "Why would you not care?"

I would care about that. I don't think he was talking about farm subsidies here.

Ah yes - personal pronoun hysteria. One of the endearing idiosyncracies of Cafe Hayek.

Nothing will get you branded a fascist (or in this case a royalist... that's a refreshing change) faster than slipping up and accidentally using the words "we", "system", or "tax" (the correct word being "theft").

Hilarious, Disingenuous Kuehn.

"To help address this, we need to stand up to the special interests, bring Republicans and Democrats together, and pass the Farm Bill immediately. And while we're at it, let's strengthen the Emergency Food Assistance Program, the Food Stamp Program and the Commodity Supplemental Food Programs and launch additional anti-hunger initiatives to help ensure that no American goes hungry."

There is the entire paragraph the statement under contention is taken from. Can you see anything but anti-american socialist redistribution of the wealth in that paragraph? I sure as hell can't.

You are known here, Disingenuous Kuehn, for what you are. LOL.

Of course now I can expect you to tell us that the Farm Bill that Obamalite supported and wanted passed immediately was actually a bill to eliminate all subsides, in other words was in reality anti-socialist.

BTW, is Tex your alter-ego?

"tax" (the correct word being "theft")

It is nice to see that you are finally learning the lingo around here Dan.

It's truly heroic how you keep returning to bestow your wisdom upon us in the face of such abuse.

None of us here can stop laughing.