Empty of any American princiiples and values, empty of honesty and integrity, and he and michelle obama are UNAmerican dirtbags.

If you want to believe the president is an "empty suit" and that all he does is read lines off a prompter that he didn't write and his senior political advisor did, what can I tell you? But you should know a couple things:

1) All presidents have speechwriters. This doesn't suggest anything about their intelligence either way.

2) All presidents use prompters or notes, and for every single speech. Neither does this suggest anything either way.

3) Most presidents are, to varying degrees, involved in the speechwriting process. Obama is one of the most involved in history. In fact, he often writes virtually all of his big speeches.

4) One of David Axelrod's jobs is message crafting for the president and the campaign, which means he often has a role in what's coming out of the president's mouth, particularly thematically. But he's not part of the speechwriting team. Because his job supersedes the speechwriters. He's at the helm of the table. He's got lots of responsibilities. Speechwriters have one.

So if you want to make a small debating point that sometimes David Axelrod wrote some lines in an Obama speech, or told a speechwriter how he wants a line crafted in an Obama speech, that's fine with me. But the point you were trying to make (before the retroactive backflip) was that people thought Obama was smart because of his speaking ability, and that he didn't even write those speeches, and David Axelrod did.

That is not an accurate characterization. It's not even close. It's just one you insist on believing because you like "empty suit."

@heckofajobbrownie said:

So, again, it's not accurate to say that Obama just reads Axelrod's words off a prompter, even though

Even though......

........He does.

@heckofajobbrownie said:

Yes, because he's the senior political advisor and message crafter. Much in the same way an executive producer gets a writing credit because they give ideas in the writers meeting. Rove would be considered a speechwriter in that sense too, but that wasn't his main focus. (Though Alexrod is more involved with big speeches than I suspect Rove was.)

But Axelrod's job isn't to sit down and write or type out Obama's speeches - he's not a speechwriter. It's to help design what's in them. But he is actually a very talented writer. One thing he does do is help with the comedy stuff - the Alfalfa and Gridiron speeches and such. He's a witty guy. So you'll see his work in those and some of the bigger campaign speeches, but the day to day stuff, like speaking to a group of doctors about health care reform, he's not involved with.

The chief speechwriters are Jon Favreau and the President himself, though the President doesn't worry so much about the day to day speechwriting either. (And you want it this way.) He'll work up most speeches before he gives them, and is heavily involved with the bigger speeches.

So, again, it's not accurate to say that Obama just reads Axelrod's words off a prompter, even though now we're pretending that was a retroactive double reverse backflip jest directed at the Democrats' fixation on Rove.

LOL

Thats the ticket.

Like that knight in the monty python sketch who keeps losing arms and legs.

WSS

Then again, they know what happens if he wins the nomination.

But Axelrod's job isn't to sit down and write or type out Obama's speeches - he's not a speechwriter. It's to help design what's in them. But he is actually a very talented writer. One thing he does do is help with the comedy stuff - the Alfalfa and Gridiron speeches and such. He's a witty guy. So you'll see his work in those and some of the bigger campaign speeches, but the day to day stuff, like speaking to a group of doctors about health care reform, he's not involved with.

The chief speechwriters are Jon Favreau and the President himself, though the President doesn't worry so much about the day to day speechwriting either. (And you want it this way.) He'll work up most speeches before he gives them, and is heavily involved with the bigger speeches.

So, again, it's not accurate to say that Obama just reads Axelrod's words off a prompter, even though now we're pretending that was a retroactive double reverse backflip jest directed at the Democrats' fixation on Rove.

@heckofajobbrownie said:

Okay, sure. Your Axelrod quip was obviously a slight at Democrats and their fixation on Rove circa 2004, and anyone who didn't get it isn't up to your speed.

Whatever helps you get through your day.

What a coincidence.

I had thought that Axelrod was more just a handle than a speech writer. ( Like the way you guys always pictured Rove)

So after a couple of rounds of what I'm sure you thought was a brilliant response, a quick web search turns up the fact that the guy actually is part of the president's speech writing team.

Ain't that sumthin.

WSS

@westside-steve said:

Not "us"; you.

WSS

Okay, sure. Your Axelrod quip was obviously a slight at Democrats and their fixation on Rove circa 2004, and anyone who didn't get it isn't up to your speed.

Whatever helps you get through your day.

Well they shoulda guessed.

If it seems easy and kind of fun and there are a shitload of people in the claasses and the job you really want is on the cool side of the camera.......

One of my gripes with the OWS kids is that they shoulda thought a little harder about the need for graduates in whatever they took out a loan to study.

I was a theater major. I didn't want to build sets or hang par cans.

But you need those guys more.

That's why you get more points for debate than boy's extemp.

<G>

WSS

I respectfully disagree

Well bud, I think you put lawyes a little higher on the list then I would have.

But it's still a pretty humorous though insightful list.

Communication major made me laugh but even below them I place the marketing major.

" How can you spot a marketing major? He's the guy in taco bell wearing a neck tie. "

I try to infuse everything I do with a touch of smartass douchebaggery

And it's hilarious, every year since I've been to college, around May or June, I've seen at least one of my friends post on facebook, "Nobody told me my communications degree was going to be worthless!" And when you get a bunch of people who paid a shitload of money to go to a private school, then choose to pick a useless degree, you can't help but laugh at their plight. I was a business major for two weeks, before I realized I was paying way too much money for a degree everyone and their brother has.

@vaportrail said:

Your last example is wayyyy different. If you get a professional degree from places like those, it says much more about your intelligence than a bachelor's. Someone who's kicked ass through Harvard and Johns Hopkins medical schools is going to be very intelligent. It's just hard to say that about anyone who gets their undergrad there, as there are going to be many underachievers. For example, I went to UD to get my BS in Physics, I was a huuuuge underachiever, though. Even though the school isn't prestigious, the degree is, and I love when I tell people that, and all of a sudden, they treat me like I'm going to be the next Einstein.

When really, I figured out I wasn't a good enough physicist to cut it in grad school, which is where all the important research goes. I found out I was a better chemist and biologist, and now I'm getting a masters in biology, with my research focus in biophysics. I feel what I'm doing now says wayyyyy more about me than anything I did as an undergrad. And another thing, just because someone is working towards a masters, phd, jd, etc, it doesn't necessarily imply that they're intelligent. The only thing that having "Dr." in front of your name absolutely means to me is that you spent a big chunk of your life becoming well versed in a likely narrow subject. For example, I think that anyone and their brotherhood can get a PhD in biology or chemistry if they put enough time into it, and it takes a little bit more for them to convince me that they're intelligent. Physicists, on the other hand, those guys are wizards... It takes a whole new level of understanding of math and the ability to manipulate a coordinate system to cut it as a PhD in physics. My intelligence grading scale would be completely different from heck or sev's... Let's see...

I'll work my way down

10 - Physicists of all sorts and sizes, Programmers

9 - MD's, DO's, lawyers, chemists, mathematicians (even though I place lawyers as a 1 in all other subjects because they're scumbags)

8 - Engineers, people with MS's in math, physics, chem, or engineering

7 - Pharmacists, Biochemists

6 - Psychologists

5 - People with MS's in soft sciences

4 - Science majors

3 - High school educated

2 - English majors, Business majors

1 - Communications majors

Basically, if I know nothing else about you, this is how intelligent I think you are. Once you open your mouth, you're able to move anywhere. For example, one of my friends was a history major at West Point. Now he's learning to fly helicopters in the army. He's an 8.

Well bud, I think you put lawyes a little higher on the list then I would have.

But it's still a pretty humorous though insightful list.

Communication major made me laugh but even below them I place the marketing major.

" How can you spot a marketing major? He's the guy in taco bell wearing a neck tie. "

WSS

@heckofajobbrownie said:

But there wasn't a Rove reference. You wrote that Axelrod wrote the words on Obama's prompter. Which kind of makes it hard to pick it on a Rove reference.

You write like shit, and then pretend you're going too fast for us.

Not "us"; you.

WSS

@westside-steve said:

No, I didn't think axelrod wrote the president's speeches.

Then again, outside of possibly having some kind of a vague notion, I don't suppose the president writes formulates or plans too many of his policy items either.

BTW I doubt that bush did.

WSS

You don't seem to have a very good handle on what it is a president does.

@westside-steve said:

And I apologize for confusing you with the Rove reference.

WSS

But there wasn't a Rove reference. You wrote that Axelrod wrote the words on Obama's prompter. Which kind of makes it hard to pick it on a Rove reference.

You write like shit, and then pretend you're going too fast for us.

@vaportrail said:

The only thing that someone doing their undergrad at Harvard tells me is that this person has rich parents.

Well, some kind of outside influence anyway.

I mean, didn't Bush go to princeton?

I don't dislike the little fellow but he never seems like an ivy league type to me.

That said, I was kind of impressed by a doctor I met in key west who'd graduated from harvard and done his residency at johns hopkins.

WSS

@westside-steve said:

and let me repeat that my buddy Doug went to cleveland state or toledo or somewhere and passed the bar on his first try. Unlike 3 others from that section who had gone to harvard.

WSS

The only thing that someone doing their undergrad at Harvard tells me is that this person has rich parents.

WSS

Then again, outside of possibly having some kind of a vague notion, I don't suppose the president writes formulates or plans too many of his policy items either.

BTW I doubt that bush did.

WSS

Gotcha, buddy.

WSS

I merely use him as your guys used karl rove as the pit from where all evil springs.

Or the way napoleon used farmer jones.

And you did make the point that not all tax lawyers are smart.

Only the democrats right?

WSS

As for your mix up, I do think a law degree is a decent barometer for measuring someone's intelligence. I just think it's laughable to suggest that graduating from Harvard Law and editing the Law Review and becoming a professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago is even remotely the same thing as graduating from Regent University Law. It simply isn't. That should be a pretty easy distinction to make, even for you. One is one - if not the - toughest, most selective, and most highly respected law school in the world, and the other is ranked at the bottom of every survey.

So there's no reason to hold up a JD and insist that it levels the playing field. Michele Bachmann gives us evidence of her policy ignorance almost daily. And policy is her job. What are we supposed to think of people who live and breathe issues for a living and still can't display a working knowledge of the relevant issues? That they're really smart?

@westside-steve said:

Well, a couple of points, Heck.

First, I'm not at all surprised that you thought that was a pretty funny line.

So since we both agree the krugman is an educated man I doubt that you would think it was as hilarious had someone made the same statement about the president.

Especially since you seem to think that a law degree is not much of a test for intelligence.

Now remember I'm not saying little Obama is stupid, but many of those who think that he's brilliant are by and large swayed by his speaking voice and the ability to read david axelrod's words for prompter.

WSS

Let me straighten some things out for you. And perhaps you'll defer to me because I know a little bit about this stuff.

David Axelrod does not write the president's speeches. He's an advisor, and he has a hand in message crafting, but he's not writing speeches. You know who writes Obama's speeches? It's often President Obama. Certainly all of the major speeches are largely written by the President himself, and the final drafts are all his. And he's also got a speechwriting team, like any president, led by a guy named Jon Favreau. But nothing but the most general stuff is written for the President without him being involved in the process. It's also common knowledge that the best speechwriter in the White House is the president himself. (Obama famously thinks this as well.) So to say he's just reading David Axelrod's words off a teleprompter is just wrong on a whole host of levels. It's an effort to use falsehoods to make him sound like he's an incompetent actor, or what you like to call "an empty suit." The problem with this line is that it's simply not true.

Will that stop you from using it? Of course not. You love it too much.