| Posted by: Toral
- [53422511] Mon, Aug 15, 2005, 16:37
The other thread is way long, so decided to start a new one with a discussion of the article posted below. Meanwhile the video-game issue discussion in the other one can continue. |
| 1 | Toral
ID: 53422511 Mon, Aug 15, 2005, 16:42
|
For Democrats, a Troubling Culture Gap
By Dan Balz
Wednesday, August 10, 2005; Page A08
Dissatisfaction over the war in Iraq, the economy and rising health care costs might spell trouble for Republicans, but a study by Democratic strategists warns that their party's failure to connect with voters on cultural issues could prevent Democratic candidates from reaping gains in upcoming national elections.
Democrats have expressed bewilderment over Republican gains among lower-income, less-educated voters, saying they are voting against their economic self-interest by supporting Republican candidates. But the new Democracy Corps study concludes that cultural issues trump economic issues by a wide margin for many of these voters -- giving the GOP a significant electoral advantage.
The study is based on focus groups of rural voters in Wisconsin and Arkansas and disaffected supporters of President Bush in Colorado and Kentucky. The good news for Democrats: All the groups expressed dissatisfaction with the direction of the country and with the leadership of the president and the GOP-controlled Congress.
Then came the bad news: "As powerful as the concern over these issues is, the introduction of cultural themes -- specifically gay marriage, abortion, the importance of the traditional family unit and the role of religion in public life -- quickly renders them almost irrelevant in terms of electoral politics at the national level," the study said.
Many of these voters still favor Democrats on economic issues. But they see the Democrats as weak on national security, and on cultural and moral issues, they view Democrats as both inconsistent and hostile to traditional values. "Most referred to Democrats as 'liberal' on issues of morality, but some even go so far as to label them 'immoral,' 'morally bankrupt,' or even 'anti-religious,' " according to the Democracy Corps analysis.
Democrats Karl Agne and Stan Greenberg, who conducted the focus group, said Democrats need a reform-oriented, anti-Washington agenda to overcome the culture gap. At this point, Democrats are in no position to capitalize if there is a clear backlash against Republicans. "No matter how disaffected they are over Republican failures in Iraq and here at home," they said, "a large chunk of white, non-college voters, particularly in rural areas, will remain unreachable for Democrats at the national level."
Stan Greenberg has been concerned about this problem for a long while. In 1990 or so, he wrote a book based on polling which warned that if the Dems didn't get this stuff straightened out, they might never win a presidential election again. He then worked for Clinton, working on moving him to the centre on "values issues", before falling out of favour.
I'm curious what Democrats/Democrat-lenaers think of the above analysis.
Toral Link.
|
|
| 2 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Mon, Aug 15, 2005, 16:57
|
Democrats abandoned the entire cultural debate, hoping to gain on economic issues. But you simply don't abdicate and entire issue to the other party and expect not to get hurt (this works both ways).
Republicans have sucessfully painted Democrats as out-of-touch culturally, giving rise to many "am not!" responses from Dems completely unaware of the erosion of their support.
Dems, IMO, aren't going to be able to confront the issue directly for some time, but I like what many moderate Dems are doing in, at the very least, ceasing the "talking down" on issues which only reinforced the cultural dichotomy that Republicans were using as a wedge.
|
|
| 3 | sarge33rd
ID: 344362512 Mon, Aug 15, 2005, 16:59
|
...they might never win a presidential election again.
"never", is a vey long time.
Even so, if we Dems fail to find the means to demonstrate that we can and do respect and value the traditional family unit, while at the same time extending respect to the non-traditional family, then yes. We are potentially in for a very long drought. Why so many Americans seem to view it as a zero-sum-game, or mutually exclusive, is beyond me. 2 men living together next door in a non-recognized fashion, have no less and no more impact on your marriage than would those same 2 men livng next door under a recognized fashion. Understandng and accepting that christianity isnt the panacea for all the worlds woes, doesnt make one anti-christian. (The opposite however is not true...claiming that christianity is indeed the pancea, would in point of fact make one anti-jew and anti-muslim and anti-....)
How exactly the GOP with its agenda of "take from the poor and give to the wealthy" managed to convince middle america that it stood upon the moral high-ground, probably constitutes the single greatest act of marketing (fraud and deceipt?) ever perpetrated upon the american people.
|
|
| 4 | biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Mon, Aug 15, 2005, 17:02
|
Dems have already co-opted most of the Republican's economic issues. If they can't win an election unless they co-opt all the social issues as well, do they have to change their name?
The "new" Republicans take on the Neo-conservatives in 2008? Traditional Republicans vs. Corporate Military/Industrial Hegemony?
If that's what it takes, I'd rather continue to see the Dems lose, otherwise ask directions to the anarchist's headquarters from my sister.
|
|
| 5 | Razor
ID: 36241218 Mon, Aug 15, 2005, 17:07
|
The GOP has done a better job of painting us as wishy washy, godless, big government-lovin' sissies than the Democrats have done of painting them as hardline Bible thumpers whose greed and warmongering will be the undoing of this country.
Frankly, I'm not concerned. Bush is doing such a poor job with everything that I think eventually, the American voter will wise up. Maybe I overestimate the American populace though. I often wonder how long it will take or how bad things have to get before people start pointing the finger at the party in power.
|
|
| 6 | Toral
ID: 53422511 Mon, Aug 15, 2005, 17:15
|
sarge 33rd Of course that quote about Dems never winning a presidential election again was written in 1990...before Clinton won 2 in a row --with Greenberg originally as his main pollster. So Cassandra-like predictions about "never winning again" have always been wrong so far. Between 1992-1998, a number of Republican strategists warned that the GOP might never win an election again unless it gave up its pro-life stance.
And the Dems have been very close last 2, so at the moment no one would say that they would never win an election again.
But -- one more quote, from a different WP article.In a private meeting late last year with some of his party's leading organizers and strategists, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) pointedly blamed abortion and gay rights for his loss to President Bush in last year's election -- stunning and angering his audience. This meeting was reported at the time, but not discussed here IIRC. Kerry told a bunch of pro-choice activists that popular perceptions about abortion contributed to his defeat and said that the Dems needed to have more pro-life candidates at the generally and stop shunning them. At the same time, he is pro-choice himself, and has said he will not vote for any SCOTUS nominee who will not indicate that he won't vote to overturn Roe
Toral
|
|
| 7 | Razor
ID: 36241218 Mon, Aug 15, 2005, 17:21
|
What a cop out. Kerry lost for a lot more reasons than that. He lost because Americans on both sides viewed him as fairly vanilla with no real backbone. I, for one, thought his stance on gay rights was too weak, and yet he's blaming his loss on it? 48% of us just accepted him for what he is and voted for the lesser of two evils. The list of true John Kerry fans is a short one, and one that probably didn't include his own running mate.
|
|
| 8 | Texas Flood
ID: 326462912 Mon, Aug 15, 2005, 17:27
|
"Take from the poor and give to the wealthy". What a friggin joke. It should be take from the middle class and give to the poor and the wealthy.
Between my small business and personal taxes I've paid way more than my share and it's getting more difficut to stay in business every year. Those bastards in public office have no idea what goes on in the real world and could care less.
It used to be that political office meant public service. I don't think any of those elected jackasses are doing their jobs effectivly!
|
|
| 9 | biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Mon, Aug 15, 2005, 17:50
|
Another dissatisfied costumer searching for the anarchist's HQ!
|
|
| 10 | Texas Flood
ID: 4675610 Mon, Aug 15, 2005, 19:23
|
So, you feel good about how your tax dollars are being spent?
If you own property or a small business and tell me you're happy about how the government handles your tax dollars you sir, are either a liar or a fool.
|
|
| 11 | Toral
ID: 53422511 Mon, Aug 15, 2005, 19:30
|
Or in bili's case, re John Roberts, maybe both!!!!!! :)
|
|
| 12 | biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Mon, Aug 15, 2005, 19:41
|
I'm not sure, but I have this sense that I'm being attacked!
re: 10 TF - see 4. I am obviously not satisfied with much. The spend my freakin' tax dollars to try to convert my own (theoretical) children to Christianity, for Christ (woops) sakes!
re: 11, I am a fool and a liar via the Good Judge? I don't recall saying anything foolish or dishonest about the lowlife Colts fan, but I am sure you will educate me.
|
|
| 13 | Toral
ID: 53422511 Mon, Aug 15, 2005, 19:48
|
bili Huh?
Posts 221, 223, 230, 232, 236, 239, 241 and 243.
Either one or the other, or both.
Toral
|
|
| 14 | Texas Flood
ID: 4675610 Mon, Aug 15, 2005, 19:53
|
No attack billi. It's just years of frustration of unjust taxation. It's frustrating to keep bastards like Bush and Kennedy rich, and at the same time keeping the local crack whore in food stamps and drugs.
|
|
| 15 | biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Mon, Aug 15, 2005, 20:03
|
You are going to have to do better than simply screaming "lier lier", Toral.
You know, you could do some time for supplying crack whores with drugs, TF. ;)
Bush has raised more taxes in his 5 years than Clinton did in 8. He just happens to be taxing our kids. Every time he rubber-stamps his pork to his cronies, or wages an unjust war at a trillion a pop, he's raising taxes. He just chooses the pussy way out, and taxes future generations. Sniveling, sad excuse for a politician, that shrublet is.
|
|
| 16 | Toral
ID: 53422511 Mon, Aug 15, 2005, 20:11
|
Not "liar, liar". If you believe the things you claim, you are either a fool or a liar.
You believe that Roberts's motive was to show support for a clinic bomber or "Operation Rescue"? That's as absurd as anything Baldwin or nerve has ever written.
I'd be happy to add a third category, "crazy", if you so desire.
Toral
|
|
| 17 | biliruben
ID: 531202411 Mon, Aug 15, 2005, 23:36
|
Uh huh. In his capacity as Solicitor General he goes out of his way to make an unsolicited and unnecessary political statement for Operation Rescue, the dirtiest nurse beating, doctor slashing scum this side of a fetus, and all you can do is correct my spelling and call me names.
|
|
| 18 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Mon, Aug 15, 2005, 23:50
|
Not exactly, bili. He's correcting your point that the brief (which is about protesters at abortion clinics) was about the clinic bombers.
Then he's calling you names.
|
|
| 19 | biliruben
ID: 531202411 Mon, Aug 15, 2005, 23:51
|
I never said it was about clinic bombers. I said one of the defendants happened to to have bombed a clinic, and highlighted the distinction.
|
|
| 20 | Toral
ID: 53422511 Mon, Aug 15, 2005, 23:58
|
You make defamatory and insulting suggestions that Roberts' motive was to support folks like "Operation Rescue". I claim that Roberts' intervention was all about the law, and point out that in Roberts's personal memos, he strongly advised against using the President's pardon power for any abortion protestor convicted of a violent act, saying "violence is always wrong." You ignore them.
In his capacity as Solicitor General he goes out of his way to make an unsolicited and unnecessary political statement
The S-G office's job is to advise SCOTUS on the law, aside from cases where the government is a party. Amicus briefs are them. Do you really want to argue this point? If so, I hope you are willing to admit gross wrongness.
Back to the point: your assumption/belief that Roberts intervened out of a desire to support violent or disruptive abortion protesters is 1) without evidence; 2) maintained in the face of contrary evidence you have refused to deal with; 3) IMO showing a complete lack of understanding of conservatives on its face.
"Fool", "crazy", are nice words in that context.
Toral
|
|
| 21 | biliruben
ID: 531202411 Tue, Aug 16, 2005, 00:05
|
I have 1) acknowledged that this particular case was non-violent, 2) offered up another court case with similar circumstances during the same time period for an opposing ideology that he didn't go to bat for and asked you to come up with a reason for him holding his tongue in that case, 3) never in my wildest dreams could I fathom how conservatives can live with their beliefs and still roam the earth, other than force myself accept the possible existence of pure evil.
|
|
| 22 | Toral
ID: 53422511 Tue, Aug 16, 2005, 00:09
|
2) offered up another court case with similar circumstances during the same time period for an opposing ideology that he didn't go to bat for and asked you to come up with a reason for him holding his tongue in that case
Bullshit. You mentioned some problems eco-folks have. Name the court case, or explain how Roberts could have intervened.
"Fool" goes way up in the odds. If you're going to defame people, know what you're talking about.
Toral
|
|
| 23 | Toral
ID: 53422511 Tue, Aug 16, 2005, 00:13
|
I didn't want to call you out as a Fool, but I guess I have no choice.
Please explain how and when John Roberts could have intervened to help your eco-protesters.
Toral
|
|
| 24 | biliruben
ID: 531202411 Tue, Aug 16, 2005, 00:14
|
Your the lawyer and the Roberts apologist. I wouldn't know my way around nexus-lexis even if I had access to it and to 15 year old Cali cases.
I have gone out of my way to say he is about as decent a nominee as I could expect from Bush, and that I support him.
That doesn't mean I can't bring up the fact that he jumped through hoops for the worst kind of scum.
|
|
| 25 | biliruben
ID: 531202411 Tue, Aug 16, 2005, 00:17
|
I'll tell you what, since you have the resources and education, find me one case where he went to bat for someone with clearly opposing ideology while Solicitor General for Papa Bush, and I'll retract my criticism. One circimstance.
|
|
| 26 | Toral
ID: 53422511 Tue, Aug 16, 2005, 00:23
|
He didn't "jump through hoops"; he made an argument on an important point of federal law -- the SG's job.
I suggest listening to the Roberts' argument that Madman linked to. (I also suggest reading the comments of many pro-choice folk that there was nothing in his argument, or decision to argue, that indicated any support for Operation Rescue or bombers. In this case, you either don't want to read or want to ignore stuff that doesn't fit your preconceptions.)
Did you read my post above about how an amicus brief was filed by Berrigan and other left protestors taking the same side as Roberts? Did it enter your brain? What is your comment?
Toral
|
|
| 27 | Toral
ID: 53422511 Tue, Aug 16, 2005, 00:25
|
I don't actually have the resources -- you'll have to send me your library code ;) I assume it's good for stuff other than watching viruses and amoebas, etc.
Toral
|
|
| 28 | Toral
ID: 53422511 Tue, Aug 16, 2005, 00:27
|
And since you're so sure, I also want you to send me $50 US.
Toral
|
|
| 29 | biliruben
ID: 531202411 Tue, Aug 16, 2005, 00:30
|
I have no argument with his position, don't know law and so wouldn't be able to comment, and assume it was strong given the supreme court agreed with him, so I didn't see much point in listening to it. If you had read what I've been writing, you would know that.
I didn't see the Berrigan (who ever that is) brief (and still don't - which post?), though the same comment above applies, I would guess.
So you really believe that SG Roberts intervened only on points of law regardless of ideology? Seriously?
|
|
| 30 | biliruben
ID: 531202411 Tue, Aug 16, 2005, 00:33
|
Yeah 50 US doll hairs. Barbie, Ken or GI Joe?
|
|
| 31 | Toral
ID: 53422511 Tue, Aug 16, 2005, 00:45
|
I read what you were writing. I brushed it off, saying, that's not bili at his best, so just ignore it. He's not usually like that.
So you really believe that SG Roberts intervened only on points of law regardless of ideology? Seriously?
You obviously don't read my posts either. I answered the same simple question before from you and gave the simple answer:
Yes
Toral
|
|
| 32 | biliruben
ID: 531202411 Tue, Aug 16, 2005, 00:59
|
Then it shouldn't be hard to find a shining example during his SG days. I would guess we would have heard about it if there were one, however, so I'm not going to hold my breath.
|
|
| 33 | sarge33rd
ID: 670916 Tue, Aug 16, 2005, 03:36
|
TF, I understand your sentiments. But I think you are pointing the blame in the worng general direction. Texas has had a Rep Legislature for how long? The Reps have controlled Congress for how long? The Reps have sat in the Whithouse for consecutive terms.If its "getting tougher every day", why not seriously reconsider your political leanings? Its apparent, the Reps are doing nothing to help anyone but their big oil buddies. $1,000,000,000 month profits last qtr by 3 different oil outfits. Yet the pump price (which has to be damn near 1/2 taxes), is steadily climbing.
|
|
| 34 | Texas Flood
ID: 4675610 Tue, Aug 16, 2005, 08:28
|
Sarge, I live in a Democrat state, Michigan. We are one of the worst states in terms of being friendly toward business both large and small. At one time we had a large industrial base and a very diverse economy, it no longer exists. Our major industry is now tourism. We sell fudge, ceramic lighthouses & tee shirts to people who can afford to spend the summers here.
Our problems are way beyond Democrat and Republican.
|
|
| 35 | Stuck in the 60s Dude
ID: 274132811 Tue, Aug 16, 2005, 08:55
|
TF:
I see a lot of the same stuff in many different areas of the country. I think what's really happening is the demise of the American middle class. Manufacturing no longer exists and the (relatively) high-paying jobs it once supported have fled to China or S. America or wherever the cheapest labor is to be found. It's a process that began on the day the first A&P opened, offering the economies of scale we have come to revere. Who knew?
Organized labor no longer has an impact. They are unable to force companies like GM to keep the promises they made to retirees about health benefits. Lately, companies don't even bargain with labor. They simply make demands. "You work for what we pay, or we close and go somewhere else."
Because many of the larger corporations are no longer owned by Americans, there is no special incentive to stay in America. If they don't get the special treatment they want (especially in terms of wages) then they can and do leave.
Which is why fudge, ceramic lighthouses and T-shirts have replaced automobiles and the steel industry.
What we're left with is two classes: one which makes the rules, owns the means of production and legislates its own playing field. The other works for minimum wage, can't afford basic health care and will never be able to retire.
Don
|
|
| 36 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 2824911 Tue, Aug 16, 2005, 09:56
|
Toral Post 1
Its my impression that the initial reactions of many on the left immediately following the elections were very similar to that assessment.
In my opinion the US is currently shifted notably to the right on cultural and moral issues and I believe the elections were a clear reflection of that. It used to be that Democrat candidates could run a campaign with a liberal platform and win a national or moderate state election. Today they seem to have to put on their best moderate suit and hope it will be enough to appease the moralists if they are to have any chance at all.
|
|
| 37 | Texas Flood
ID: 326462912 Tue, Aug 16, 2005, 09:59
|
Yup, the Democrat supported unions priced themselves right out jobs. Organized labor stole from it's membership, supported crooked politicians in every election and now they are a shell of thier former selves.
Also our state government taxes the living $hit out of all business, demands insane complilances through OSHA, the EPA and the dumbasses still sit and scratch their heads and wonder where all the business and industry have gone.
You can make this a Democrat/Republican Issue if you want but I prefer to blame both parties. The corruption of our government knows no limits.
|
|
| 38 | sarge33rd
ID: 670916 Tue, Aug 16, 2005, 10:58
|
...the Democrat supported unions priced themselves right out jobs...
Little could be further from the truth. The American public, saw to the demise of manufacturing, when we started buying everything at wally-world cause it was 15 cents cheaper. Then you have the folks who buy "hand embroidered" this and that off QVC/HSN etc etc etc for $15. You have to KNOW, those were embroidered by someone making $1/day or less in some sweatshop overseas.
The economy isnt all that different from Hollywood in that sense. (IMHO) Hollywood produces the kinds of movies that sell tickets. Why are there fewer and fewer "G" movies and more and more "R"? Cause thats where the money is.
Pure capitalism, leads to seeking the lowest possible production price while getting the highest possible retail price. These days, that means putting your factory in Bejing, and putting your retail outlet online. The dollars spent leave the local economy and go to who-knows where. Then those very same consumers, lament the loss of jobs in the local area.
As for what the unions did gain for the American worker...benefits, retirement, humane working conditions etc etc. Funny how well the econmoy did when we were manufacturing based. (circa 1910-1970) Sure there were ups and downs along that timeline. But the standard of living for the "average" American was 20x better in 1970 vs 1910. I do not belive the same is true comparing 1950 to today.
You point at union bosses and cry "thief". I point at the American CEO and make the same allegation. Truth is, we're both right and we're both wrong. The unions did a lot of good and some bad along the way. Not all union bosses were/are corrupt. Same holds true for CEO's. The difference is, the corrupt CEO robs the retirement plans of thousands of workers and leaves them bereft of promised benefits while the corrupt union boss, takes payola to represent his own interests vs the unions. The CEO does more damage to the greater number of people all while undermining public confidence, though both of those types need to be shot.
The corruption of our government knows no limits.
THAT statement, is absolutely true IMO. The only real answer I have to that problem, is term limits. 1 person, 1 seat, 1 term. When it becomes economically feasible to spend millions campaigning to get a $140,000/yr job, there is an obvious problem afoot. Is there anybody out there, who would pay a corporate recruiter, 7 yrs salary to find them a better job?
|
|
| 39 | Seattle Zen
ID: 178161719 Tue, Aug 16, 2005, 13:44
|
Post 20:
The S-G office's job is to advise SCOTUS on the law, aside from cases where the government is a party. Amicus briefs are them. Do you really want to argue this point? If so, I hope you are willing to admit gross wrongness.
Well, I really want to argue that point, but only if you are willing to admit to some serious "wrongness".
Let's first consider the statement that the Solicitor General's job is to "advise" the SCOTUS on the law. This statement could not be more wrong. If an attorney ever said, "I am going to advise you what the law is, your honor" that attorney would have just insulted that judge in such a way that is completely beyond the pale.
Here are ways you could "advise" the court of something: "I would like to advise the court that I will be in a jury trial on Tuesday and would like to request a different court date." I heard this a few days ago at a sentencing: "I'd like to advise the court that State v. Schaefer was overruled this morning by the State Supreme Court..."
Here is FindLaw's legal dictionary entry for advise
1: to give advice to: "counsel" Example: advise them to draw up a will
2: to give information or notice to Example: advise them of their rights
3: to give advice Example: advise on legal matters
4: to take counsel Example: advise with your lawyer Generally, you advise someone you have a non-adversarial relationship with - definitions numbered 1, 3, and 4. Definition two, to give information, is like my second example of notifying the judge of something that you suspect they were not aware.
Your statement The S-G office's job is to advise SCOTUS on the law is wrong because it violates that separations of powers. The SG office argues the Executive branch's position in front of the court and/or through amicus briefs. The major function of the Solicitor General's Office is to supervise and conduct government litigation in the United States Supreme Court. The Solicitor General determines the cases in which Supreme Court review will be sought by the government and the positions the government will take before the Court. I took that from their website if you don't believe me.
So when the SG files a amicus brief, it is arguing the executive positions', certainly not advising the SCOTUS.
There is only one reason why the SG's office filed an amicus brief in the abortion bombing case: they feared that the Court may add "gender discrimination" to one corner of the legal kingdom that is the issue of abortion. Everyone agrees that the abortion battle is a war and it is obvious what side John Roberts is on, the wrong one, the immoral one. Yes, it is about time that the liberals around here say it loud: To deny a woman the right to an abortion is a moral abomination.
|
|
| 40 | Seattle Zen
ID: 178161719 Tue, Aug 16, 2005, 13:45
|
Oh, Toral, if you want to wait until tonight when you are feeling a bit more libatious to admit your "gross wrongness", feel free.
|
|
| 41 | Toral
ID: 53422511 Tue, Aug 16, 2005, 16:42
|
Not Guilty
The S-G office's job is to advise SCOTUS on the law, aside from cases where the government is a party.
I was careful to exclude cases where the government is a party, from my claim that the SG serves an advisory function. In cases where the government is a party the SG of course argues the government's position. It does not in such cases "advise" the court on the law, as you correctly point out. I once worked for an old judge, extremely smart but cranky and notoriously tough on counsel, and I would hate to be a counsel who presumed to advise him on the law. The response wouldn't have been pleasant.
But in cases where the government is not a party, the Solicitor General has a different and unique role. Lincoln Caplan's book on the office referred to the SG as the "Tenth Justice".
A few quotes from quick Googling:The solicitor general of the United States may be the most important job you've never heard of; its holder plays a greater role in shaping constitutional and legal policy in this country than anyone in the executive branch--save, perhaps, the attorney general and the president himself. As chief advocate of the U.S. government before the Supreme Court, the solicitor general determines which cases the government should appeal and whether the government will file amicus curiae, or "friend of the court" briefs, in cases in which the U.S. government itself is not a principal. But the S.G., the only governmental position with a statutory responsibility to be "learned in the law," also has a unique role, which Justice Lewis Powell once described as "dual responsibility" to the judicial and executive branches.
This description embodies the historic balance implicit in the office: Though appointed by the president, the solicitor general is supposed to keep politics and the law separate. The S.G. is not merely the lackey of the attorney general and the president but--as befitting the name it has historically been given, "the Tenth Justice"--is also an informal adviser to the Court who responds to requests for advice on which cases it should hear and helps it to interpret pre-vious statutes or the Constitution, even as it defends laws passed by Congress. For these reasons and others, the solicitor general is supposed to be above politics. link
Ruth Bader Ginsburg:when the Court wants to knowmore about the importance of a case to the sound development offederal law, the justices may invite the views of the Solicitor Generalbefore voting on the review petition. (The Solicitor General is the Department of Justice officer responsible for representing the UnitedStates in the Supreme Court. When we invite the Solicitor’s views in acase in which the United States is not a party, the Solicitor acts as a true friend of the Court, somewhat like an Advocate General incontinental systems, although I would not go so far as to call the Solicitor General a “Tenth Justice”, as some writers have).
That is, the SG has had or claimed in the past just that advisory role I claimed. Gross correctness.
Now Caplan's "Tenth Justice" argument has come in for some criticism. This article argues that the SG is and should be the advocate for the Administration's policy positions, essentially calling the "Tenth Justice" position bunkum. Caplan's book was written in 1987, and it is undoubtedly true that the SG's role has become less of a neutral adviser in amicus briefs than it used to be, outside of non-controversial matters.
There is only one reason why the SG's office filed an amicus brief in the abortion bombing case: they feared that the Court may add "gender discrimination" to one corner of the legal kingdom that is the issue of abortion.
That's not untrue; it's one way of looking at it. The particular issue was whether opposition to abortion constituted the kind of animus against a protected class -- women -- that would have been necessary to bring that statute into play. Is opposition to abortion equivalent to animus against women as a class. You might say yes, but I don't think you have to be pro-life to say, uh, no.
What I object to are the implications that Roberts (1)briefed as he did because of secret support for Operation rescue/clinic bombings; (2) Roberts would not have briefed in a similar fashion in a case where the parties were 'unconservative', such as eco-protestors. This last implication suggests either that he is a man without integrity or that his ideology would blind him in some sense. Based on what his fellow members in the legal community, including lots of liberals say, and on my reading of the stuff that has been reported from the papers in the Reagan library, I see no justification for such an inference. And I'm genuinely puzzled by the idea that he must be motivated by some secret support for Operation Rescue. I genuinely can't see why anyone would assume or conclude that.
Toral
|
|
| 42 | Seattle Zen
ID: 178161719 Tue, Aug 16, 2005, 17:04
|
So when the SG files a amicus brief, it is arguing the executive positions', certainly not advising the SCOTUS.
I should have made myself clear. I agree with Roger Clegg in the article you linked - The SG is the advocate for the Executive branch whether there is a governmental agency as a party or not. If there ever was a time when the SG's amicus briefs were viewed by the SCOTUS as "independent advice", that was a horrendous mistake on their part. Lewis Powell was simply wrong.
BTW, that other link doesn't work.
|
|
| 43 | Seattle Zen
ID: 178161719 Tue, Aug 16, 2005, 18:32
|
Furthermore, to argue that back in the powdered wig days the SG office took on a role as indepedent advisor to the SCOTUS has any bearing upon today is simply disingenous. John Roberts and the office of SG wrote their brief on behalf of the abortion clinic bombers. Nothing neutral about it. You are still GUILTY of wrongness. I'll amend it down to aggrevated from gross. I'm usually not that lenient.
What I object to are the implications that Roberts (1)briefed as he did because of secret support for Operation rescue/clinic bombings; (2) Roberts would not have briefed in a similar fashion in a case where the parties were 'unconservative', such as eco-protestors.
I can agree with objection one. I have no reason to believe Roberts secretly supports Operation Rescue, he has stated otherwise. His pro-bono work for the gay rights group in Romer v. Evans seems to bolster your objection to number two, but I am not sold just yet.
|
|
| 44 | Toral
ID: 53422511 Tue, Aug 16, 2005, 18:53
|
If we're having a substantive discussion....
I will concede that in making his brief, Roberts promulgated the Administration's judicial philosophy. To be specific, a Clinton S-G would have argued the other side -- would have changed the SG position, and there is nothing wrong with that. However I firmly maintain that Roberts' position was dictated by legal views about the proper reach of 42 U.S.C. 1985(3), nothing more, nothing less.
John Roberts and the office of SG wrote their brief on behalf of the abortion clinic bombers.
There was one bomber among 17 or 18 defendants.
The whole "abortion bomber" argument is very retrograde. The ACLU regularly defends Nazis and Communists. No one sensible holds that against them. They aren't defending them personally or their beliefs -- they're defending their understanding of the constitutional right of free speech.
I imagine you run into from time to time people disparaging criminal lawyers "because they defend guilty people."
Likewise Roberts. The identity of the parties, I believe, carried no weight with him whatsoever.
Furthermore, to argue that back in the powdered wig days the SG office took on a role as indepedent advisor to the SCOTUS has any bearing upon today
Justice Ginsburg's quote indicates that the SG still does, at least in technical, no-hot-button cases.
Toral
|
|
| 45 | Pancho Villa
ID: 519522811 Sat, May 13, 2006, 08:34
|
Here's a headline I never thought I'd see. Murdoch, Hillary Alliance
The New York State Democratic senator will be throwing a re-election fundraising bash that month, hosted by none other than the News Corp. (nyse: NWS - news - people ) chief executive and chairman himself.
|
|
| 46 | Tree
ID: 1411442914 Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 09:06
|
Lieberman vows to run as independent
to me, this is the epitome of the problem with the Democratic party. Lieberman is not the direction i believe democrats should go in. once upon a time, i believed he should be vice-president, but his endless support of the war in Iraq put in him a direction that was counter that of most in the democratic party...
|
|
| 47 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 374522815 Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 09:44
|
In my opinion, that Dems think Lieberman "is the epitome of the problem with the Democratic party" is one of the major problems with the Democratic Party.
The much bigger issue is the Democrats' inability cohesivley step out from behind the skirt of simple opposition. They only have titular leaders right now, no one who is able to focus party politics into a cohesive directive. Reid, Pelosi and Dean are all weak characters, divisive both internally and with swing voters. I suspect that with success this November and the emergence of a couple of strong presidential candidates who can bring focus to the party, things could turn around. But pointing to a case like Lieberman as the big thing holding them back is shortsighted and typical of the party as it is.
Leiberman wasn't the only prominant Democrat in Congress who wants to stay in Iraq.
|
|
| 48 | Perm Dude
ID: 107399 Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 10:09
|
Nice post, MITH. The "progressive" wing of the Democratic party now will brook no dissent from their line. Divisive politics rule, and the measure of a Democratic now is how much you are against the Republicans.
Dems are in for a short rule. A party can ride oppositional politics to office, but you won't be there long.
|
|
| 49 | Boxman
ID: 45742110 Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 10:13
|
Mith: the emergence of a couple of strong presidential candidates who can bring focus to the party
Who do you see emerging as uniting leaders of the Democratic Party? Someone who can rally the more sane elements of the party and appeal to swing voters.
|
|
| 50 | Tree
ID: 1411442914 Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 10:20
|
Leiberman is out of touch with what the American people want. the majority of Americans are opposed to the war.
|
|
| 51 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 374522815 Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 10:40
|
The majority of Americans think the war was a mistake. That isn't quite as relevant as many think since we can't change the fact that the thing has already happened.
That said, to my knowledge, the majority of Americans do not think we should pull out of the war. Unless I'm mistaken, Leiberman is more in touch with what the American people want than the Democratic leadership. And Democrat Primary voters in CT.
|
|
| 52 | Perm Dude
ID: 107399 Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 10:45
|
Sure. But insisting on a litmus-test of opposition misses the point.
|
|
| 53 | Seattle Zen
ID: 46315247 Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 10:59
|
It took tweleve years but the Dems finally figured out how to act as a minority. Back in 1994 with Gingrich and his "Contract on America" the Reps showed some idealogical backbone, giving rapid right wing radio wingnuts something to rally around. People bought it and they have had the majority in the House ever since.
All I ever hear around here is, "what do the Dems stand for?" Consensus building is not standing for anything. Lamont is far more progressive than Lieberman and his ass whuppin' should embolden other liberals to throw out collaborators with the present regime. The Bush Admin.'s poll numbers are at record lows, a large percentage of Americans think of his actions regarding the war in Iraq are criminal. There needs to be a party that offers a choice in the matter. Joe Lieberman didn't offer the voters in Conn. an oposition candidate. I'm glad he's gone. A new, vigorous Democratic Party is emerging.
|
|
| 54 | Perm Dude
ID: 107399 Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 11:19
|
I sure hope so. If by "vigorous" you mean "standing for something instead of just against something."
It's great to be envigorated. Would be better to actually have a plan.
|
|
| 55 | prefek
ID: 533452911 Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 13:11
|
Let me preface by saying I respect Lieberman and think he would probably make the more competent congressman. I do think that he is power-hungry and I'm uncomfortable with that. Bob Dole resigned his senate seat in 1996, Lieberman did not in 2000. Now, having lost he does seem intent on holding his seat, despite what would be real costs to his former party.
PD #48: A party can ride oppositional politics to office, but you won't be there long.
I'd say step one is just getting in. It's a lot easier to affect change in government from the inside.
MITH #51: the majority of Americans do not think we should pull out of the war. Unless I'm mistaken, Leiberman is more in touch with what the American people want
Possibly, but it seems like he is out of touch with Connecticut Democrats, who in turn do seem like they want the US to pull out of Iraq relatively soon.
I doubt Lamont could've pulled it off in a more centrist state, but regardless it does send a message to Dems to provide a clear choice vs. Reps in Nov of 2006 and 2008. And I'd say thats a victory to whoever wants to see the opposition to the current administration develop a backbone.
|
|
| 56 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 14:24
|
but it seems like he is out of touch with Connecticut Democrats
Agreed. And I referred to them and their preference in my post. But I was responding to Tree's contention that Lieberman is "out of touch with what the American people want".
The singular issue of whether we should have a timeline to pull out of Iraq is currently far too divisive among congressional Dems to try to build consensus around. Consider that several legislative attempts were made in June to have all troops out of Iraq by the end of the year. Less than 30% of Democrat Senators supported the measure. In the House support was better but still only about 2/3.
There are so many failures of this administartion to cohesively rally around. Clinging to this pullout issue now to the point of chastizing party members who don't agree will only exascerbate division among Democrats, not bring them together. Its just fine for there to be a rift on a major policy at this point (like the RvW rift among Republicans in the 90s) as long as the party has enough other issues to rally together on.
|
|
| 57 | boikin
ID: 400291013 Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 14:48
|
i was sadded to see that he lost we need more centrist in government than less. With that said the democrats need something to stand for which they still seem they do not or they do it is "we are not the repuplicans" which in my book is worse than standing for nothing at least when you stand for nothing you can have the freedom to make your own choices.
|
|
| 58 | walk Dude
ID: 32928238 Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 15:33
|
A view I read in today's NY Times: ******************
August 9, 2006 Editorial Revenge of the Irate Moderates
The defeat of Senator Joseph Lieberman at the hands of a little-known Connecticut businessman is bound to send a message to politicians of both parties that voters are angry and frustrated over the war in Iraq. The primary upset was not, however, a rebellion against the bipartisanship and centrism that Mr. Lieberman said he represented in the Senate. Instead, Connecticut Democrats were reacting to the way those concepts have been perverted by the Bush White House.
Ned Lamont, a relative political novice, said he ran against Mr. Lieberman because he was offended by the senator’s sunny descriptions of what was happening in Iraq and his denunciation of Democrats who criticized the administration’s handling of the war. Many other people in Connecticut may have felt that sense of frustration, but no one else had the money and moxie to do what Mr. Lamont did. Mr. Lieberman was stunned to find himself on the defensive, and it was only in the last few weeks that the 18-year veteran mounted a desperate campaign to reclaim his party’s support.
Senator Lieberman says he will run as an independent in November, taking on Mr. Lamont and the Republican, Alan Schlesinger. Mr. Schlesinger is a very weak candidate, but Mr. Lieberman should consider the risk of splitting his party if the Republicans are able to convince Mr. Schlesinger to drop out of the race in favor of a stronger nominee.
Mr. Lieberman’s supporters have tried to depict Mr. Lamont and his backers as wild-eyed radicals who want to punish the senator for working with Republicans and to force the Democratic Party into a disastrous turn toward extremism. It’s hard to imagine Connecticut, which likes to be called the Land of Steady Habits, as an encampment of left-wing isolationists, and it’s hard to imagine Mr. Lamont, who worked happily with the Republicans in Greenwich politics, leading that kind of revolution.
The rebellion against Mr. Lieberman was actually an uprising by that rare phenomenon, irate moderates. They are the voters who have been unnerved over the last few years as the country has seemed to be galloping in a deeply unmoderate direction. A war that began at the president’s choosing has degenerated into a desperate, bloody mess that has turned much of the world against the United States. The administration’s contempt for international agreements, Congressional prerogatives and the authority of the courts has undermined the rule of law abroad and at home.
Yet while all this has been happening, the political discussion in Washington has become a captive of the Bush agenda. Traditional beliefs like every person’s right to a day in court, or the conviction that America should not start wars it does not know how to win, wind up being portrayed as extreme. The middle becomes a place where senators struggle to get the president to volunteer to obey the law when the mood strikes him. Attempting to regain the real center becomes a radical alternative.
When Mr. Lieberman told The Washington Post, “I haven’t changed. Events around me have changed,” he actually put his finger on his political problem. His constituents felt that when the White House led the country into a disastrous international crisis and started subverting the nation’s basic traditions, Joe Lieberman should have changed enough to take a lead in fighting back. ************
I'm pleased with this outcome, and not thrilled in Lieberman's contention that Lamont was playing to partisan politics. I find Lieberman's support for the Bush admin to be way off base, and his recent attempts before the primary to counter that perception desparate. I think Lieberman should not run as an indepedent, and hope he changes his mind on this one.
- walk
|
|
| 59 | boikin
ID: 400291013 Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 15:40
|
i find this editorial hilarious to think it says the war Iraq made the world dislike us, please that happened way before and secondly it argues that this is a revolution from the middle. Middle is where you agree with one party some times and the other parties other times the middle is not where you say the other party is uniformly wrong.
|
|
| 60 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 15:40
|
I find Lieberman's support for the Bush admin to be way off base
Exactly what support are you referring to here, Walk?
|
|
| 61 | walk Dude
ID: 32928238 Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 15:43
|
Hey MITH, I was referring to Lieberman's support of the Iraq war and Bush's decision to invade.
boikin: There's a section in the NY Times where one can post commments to editorials. You tend to see a lot of different viewpoints in these comments...You should post your reaction/reply there; it would be a good contribution.
- walk
|
|
| 62 | walk Dude
ID: 32928238 Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 15:50
|
Hi, boikin. I disagree on your point that the Iraq war did not make the world hate us. If the world already did hate as, as you say, then I would add that they hate us a lot more cos of it, and our other foreign policies. A lot more.
Regarding the editorial, I think the notion that the "middle" made a statement was basically saying it was not a hardcore radical liberal constituency that voted down Lieberman, but that Lieberman was so far right, middle of the ground Democrats were fed up with him and his more Republican-like views. That's the read I took (correct or not) from the editorial.
I don't live in Connecticut, but it is pretty close by, and I think (MITH, Tree, you thoughts too here) the political attitudes there are similar to downstate NY.
- walk
|
|
| 63 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 15:50
|
hilarious to think it says the war Iraq made the world dislike us
Well its certainly true that there was plenty enough international disdain for America prior to the Bush presidency but remember that after 9/11 there was international empathy for us that led to support that was unprecedented in my lifetime. And this support was not dispelled by by the war in Afghanistan. Indeed, it was during the buildup to the Iraq War when it began to wane.
Thats not to say that we'd be the darlings of the globe today if the Iraq War hadn't ever happened but I take no issue with the statement, "A war that began at the president’s choosing has degenerated into a desperate, bloody mess that has turned much of the world against the United States."
|
|
| 64 | boikin
ID: 400291013 Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 15:57
|
when i ment the world i was thinking the middle east i guess though still i think that world dislike or like for us was not based on the Iraq war. i think the iraq war is ralling cry for countries as evidence against us and that if there was not an iraq war they would have found something else to use.
|
|
| 65 | walk Dude
ID: 32928238 Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 16:02
|
I dunno boikin. I dunno. I don't have many friends abroad, but those I do have say that anti-Americanism, at least in Europe, has really increased a lot since Cheney/Bush took over...that coincided with the Iraq more, not exactly, but to a large degree. I think anti-American sentiment grew elsewhere as well (middle east). I wonder what the next president will do about this...a lot of work to get us righted, if that's deemed a priority (and feasible).
- walk
|
|
| 66 | walk Dude
ID: 32928238 Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 16:04
|
Here's another viewpoint from an editor of The New Republic, that the NYT included: *************** August 9, 2006 Op-Ed Contributor The Lieberman Lesson By NOAM SCHEIBER Washington
IF you asked Senator Joseph I. Lieberman why he faced the fight of his life in yesterday’s Democratic primary in Connecticut, the answer would likely be “Iraq.”
It’s basically an argument by deduction. Mr. Lieberman has repeatedly said that his endorsements from a who’s who of environmentalists, abortion rights groups and labor unions certify that he’s a Democrat in good standing. The war, he has suggested, was the only major issue on which he dissented from his party. So the fact that many Democratic voters turned on him in the primary must mean that the party has become intolerant of dissenting foreign policy views.
In truth, Mr. Lieberman’s problem wasn’t so much the war as the perception that he’s a less than reliable partisan. To see why you probably have to go back to his overly civil performance during the 2000 presidential campaign. Or to his 1998 speech denouncing President Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky. Or to his occasional flirtation with school vouchers. Or to his ... well, you get the idea.
But Mr. Lieberman is right about one thing: there was a time when the support of key Democratic interest groups would have more than made up for such heresies. That he could not depend on that traditional lifeline this time should be alarming even for those who hoped for his defeat.
Consider the way Democratic politics has worked for most of the last 40 years. If you were a Democratic member of Congress, pretty much the only way to earn yourself a primary challenger was to oppose a powerful local interest group on an issue it deemed critical. If you represented a Rust Belt district, for example, you could all but count on winning your party’s nomination every two years as long as you voted with the local union on trade legislation.
Under this old model, Mr. Lieberman was an all-star. He was a reliable vote on what Connecticut liberals care about: defending the right to abortion, fighting oil drilling in the Alaskan Arctic, raising the minimum wage. When he did depart from Democratic orthodoxy, it usually involved attacking constituencies with little influence in his state, like Hollywood movie producers.
But over the last six years this old model has broken down. As anyone who hasn’t been living in a cave knows, traditional Democratic interest groups have steadily lost ground to a more partisan, progressive movement skilled at using the Internet to communicate and raise money. The most visible faces of the new movement are the thousands of political bloggers — and their millions of readers — who delighted in panning Mr. Lieberman these last several months.
But the movement also consists of national fund-raising and advocacy groups like MoveOn.org and Democracy for America (the current incarnation of Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential campaign). Call them the counter-Bushies, after the president whose singular talent it is to drive them to paroxysms of rage.
What matters to the counter-Bushies is basically the opposite of what mattered to the traditional interest groups. The new gang doesn’t care so much about any one issue; it wants Democrats to present a united, and generally liberal, front. (According to a Pew Research Center survey released last year, more than 80 percent of Democracy for America supporters consider themselves liberal, versus less than 30 percent of all Democrats.)
But to discuss the counter-Bushies’ approach strictly in terms of substance doesn’t do them justice. Often they care as much about style as about issues — they want Democrats to denounce Republicans loudly and stridently, and to block the administration’s agenda whenever possible.
Oddly, a party in which the counter-Bushies have replaced the traditional interests may even move rightward in particular cases. Under the new model, for example, our old Rust Belt congressman can probably buck the local union on trade. But the changes do make the party more liberal over all, because our congressman must now make up what he lost in labor backing with support from the counter-Bushies. He can only do that by stridently denouncing the Republican Party and racking up a more liberal voting record.
The flip side of this calculus for that Rust Belt congressman is that simply voting the right way on trade no longer suffices. Labor has lost the power to deliver him the nomination, just like it’s lost the power to sandbag him.
This is something Mr. Lieberman came to understand far too late. By contrast, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the minority leader, may be one of the most successful politicians of the new era. He initially supported the war in Iraq, but today he’s viewed as one of the more reliable anti-Bush votes in Congress.
Perhaps more important, Mr. Reid is one of the more effective Democrats when it comes to denouncing and disrupting the Republican agenda. He routinely outfoxes his Republican counterpart, Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, as when he frustrated Republican efforts to tie a rollback of the estate tax to a bill raising the minimum wage. The rank and file revere him for it. According to a poll last year, roughly three-quarters of liberals who had formed an opinion of Mr. Reid had a favorable impression of him.
There’s no doubt this new arrangement has a lot to recommend it. A party should stand for more than the sum of its interest groups. Anyone who doesn’t think so needs only review, say, the 1984 presidential campaign, in which opponents successfully attacked Walter F. Mondale as a captive of big labor.
But the old interest group system had at least one key advantage. In principle, it was capable of producing winning candidates in every part of the country, because it gave Democrats more ideological or partisan room on more issues.
Mr. Lieberman, it should be pointed out, probably abused this flexibility. But over the years many Democrats, among them Rust Belt politicians like Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania, used it to remain viable in districts that were more conservative than the party’s liberal wing.
The counter-Bushies typically respond that they’re pragmatic enough to know when pressuring fellow Democrats helps the party and when it hurts. And to their credit, they’ve taken it easy on moderate Democratic senators from red states, including Bill Nelson of Florida and Ben Nelson of Nebraska. As a general rule, they try to favor the most liberal candidate who can win a race, not the most liberal candidate period.
But the rising influence of the counter-Bushies raises two big problems. First, their judgment may be flawed when it comes to questions of electability. After all, many believed that Howard Dean — a man who imploded during his first test, the Iowa caucuses — could win a presidential election.
Second, the demise of the old interest group model makes it tough for Democrats who don’t share the counter-Bushies’ liberalism to enter politics, since the structure that traditionally supported them may no longer exist. For example, even though today the counter-Bushies generally support the Senate campaign of Bob Casey, the Pennsylvania state treasurer and son of a former Democratic governor, the socially conservative Casey dynasty was built with strong support from organized labor.
LIKEWISE, Mr. Reid may be pretty close to an ideal political tactician for the age of the counter-Bushies. But as a young politician in Nevada, he was known more for his opposition to abortion rights, to the equal rights amendment and to some restrictions on gun control than he was for his anti-Republican salvos. Without a socially moderate constituency like organized labor having pull within the party, it’s unlikely that he would have ever been elected to the Senate — and unlikely that future Harry Reids will be able to win the lower offices that prepare them for federal races. That’s a shame, because while Democrats may feel that they no longer have any use for Mr. Lieberman, they need all the Harry Reids they can get. Interest group liberalism is a lousy way to run a party. But it may be better than the alternatives.
Noam Scheiber is a senior editor at The New Republic. ************
|
|
| 67 | Perm Dude
ID: 107399 Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 16:05
|
Some, certainly, need no excuse to dislike the US. But there is a vast middle ground of people who feel put out by the "for us or against us" attitude of Bush, as well as their dislike (and open disdain) of international agreements on a wide range of issues.
I agree with walk that we are seeing a backlash against the Bush/Cheney policies rather than the natural background noise of some anti-Americanism. What Bush/Cheney have done is give those anti-Americans ammunition in their cause, while giving others who might otherwise support the US very little incentive to do so.
|
|
| 68 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 16:05
|
if there was not an iraq war they would have found something else to use
Maybe, but there wouldn't likely be the harsh consensus against us that there is today. I don't recall it ever being nearly this bad during Bush41 and Clinton years.
|
|
| 69 | walk Dude
ID: 32928238 Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 16:15
|
Yeah guys, I also think that the current Israel-Lebanon-Iran/Hezbollah etc war is creating further anti-American sentiment cos we're being perceived as the one's who are blind to the killing in Lebanon (an ally), and holding up cease-fire talks. That we stand behind Israel "no matter what."
More NY Times fodder, and apologies for steering this thread off-topic, but I thought this was a very interesting article in view of this context:
Arab Reformers Being Drowned Out
|
|
| 70 | boikin
ID: 400291013 Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 16:16
|
MITH that is good piont. It does make me wonder if maybe it was and we where not seeing it yet. Think of it this way with the fall of the USSR half of the world lost its primary 'evil' influence. Maybe the dislike we see against us is result of imbalance in world. I am not saying i agree with idea but to some extent it would make sense it is much easier to please unhappy people by allowing them to target there anger else where, and with us playing right into there hands probably does not help matters.
|
|
| 71 | Tree
ID: 1411442914 Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 16:18
|
i find this editorial hilarious to think it says the war Iraq made the world dislike us, please that happened way before
after 9/11, the world gathered around, and shared our pain with us. they aided us. they consoled us. they offered whatever they could. the tide had turned, and suddenly, the world was one.
but that changed dramatically the day we went into Iraq. the world's attitude changed toward us and our Cowboy president.
9/11 was horrid. i live here where it happened. but, it also brought the entire world closer. We had a real opportunity to make the world a better place, but GW Bush had an agenda, and damned if he was going to go down in history as anything other than a mass murderer.
|
|
| 72 | boikin
ID: 400291013 Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 16:23
|
no the more and more i think about it we play into the hands of haters with W at the helm but the distaste they had for us was allways there. Our foriegn policy since ww2 has been in support of spliting the world i dont think they end with 911.
|
|
| 73 | walk Dude
ID: 32928238 Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 16:27
|
I think you've said it both ways, boikin, yet it's more in agreement. I think my view at least is that the anti-Americanism is on a continuum, and it moved a long ways toward the "anti" side of that continuum after the Iraq war. Maybe we disagree on the effect the Bushies have had on Anti-Americanism, but I think it's to a large extent. Yet, I also don't know how much the Bushies really care. Nice bed they've made for us. No wonder they want to build a wall around the country.
- walk
|
|
| 74 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 20:03
|
Boxman 49 Who do you see emerging as uniting leaders of the Democratic Party? Someone who can rally the more sane elements of the party and appeal to swing voters.
Its not an issue of sanity, whatever you mean by that. I don't think Howard Dean is insane and I should take back my inclusion of him in my 'weak character' comment. He's not a weak character. And I don't believe he's nearly the panderer that Pelosi and Reid are. But he's too often and too far outside of the mainstream to be the mouthpiece of a mainstrem political party.
Currently there are no such uniting leaders. Once the 2008 election season starts, I belive Gore and Hillary both command the necessary respect within the party to bring it together. And Hillary is certainly smart enough to bring the common issues to focus and direction.
|
|
| 75 | Perm Dude
ID: 107399 Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 20:09
|
Wes Clark. Watch him.
Also, Bill Richardson.
|
|
| 76 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 374522815 Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 20:59
|
Both might be very good candidates, tho I don't know that either commands the respect within the party necessary to bring it together. Perhaps. But you know it takes more than just being a centrist.
|
|
| 77 | Seattle Zen
ID: 46315247 Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 21:43
|
Wes Clark. Watch him. Why? For a good laugh? I mean at him, not with him.
Wesley Clark has no curb appeal, is far too conservative and will go down in history way down the list of wannabes like Piere Du Pont and Birch Bayh.
|
|
| 78 | Boldwin
ID: 46651516 Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 21:57
|
Wes Clark is the kind of unprincipled empty shell that the kingmakers can easily imprint whatever they want across him, hand him their rubber stamp. But he is really a stalkng horse. No one takes him seriously. He serves as a placeholder till Hillary makes her run official.
|
|
| 79 | Perm Dude
ID: 107399 Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 22:19
|
Zen: Clinton had all of those qualities. And represents virtually a singular success of Democrats nationwide. The rush to the left of many "progressives" will leave a large number of moderate Democrats (and Republicans, for that matter) with the need for representation.
Like it or not, Dems need to run to the middle to win and govern. Otherwise it'll be one last hurrah and a huge wasted opportunity and long-term survival.
|
|
| 81 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 374522815 Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 22:55
|
B unprincipled empty shell...
Where does you opinion of his lack of principles come from?
Why do I have this feeling you'd be describing him as a newbie/unknown just getting his feet wet in 2004, telling us how it will be intriguing to see where he plants his flags... if he were a Republican ?
You might be right, I haven't paid much attention to him. But he is a very interesting dark horse imo.
PD Like it or not, Dems need to run to the middle to win and govern.
Agreed. They are by design and choice a mainstream political party and their success as such is primarily dependant on how well they appeal to the mainstream.
Seattle Zen 53 All I ever hear around here is, "what do the Dems stand for?" Consensus building is not standing for anything. Lamont is far more progressive than Lieberman and his ass whuppin' should embolden other liberals to throw out collaborators with the present regime.
Like you, I resent party big politics and loathe the two party system but the Democrat Party is what it is. In my opinion, trying to shift it toward your perspectives and (in some cases, anyway) away from the mainstream will only undermine it. I suppose its easy for me to say that to you since they probably align more frequently with my politics than yours. But clearly, like me, you see them as having the better chance for undoing and making right some of the damage that the current regime has done to the country and the world.
Given their record of success, I think it best to work on improving their chances at winning before refining them from your and our less universal pespectives.
|
|
| 82 | Perm Dude
ID: 107399 Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 23:03
|
With both Lieberman and Cynthia McKinney going down on the same night, I think we have to be a bit cautious in drawing too many conclusions about the direction this is pointing to.
However, Lieberman really hurt himself in his race by playing himself up to be the standard bearer for the Democratic middle, all the while practicing the politics of Bush: "You are either for me or for the extremists." And "I have to run as an independent to save the Democratic Party from itself." (It is also important to note here that the RNC has not endorsed the Republican winner of their own primary--presumably holding out for Joe).
Todd Gitlin with some good points.
Overall, I'd have to say that the only one making the Lieberman race about where the party is headed is Joe Lieberman. And he just got voted out for being out of touch. Probably not the best guy to be framing this question.
|
|
| 83 | Boldwin
ID: 46651516 Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 23:12
|
MITH
My assessment comes from the last few times he weighed in as a deer caught in the headlights lightweight setting his sails to catch the political winds.
He is an owned property of the Jackson Stephens empire. The same people who have financed every president since Jimmy Carter. The sort of people rich enuff to throw money away on a faux presidential candidate/stalking horse/placeholder for their real candidate.
|
|
| 84 | Pancho Villa
ID: 366352418 Wed, Aug 09, 2006, 23:56
|
I'm suprised no one has mentioned Edwards.
He escaped the 2004 election mostly unscathed, and made Cheney look like the curmudgeon he is in their debates.
|
|
| 85 | Perm Dude
ID: 2073108 Thu, Aug 10, 2006, 09:04
|
Edwards was too swarmy for many I know. He was in a good spot as VP, had an easy target in Cheney, and escaped most scrutiny because his job, as VP, isn't all that hard.
|
|
| 86 | walk Dude
ID: 32928238 Thu, Aug 10, 2006, 11:40
|
Another piece from the NY Times in context of the Lieberman-Lamont outcome: *********************** August 10, 2006 Op-Ed Columnist Party No. 3 By DAVID BROOKS
There are two major parties on the ballot, but there are three major parties in America. There is the Democratic Party, the Republican Party and the McCain-Lieberman Party.
All were on display Tuesday night.
The Democratic Party was represented by its rising force — Ned Lamont on a victory platform with the net roots exulting before him and Al Sharpton smiling just behind. The Republican Party was represented by its collapsing old guard — scandal-tainted Tom DeLay trying to get his name removed from the November ballot. And the McCain-Lieberman Party was represented by Joe Lieberman himself, giving a concession speech that explained why polarized primary voters shouldn’t be allowed to define the choices in American politics.
The McCain-Lieberman Party begins with a rejection of the Sunni-Shiite style of politics itself. It rejects those whose emotional attachment to their party is so all-consuming it becomes a form of tribalism, and who believe the only way to get American voters to respond is through aggression and stridency.
The flamers in the established parties tell themselves that their enemies are so vicious they have to be vicious too. They rationalize their behavior by insisting that circumstances have forced them to shelve their integrity for the good of the country. They imagine that once they have achieved victory through pulverizing rhetoric they will return to the moderate and nuanced sensibilities they think they still possess.
But the experience of DeLay and the net-root DeLays in the Democratic Party amply demonstrates that means determine ends. Hyper-partisans may have started with subtle beliefs, but their beliefs led them to partisanship and their partisanship led to malice and malice made them extremist, and pretty soon they were no longer the same people.
The McCain-Lieberman Party counters with constant reminders that country comes before party, that in politics a little passion energizes but unmarshaled passion corrupts, and that more people want to vote for civility than for venom.
On policy grounds, too, the McCain-Lieberman Party is distinct. On foreign policy, it agrees with Tony Blair (who could not win a Democratic primary in the U.S. today): The civilized world faces an arc of Islamic extremism that was not caused by American overreaction, and that will only get stronger if America withdraws.
On fiscal policy, the McCain-Lieberman Party sees a Republican Party that will not raise taxes and a Democratic Party that will not cut benefits, and understands that to avoid bankruptcy the country must do both.
On globalization, the McCain-Lieberman Party believes that free trade reduces poverty but that government must invest in human capital so people can compete. It believes in comprehensive immigration reform.
The McCain-Lieberman Party sees Democrats in the grip of teachers’ unions and Republicans who let corporations write environmental rules. It sees two parties that depend on the culture war for internal cohesion and that make abortion a litmus test.
It sees two traditions immobilized to trench warfare.
The McCain-Lieberman Party is emerging because the war with Islamic extremism, which opened new fissures and exacerbated old ones, will dominate the next five years as much as it has dominated the last five. It is emerging because of deep trends that are polarizing our politics. It is emerging because social conservatives continue to pull the GOP rightward (look at how Representative Joe Schwarz, a moderate Republican, was defeated by a conservative rival in Michigan). It is emerging because highly educated secular liberals are pulling the Democrats upscale and to the left. (Lamont’s voters are rich, and 65 percent call themselves liberals, compared with 30 percent of Democrats nationwide.)
The history of third parties is that they get absorbed into one of the existing two, and that will probably happen here. John McCain and Hillary Clinton will try to reconcile their centrist approaches with the hostile forces in their own parties. And maybe they will succeed (McCain has a better chance, since the ideologues on the right feel vulnerable while the ideologues on the left, perpetually two years behind the national mood, think the public wants more rage).
But amid the hurly-burly of the next few years — the continuing jihad, Speaker Pelosi, a possible economic slowdown — the old parties could become even more inflamed. Both could reject McCain-Liebermanism.
At that point things really get interesting.
|
|
| 87 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Thu, Aug 10, 2006, 11:49
|
Excellent column.
|
|
| 88 | Perm Dude
ID: 2073108 Thu, Aug 10, 2006, 14:02
|
I agree, MITH, though the beginning is a lot stronger than the end.
BTW, the 2004 proposal on Iraq by Wes Clark was very good--probably the best on the table at the time.
But he's just an ampty shell. And too conservative.
|
|
| 89 | Seattle Zen
ID: 46315247 Thu, Aug 10, 2006, 14:09
|
PD post 79
Clinton had all of those qualities.
You couldn't be more wrong. Clinton always had tons of charisma, a long track record at a very young age and only those left of Mumia Abu Jamal claimed Clinton was conservative in 1992.
You can't spin the fact that Clark has no traction with anyone. He is simply not popular and if you thought the Swift Boat Liars were vicious in 2004, his handling of the Yugoslav UN mission would destroy him - he was relieved of command.
|
|
| 90 | Perm Dude
ID: 2073108 Thu, Aug 10, 2006, 14:29
|
I don't know if you enjoy putting on the Clinton blinders or not. Remember NAFTA? GATT? The expansion of the federal drug laws? Federal death penalty? Defense of Marriage Act? Welfare reform?
All either initiated by, or enthusiastically supported by, Clinton.
You can talk about 1992 all you want. Clinton was a moderate Dem, with positions far to the right of what you think a Democratic candidate needs to possess to win.
|
|
| 91 | Seattle Zen
ID: 46315247 Thu, Aug 10, 2006, 14:48
|
PD
I said Wes Clark appeals to no one, is too conservative, and will be remembered as an lower also-ran.
You said, "Clinton had those qualities". The only answer to that is "no". We are talking about qualities of presidential candidates. In 1992, when Clinton was running for Pres., he was charismatic, completely dominated the women vote, and campaigned on leaving the last 12 years of Republican executive rule by promoting gays in the military, completely revamping health care in our country... basically every single imaginable policy he would be a liberal alternative to George HW Bush.
You bring up his centrist accomplishments as President. How are they relevant to his campaign in 1992? The political realities hit home hard in 1993-4 and only then did he "trianglulate".
The only thing Clark and Clinton have in common is that they are both men from Arkansas. That's it.
|
|
| 92 | Perm Dude
ID: 2073108 Thu, Aug 10, 2006, 14:56
|
I think you continue to gloss over his conservative tendencies as you re-write your history. The cool thing about Clinton is that, pretty much no matter where you are on the political spectrum, you can feel a kinship with the guy. The best politician this country has ever had.
Clinton won in 1992 because he was not weak on his right side, and took away many of the arguments that the Right used against Dukakis. Weak on crime? Clinton would point to the fact that he was not only pro-death penalty, but killed off more prisoners than Bush. End of that advantage.
Even in the late 80s one could not be a liberal and win in the South. And Clinton wasn't and did.
Charismatic, yes. All those other things, yes. I never denied that. I'm simply putting the flame to the argument that being "too conservative" is a deal breaker for the Democratic nominee. Whether it is Clark or Bill Richardson (who you notably have remained silent about).
|
|
| 93 | Perm Dude
ID: 2073108 Thu, Aug 10, 2006, 15:11
|
Just to be more clear: Bush I was unable to pull a Willie Horton on Clinton, since Willie Horton would never have gotten out. In fact, Clinton likely would have pulled the switch on the guy.
And before running in 1992, in 1985 Clinton founded and was the head of the DLC. The same group which Howard Dean called "the Republican wing of the Democratic Party."
|
|
| 94 | Seattle Zen
ID: 46315247 Thu, Aug 10, 2006, 15:49
|
I've been quiet about Richardson because I've never heard him express interest in the Presidency, that and I don't know much about his governorship of New Mexico. I liked him in Clinton's Cabinet.
The way you flippantly discuss execution of prisoners is crass and unbecoming.
|
|
| 95 | Perm Dude
ID: 2073108 Thu, Aug 10, 2006, 16:06
|
I'm merely talking about it as a policy point. I'm against the death penalty (and, for that matter, believe abortion should be extremely, extremely rare).
|
|
| 96 | Boldwin
ID: 46651516 Thu, Aug 10, 2006, 20:33
|
Aparently no one read my last link. Links to uber-liberals mostly.
|
|
| 97 | biliruben
ID: 535193010 Wed, Aug 16, 2006, 11:15
|
Senator Lieberman has fired most of his senior aides and energized his broad base of donors.
NYT
Is it possible that I am still not cynical enough? Should I find that funny?
|
|
| 98 | Perm Dude
ID: 2270168 Wed, Aug 16, 2006, 11:46
|
Clearly it was the aides that were holding back his supporters.
|
|
| 99 | biliruben
ID: 535193010 Wed, Aug 16, 2006, 12:03
|
No, not his supporters. His doners.
|
|
| |
| 101 | Jag
ID: 14849321 Wed, Aug 16, 2006, 12:42
|
Since when did the Democratic Party have any direction? They are are a hodge-podge of socialists, homosexuals, unions, dopeheads, minorities, pseudo-intellectual elitists and other one trick ponies, forgoing the good of the nation in hopes their personal agenda gets puts through.
|
|
| 102 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Wed, Aug 16, 2006, 12:53
|
I'm plenty critical of the Democrat Party myself, Jag, but that's really not worth responding to.
|
|
| 103 | biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Wed, Aug 16, 2006, 13:32
|
All the self-respecting dopeheads, socialists and homosexuals haven't voted democratic in years. the party's way too conservative.
|
|
| 104 | Razor
ID: 47525714 Wed, Aug 16, 2006, 13:38
|
That's not true. I think in 2004, most of them realized that Kerry was the lesser of two evils and voted accordingly, unlike in 2000 with that idiot Nader stealing a bunch of votes.
|
|
| 105 | biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Wed, Aug 16, 2006, 13:47
|
I did vote for Kerry, but then I didn't respect myself. ;)
|
|
| 106 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Wed, Aug 16, 2006, 13:49
|
Voted for Nader both times, myself. But only because it didn't matter here in NYS.
|
|
| 107 | sarge33rd
ID: 575352217 Wed, Aug 16, 2006, 13:54
|
...forgoing the good of the nation in hopes their personal agenda gets puts through.
As accurate a summation of the shrub administration as I have ever read.
|
|
| 108 | Myboyjack Dude
ID: 014826271 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 08:49
|
The problem with the Democratic Party winning right now is that they've convinced themselves that the Left Wing actually speaks for a majority of voters
The Quinnipiac University poll has Lieberman leading Lamont among registered voters 49 percent to 38 percent. Republican Alan Schlesinger gets support from 4 percent. Among likely voters, Lieberman was supported by 53 percent, compared to Lamont's 41 percent and Schlesinger's 4 percent
Against all odds, I suspect the Republicans will retain the Presidency on '08 because the Democratic Left has usurped the leadership of the Party and are nutty enough (witness this thread) to believe that Lamont's defeat of Lieberman in the primary is indicative of anything other than the failure of the Party to nominate candidates the the general public will vote for on a national level.
When I see posts here and commentary elsewhere that supports the notion that Lamont winning an activist driven election in a tiny Left Coast state menas that voters, in general, are going to embrace Lefty causes, I just have to shake my head at the dread thought of 4 more years of Republicans.
|
|
| |
| |
| 111 | Motley Crue Dude
ID: 439372011 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 09:17
|
I seem to remember the confidence bordering on arrogance in the summer of `04 of Kerry supporters.
"Oh, America is tired of Bush."
etc
And what was the final tally in the popular vote? Something on the order of a 3 million vote margin in favor of GWB, if I remember correctly. Even I thought it would be closer than that. It just goes to show, however, that just because there's a lot of noise doesn't mean there are a lot of people. It could just be a few loudmouths. Certainly seems that was the case 2 years ago.
|
|
| 112 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 09:21
|
that some 4 million people got fooled, doesnt make the final tally the "right" one. Just makes it the one that counts. Arrogance, would be better defined as claiming your superiority in the face of almost 70% opposition in the public.
|
|
| 113 | Motley Crue Dude
ID: 439372011 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 09:43
|
The right one? In a democracy, I'd define "right" as what the people voted for. I mean, I don't get this talk of wrong and right. The biggest mistake made in the Presidential race of 2004 was letting the Democrats of Iowa choose who would be the nominee. And remember, Kerry did not win by a landslide there. Edwards got plenty of votes, too. That was "wrong" in my book. I could have voted for virtually any other Democratic candidate. Kerry was the one that many people could not stomach.
Lucky Iowa is first. That must make them "right".
Huh?
|
|
| 114 | Tree
ID: 1411442914 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 10:08
|
The right one? In a democracy, I'd define "right" as what the people voted for.
so, if Adolf Hitler were elected, that would be "right"?
|
|
| 115 | Perm Dude
ID: 17746178 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 10:18
|
Hitler was lawfully elected. He didn't go "bad" until he started believing himself, and his party, above the law.
I do agree with MC, that with all the primaries front-loaded people started getting behind Kerry very early, which made the primary process less useful. There wasn't much real debate on the issues through which a candidate can emerge with any real unity.
|
|
| 116 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 10:32
|
MBJ
Against all odds, I suspect the Republicans will retain the Presidency on '08 because the Democratic Left has usurped the leadership of the Party
Currently it looks that way. But a lot can happen between now and then. Don't you think the Dems' greater concern is the impact of the shift-left on this year's elections?
|
|
| 117 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 10:32
|
...or more impending concern?
|
|
| 118 | Motley Crue Dude
ID: 439372011 Thu, Aug 17, 2006, 10:41
|
Heh, when Perm Dude is on your side, you know you're right.
Cool.
|
|
| 119 | biliruben Leader
ID: 589301110 Mon, Aug 21, 2006, 20:15
|
A good quote from Brian Jenkins, RAND's senior expert on terrorism. Kleiman thinks it's exactly the approach Dems should be using.
As the United States faces a new array of threats that arose at the end of the Cold War and were so stunningly clarified on September 11, 2001, Americans are again summoned to demonstrate courage, to draw on deep traditions of determination in the face of risk, to show self-reliance and resiliency. There has been too much fear-mongering since 9/11. We are not a nation of victims cowering under the kitchen table. We cannot expect protection against all risk. Too many Americans have died defending liberty for us to easily surrender it now to terror.
|
|
| |
| 121 | Perm Dude
ID: 58925208 Fri, Oct 20, 2006, 10:37
|
Maybe. Be it is much easier to cast protest votes against your party leader when you are in the minority. To do it when you just captured a majority for the first time in 12 years and are facing a president of the other party is quite another thing.
|
|
| 122 | Perm Dude
ID: 249362216 Sun, Oct 22, 2006, 21:25
|
Pelosi on 60 Minutes: No impeachment proceedings. "Impeachment is off the table."
Good for her. Time to bring back the civil majority back into the fold.
|
|
| 123 | Seattle Zen
ID: 46315247 Sun, Oct 22, 2006, 23:32
|
Has there every been any verification that Cheney has a pulse? Pelsoi would be a heartbeat and an echo away.
|
|
| 124 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 374522815 Mon, Oct 23, 2006, 07:14
|
Good for her.
Good for us. If she should manage to become Speaker the last thing we'd need in the next 2 years is that distraction.
|
|
| |
| 126 | Perm Dude
ID: 1191238 Mon, Oct 23, 2006, 10:04
|
I watched that interview. He would be an excellent candidate, but in this case the media is completely blowing it up.
He's a moderate Dem, who believes responsibility is as necessary as anything else. He thinks that much of the problem with today's politics is that we're asking the wrong questions--much of the debate is wrapped up in the same questions were asking from the 60's. For example, politically we continue to ask about the issue of the "size of government" but he believes people don't really care how big or small it is, as long as it works to the degree we need it to at the time.
|
|
| 127 | walk Dude
ID: 32928238 Mon, Oct 23, 2006, 10:14
|
It would be quite something, historically, if the two front-runners for the Democratic presidential nomination were an African American and a woman. I hope our country is ready. I do think Obama is more intelligent, reasonable, personable, wise and less politically motivated than many of the alternatives. I read yesterday how he smokes (the horror!), freely admits past use of marijuana and dabbling in coke. I'm curious, but fearful how his potential/hypothetical neocon opponents would use some of this personal information.
- walk
|
|
| 128 | Tree
ID: 1411442914 Mon, Oct 23, 2006, 10:16
|
It would be quite something, historically, if the two front-runners for the Democratic presidential nomination were an African American and a woman.
love to see Russ Feingold in there as well, so we can have an African-American, a woman, and a liberal Jew.
|
|
| 129 | walk Dude
ID: 32928238 Mon, Oct 23, 2006, 10:18
|
A liberal Jew? Hey, maybe we can run, too? Aaar. I wonder what'll it'll end up being...It does seem wide open right now.
- walk
|
|
| 130 | Perm Dude
ID: 1191238 Mon, Oct 23, 2006, 10:37
|
Obama and Wes Clark, perhaps.
|
|
| 131 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923 Mon, Oct 23, 2006, 10:38
|
If Obama runs...he has my vote.
|
|
| 132 | biliruben
ID: 535193010 Mon, Oct 23, 2006, 10:56
|
An interesting commentary by Kleiman instigated by an Atrios post and ensuing flap that I admit I haven't read. I don't read Atrios for the most part, because he brings out the worst in me by appealing to my base self-rituous, liberal furry. I don't make sound judgements in that state.
Anyway, here's part of Kleiman's comment, which probably stands alone, apart from the Atrios discusion:
Conservatives have convinced many voters that aversion to warfare as a means of policy displays cowardice: real men, they say, are hawks. Atrios is right to say that a preference for violence reflects a character disorder, though he's mostly wrong to call it sociopathy; it has much more to do with sadism and narcissism.
Winston is right to say that no sane person actually prefers warfare to other means of achieving the same ends, if those ends are in fact achievable without warfare. But he's wrong, I think, to say that the relevant kind of insanity is rare enough to ignore. And the political process tends to select for that kind of insanity.
Machiavelli analyzed all of this five centuries ago.
Good people, he points out, don't like to hurt others; they prefer generosity to stinginess and mercy to cruelty. But stinginess and cruelty are necessary elements of statecraft, because a public policy of immoderate generosity and mercy boomerangs: generosity winds up by taking money from many to give it to few, and mercy winds up cruelly exposing victims to the violence of undeterred domestic predators and foreign aggressors.
So for good people — generous, merciful, compassionate people — to rule successfully from the viewpoint of those they rule, they need to learn to be able not to be good: to restrain their impulses toward generosity and mercy when it is necessary to be stingy and cruel. When it's necessary to bomb Serbia, killing lots of innocent Serbs, to stop the Serbian government from committing genocide, good rulers go ahead and order the bombing, without enthusiasm but not without resolution. They try to minimize the amount of blood they shed (as Sheldon Wolin says, they economize on the use of violence) but they don't shrink from inflicting some violence to avoid more violence. They aim at the Aristotelian mean.
The problem with this, as Machiavelli also points out, is that it's psychologically extremely difficult. It's easier for people with a cruel streak to use cruelty than it is for compassionate people to use cruelty, even in a good cause. (As Miss Hardcastle, the head of the secret police, says in C.S. Lewis's That Hideous Strength, the people who volunteer to do that sort of job are mostly the ones who get a kick out of it.)
So good, compassionate people — liberals — naturally tend to use too little violence. Everyone more or less knows that; the fact that John Wayne is a standing joke among liberals is not lost on our fellow-citizens. So there's a reasonable and natural tendency to want your rulers not to be too good. And that's how a tendency that everyone will admit is pathological gets to be valued in office-seekers, while a tendency that everyone will agree is sane gets to be viewed with distrust. Currently, that's the basic political tactic of the American right: convince the public that liberals are too nice to be entrusted with the national security (and too generous to trust with the public purse). They did it to Humphrey, McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry.
What Duncan especially resents is that some liberals, such as Peter Beinart, demand that other liberals prove their fitness to rule by endorsing pointlessly cruel policies. In strictly political terms, Beinart isn't completely wrong: the execution of Ricky Lee Rector helped Bill Clinton into the White House not despite its obvious injustice (Rector, in case you've forgotten, was so mentally defective that he asked if he could save the slice of pie from his last meal "for later") but because of it. Still, the demand that candidates prove their andreia by either acquiring or faking an enthusiasm for bloodshed remains a disgusting demand, and Duncan is right to be disgusted by it.
That doesn't justify Duncan's insistence that anyone who disagreed with him about Iraq was sadistic, stupid, or craven. But it does help explain that insistence, and partly excuses it.
What would I do if I were in charte? I'd try to find liberal leaders (e.g., Wesley Clark) who have fully absorbed both halves of the Machiavellian lesson, and who are willing but not eager to suppress their goodness when its suppression is a public necessity.
Rings true.
|
|
| 133 | biliruben
ID: 535193010 Mon, Oct 23, 2006, 11:06
|
liberal furry:
|
|
| 134 | walk Dude
ID: 32928238 Mon, Oct 23, 2006, 12:00
|
October 23, 2006 Op-Ed Columnist The Obama Bandwagon By BOB HERBERT Boston
The capacity crowd on a rainy night at the John F. Kennedy Library couldn’t have been happier. The guest of honor had been born the same year that J.F.K. was inaugurated, and now he was generating the kind of political delirium we have tended to associate with the Kennedys.
I was the interviewer that night, and as I arrived in a cab outside the library, the driver said, “Who’s on the program?” When I said, “Barack Obama,” the driver replied, “Oh, our next president.”
It’s a measure of how starved the country is for a sensible, appealing, intelligent, trustworthy leader that a man who until just a couple of years ago was an obscure state senator in Illinois is now suddenly, in the view of an awful lot of voters, the person we should install in the White House.
At the Kennedy Library forum on Friday night, Mr. Obama declined to rule out a run for the White House in 2008. In an appearance on “Meet the Press” yesterday, he made it clear that he was considering such a run.
With all due respect to Senator Obama, this is disturbing. He may be capable of being a great president. Someday. But one quick look around at the state of the nation and the world tells us that we need to be more careful than we have been in selecting our leaders. There shouldn’t be anything precipitous about the way we pick our presidents.
That said, the Barack Obama boom may well have legs. During the forum, every reference to the possibility of him running drew a roar from the audience. He’s thoughtful, funny and charismatic. And there is not the slightest ripple of a doubt that he wants to run for president.
The reason he went into politics, he said, was to be able to influence events, to make a difference. “Obviously,” he added, “the president has the most influence.”
I asked what thoughts run through his mind when he thinks about himself and the presidency. He said: “That office is so different from any other office on the planet, you have to understand that if you seek that office you have to be prepared to give your life to it. How I think about it is that you don’t make that decision unless you are prepared to make that sacrifice, that trade-off.
“What’s difficult and important for somebody like myself, who has a wonderful, forbearing wife and two gorgeous young children, is that they end up having to make some of those sacrifices with you. And that’s a profound decision that we won’t make lightly.”
I asked if he could imagine himself, at some point, making the kind of commitment he described. He said that he could, and the crowd erupted.
I asked if he might run in 2008. He said he was focused on the coming Congressional elections.
“So you have not ruled it out,” I said.
“We’ll leave it there,” he said.
The giddiness surrounding the Obama phenomenon seems to be an old-fashioned mixture of fun, excitement and a great deal of hope. His smile is electric, and when he laughs people tend to laugh with him. He’s the kind of politician who makes people feel good.
But the giddiness is crying out for a reality check. There’s a reason why so many Republicans are saying nice things about Mr. Obama, and urging him to run. They would like nothing more than for the Democrats to nominate a candidate in 2008 who has a very slender résumé, very little experience in national politics, hardly any in foreign policy — and who also happens to be black.
The Republicans may be in deep trouble, but they believe they could pretty easily put together a ticket that would chew up Barack Obama in 2008.
My feeling is that Senator Obama may well be the real deal. If I were advising him, I would tell him not to move too fast. With a few more years in the Senate, possibly with a powerful committee chairmanship if the Democrats take control, he could build a formidable record and develop the kind of toughness and savvy that are essential in the ugly and brutal combat of a presidential campaign.
After the interview at the Kennedy Library, hundreds of people lined up to have copies of Mr. Obama’s book, “The Audacity of Hope,” autographed. He signed as many as he could. Then he shook hands with everyone who remained and assured them that he would have their books delivered to his hotel, where he would sign them later that night.
He’s 45. There’s no hurry. He should take all the time he needs.
|
|
| 135 | Boxman
ID: 427471614 Mon, Oct 23, 2006, 13:36
|
If I were advising him, I would tell him not to move too fast. With a few more years in the Senate, possibly with a powerful committee chairmanship if the Democrats take control, he could build a formidable record and develop the kind of toughness and savvy that are essential in the ugly and brutal combat of a presidential campaign.
I disagree. Suppose that Obama skips out on '08 and Hillary wins. He wouldn't blow his first chance running against an incumbent of Hillary's political abilities.
So that leaves Obama until 2016 when he'll be 55. Still a spring chicken by Presidential standards, but perhaps some of the magic pixy dust he's got on now will have worn off. Or he gets a little jaded dealing with "the system" for that length of time. I also doubt the country would elect another Democrat after eight years of Hillary.
It just gives him that much more time to say something infinitely stupid and/or establish a voting record that might turn off enough of the electorate to make him unelectable.
If I were advising him, I'd tell him to strike right now while the iron is hot. It gives anti-Hillary Democrats an extremely popular and viable alternative that isn't a rehash of the same old same old like Kerry and Biden would be.
Why not run now? He'd be testing the waters, I'm certain he wouldn't have any problems raising money, and if he does lose the nomination or the actual election, he's still got enough spring in his legs to return.
I would find an Obama vs. McCain/Giuliani/Frist debate to certainly be entertaining and thought provoking. Unlike the W vs. Kerry contest where Kerry basically said how wrong the President was and where W just spoke like, well, um, W.
The 800 lb. gorilla in the room is this; Is the country (and the world for that matter even though my general attitude is that they can go to hell) ready for a black President? Could a black candidate like Obama do well in the South?
Is his huge popularity right now due to his well spokeness and the intrigue of having a black President or is it because we genuinely feel this man can lead us to a better life?
Could the average American who follows politics even on a rudimentary level tell us where he stands on the issues?
Are we informed on Obama The Man or Obama The White Knight?
I personally could care less what color my President is, but I see what the anti-Bush left calls W and I just wonder how low some far-right pundits could verbally slip or some real right wing nut jobs actually come out of the woodwork and try and racially divide us.
In the end, screw them, but I still think the question should be at least asked.
|
|
| 136 | Perm Dude
ID: 1191238 Mon, Oct 23, 2006, 13:47
|
Hilary isn't running in '08.
Obama is popular because he's well spoken, moderate, and his political instincts are already well-honed. Despite having a nasty opponent in his Senate race, he always responded with grace. And people respond to that.
Not one Dem that I've spoken to talks about Obama in terms of his race. But nearly every Republican I've talked to about him does.
|
|
| 137 | Boxman
ID: 427471614 Mon, Oct 23, 2006, 13:58
|
Hilary isn't running in '08.
I was watching the morning news and apparently Hillary said in a debate with her opponent over the weekend that she couldn't promise that she'd serve the whole term if re-elected.
But nearly every Republican I've talked to about him does.
What do they say? That's a stark contrast to my experience thus far, but I do admit that element on the far right exists.
|
|
| 138 | Myboyjack
ID: 27651610 Mon, Oct 23, 2006, 13:59
|
My feeling is that Senator Obama may well be the real deal. If I were advising him, I would tell him not to move too fast. With a few more years in the Senate, possibly with a powerful committee chairmanship if the Democrats take control, he could build a formidable record and develop the kind of toughness and savvy that are essential in the ugly and brutal combat of a presidential campaign.
Somehow, I don't think ten more years gaining influence and being influenced by the most corrupt body in the country will make him more palatable to me.
I'll take a sincere, inteligent, equipped naive over another one of the boys at the trough any day.
As for Obama in particular, someone would have to educate me as to what "moderate" position he has staked out.
|
|
| 139 | boikin
ID: 59831214 Mon, Oct 23, 2006, 14:03
|
What does he really have to lose by running now. Even if he does poorly he can allways run again and he might set up well as VP canidate for dems looking for a moderated to steal away what is left of the disinfranchised Reps.
|
|
| 140 | Perm Dude
ID: 1191238 Mon, Oct 23, 2006, 14:09
|
I've been saying for some time that Hilary isn't running. My information is coming from the inside.
Hilary, of course, won't rule out a move somewhere else if it comes up. Why would she? If a Democratic president asks her to be UN representative she would probably jump at the chance.
As for Obama, most Republicans that talk about him (to me) fall into two camps: The real yahoos ("Obama is only popular because he's black" and "Democrats are racists because the blacks in Illinois didn't vote for his black opponent" etc etc). Crazy stuff that you can't always avoid.
The others mention it in passing, as though his being black were one of several attributes: well-spoken, tall, black, good political instincts,....
I think Obama will succeed because he's moderate, not liberal. And certainly not because of his race. After all, black voters have no problem voting for whites or anyone else who seemingly share their values. And people who listen to him know this as well. Did you catch his speech at the 2004 DNC? You'll have to set aside his (obvious) remarks about Kerry, but at heart he's a "work hard, get paid" kind of Democrat.
|
|
| 141 | walk Dude
ID: 32928238 Mon, Oct 23, 2006, 14:19
|
October 23, 2006 Op-Ed Columnist Don’t Make Nice By PAUL KRUGMAN
Now that the Democrats are strongly favored to capture at least one house of Congress, they’re getting a lot of unsolicited advice, with many people urging them to walk and talk softly if they win.
I hope the Democrats don’t follow this advice — because it’s bad for their party and, more important, bad for the country. In the long run, it’s even bad for the cause of bipartisanship.
There are those who say that a confrontational stance will backfire politically on the Democrats. These are by and large the same people who told Democrats that attacking the Bush administration over Iraq would backfire in the midterm elections. Enough said.
Political considerations aside, American voters deserve to have their views represented in Congress. And according to opinion polls, most Americans are actually to the left of Congressional Democrats on issues such as health care.
In particular, the public wants politicians to stand up to corporate interests. This is clear from the latest Newsweek poll, which shows overwhelming public support for the agenda Nancy Pelosi has laid out for her first 100 hours if she becomes House speaker. The strongest support is for her plan to have Medicare negotiate with drug companies for lower prices, which is supported by 74 percent of Americans — and by 70 percent of Republicans!
What the make-nice crowd wants most of all is for the Democrats to forswear any investigations into the origins of the Iraq war and the cronyism and corruption that undermined it. But it’s very much in the national interest to find out what led to the greatest strategic blunder in American history, so that it won’t happen again.
What’s more, the public wants to know. A large majority of Americans believe both that invading Iraq was a mistake, and that the Bush administration deliberately misled us into war. And according to the Newsweek poll, 58 percent of Americans believe that investigating contracting in Iraq isn’t just a good idea, but a high priority; 52 percent believe the same about investigating the origins of the war.
Why, then, should the Democrats hold back? Because, we’re told, the country needs less divisiveness. And I, too, would like to see a return to kinder, gentler politics. But that’s not something Democrats can achieve with a group hug and a chorus of “Kumbaya.”
The reason we have so much bitter partisanship these days is that that’s the way the radicals who have taken over the Republican Party want it. People like Grover Norquist, who once declared that “bipartisanship is another name for date rape,” push for a hard-right economic agenda; people like Karl Rove make that agenda politically feasible, even though it’s against the interests of most voters, by fostering polarization, using religion and national security as wedge issues.
As long as polarization is integral to the G.O.P.’s strategy, Democrats can’t do much, if anything, to narrow the partisan divide.
Even if they try to act in a bipartisan fashion, their opponents will find a way to divide the nation — which is what happened to the great surge of national unity after 9/11. One thing we might learn from investigations is the extent to which the Iraq war itself was motivated by the desire to have another wedge issue.
There are those who believe that the partisan gap can be bridged if the Democrats nominate an attractive presidential candidate who speaks in uplifting generalities. But they must have been living under a rock these past 15 or so years. Whoever the Democrats nominate will feel the full force of the Republican slime machine. And it doesn’t matter if conservatives have nice things to say about a Democrat now. Once the campaign gets serious, they’ll suddenly question his or her patriotism and discover previously unmentioned but grievous character flaws.
The truth is that we won’t get a return to bipartisanship until or unless the G.O.P. decides that polarization doesn’t work as a political strategy. The last great era of bipartisanship began after the 1948 election, when Republicans, shocked by Harry Truman’s victory, decided to stop trying to undo the New Deal. And that example suggests that the best thing the Democrats can do, not just for their party and their country, but for the cause of bipartisanship, is what Truman did: stand up strongly for their principles.
|
|
| 142 | walk Dude
ID: 32928238 Mon, Oct 23, 2006, 14:23
|
I wonder if he's going to run? I think so. I think he'll get he support of the Dem's broadly IF they can commit early enough to think "he can win." As boxman said, I dunno if our country is ready to have a Black president, but I sure hope so. I would vote for Barack tomorrow. I do remember watching his speech at the DNC in 2004, with my wife, and we were like freakin "Yeah! yeah!" "This guy gets it, he's good."
I wonder to what extent he's gonna take this Bob Herbert approach and wait 'till he's more experienced, or strike while while he's hot and hope that the country is ready for a different kind of leader. I think he is (but what do I really know?).
- walk
|
|
| 143 | Perm Dude
ID: 479292312 Mon, Oct 23, 2006, 14:29
|
I like Krugman about half the time. That one I'll put into the "bad" pile. We need to make this race about more than getting back at Republicans, and his version of "bipartisanship" isn't bipartisan at all, but is uber-partisanship.
There is a place for that. But not right when we finally get a toe in the door.
For many, this is an election not about how Democrats can govern but about how bad Republicans have. We don't gain political footing by mimicing the partisanship that got Republicans into this mess in the first place. We need to show them how it is done.
Obama is actually a good example of that. He didn't win because he went negative better, or because he's a partisan. He won because he, as walk put it, "gets it."
|
|
| 144 | walk Dude
ID: 32928238 Mon, Oct 23, 2006, 14:35
|
Agreed PD. And I have the same feelings about Krugman, "about half the time." Herbert is really liberal (like moi, so I tend to agree with him), Dowd is funny (to me), and Thomas Friedman is just brilliant. I also like Frank Rich. All lots better than Hannity telling registered Democratic voters to "stay home on election day." Ugh. I post these Op/Eds basically cos I subscribe to the NYT and get the internet access and "Times Select" pieces free, and figure folks here can take or leave, but hope that they stimulate discussion.
- walk
|
|
| 145 | Pancho Villa
ID: 366352418 Mon, Oct 23, 2006, 14:53
|
#135
Good post, Boxman. Really good post.
|
|
| 146 | Boxman
ID: 20920194 Mon, Oct 23, 2006, 19:28
|
Pancho: What do you think? Is he the next FDR/Abe Lincoln or Herbert Hoover?
Let me reiterate I don't care what color a man is. Now, could Obama objectively look at the African situation? Could he objectively handle a lot of cultural issues in this country? How could a President who voted against the War In Iraq from day one, IIRC, get that democracy up and running and our troops home?
I have oodles of questions about this man and I'd like to know.
He's a great speaker, but that's not enough and people are easily duped by great speakers. I'd rather have a stuttering genius than a great orator who couldn't think his way out of a paper bag. But now, right now, is the perfect time for this man to run. He wasn't in a special fraternity like Kerry and W. He's not a 60-something blowhard like 99% of the politicians on both sides. He hasn't been "corrupted" by the system yet. What could a man with that worldview accomplish before the political machine inevitably sinks its teeth into him and turns him into just another jaded old bastard like the rest of them?
Oprah is apparently endorsing this man according to Chicago area news. Will the Hollywood left latch onto this man and what will those crackpots have to say? Will he go with them?
|
|
| 147 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 374522815 Mon, Oct 23, 2006, 19:47
|
Boxman
Hasn't he been your senator for the past two years? I'm sure you see a lot more of him in the news than most of the rest of us. Aside from his naivete (which you see as a positive), what are your other impressions? His convictions? His politics? His integrity?
|
|
| 148 | Perm Dude
ID: 479292312 Mon, Oct 23, 2006, 19:56
|
If you want to know where the guy stands, read his book.
|
|
| 149 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923 Mon, Oct 23, 2006, 20:01
|
How could a President who voted against the War In Iraq from day one, IIRC, get that democracy up and running and our troops home?
How does his vote on that issue, have anything to do with what follows now? One could just as easily ask of shrub...How is it that the one who started this war, ahs had no plan for ending it? or Why is it that you who started this, have not been able to emplace an Iraqi governing body?
I'll agree with pV in 145. Your post 135 was quite good. Your post 146, appears to me, as a man grasping at straws to oppose someone. Like you figure "OK, he's a Dem. Now, on what grounds can I oppose him?"
|
|
| 150 | Perm Dude
ID: 479292312 Mon, Oct 23, 2006, 20:55
|
Obama was elected to the US Senate in 2004. He did not vote for or against the War in Iraq.
|
|
| 151 | Seattle Zen
ID: 46315247 Tue, Oct 24, 2006, 01:38
|
What the make-nice crowd wants most of all is for the Democrats to forswear any investigations into the origins of the Iraq war and the cronyism and corruption that undermined it. But it’s very much in the national interest to find out what led to the greatest strategic blunder in American history, so that it won’t happen again.
What’s more, the public wants to know. A large majority of Americans believe both that invading Iraq was a mistake, and that the Bush administration deliberately misled us into war. And according to the Newsweek poll, 58 percent of Americans believe that investigating contracting in Iraq isn’t just a good idea, but a high priority; 52 percent believe the same about investigating the origins of the war.
So, PD, you are in the 42 percent of people that do not believe that investigating contracting in Iraq should be a high priority?
The column isn't about the "race", it's about things a Dem. controlled Congress should do. Investigating war profiteering is not "getting back at the Republicans", it's investigating for criminal activity and it is LONG overdue.
There are dozens of committees and subcommittees in Congress. Each of them have been exclusively controlled by Republicans who haven't even shared information with the minority party. The Democrats will show America what a fiscally sound policy will do for them under honest stewardship. That will involve making plans for the future and investigating the mistakes of the past 12 years. These goals are not at cross purposes.
|
|
| 152 | walk Dude
ID: 32928238 Tue, Oct 24, 2006, 11:00
|
Boxman, #146:
Let me reiterate I don't care what color a man is. Now, could Obama objectively look at the African situation? Could he objectively handle a lot of cultural issues in this country?
I think you do care what color a man is. These questions could be equally asked about any of our previous (or current) leaders about issues that affect white people (or non-white people). Someone has to be some color or ethnic heritage, and then there'll be a bunch of people in the populace that share that ethnicity and a bunch that don't. That's just the way a diverse culture is. Maybe it's about time we had a leader who did not look like our Euro-heritage?
More so, if you have ooodles of questions, I think his most recent book will give you many answers.
- walk
|
|
| 153 | Perm Dude
ID: 19948247 Tue, Oct 24, 2006, 11:06
|
#151: That is right. I don't think it should be a "high priority." Our highest priority would be to get the troops out of there, and put many of them into Afghanistan where the terrorists actually are.
Investigating the President on why he went into Iraq will take, maybe, 20 minutes before it falls into the category of political quagmire. There is absolutely no reason for the Dems to willingly jump into a no-win situation. Believe it or no, I actually agree with Pelosi on that point.
|
|
| 154 | Seattle Zen
ID: 46315247 Tue, Oct 24, 2006, 11:20
|
Investigating the President on why he went into Iraq will take, maybe, 20 minutes before it falls into the category of political quagmire. There is absolutely no reason for the Dems to willingly jump into a no-win situation. Believe it or no, I actually agree with Pelosi on that point.
Wow, in just three sentences you manage to get two main points completely wrong. Pelosi said she put impeachment "off the table", she certainly didn't say the Dems would not investigate the President. Secondly, I said the Dems should start investigating contractors in Iraq. You are proud to be amongst the people who think that is okay to plunder our treasury in the name of "bringing democracy to the region"? No need to put an end to the feeding frenzy, that would be a quagmire.
So you don't like Pelosi. Who would you vote for as Speaker? Who is the Wes Clark of the House, you know, moderate hawk that garners about 3% of voter support?
|
|
| 155 | Perm Dude
ID: 19948247 Tue, Oct 24, 2006, 11:26
|
You are proud to be amongst the people...
You must have a huge ass to be pulling these things out of. What kind of judges do you have out there that would let you get away with this kind of evidence-manufacturing?
Seriously--why in the world do you think that because my top priority is getting troops out of Iraq that I think it is "OK to plunder?"
I would have hoped the minds of the Left would be better suited to more than simplistic arguments. Perhaps dealing with the idiots in the national Republican party has made you simply try to respond in kind. If so, stop it.
|
|
| 156 | Boxman
ID: 427471614 Tue, Oct 24, 2006, 13:12
|
Sarge: Your post 146, appears to me, as a man grasping at straws to oppose someone. Like you figure "OK, he's a Dem. Now, on what grounds can I oppose him?
Yeah. It's called being objective. Try it sometime.
Walk: I think you do care what color a man is. These questions could be equally asked about any of our previous (or current) leaders about issues that affect white people (or non-white people).
I really don't care if Obama is black or 1/2 black or whatever he is. Where I'm going with the Africa comment is that Slick Willy dropped the ball regarding Rwanda, W is getting intel on Al Qaeda from Sudan so he's turning a blind eye to Darfur, and what I'd like to know is can Obama objectively look at Africa (mainly Darfur) and say "Piss off!" to the Sudanese government and lead the world or unilaterally do something meaningful to stop the genocide.
I really would love to read his book. I've got an active reading list of State Of Denial and Culture Warrior (Bill O'Reilly) so Obama's book will have to take a number after those two.
|
|
| 157 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Tue, Oct 24, 2006, 13:54
|
reading State of Denial now. What I can/will say at this stage (I'm maybe 12 or so chapters into it)...thew initial portions give alot of reason to despise Rumsfeld.
|
|
| 158 | Perm Dude
ID: 19948247 Tue, Oct 24, 2006, 14:11
|
When reading Culture Warrior, keep in mind that many "facts" are simply pulled out of O'Reilly's butt.
And don't look for any references to Ken Lay in the book. He's not there at all.
|
|
| 159 | Boldwin
ID: 36954422 Tue, Oct 24, 2006, 14:32
|
Question:
At somewhere between 800,000 - 1,000,000 per year...
...how many years does it take a party to abort itself out of power?
|
|
| 160 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 49848118 Tue, Oct 24, 2006, 14:51
|
LOL
...because of course everyone knows that only Democrat fetuses are aborted.
|
|
| 161 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Tue, Oct 24, 2006, 14:57
|
6 years? Thats how long the Rep House/Senate/WH have been aborting their obligations to the American people.
|
|
| 162 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 49848118 Tue, Oct 24, 2006, 15:04
|
Sarge on Boxman: Your post 146, appears to me, as a man grasping at straws to oppose someone. Like you figure "OK, he's a Dem. Now, on what grounds can I oppose him?
Boxman: Yeah. It's called being objective. Try it sometime.
LOL!
|
|
| 163 | Perm Dude
ID: 19948247 Tue, Oct 24, 2006, 15:05
|
I had to chuckle at that one too. It's the FOX News viewpoint: Opposing Dems = Being objective.
|
|
| 164 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Tue, Oct 24, 2006, 15:22
|
I wasnt sure how to respond to it, so I didnt.
|
|
| 165 | Boxman
ID: 427471614 Tue, Oct 24, 2006, 15:37
|
No Mith, what that means is that you don't just drink down the Kool-Aid and believe whatever this guy says. You look at reasons to vote for candidates and reasons not to vote for them. I thought you guys would be smart enough to pick that up, but apparently not.
|
|
| 166 | Perm Dude
ID: 19948247 Tue, Oct 24, 2006, 15:38
|
We did. And apparently your "won't vote for him because he's a Democrat" isn't altogether persuasive as a coherent political philosophy.
|
|
| 167 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Tue, Oct 24, 2006, 15:39
|
The true "apparently not" Box, stems from your incorrect interpretation of what I dais and then your totalling inappropriate response to it.
I accused you of being opposed to Obama BECAUSE he is a Dem, and that you then dissect what he says in an effort to justify your opposition. You then turned around, and called that "being objective". What it is...is being ignorant.
|
|
| 168 | boikin
ID: 59831214 Tue, Oct 24, 2006, 15:43
|
If Obama was a republican would you be so quick to vote for him? sarge, PD,...
|
|
| 169 | Perm Dude
ID: 19948247 Tue, Oct 24, 2006, 15:43
|
If he was a Republican he wouldn't hold the views he doesn, boikin.
|
|
| 170 | boikin
ID: 59831214 Tue, Oct 24, 2006, 15:46
|
That is great way to avoid the question, PD. It is easy to root for player when he is on your own team and against him if he is not.
|
|
| 171 | Seattle Zen
ID: 46315247 Tue, Oct 24, 2006, 15:47
|
PD
Address these points:
So, PD, you are in the 42 percent of people that do not believe that investigating contracting in Iraq should be a high priority?
"That's right... Investigating the President on why he went into Iraq..."
Let me get this straight, you DO NOT want to investigate contractors. Your answer reads, "that's right, I don't want to investigate why W went to war."
For the life of me I cannot see why our government is only capable of one action item at a time. You seem to think that if we are working on removing troops from Iraq that Congressmen/women in DC cannot be bothered to start an investigation.
Seriously--why in the world do you think that because my top priority is getting troops out of Iraq that I think it is "OK to plunder?"
Well, since there is quite a lot of evidence regarding KBR overcharging the DOD over $1 billion dollars and you repeatedly stating that you do not think that Congress should start investigating this, that is the only conclusion one can draw. If you do think Congress should investigate, please, say so, I urge you.
Believe it or no, I actually agree with Pelosi on that point.
You are saying two things here, first, we should be surprised that you agree with Pelosi on something. Second, that Pelosi has said that she would not order any investigations of this Presidency or of military contractors. She has said no such thing.
and this question remains unanswered:
So you don't like Pelosi. Who would you vote for as Speaker? Who is the Wes Clark of the House, you know, moderate hawk that garners about 3% of voter support?
|
|
| 172 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Tue, Oct 24, 2006, 15:51
|
regardless of his party affiliation...I would support virtually any politician expressing the views I have so far heard from Obama.
I have his book at home, but started to read Woodwards first. Once done with it, I'll read Obamas Auduacity of Hope. It is my hope, to garner abit more insight re Obama from that work.
|
|
| 173 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 49848118 Tue, Oct 24, 2006, 16:06
|
Boxman
You look at reasons to vote for candidates and reasons not to vote for them.
When you espouse only one half of that statement it becomes the opposite of objective. If you meant otherwise so be it. Looking for reasons to dislike Democrats, which is exactly what Sarge said, is not anything close to objectivity.
If you felt that the other side of that statement should have been a given, I don't believe any or most readers likely understood it that way. Regardless, even if thats the case, "looking for reasons not to vote" for someone is not a part of being objective, even if you're also "looking for reasons to vote" for him.
The objective observer really does not "look for" reasons to like and/or dislike what he observes. I don't know that people can be truly objective in judging politicians, unless they have almost no opinions of politics and government to begin with. In my experience, most people with no opinions of politics or government have very little understanding of them and their observations are generally uninformed and therefore not worth much, even if they are honest.
|
|
| 174 | Perm Dude
ID: 19948247 Tue, Oct 24, 2006, 16:06
|
Zen: Your last few posts could be used as Exhibit A in "How People Change When They Are Online." I don't doubt for a minute that IRL you are a passionate, intelligent defender of your clients, never prone to intentionally and obviously mistating an opponent's position to make a point.
Who would I pick as Majority Leader? Well, Members I like are Conyers, Holt, and Murtha.
|
|
| 175 | Seattle Zen
ID: 46315247 Tue, Oct 24, 2006, 16:10
|
For the record, there should not be any investigation of the Administration's decision to propose the War in Iraq to Congress. That is pointless, unless Colin Powell wants to break his silence. There should be an overall investigation of intelligence going back to 2000 regarding all things Al-Qaida, Afghanistan and Iraq.
|
|
| 176 | Seattle Zen
ID: 46315247 Tue, Oct 24, 2006, 16:12
|
PD -
I don't have the faintest idea of what you are speaking of. Try answering a question or two to clear up the confusion you have created. You are the master of your position, so illuminate us.
|
|
| 177 | Perm Dude
ID: 19948247 Tue, Oct 24, 2006, 16:22
|
boikin: It isn't a dodge. Your question is like "Would we support Rush Limbaugh if he were a Democrat." It doesn't make sense. Would any political person consider themselves "Republican" and be a supporter Roe v Wade, stem cell research, and increase in CAFE standards by 40%, and against flag burning amendment, same-sex marriage ban, the death penalty, and CAFTA?
If he were a Republican he'd have different stances. There is a lot for Republicans to like in Obama (particularly his emphasis on the proper place of religion in private life), but that doesn't mean he's a Republican.
|
|
| 178 | boikin
ID: 59831214 Tue, Oct 24, 2006, 16:46
|
i will clearify what i was saying, or atleast try. i was trying to say we have a tendency to support our own team(dems of reps) and that some times we will focus more on the good and bad depending on there side. it was mostly in support of your earlier posts, but that it can go both ways.
|
|
| 179 | Perm Dude
ID: 19948247 Tue, Oct 24, 2006, 16:57
|
I have been a supporter of moderate politicians of both stripes, if that is what you are asking. Voted for Arlen Spector, for example. I'll vote for a Republican as my State Rep, even though he's a lot more conservative than I would like but I know they guy and sometimes I'd rather have a man who actually will take the time to listen than someone closer to my positions who won't. Because what if we're both wrong?
And I'll proudly vote for Bob Casey as Senator.
|
|
| 180 | J-Bar
ID: 14461512 Tue, Oct 24, 2006, 18:06
|
didn't really know where to put this but thought it was interesting, hopefully it is not a repeat intelligent vote
|
|
| 181 | Perm Dude
ID: 58962416 Tue, Oct 24, 2006, 18:10
|
I'd heard about that site, J-Bar, but never actually went to it. Many thanks for the link. I might have some quibbles with how the bills are described, but it is an excellent idea.
|
|
| 182 | J-Bar
ID: 14461512 Tue, Oct 24, 2006, 18:17
|
click on the bills and it gives a short synopsis, not insulting just informing.
|
|
| 183 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Tue, Oct 24, 2006, 18:20
|
Interesting results for me;
with John Cornyn 67% of 15 bills with K B Hutchinson with 59% of 22 bills with Chet Edwards 70% of 23 bills
|
|
| 184 | Myboyjack Dude
ID: 014826271 Tue, Oct 24, 2006, 18:31
|
I'm not well reprsented:
Senator: Jim Bunning(R) 54% Senator: Mitch McConnell(R) 59% Congressman: Ben Chandler(D) 62 %
I'm actually surprised I didn't match up with McConnell and Chandler a little more.
|
|
| 185 | KM
ID: 319311512 Tue, Oct 24, 2006, 18:39
|
55% with Bond (R) and Talent (R). I'm surprised it's that high but not surprised that they didn't differ on a single vote.
|
|
| |
| 187 | Seattle Zen
ID: 46315247 Mon, Oct 30, 2006, 01:21
|
|
|
| 188 | Boldwin
ID: 189102715 Mon, Oct 30, 2006, 09:42
|
Because after all, we know running the USA is as complicated as running and throwing.
|
|
| 189 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 374522815 Mon, Oct 30, 2006, 10:21
|
Yeah... or walking and chewing gum.
|
|
| 190 | Tree
ID: 1411442914 Mon, Oct 30, 2006, 11:21
|
Because after all, we know running the USA is as complicated as running and throwing.
well, based on the election of 2004, a majority of american people believe a simpleton could run the USA, so why not....
|
|
| 191 | Perm Dude
ID: 129373012 Mon, Oct 30, 2006, 13:37
|
Yeah, "100 mph fastball and 8 no hitters" is just "throwing."
Idiot.
|
|
| 192 | Boldwin
ID: 189102715 Mon, Oct 30, 2006, 13:50
|
A 100 mph fastball doesn't require extended training. Running the country more or less running the world might benefit from training and a bit more seasoning.
Idiot? All the smart people think president is a job for a neophyte and only idiots think otherwise I guess.
Somehow I believe you have strayed from the zeitgeist, PD. Is the room spinning?
|
|
| 193 | Tree
ID: 1411442914 Mon, Oct 30, 2006, 13:55
|
A 100 mph fastball doesn't require extended training.
how many people do you know that could throw a 100 mph fast ball for a strike with any sort of consistency.
|
|
| 194 | boikin
ID: 59831214 Mon, Oct 30, 2006, 15:31
|
Throwing a fast ball is innate ability, while being president is mearly a popularity contest. So i coult work on my fast ball till my arm falls off and never break 70mph, but i could run for president win and run the country with some deal of skill.
|
|
| 195 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923 Mon, Oct 30, 2006, 17:38
|
Running the country more or less running the world might benefit from training and a bit more seasoning.
and of course, being the governor of a state whose legislative body only meets every other year, was prime training ground huh?
|
|
| 196 | Tree
ID: 1411442914 Tue, Oct 31, 2006, 15:52
|
the bolder, angrier Democrat...FINALLY speaking his mind.
White House spokesman slams Kerry remark
The White House accused Sen. John Kerry on Tuesday of troop-bashing, seizing on a comment the Democrat made to California students that those unable to navigate the country's education system "get stuck in Iraq."
"Senator Kerry not only owes an apology to those who are serving, but also to the families of those who've given their lives in this," White House press secretary Tony Snow said. "This is an absolute insult."
Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran and President Bush's 2004 rival, fired back.
He said he had been criticizing Bush, not the "heroes serving in Iraq," and said the president and his administration are the ones who owe U.S. troops an apology because they "misled America into war and have given us a Katrina foreign policy that has betrayed our ideals, killed and maimed our soldiers, and widened the terrorist threat instead of defeating it."
"This is the classic GOP playbook," Kerry said in a harshly worded statement. "I'm sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did. I'm not going to be lectured by a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium."
If Kerry had been this pissed off in 2004, things might be different today.
|
|
| 197 | Perm Dude
ID: 409403111 Tue, Oct 31, 2006, 16:11
|
I think he learned his lesson. Its no use crying to the refs that the other side is playing "unfair." If you give the other side free reign to say what they will, you give the other side at least a day on page one while your response is on page 10 two days later.
Responding right away makes this a "dispute" with both sides on page one.
|
|
| 198 | Myboyjack
ID: 27651610 Tue, Oct 31, 2006, 16:12
|
If Kerry had been this pissed off in 2004, things might be different today
I don't think so. Allow me to translate the exchange posted by tree, above into Middle American, for the benefit of those on the Coasts:
Kerry, a rich guy from Mass speaking to some Cali kids: "The military is so for Losers"
The White House: "Blah, blah, blah" (inariculable political gibberish making political hay out of somewhat out of context statements - that are none the less both telling and offensive to most people with family in the milatary.)
Kerry: "I can not be criticized for what I say or do because I was in Viet Nam and you weren't."
I don't think that exchange would make any difference to most people.
|
|
| 199 | Perm Dude
ID: 409403111 Tue, Oct 31, 2006, 16:16
|
I think you're overstating the political sophistication of most people, MBJ. Of all political stripes.
|
|
| 200 | Boxman
ID: 47922511 Tue, Oct 31, 2006, 16:26
|
Even I thought Kerry's response was good.
"If anyone thinks a veteran would criticize the more than 140,000 heroes serving in Iraq and not the president who got us stuck there, they're crazy," he said. "No Democrat will be bullied by an administration that has a cut-and-run policy in Afghanistan and a stand-still-and-lose strategy in Iraq."
OK, so you guys want to "cut-and-run". We want to "stand-still-and-lose". That last term did make me laugh.
I suppose one hopeful benefit of a Democrat controlled House/Senate would be some sort of action against Rumsfeld, the military, and W for piss poor war planning in Iraq.
|
|
| 201 | Tree
ID: 1411442914 Tue, Oct 31, 2006, 16:49
|
I don't think that exchange would make any difference to most people.
and now Bush is throwing himself into the fray, in what is clearly a desperate grasp at straws.
"Even in the midst of a heated campaign season, there are still some things we should all be able to agree on, and one of the most important is that every one of our troops deserves our gratitude and respect," Bush will say in a speech, the text of which was released by the White House.
"The senator's suggestion that the men and women of our military are somehow uneducated is insulting and shameful," Bush said. "The men and women who serve in our all-volunteer armed forces are plenty smart and are serving because they are patriots -- and Senator Kerry owes them an apology."
but Kerry ain't gonna take it this time.
"The White House's attempt to distort my true statement is a remarkable testament to their abject failure in making America safe," the Massachusetts senator said. "It's a stunning statement about their willingness to reduce anything in America to raw politics."
"I'm not going to be lectured by a stuffed-suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium, or doughy Rush Limbaugh, who no doubt today will take a break from belittling Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's disease to start lying about me just as they have lied about Iraq."
He further expressed disgust with "Republican hacks, who have never worn the uniform of our country."
Kerry added that President Bush and Vice President Cheney "owe our troops an apology" because they "misled America into war."
Bush and Cheney "have given us a Katrina foreign policy that has betrayed our ideals, killed and maimed our soldiers, and widened the terrorist threat instead of defeating it," the senator said.
|
|
| 202 | Boxman
ID: 47922511 Tue, Oct 31, 2006, 16:57
|
Anybody on the boards serve? How do you guys feel about Kerry's remarks?
|
|
| 203 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Tue, Oct 31, 2006, 17:00
|
I just love the way the "right" tries to paint Kerrys comment as detrimental to troops. I took it to mean the following:
"For too many, lacking an extended formal education means the military is their most likely road to success. This administration, is going to spend that military in Iraq, so a lack of extensive formal education, could well mean a persons being "stuck" in a combat zone."
Not at all false in my experience.
|
|
| 204 | Pancho Villa
ID: 366352418 Tue, Oct 31, 2006, 18:14
|
I went to Pasadena City College in 1970. It is hardly an institute of higher learning. Good looking girls, though.
|
|
| 205 | walk
ID: 259313119 Tue, Oct 31, 2006, 20:45
|
I like what Kerry has said in response to the Republican attacks against his initial comments, but do not like the timing of this incident. Even some leading Dems are distancing themselves from him, and anything that gives the Republicans any credence for this badly conceived war is not good. It's obvious that Kerry was initially attacking Bush, but this "patriotic" response by the Repubs may fool some of the people, hopefully not enough to make a difference. The quick spin against Kerry was classsic.
- walk
|
|
| 206 | bibA Sustainer
ID: 261028117 Wed, Nov 01, 2006, 11:12
|
I agree with the way sarge put it in 203. Kerry couldn't have (and didn't), put it better. It is just the way it is.
Even if Kerry had worded it that way, he still would have been attacked by the right.
|
|
| 207 | Tree
ID: 1411442914 Wed, Nov 01, 2006, 11:29
|
and now, of course, we can move on.
Kerry apologizes for "botched" Iraq joke
Kerry said he was returning to Washington from a trip campaigning on behalf of Democratic congressional candidates because he did not want to be "a distraction."
A day after rejecting calls to apologize for his remarks, Kerry, appearing on the "Imus in the Morning" radio show on MSNBC, declared: "I said it was a botched joke. Of course, I'm sorry about a botched joke."
of course, little doubt that the sad, desperate bunch we call Republicans will latch on to this and say "it's not good enough. he belittled our soldiers! blah, blah, blah, blah blah."
|
|
| 208 | Perm Dude
ID: 28103319 Wed, Nov 01, 2006, 11:38
|
Yeah, I agree. I think that apologizing (i.e., "showing weakness") will just be a self-justifying exercise for Republicans.
One good thing that will come from this: Despite Kerry's very hard work this election cycle, this will dimish his chances at getting the 2008 nomination.
|
|
| 209 | Myboyjack
ID: 27651610 Wed, Nov 01, 2006, 11:49
|
He was right to apologize because what he said was obnoxious and offensive.
If he'd just done so from the beginning, explained what he "meant to say" and moved on instead of spending 24 hours with the "I'm Billy Badass" routine, then less would have been made of this. Americans will be more accepting of pols who will apoligize and move on when they screw up or make a verbal gaffe than of pols who are obviously posing all the time.
|
|
| 210 | Perm Dude
ID: 28103319 Wed, Nov 01, 2006, 11:53
|
But posing and not apologizing is exactly what got Bush 8 years, MBJ. It was a stupid joke. But recent political history has shown that the opposite of what you suggest has been the more politically advantageous.
|
|
| 211 | Myboyjack
ID: 27651610 Wed, Nov 01, 2006, 13:03
|
But recent political history has shown that the opposite of what you suggest has been the more politically advantageous
Duh! It's not worked for Bush. Look at his approval ratings. The current election would look a lot differently were the White House and Repubs in Congress seen as being proactive and responsible rather than a cloisetered cover-up gang.
|
|
| 212 | Tree
ID: 1411442914 Wed, Nov 01, 2006, 13:33
|
Duh! It's not worked for Bush. Look at his approval ratings.
it got him elected to the highest office in this nation. it's worked just fine for him.
|
|
| 213 | Perm Dude
ID: 28103319 Wed, Nov 01, 2006, 14:23
|
Besides, the White House doesn't actually want an apology. Despite Kerry saying the magic words, Tony Snow insists that he's "helping" Kerry by continuing to hold out for an apology which Kerry already gave.
Absurd. Millions of dollars spend every minute in Iraq and we're wasting time on this.
|
|
| 214 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Wed, Nov 01, 2006, 14:36
|
The art of "deflection" PD. Thats what this admin is best at.
|
|
| 215 | Boldwin
ID: 189102715 Wed, Nov 01, 2006, 20:03
|
Conservatives are the ones who are upset by hypersenstitivity and the culture of victimology so maybe they could take a breath. I've heard some soldiers feel upset that they have been called stupid. Justifiable to a point. It would be a lot easier to blow this off and not take it seriously if Kerry didn't take himself so seriously.
Get over yourself Kerry. You are just a snobbish clumsy unsympathetic character with terrible instincts and timing. One of these decades I wonder if he ever realizes that being one of the rare Democrats with a war record and a skull and bones pedigree isn't quite the unbeatable magic ticket he thot it was.
In the back of my mind I have this nagging feeling he's been used as a stalking horse all along.
Somewhere on the coast of France there is a wine tasting and a retirement calling your name, John.
|
|
| 216 | Boxman
ID: 49101015 Thu, Nov 02, 2006, 06:18
|
Ann puts the potential Democrat gains in perspective.
Analysts place the average midterm loss for the party in the White House at around 15 to 44 seats, depending on which elections are counted — only elected presidents, midterm elections since the Civil War, midterm elections since World War II, comparable-sized congresses, first and second midterm elections and so on.
The average first midterm election loss for every elected president since 1914 is 27 House seats and three Senate seats. The average sixth-year midterm election, like this year, is much worse for the president's party, which typically loses 34 seats in the House and six seats in the Senate.
This makes the average loss in two midterm elections for the party in the White House: 30 House seats and four or five Senate seats in each midterm election.
In his first midterm election, George W. Bush picked up six House seats and two Senate seats — making him, according to The New York Times, "the first Republican president to gain House seats in an off-year election" and only the third president of either party to pick up House seats in a midterm election since the Civil War.
This means that for Democrats simply to match the historical average gain for the party out of the White House during the first and second midterm, they would have to pick up 67 seats in the House and 11 seats in the Senate. They're about 30 Mark Foleys short of having that happen.
It at least seems clear that Democrat gains this year are going to fall far short of the historical average. No poll has the Democrats winning even half of their rightful midterm gains.
|
|
| 217 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 374522815 Thu, Nov 02, 2006, 08:01
|
LOL
Whatever helps Ann and the rest of you sleep at night.
|
|
| 218 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 374522815 Thu, Nov 02, 2006, 08:14
|
You do realize that according to Ann's perspective here, the much ballyhooed Republican takeover of the House in the 1990s (net 49 seats in the two midterms, 47 overall) was actually a below-average result for the party out of the White House, right?
In fact, what a tragic, historic, epic failure the the 98 midterms were for the party out of the WH! In a year in which the GOP should have won more than 30-something seats (according to Ann's perspective) the Dems gained a net 5!
|
|
| 219 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 374522815 Thu, Nov 02, 2006, 08:17
|
I wonder what historical perspective Ann has offered when previously discussing GOP success in 1990s House midterm elections?
lol
|
|
| 220 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 374522815 Thu, Nov 02, 2006, 08:30
|
Ah, here we go. From 10/02, Ann on the 1998 midterm elections: Democrats should have won back a lot of the seats they lost in 1994. By the standard of historical averages, in the 1998 midterm election, the Democrats should have won back 22 House seats. Instead they won only five seats. The average midterm loss this past century is 30 seats in the House. Clinton's average was 46.
The media billed the Democrats' paltry gain in 1998 as a victory for Clinton and revulsion with impeachment for the same reason they say Bush "stole" the presidential election. Liberals love to lie. (Someone should write a book about that.)
|
|
| 221 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 374522815 Thu, Nov 02, 2006, 08:33
|
Ann Coulter and the standard of historical averages. Thanks for starting my day with a few laughs.
|
|
| 222 | Boxman
ID: 47922511 Thu, Nov 02, 2006, 09:31
|
I can tell you're excited and stimulated Mith. I haven't seen a quintuple posting in all my days here.
That makes you the resident Cal Ripken here perhaps. Keep going Iron Man!
|
|
| |
| 224 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Thu, Nov 02, 2006, 10:20
|
voter fraud! See there...the Republicans are right. People ARE committing voter fraud. (too bad for them, its their constituency.)
|
|
| 225 | Boldwin
ID: 189102715 Thu, Nov 02, 2006, 12:33
|
We covered that Coulter story and it was completely much ado about nothing.
If she doesn't expect bad things she must be underestimating the staggering betrayal of the Regan Revolution by the current crop of Republicans and the level of disgust over the handling of the border.
|
|
| 226 | Tree
ID: 1411442914 Thu, Nov 02, 2006, 12:47
|
Conservative columnist Ann Coulter has refused to cooperate in an investigation into whether she voted in the wrong precinct, so the case will probably be turned over to prosecutors, Palm Beach County's elections chief said Wednesday.
doesn't sound like much ado about nothing at all.
Knowingly voting in the wrong precinct is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.
then again, that doesn't matter much to Republicans like Baldwin, who worship all manner of Republicans, be they war criminals, kiddie touchers, or those who commit voter fraud.
|
|
| 227 | Perm Dude
ID: 46104428 Thu, Nov 02, 2006, 12:59
|
You get some inner city people trying to vote in the wrong place and Baldwin would be all up in arms--suddenly back in the saddle as a member of the "law and order" party blaming "Soros' evil minions"
|
|
| 228 | Boldwin
ID: 189102715 Thu, Nov 02, 2006, 13:01
|
So now according to Tree I worship kiddie touchers. You are a joke, Tree.
|
|
| 229 | Boldwin
ID: 189102715 Thu, Nov 02, 2006, 13:12
|
Actually that is such a knowingly wrong and malicious thing to say that I think it qualifies as pure evil. While some may excuse you as being too stupid to know what you do, I remind everyone evil is banal.
|
|
| 230 | Tree
ID: 1411442914 Thu, Nov 02, 2006, 14:48
|
So now according to Tree I worship kiddie touchers.
i asked you, in no uncertain terms, and numerous times, to denounce Mark Foley and the Republican leadership who protected him and/or ignored his issues.
to the best of my recollection, you blamed everyone from Bill Clinton to Al Queda to George Soros to Ted Kennedy, and countless others, but never put the blame squarely on the shoulders of Foley and the Republican leadership that protected him.
if you're not denouncing Foley, the leadership, and their actions, you're supporting them. you would rather point out that Clinton had sex with a legal intern then condemn a republican who may have had sex with a teenager.
|
|
| 231 | Boldwin
ID: 189102715 Thu, Nov 02, 2006, 14:56
|
You lying sack...I said he was scum, hurrah, he's gone twenty different ways.
|
|
| 232 | Seattle Zen
ID: 46315247 Thu, Nov 02, 2006, 15:17
|
|
|
| |
| 234 | Tree
ID: 1411442914 Thu, Nov 02, 2006, 15:20
|
I said he was scum
correct. my apologies for the statement where i said you didn't denounce him. it was in err.
i must have missed that over the 287 posts and two weeks it took you to acknowledge that.
|
|
| 235 | Boldwin
ID: 189102715 Thu, Nov 02, 2006, 15:31
|
The twenty different ways were sprinkled from beginning to end in those posts you dense block.
|
|
| 236 | Tree
ID: 101013220 Thu, Nov 02, 2006, 21:29
|
The twenty different ways were sprinkled from beginning to end in those posts you dense block.
i realize that people like you (conservatives, psuedo-christians, many republicans, etc etc) don't accept apologies, and instead want to dig and dig like picking at a scab, but i figured i'd give it a whirl.
oh well, consider it a lesson learned on my part. i'll keep that mind the next time you throw your support behind a kiddie toucher and the leadership that supports him.
|
|
| 237 | leggestand
ID: 179532316 Thu, Nov 02, 2006, 23:27
|
Tree, come on, you must admit that your apology was a backhand apology. Basically, "I apologize, but it's your fault for taking two weeks and 287 posts to say he was scum." How would you expect Baldwin to react to a backhanded apology?
|
|
| 238 | Boldwin
ID: 189102715 Fri, Nov 03, 2006, 06:00
|
We see that apology was worth a bucket of warm spit.
|
|
| 239 | Tree
ID: 53105435 Fri, Nov 03, 2006, 07:04
|
backhand or not, it was an apology, which is more than Baldwin could every have the balls to muster in the numerous false claims, accusations, and name-calling he has taken part in.
|
|
| 240 | Boldwin
ID: 189102715 Fri, Nov 03, 2006, 09:52
|
If I had accused you of supporting kiddie touchers or advocated you being raped in prison I would indeed owe you an apology. As you were compelled to do as we reflected on just how ugly those sentiments were when you said them about me.
I on the otherhand don't owe you an iota of an apology for calling you a moron because it's self-evidently true. You contribute nothing to this board. You've been given ample time to grow as a poster, but you just don't. Patience is at an end. You sink this board by being a bottomless pit of a lowest common denominator.
|
|
| 241 | Tree
ID: 16103338 Fri, Nov 03, 2006, 10:24
|
again Baldwin, your opinions are your own. asinine, bigoted, homophobic, and most of the time extremely absurd, they are your own.
and no one sinks this board lower than you, because the majority of your posts are either trying to be the loudest one heard, or complete name calling.
|
|
| 242 | walk Dude
ID: 32928238 Mon, Nov 06, 2006, 12:58
|
November 6, 2006 Op-Ed Columnist Limiting the Damage By PAUL KRUGMAN
President Bush isn’t on the ballot tomorrow. But this election is, nonetheless, all about him. The question is whether voters will pry his fingers loose from at least some of the levers of power, thereby limiting the damage he can inflict in his two remaining years in office.
There are still some people urging Mr. Bush to change course. For example, a scathing editorial published today by The Military Times, which calls on Mr. Bush to fire Donald Rumsfeld, declares that “this is not about the midterm elections.” But the editorial’s authors surely know better than that. Mr. Bush won’t fire Mr. Rumsfeld; he won’t change strategy in Iraq; he won’t change course at all, unless Congress forces him to.
At this point, nobody should have any illusions about Mr. Bush’s character. To put it bluntly, he’s an insecure bully who believes that owning up to a mistake, any mistake, would undermine his manhood — and who therefore lives in a dream world in which all of his policies are succeeding and all of his officials are doing a heckuva job. Just last week he declared himself “pleased with the progress we’re making” in Iraq.
In other words, he’s the sort of man who should never have been put in a position of authority, let alone been given the kind of unquestioned power, free from normal checks and balances, that he was granted after 9/11. But he was, alas, given that power, as well as a prolonged free ride from much of the news media.
The results have been predictably disastrous. The nightmare in Iraq is only part of the story. In time, the degradation of the federal government by rampant cronyism — almost every part of the executive branch I know anything about, from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been FEMAfied — may come to be seen as an equally serious blow to America’s future.
And it should be a matter of intense national shame that Mr. Bush has quietly abandoned his fine promises to New Orleans and the rest of the Gulf Coast.
The public, which rallied around Mr. Bush after 9/11 and was still prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt two years ago, seems to have figured most of this out. It’s too late to vote Mr. Bush out of office, but most Americans seem prepared to punish Mr. Bush’s party for his personal failings. This is in spite of a vicious campaign in which Mr. Bush has gone further than any previous president — even Richard Nixon — in attacking the patriotism of anyone who criticizes him or his policies.
That said, it’s still possible that the Republicans will hold on to both houses of Congress. The feeding frenzy over John Kerry’s botched joke showed that many people in the news media are still willing to be played like a fiddle. And if you think the timing of the Saddam verdict was coincidental, I’ve got a terrorist plot against the Brooklyn Bridge to sell you.
Moreover, the potential for vote suppression and/or outright electoral fraud remains substantial. And it will be very hard for the Democrats to take the Senate for the very simple reason that only one-third of Senate seats are on this ballot.
What if the Democrats do win? That doesn’t guarantee a change in policy.
The Constitution says that Congress and the White House are co-equal branches of government, but Mr. Bush and his people aren’t big on constitutional niceties. Even with a docile Republican majority controlling Congress, Mr. Bush has been in the habit of declaring that he has the right to disobey the law he has just signed, whether it’s a law prohibiting torture or a law requiring that he hire qualified people to run FEMA.
Just imagine, then, what he’ll do if faced with demands for information from, say, Congressional Democrats investigating war profiteering, which seems to have been rampant. Actually, we don’t have to imagine: a White House strategist has already told Time magazine that the administration plans a “cataclysmic fight to the death” if Democrats in Congress try to exercise their right to issue subpoenas — which is one heck of a metaphor, given Mr. Bush’s history of getting American service members trapped in cataclysmic fights where the deaths are anything but metaphors.
But here’s the thing: no matter how hard the Bush administration may try to ignore the constitutional division of power, Mr. Bush’s ability to make deadly mistakes has rested in part on G.O.P. control of Congress. That’s why many Americans, myself included, will breathe a lot easier if one-party rule ends tomorrow.
|
|
| 243 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 49848118 Wed, Nov 08, 2006, 14:22
|
Georgia10 at Kos Only now, after most races have been called and it's clear that the Democrats will take power, only now do they report on that which they had suppressed throughout the campaign. Now we get articles detailing the Democrat's tax plan. Now we get articles on the minimum wage and the effect of a Democratic house on industry. Now we get articles about how Democrats stand for a balanced budget. Now the talking heads report breathlessly on the 100 hour agenda, on how Democrats will affect the middle class, and how Democrats will try to fix healthcare.
Now the press chooses to report on the Democrats' agenda. Now they're laying out the difference for voters, only after they've cast their ballots. Only now have members of the press suddenly seen the Democratic plan materialize before them like some Lady of Lourdes in all her glory.
|
|
| 244 | boikin
ID: 59831214 Wed, Nov 08, 2006, 15:35
|
that is first, the conservative media is reason the plans where not being publicied. and if you read those articles most seem to show that the two parties are more similiar than less except on the issue of immigration where the demos and bush acctaully aggree, oh how interresting how it all works.
|
|
| 245 | walk Dude
ID: 32928238 Fri, Nov 10, 2006, 13:54
|
November 10, 2006 Guest Columnist The Family-Friendly Congress? By JUDITH WARNER Washington
WHILE the excitement over Nancy Pelosi, most likely to be our first female speaker of the House, is still fresh, and while those of us who care about these things are still bubbling over the election of the highest number of women to Congress in history, I’d like to issue a challenge: Ladies, step up to the plate on behalf of the rest of America’s women — and their families.
This shouldn’t be a radical idea. Ms. Pelosi has, after all, spent months now reminding us that she is not merely a capable leader, not just a whiz-bang political fund-raiser, but, first and foremost, “a mother and a grandmother.”
That’s lovely for her; but if Ms. Pelosi’s experience of motherhood is to have any meaning for the rest of us, or any relevance to her life as a politician, we’ve got to see some follow-through. Because if, as Ms. Pelosi has repeatedly said, she’ll be taking up the speaker’s gavel “on behalf of America’s children,” there’s a lot of work to do. For children can’t thrive if their families are stressed and, at every point on the socioeconomic spectrum now, it seems that American families are cracking at the seams.
The Center for WorkLife Law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law released a study last month noting that “workplace inflexibility, the lack of family supports and workplace bias” are forcing American mothers out of the work force — whether they can really afford to “opt out” or not.
This comes on the heels of news articles showing how working-class moms are putting their youngsters in all-night child care, and how couples are increasingly enduring split-shift work schedules — putting their health and marriages at risk — to avoid the costs and anxieties of day care. All this paints a picture of family life in America that is very grim for all but the very privileged.
For years now, there have been murmurings — and more — from various corners of Congress in favor of change. Representative Lynn Woolsey’s Balancing Act bill, which calls for a wide array of measures to reduce the stresses on working families, has been languishing for years. Senators Christopher Dodd and Ted Kennedy have gestured toward legislation on paid family leave and guaranteed sick leave. There was even a much-overlooked bill introduced in the Senate by Hillary Clinton this summer (and in the House by Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut) to provide low-income parents with subsidies to stay at home and care for their infants themselves.
It’s time to light a fire under these kinds of initiatives. Ms. Pelosi’s current promises — to raise the minimum wage, cut the interest rates on student loans and make some college tuition tax deductible — are a laudable start, but American families, whose needs have been increasingly neglected since the early 1980s, need so much more: quality after-school programs; national standards for child care; voucher programs and tax subsidies to help pay for that care; universal, voluntary public preschool; paid family leave; and incentives for businesses to make part-time and flex-time work financially viable.
In short, we need to make the kind of glorious life that’s enjoyed by upper-middle-class mothers and grandmothers like Ms. Pelosi and her colleagues possible for everyone else.
This isn’t a radical leftist agenda. In fact, there’s no better antidote to the selfish individualism and empty materialism that Americans of all political stripes say is corrupting our country than policies that allow families to spend more, and better, time together.
In recent years, pro-family Democrats were out in the legislative wilderness. Now, there’s simply no excuse for inaction. It’s time to shoot for the moon. Risk a presidential veto. And let the proponents of “family values” show their true colors.
Judith Warner is the author of “Perfect Madness: Motherhood in the Age of Anxiety” and a contributing columnist for TimesSelect.
|
|
| 246 | Tree
ID: 1411442914 Fri, Nov 10, 2006, 14:45
|
radical leftist.
|
|
| 247 | Seattle Zen
ID: 46315247 Sat, Nov 11, 2006, 19:48
|
|
|
| |
| 249 | J-Bar
ID: 14461512 Mon, Nov 13, 2006, 09:59
|
In short, we need to make the kind of glorious life that’s enjoyed by upper-middle-class mothers and grandmothers like Ms. Pelosi and her colleagues possible for everyone else.
That line says it all.
|
|
| 250 | walk Dude
ID: 32928238 Thu, Nov 16, 2006, 13:53
|
Man, this Hoyer vs. Murtha and then Harman vs. Lastings choices are already looking not so good for the Democrats in power, and mainly Pelosi. Hoyer won the vote to be majority leader, like 140something to 80something. And then I read about all of this fingerpointing about who should get the credit for the Dem's electoral win, lots of anti-Dean comments (from Carville for example) saying the Dems left 10-20 seats on the table. Nice cohesive party.
Dems Leadership Race Damages Image (NYT)
- walk
|
|
| 251 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 49848118 Thu, Nov 16, 2006, 14:03
|
No time to read the article atm but I think there's a nice silver lining in the seeing House Dems smack Pelosi by electing Hoyer. She needs to be kept in check and this was a terrific sign that they will not bow to her.
I'm much less concerned with Democrat Party cohesiveness than I am with general bipartisanship. To that end, this is an indicator of hope.
|
|
| 252 | Perm Dude
ID: 2810301613 Thu, Nov 16, 2006, 14:38
|
I think we've all seen the damage that can be done in the name of party cohesiveness.
|
|
| |
| 254 | Perm Dude
ID: 531032208 Mon, Nov 20, 2006, 10:13
|
A stupid political move, IMO. His reasons are pretty clear:
There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft, and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way
I saw part of this interview live, and it was clear that this wasn't meant as anyting other than a deterent. Rangel things that if you are "for the war" you must for for a draft.
But it doesn't work, for two reasons:
-the military already pulls a larger proportion of their recruits from "red states" and therefore Congress and the President already have kids from their communities overseas. Didn't stop them;
-this is intended to make it more difficult to wage this particular war. That's after-the-fact thinking.
|
|
| 255 | walk Dude
ID: 32928238 Mon, Nov 20, 2006, 15:08
|
November 19, 2006 The Way We Live Now The Last 20th-Century Election? By MATT BAI
Back in February 2002, some colleagues and I sat down to lunch with Tom Daschle, who was then the Democratic majority leader of the United States Senate. This was in the months just after the fall of the twin towers and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan, when most of America — and at least publicly, most Democrats in Washington — seemed eager to support the president. On this day, however, Daschle, a mild South Dakotan whose idea of being confrontational is to interrupt without saying “excuse me,” seemed to have lost patience with George W. Bush and his entire administration. He talked with very little prompting about the way the president and his political adviser, Karl Rove, refused to compromise on legislation, bullied their own party’s senators and ignored leaders of the opposition. Daschle said he hardly ever spoke to anyone at the White House. I asked him whether he thought this kind of arrogance would eventually come back to hurt Bush’s presidency.
“I’d like to think so,” Daschle said, “but I just don’t know.”
I put the question to him another way: in all his years in politics, I asked, had he ever seen anyone act so imperiously and not eventually lose power as a result? Daschle shook his head. “No,” he said. “I never have.”
I have found myself recalling that exchange many times since, and it was very much on my mind as I stood in the offices of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee on election night, watching young aides with markers erase and replace the latest election numbers on a white board, effectively wiping away what remained of Bush’s influence in Washington. The next day, I called Daschle at his law office and reminded him of our conversation. “No doubt about it,” he said. “I think the American people got really tired and fatigued with the arrogance and style of this administration. Someone told me early in my career: ‘If you want to get elected, learn to speak. If you want to stay elected, learn to listen.’ ”
This, perhaps, was the larger lesson of an election that drastically reshuffled the existing order in Washington. The war in Iraq had a lot to do with the fall of the Republican majority. Congressional corruption, epitomized by the Republican lobbying scandal and the Mark Foley affair, played a significant role, too. And voters continue to feel anxious about an economy that generates higher returns for shareholders and less opportunity for everyone else. But ruling parties and presidencies are almost never felled by issues alone. Rather, it is the more general perception of a creeping chaos — the sense that leaders no longer have a firm grasp on events or the credibility to unite disparate constituencies — that causes political powers to come undone. It wasn’t inflation or hostages that destroyed Jimmy Carter’s presidency; it was the realization that he had grown too isolated and too besieged to see his way clear of either crisis.
Similarly, exit polls showed that about 37 percent of the voters who cast their votes against Republican candidates did so as a protest against Bush personally. Voters seemed to conclude that after six years of “staying the course” with unbendable will, while showering even the most benign critics with contempt and derision, Bush and his Congressional allies had simply lost the capacity to fix their own mistakes. More interested in being right than in being reasonable, they seemed unable to respond to a range of emerging threats, from a hurricane on the gulf coast to an underground explosion on the Korean Peninsula. When the president finally cut loose his defense secretary on the day after the election, he seemed at last to have embraced some small measure of humility — and yet it came too late, and perhaps too defiantly, to restore much of the confidence he had squandered.
“They were totally obstinate in the end,” John Kasich, one of the leaders of the 1994 Republican revolution, told me after the election. “To keep going around and saying that everything’s great and how it’s all going well in Iraq was ridiculous. There’s such a thing as being firm, and then there’s such a thing as ignoring reality.”
If this election was about the cost of arrogance, though, then it should also be viewed as a vindication of the much-maligned American voter. Since Bush’s disputed victory in 2000, many liberals have been increasingly brazen about their disdain for the rural and religious voters; one popular e-mail message, which landed in thousands of Democratic in-boxes in the days after the 2004 election, separated North America into “The United States of Canada” and “Jesusland.” The populist author Thomas Frank won widespread praise for his thesis that unsophisticated rural types had been manipulated into voting “against their economic self-interest,” while the celebrated linguist George Lakoff posited that conservatives had rewired the brain synapses in these unsuspecting voters. Two eminent liberal political scientists, Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson, wrote a more scholarly book, arguing that Bush could govern as an extremist without paying a price, because Republicans had gamed the electoral system and deceived voters.
But this election, in which conservative incumbents in states like Kentucky and Indiana went down to defeat, should discredit such alarmist (and elitist) theories. As it happened, despite all these neurological and structural impediments, ordinary voters proved perfectly capable of recognizing failed governance when they saw it, and seemed plenty capable of defending their own interests.
Of course, when moderate Americans finally did revolt, even leading Democrats had to admit that the election had everything to do with Republican failures and almost nothing to do with them. They had avoided offering new ideas, fearing that bold proposals on health care or retirement security might have taken the focus away from Republican failures. This was probably a smart electoral tactic — at least it seems that way now — but it comes with a cost; having recaptured Washington, Democrats now have only vague slogans (“a new direction”) around which to build a governing agenda. As Andrei Cherny and Kenneth Baer, editors of the new policy journal Democracy, warned in the days after the election: “Democrats had a good day. To have a great decade, they need an agenda that captures the public imagination and responds to the looming challenges facing the country.”
The party’s leaders in Congress immediately vowed to put together just such an agenda, and they promised to work with Bush and the Republicans to implement it. There will be significant obstacles to doing that, however, and not only because the new Democratic caucus, as many observers have noted, is ideologically disparate. For one thing, the party’s infrastructure has changed substantially since Democrats last held power. Twelve years ago, the Democratic Party was still captive to a series of single-issue interest groups — big labor, the environmental lobby, civil rights groups — that pressured the party to pursue their own parochial agendas, making it difficult to challenge some liberal orthodoxies. These groups still matter on Capitol Hill, of course, but since Bush’s election they have been giving way to a new array of powerful actors: MoveOn.org, liberal philanthropists, crusading bloggers. These new forces don’t care so much about litmus-test policies, but they are adamant about confronting the president. The influence of the netroots, as the growing Web-based Democrats have come to be called, is likely to stifle any inclination toward compromise or creativity, making it difficult for Democrats to transition from an opposition party to a governing one. Thoughtful and dynamic leadership, after all, requires a willingness to negotiate and a tolerance for dissent — which is the main reason that Republicans now find themselves glumly packing boxes rather than gleefully packing the courts.
Then there is the 2008 presidential season, which began within hours of the election (Iowa’s Democratic governor, Tom Vilsack, jumped into the race before the week was out), and which will most likely act as a disincentive for either party to give ground on the issues that divide them. To a rare degree, the midterm elections appear to have indirectly reshaped the presidential landscapes of both parties. On the Republican side, two formerly top-tier candidates — George Allen, the Virginia senator who lost his seat, and Bill Frist, the soon-to-be-retired Senate leader who lost his majority — now seem irreparably damaged. The party’s presumed frontrunner, John McCain, also faces a more troublesome environment, given his strong support for a war that many of his moderate supporters clearly oppose. On the Democratic side, the elections dealt a blow to John Kerry — his mangled joke about Bush’s intellect would have been, even had he delivered it perfectly, inexcusably smug — while perhaps opening the door further for Al Gore, whose defiant, antiwar fervor would seem well suited to the moment.
Depending on how you interpret the elections’ results, they may also boost the prospects for some younger candidate who can credibly claim distance from the establishment of both parties — a candidate much like Barack Obama. Washington pundits still persist in portraying our recent elections as a series of waves, alternately sweeping in the proponents of a blue team or a red team; by this theory, first came the Republican surge 12 years ago, and now comes the Democratic countersurge. But in fact, these two waves are more accurately viewed as part of the same continuous seismic disturbance: the growing frustration of voters with the Washington crowd of both parties, who seem stuck in the same ideological debate they were having in 1975, while the rest of the country struggles mightily with the emerging economic and international threats of 2006. After the midterms, that tidal resentment has now washed away both of our old governing philosophies: the expansive and often misguided liberalism that dominated American politics up through the 1970s, as well as the impractical, mean-spirited brand of conservatism that rose up in reaction to it.
It may be, then, that we have just witnessed the last big election of the 20th century; the question now is what kind of different, more relevant ideologies might rise from the ruins. Or, as Simon Rosenberg, the Democratic strategist, recently put it in making much the same argument, “Like two heavyweight boxers stumbling into the 15th round of a championship fight, the two great ideologies of the 20th century stumble, exhausted, tattered and weakened, into a very dynamic and challenging 21st century.” The era of baby-boomer politics — with its culture wars, its racial subtext, its archaic divisions between hawks and doves and between big government and no government at all — is coming to a merciful close. Our elections may become increasingly generational rather than ideological — and not a moment too soon.
This is why the new Democratic majority in Washington may fare no better in addressing the nation’s modern preoccupations than the Republican majority that preceded it. At week’s end, Democrats were preparing to name two 66-year-olds, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, as Senate majority leader and House speaker. In the House, Pelosi will be supported by new committee chairmen including longtime liberals like Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Charles Rangel of New York. They are, most of them, honorable public servants, warriors steeped in the battles of the last century. But the party remains reluctant to make room for its next generation, a pragmatic and talented group — led, perhaps, by Rahm Emanuel, the chief strategist behind the House elections — that includes many lesser-known names: Artur Davis of Alabama, Adam Smith of Washington, Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, Stephanie Herseth of South Dakota, Anthony Weiner of New York, Chris van Hollen of Maryland, Adam Schiff of California, Tim Ryan of Ohio. It might be too much to expect the paragons of Democratic politics to look to younger members when the reins of power are once again within their grasp. But the party that controls the next era of American politics may well be the one whose long-serving leaders can eventually summon the wisdom to step out of the way.
Matt Bai, a contributing writer, is at work on a book about the future of the Democratic Party.
|
|
| 256 | Seattle Zen
ID: 46315247 Sun, Nov 26, 2006, 12:50
|
The incoming chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee is promising an array of oversight investigations that could provoke sharp disagreement with Republicans and the White House.
Among the investigations Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., said he wants the committee to undertake:
-The new Medicare drug benefit. "There are lots and lots and lots of scandals," he said, without citing specifics.
-Spending on government contractors in Iraq, including Halliburton Co., the Texas-based oil services conglomerate once led by Vice President Dick Cheney.
-An energy task force overseen by Cheney. It "was carefully cooked to provide only participation by oil companies and energy companies," Dingell said.
|
|
| 257 | Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418 Wed, Dec 27, 2006, 12:07
|
If there were any lingering doubts that there are no differences between the two parties, disabuse yourself of that silly notion now.
Nancy Pelosi is going to be regarded as a Golden Child in history, a beaming beacon of hope and change after a disastrous Tom DeLay lead debauch.
With Promises of a Better-Run Congress, Democrats Take on Political Risks
Republican rule on Capitol Hill drew to an exhausted end just before dawn on Dec. 9 after lawmakers dispatched a pile of bills that few had read and even fewer had helped write. Democrats say the era of such chaotic and secretive legislating came to a close as well.
After chafing for years under what they saw as flagrant Republican abuse of Congressional power and procedures, the incoming majority has promised to restore House and Senate practices to those more closely resembling the textbook version of how a bill becomes law: daylight debate, serious amendments and minority party participation.
Beyond the parliamentary issues, Democrats assuming control on Jan. 4 said they also wanted to revive collegiality and civility in an institution that has been poisoned by partisanship in recent years. In a gesture duly noted by Republicans, the incoming speaker of the House, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, offered Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois, who is remaining in Congress, the use of prime office space in the Capitol out of respect for his position.
Mrs. Pelosi has consulted with the new Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, in developing initiatives for the year, including a task force to explore independent enforcement of ethics rules. That was in sharp contrast to two years ago, when Republicans — who only grudgingly consulted Democrats — pushed through a set of diluted ethics rules that they were later forced to rescind. Democrats also supported a severance package for senior Republican aides, but the spending was blocked in the last hours of Congress by conservative Republicans. Now that we have adults back in power, who are going to be the guests on AM talk radio? The Republican elected dog catcher of Toledo, OH? Will anyone be able to tell the difference? Or care?
|
|
| 258 | Tree
ID: 1411442914 Wed, Dec 27, 2006, 12:14
|
Or care?
well, that's the big question. no doubt, in this renewed, enlightened age, the people who elected the Democrats will relish in these changes, and hope they are more than just symbolic.
those who voted against the Dems, based on this message board, will hide their heads deep within the sand, and only come out now and then to see if the coast is clear for corruption and moral hipocrasy. When they see that we've left that behind, they're resume their hiding.
|
|
| 259 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Wed, Dec 27, 2006, 12:28
|
couple paragraphs down in your article SZ, is the tell-tale sign that the Reps havent "learned" their lesson:
Yet pledges to engage Republicans legislatively carry risks. If Democrats do not follow through or revert to practices they have spent recent years condemning, they are certain to come under attack from watchdog groups and Republicans. Republicans are already accusing Democrats of backsliding by not guaranteeing them hearings and amendments on legislation to be considered in an initial 100-hour legislative program that Democrats view as a showcase for their new majority.
But Republicans are hoping Democrats stick to their guns and allow the minority a stronger voice on legislation. The opposition leadership said it would take the opportunity to put forward initiatives that could be potentially troublesome for newly elected Democrats in Republican-leaning districts who within months will have to defend their hard-won seats.
“There are going to be days when we will offer alternatives in ways that are going to be very appealing to Democrats in districts the president carried just two years ago,” said Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, who will be the second-ranking House Republican in the 110th Congress.
So as I understand it;
The Dems say they will not "close out" the Rep minority in retaliation for the Reps having donse so to the Dems,
and the Rep response to that?
To introduce legislation they believe will be harmful to a sitting Dem, vs beneficial to the nation.
And people actually proudly proclaim to endorse those jackasses???????
|
|
| 260 | Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418 Wed, Jan 03, 2007, 17:30
|
Someone needs to get this reporter the Perm Dude memo - She's Not Running
The topic was the Democratic sweep in New Hampshire in November, and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton couldn’t get enough of it. Skip to next paragraph
Dining in Washington recently with three allies from New Hampshire, which has the first-in-the-nation primary, Mrs. Clinton was by turns probing and absorbing and, a participant said, clearly informed. How did the Democrats manage to unseat the state’s two Republican members of Congress? What were the key issues? And who were the new players to have emerged there in the 10 years since she last visited — and since her husband, Bill Clinton, used a strong second-place finish in the New Hampshire primary to vault his way to the Democratic nomination and the White House 15 years ago?
“She’s always been a student of government and of how you get there,” said Patricia McMahon, one of the dinner guests, a former Clinton White House aide who is now a state representative.
This meeting was one of a series of nearly nonstop political consultations that Mrs. Clinton has engaged in — over dinner and drinks, at private offices and at her home in Washington — since Election Day, in what her advisers say are preparations for a probable announcement that she is taking the first steps into the presidential campaign.
Mrs. Clinton, the New York Democrat, was described by participants as leaving little doubt that she plans to run, without saying so directly. Depending on her audience, she appears to be either seeking information to use in campaign strategy, pressing potential supporters to hold tight and wait for her to announce, or gauging how certain issues — in particular, her initial vote for the war in Iraq — might play.
|
|
| 261 | Perm Dude
ID: 3405938 Wed, Jan 03, 2007, 17:50
|
Heh heh. Well, your bolded text seems to just tell us that people are really, really sure she's going to run. No change there, IMO. Lots of talk and posturing and no declaring.
She may, in the end, run. This would be contrary to what she was saying internally and the advice she was also getting internally, up until fairly recently (I'm no longer in contact with the office as much as I was a year or so ago).
Its hard to say what running will mean to the Dems, however. Like her husband, she'll be a lightning rod for the right and far-right, which will energize the left and much of the middle.
But until she declares, she's not a candidate.
|
|
| 262 | Toral
ID: 52621719 Wed, Jan 03, 2007, 17:58
|
It's a woman's prerogative to change her mind. And it looks like she has.
|
|
| 263 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Wed, Jan 03, 2007, 18:05
|
Hypothetical:
Clinton-Obama
Whose 1st on the ticket, and whose VP?
|
|
| 264 | Perm Dude
ID: 3405938 Wed, Jan 03, 2007, 18:11
|
I think Obama/Clinton would be a strong ticket. But I also think Obama/Clark would as well.
|
|
| 265 | Toral
ID: 52621719 Wed, Jan 03, 2007, 18:17
|
I don't think Hillary would take 2nd spot on the ticket behind Osama. Sorry, Obama ;) After 8 years of attending funerals on behalf of Obama, Hillary would be too old to do anything else important. Hillary would have more power staying in the Senate, as its presumptive Democratic spiritual leader after Ted Kennedy leaves.
Toral
|
|
| 266 | Perm Dude
ID: 3405938 Wed, Jan 03, 2007, 18:22
|
I think that's true, but Hilary would deflect some potential criticism by running for Veep, while the ticket would enjoy many of the benefits of her running (feminists, etc).
|
|
| 267 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Wed, Jan 03, 2007, 18:37
|
either way if it won, its a ticket of "firsts";
First female Pres/VP First black Pres/VP
|
|
| 268 | Tree
ID: 10048317 Wed, Jan 03, 2007, 18:49
|
as i've said before, i see Obama as the VP on a democratic ticket, because he is young enough to do that for 8 years, and not even be 55 when he runs for president.
|
|
| 269 | Toral
ID: 52621719 Wed, Jan 03, 2007, 18:58
|
Obama has made such an impression that any other candidate winning the presidency, and not picking him as veep, would have some 'splaining to do.
Still, if I were a Democrat, I'd be looking at more than how to create a ticket of "firsts". I would want someone whose credentials have been tested; and also, someone whose presence on the ticket won't blow the election. I think the presence of the first black on a national ticket, as Veep, would be a net plus, not a minus. As a Democrat, I would want to do polling and focus groups to confirm that this is true.
'08 is a very winnable election for the Democrats. If I were a Democrat, I'd want to make sure the party doesn't blow it.
2 almost certainly electable Democrats, maybe the most onviously electable Democrats, have already withdrawn due to the nature of the electorate and the way Hillary and Obama have sucked the money and energy anyway -- Mark Warner (Virginia) and Evan Bayh (Indiana). Mark Warner scared Republicans more than any other possibility -- the moderate southern Governor ploy is 2-for-2.
Toral
|
|
| 270 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Wed, Jan 03, 2007, 19:02
|
not saying the intent would be to create a ticket of firsts. Only that such a ticket would be exactly that. As for appeal/qualifications...I think one would be hard pressed to create a ticket with more of either.
What Hillary has in experience and qualifications, Obama has in mass appeal. Obama has also spoken a different kind of political language than we have heard recently and his own accomplishments are not without merit.
Frankly, I think such a ticket would be damned hard for the Republicans to beat.
|
|
| 271 | bibA Leader
ID: 261028117 Wed, Jan 03, 2007, 19:30
|
I would bet my house that if Obama ends up as the VP candidate, that Condy ends up in the same spot for the Reps.
|
|
| 272 | Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418 Wed, Jan 03, 2007, 19:31
|
You would lose your house.
|
|
| 273 | Perm Dude
ID: 3405938 Wed, Jan 03, 2007, 19:35
|
Depends on what happens with Russia, I think. Condi is supposedly a Russian expert, but in the last few years we've seen Russian really sliding back while the Bush Administration (and Condi) have remained silent.
|
|
| 274 | Toral
ID: 52621719 Wed, Jan 03, 2007, 19:43
|
I think Condi's electoral future has changed a lot in the last year. It is now non-existent. Her views on domestic policy are more left-wing than the party's base. On foreign policy, her credential is now that she has advised President Bush. That credential is now worthless. Her advice may have been better than that of some of others, but that won't help her.
Toral
|
|
| 275 | Perm Dude
ID: 3405938 Wed, Jan 03, 2007, 19:46
|
On foreign policy, her credential is now that she has advised President Bush. That credential is now worthless.
Nicely put. Of Bush's inner circle, I think only Colin Powell has any electability, and that's a close call with his UN slideshow still in people's minds.
|
|
| |
| 277 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Fri, Jan 05, 2007, 11:33
|
I have no evidence what-so-ever to support the allegation that Haqnnity is the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks on our country either. But I think maybe he was.
The two allegations (from him re Clinton and from me re himself), are equally ludicrous and should be taken seriously by absolutely NOBODY.
|
|
| 278 | walk
ID: 259313119 Sat, Jan 06, 2007, 08:30
|
January 6, 2007 Op-Ed Columnist Monkey on a Tiger By MAUREEN DOWD
Washington
There was a touch of parody to the giddy Democrat takeover this week: Nancy Pelosi indulging her inner Haight-Ashbury and dipping the Capitol in tie-dye, sashaying around with the Grateful Dead, Wyclef Jean, Carole King, Richard Gere, feminists and a swarm of well-connected urchins.
The first act of House Democrats who promised to govern with bipartisan comity was imperiously banishing Republicans from participating in the initial round of lawmaking. Even if Republicans were brutes during their reign, Democrats should have shown more class, letting the whiny minority party offer some stupid amendments that would lose.
Perhaps the Democrats’ power-shift into overdrive is a neurological disorder, or neuropolitical disorder.
If free will is an illusion — if we are, as one philosopher put it, “nothing more than sophisticated meat machines,” doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over — that would explain a lot about the latest trend in which everyone is reverting to type.
William James wrote in 1890 that the whole “sting and excitement” of life comes from “our sense that in it things are really being decided from one moment to another, and that it is not the dull rattling off of a chain that was forged innumerable ages ago.”
But in Science Times this week, Dennis Overbye advised Dr. James to “get over it,” observing that “a bevy of experiments in recent years suggest that the conscious mind is like a monkey riding a tiger of subconscious decisions and actions in progress, frantically making up stories about being in control.”
As Mark Hallett of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke told Mr. Overbye, “Free will does exist, but it’s a perception, not a power or a driving force. ... The more you scrutinize it, the more you realize you don’t have it.”
That would explain why, after voters insisted that the president wrap it up in Iraq, he made a big show of pretending to listen, then decided to do a war do-over.
Is this just the baked-in stubbornness of one man, or is W.’s behavior evidence that he has no free will? Is the Decider freely choosing another huge blunder or is he taking instructions from his genetic and political coding, fearing that if he admits what a foul hash he’s made of Iraq, he’ll be labeled a wimp, as his dad was?
If W. is trapped on a tiger, he’s not the only one.
John McCain can’t get beyond seeing himself as a maverick now that he’s become a nonmaverick, a right-wing Republican urging an escalation of a hopeless war, even though he’s already lived through an escalation of a hopeless war.
“There are two keys to any surge in U.S. troops,” Senator McCain told an appreciative audience at the American Enterprise Institute yesterday. “It must be substantial, and it must be sustained.”
With the letter she and Harry Reid wrote to the president yesterday, warning him that “we are well past the point of more troops for Iraq,” Speaker Pelosi tried to exert her free will to stop the Surge. But the Democrats aren’t willing to take real action and cut off money for the Surge. They’re predetermined to want to have it both ways: not to be blamed for the war and not to be blamed for pulling the plug on the war.
Iraq has become a snake pit of factions failing to escape fate. Shiites and Sunnis have been fighting and killing each other for about 1,400 years over who was the rightful heir to Muhammad, and yet the entire American high command was somehow taken aback that Shiites and Sunnis can’t muster the free will to keep their country from disintegrating.
Could it have been kismet that there were Shiites taunting Saddam at his hanging? Maybe it was preordained back in the days when Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone and the British diplomat Gertrude Bell drew the boundaries of the modern Iraq that a security guy with a cellphone would capture the spectacle.
Despite all the talk back in the 2000 campaign about a robustly experienced foreign-policy dream team, it may have been destined that the Bush administration would be asleep in the run-up to the insurgency, just as it was asleep in the run-up to 9/11, to Katrina, to the occupation and to the refugee crisis in Iraq. Either all that was predetermined, or the administration was preternaturally negligent.
Arthur Schopenhauer, the German philosopher who said a man can do what he wants but cannot will what he wants, would have understood W.’s nonsensical urge to Surge.
We don’t know if human beings have free will. We just know that human beings in Washington appear not to.
|
|
| 279 | Toral
ID: 52621719 Thu, Apr 12, 2007, 18:08
|
Mickey Kaus poses some questions about the Democrats' strategy on Iraq:From a Layup to a Tossup--The Dems Switch Debates: Here's something I only realized under prodding from Bob Wright on Bloggingheads: There are two obvious possible debates to have about Iraq:
Debate A: Was launching the war a good idea in 2003?
Debate B: Should we "surge" or withdraw in 2007?
Haven't the Democrats, by prosecuting their funding fight with Bush over setting a withdrawal deadline, succeeded in changing the Iraq debate from A to B? From a debate over the war to a debate over the surge? From a debate about the last four years to a debate about the last four months?
And if so, isn't that a really dumb thing for them to do? Debate A looks like a sure winner for Democrats--it's hard to see anything happening between now and 2008 that would convince a majority of voters that starting the war in the first place was a good idea. Debate B, on the other hand, looks much iffier, as the surge shows at least some signs of at least temporary success. Even if the Democrats are right on Debate B they might lose Debate B. The more the surge succeeds, the more Debate B becomes a tossup. But even with a muddled "surge" scorecard, Debate B might skew against the Democrats if the aftermath of a pullout continues to look bloody and chaotic.**
Only a strategic mastermind like N. Pelosi would shift from an argument her party is bound to win to an argument it might lose.*** It would be especially ironic if Democrats lose Debate B because voters are convinced withdrawing would produce a sectarian bloodbath--since that would ordinarily be a powerful additional argument for a Dem victory in Debate A (i.e., the decision to launch the war has been such a disaster that we can't even withdraw in good conscience--we're trapped).
**--You hear rumblings that the Bushies know the surge won't ultimately succeed in winning (i.e. stabilizing) Iraq. But it could still succeed in winning the 2008 election. It's not hard to imagine the Bush administration pursuing the surge through November, 2008--and then shifting to a Juan Cole-like 'negotiated withdrawal' strategy. ...
***--I would guess we're about 36 hours from the first pundit speculating that Speaker Pelosi doesn't really want a Democrat to win the presidency, because Pelosi and the Congressional Dems have more prominence as an opposition power center. Under President Obama, nobody will care if Pelosi travels to Syria. ... Maybe Dick Morris has already said this. ...
Update: N.Z. Bear charges that the Dems have unnecessarily "become fully and totally invested in failure." (Tish Durkin has a good Iraqi invested-in-failure anecdote in her underappreciated, agonized Huffington post.) ... Backfill: Thomas Edsall implicitly made an argument like this in the NYT of 3/22. And you don't even have to pay to read it. Links to sources in original.
|
|
| 280 | biliruben
ID: 52014814 Thu, Apr 12, 2007, 18:20
|
That's what I like about Democrats. They often aren't very good politicians.
B is the most beneficial discussion for our country as a whole to have, even if it ain't easy.
|
|
| 281 | Perm Dude
ID: 48329127 Thu, Apr 12, 2007, 18:45
|
I think the Dems have played this pretty well. Remember, that the Congressional Republicans, in closed-door sessions, have given the Administration until August to have demonstrable progress that the surge is succeeding.
|
|
| 282 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Sun, Jun 10, 2007, 16:34
|
Riding the Economic Wave By George Will Sunday, June 10, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Early in George W. Bush's presidency, liberal critics said: The economy is not growing. Which was true. He inherited the debris of the 1990s' irrational exuberances. A brief (eight months) and mild (the mildest since World War II) recession began in March 2001, before any of his policies were implemented. It ended in November 2001.
In 2002, when his tax cuts kicked in and the economy began 65 months -- so far -- of uninterrupted growth, critics said: But it is a "jobless recovery." When the unemployment rate steadily declined -- today it is 4.5 percent; time was, 6 percent was considered full employment -- critics said: Well, all right, the economy is growing and creating jobs and wealth, but the wealth is not being distributed in accordance with the laws of God or Nature or liberalism or something.
Last Sunday, eight Democratic presidential candidates debated for two hours, saying about the economy ... next to nothing. You must slog to page 43 in the 51-page transcript before Barack Obama laments that "the burdens and benefits of this new global economy are not being spread evenly across the board" and promises to "institute some fairness in the system."
Well. When in the long human story have economic burdens and benefits been "spread evenly"? Does Obama think they should be, even though talents never are? What relationship of "fairness" does he envision between the value received by individuals and the value added by them? Does he disagree -- if so, on what evidence? -- with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke that "the influence of globalization on inequality has been moderate and almost surely less important than the effects of skill-biased technological change"?
What Samuel Johnson said of Milton's "Paradise Lost" can be said of the debate's short discussion of economic matters: No one could wish it longer. Granted, the candidates had bigger fish to fry -- one another, for their various positions on starting and ending the war. And the questioners set the debate's agenda. But if the Democrats had anything pithy to say about the economy, they would have said it.
They have a problem. How do you exclaim, as Hillary Clinton does, that today's economy is "like going back to the era of the robber barons," and insist that the nation urgently needs substantial tax increases, in the face of these facts:
In the 102 quarters since Ronald Reagan's tax cuts went into effect more than 25 years ago, there have been 96 quarters of growth. Since the Bush tax cuts and the current expansion began, the economy's growth has averaged 3 percent per quarter and more than 8 million jobs have been created. The deficit as a percentage of GDP is below the post-World War II average.
Democrats, economic hypochondriacs, all see economic sickness. They should get on with legislating their cure.
Twenty-three months after the next president is inaugurated, the Bush tax cuts expire. The winner of the 2008 election and her or his congressional allies will determine what is done about the fact that, unless action is taken, in 2011 the economy will be walloped:
The five income tax brackets (10, 25, 28, 33 and 35 percent) will be increased 50, 12, 10.7, 9.1 and 13.1 percent, respectively, to 15, 28, 31, 36 and 39.6 percent. The child tax credit reverts to $500 from $1,000. The estate tax rate, which falls to zero in 2009, will snap back to a 60 percent maximum and exemptions that have increased will decrease. The capital gains rate will rise and the marriage penalty will be revived, as will the double taxation of dividends.
Furthermore, the Alternative Minimum Tax was enacted by Democratic moralists in 1969 because 21 millionaires had legally avoided paying any income tax. The AMT, which allows almost no deductions, had one rate (24 percent) until 1993, when Democrats replaced it with two (26 percent and 28 percent). It has never been indexed for inflation and in the current tax year will hit almost one in five households -- 23 million of them.
Democrats need not confine themselves to their ritual tropes about how "the middle class is under assault" (Clinton again). They control Congress; they can act. The unemployed John Edwards, who has the luxury of irresponsibility, challenges Democrats to repeal the Bush tax cuts they disapprove of rather than wait for them to expire.
Democrats cannot end the war (actually, they can but won't) but they can send their tax agenda to the president and dare him to veto it. They can but they won't. Do you wonder why?
|
|
| 283 | Perm Dude
ID: 14501017 Sun, Jun 10, 2007, 18:00
|
Democrats, economic hypochondriacs...
ROFL! I love how Will attacks Clinton, while defending Bush, and attacks the Democratic candidates for not answering economic questions that weren't asked in the debate.
Will is in some kind of alternative universe. He blames Democrats, somehow, for not changing the AMT, since 1993. Take a guess--how many years were Democrats in charge of Congress since 1993?
What's next, George? Democrats to blame for the last farm bill? Medicare bill? The sheer size of the federal government?
George Will seems to believe that we should not look to the Democrats because the complexity of the economic problems brought on by years of mismanagement by Republicans. We should, in fact, "stay the course" on the economy.
Luckily, most Americans aren't buying that crap. They know where the blame lies. And they know that many of the Democrats (Obama among them) realize fairness when they see it.
|
|
| 284 | Toral
ID: 395242219 Fri, Jun 22, 2007, 20:52
|
I never fulfilled my intention to start a thread on the political question that currently most interests me: "Could we be entering a liberal era"? Too much to think about and analyze.That's the #1 question for me. Not "Could the Democrats have a Huge 2008?" Easy answer :"Yes they could, and probably will." Not even "Could the Democrats control the Presidency and both Houses of Congress for 8 years after 2008"? The answer is yes they could. But that can happen even in the midst of an era where there is no ideological change.
I see people on the left are now thinking about this question. I commend to you this article, "Will the Progressive Majority Emerge?" It looks at the key points long-run -- not how Hillary is running against Giuliani in the polls today, but first at those poll answers that show a possible shift -- even a tectonic shift? -- in crucial political opinions.
And then the $64,000 question: if there is such an opportunity, can the Democratic Party take advantage of it?
And of course I like his Reagan analysis.: More and more I find myself telling a story I consider the key to understanding modern American political history: that of Ronald Reagan's 1966 California gubernatorial campaign. His expensive, top-drawer consultants had hired a company formed by psychology PhDs who promised that Reagan's would be the first campaign run "as a problem in human behavior." Many liberal interpreters of Reagan's career have pointed to this to suggest that he was plastic, or a pawn, or a manipulator of voters. Not so. In fact, he was the opposite. One of the first things he did was tell all these fancy pollsters to shut up. In his early, exploratory campaigning, he'd been attacking the insolence of insurgent Berkeley students--who "should have been taken by the scruff of the neck and thrown out of the university once and for all." His consultants told him to knock it off, pointing to their data: Berkeley didn't even show up as an issue. Reagan threw the polls back in their faces: "Look, I don't care if I'm in the mountains, the desert, the biggest cities of the state, the first question is: 'What are you going to do about Berkeley?' And each time the question itself would get applause."
Reagan followed his heart, of course, made Berkeley his signature issue and thumped Edmund Brown in one of the greatest upsets in modern political history (even though the establishment media hated his conservatism then more than they hate our liberalism now, and even though Republican elites were more unmistakably ashamed of the GOP "brand" than DLCers are of the Democratic one now). The technical lesson in this story is that longitudinal polls like Pew's are inherently incomplete. They derive their value from asking exactly the same questions over time, even though the banquet of issues people care about always changes. A politician who goes into battle believing polls can teach him "the issues" is fighting in a static world, which is not the world we live in.
But the more profound lesson is that the greatest politicians create their own issues, ones that no one knew existed. Was the mood in California favorable for Reagan's conservative message in 1966? Obviously, or else Reagan wouldn't have won; he wasn't a magician. But he was--yes--a great communicator, confident of his gifts. By listening and interacting with ordinary people, and sniffing out where his own sense of right and wrong dovetailed with what he heard, he divined a certain inchoate mood. It had to do both with a fear of breakdown of the social order and resentment of liberal elites. Finding those frequencies sounding via the trope of "Berkeley," he was able to turn that mood into a political appeal. In that regard, his pollsters could only hurt him. All they knew was that Berkeley wasn't an "issue."
Toral
|
|
| 286 | Mith
ID: 2894309 Wed, Apr 22, 2009, 14:36
|
Thanks to Guru for restoring this thread.
NYT:There was one more check on intelligence programs, one designed in the 1970s to make sure independent observers kept an eye on spy agencies: Congress. The Senate and House Intelligence Committees had been created in the mid-1970s to prevent any repeat of the C.I.A. abuses unearthed by the Senate’s Church Committee.
As was common with the most secret programs, the C.I.A. chose not to brief the entire committees about the interrogation methods but only the so-called Gang of Four — the top Republican and Democrat on the Senate and House committees. The rest of the committee members would be fully briefed only in 2006.
The 2002 Gang of Four briefings left a hodgepodge of contradictory recollections that, to some Congressional staff members, reveal a dysfunctional oversight system. Without full staff support, few lawmakers are equipped to make difficult legal and policy judgments about secret programs, critics say.
Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, who in 2002 was the ranking Democrat on the House committee, has said in public statements that she recalls being briefed on the methods, including waterboarding. She insists, however, that the lawmakers were told only that the C.I.A. believed the methods were legal — not that they were going to be used.
By contrast, the ranking Republican on the House committee at the time, Porter J. Goss of Florida, who later served as C.I.A. director, recalls a clear message that the methods would be used.
“We were briefed, and we certainly understood what C.I.A. was doing,” Mr. Goss said in an interview. “Not only was there no objection, there was actually concern about whether the agency was doing enough.”
Senator Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida, who was committee chairman in 2002, said in an interview that he did not recall ever being briefed on the methods, though government officials with access to records say all four committee leaders received multiple briefings. Sullivan:For what it's worth, I believe Goss. Getting to the bottom of how the US became a torturing nation is not about one party or another. It's about getting accountability from all those who made it happen. Word.
|
|
| 287 | Guru
ID: 330592710 Tue, May 05, 2009, 12:11
|
Historical tidbit, relevant to this site.
Scott Murphy, the Democrat who recently won the special election to assume the seat vacated by Kirstin Gillibrand, was one of the three original founding partners of Small World Software.
About the time I got started with RotoGuru, Scott had already moved away from daily involvement with SW Sports, as the company was being formally split into two pieces - one for fantasy sports, the other for software development. Scott stayed with the software business, which was subsequently sold to iXL in 1998 (according to Wikipedia - which agrees with my own personal recollection).
Sometimes it really is a Small World.
|
|
| 288 | Mith
ID: 2894309 Fri, May 08, 2009, 12:01
|
Was anyone else wondering what Bill Richardson has been up to lately?
|
|
| 289 | Boldwin
ID: 11301223 Fri, Apr 16, 2010, 21:02
|
Got a huge laugh outta this assessment. It's true that Dem success hinges on this...Ultimately, progressives must convince as many Americans as possible that an active but accountable public sector is not antithetical, but is actually essential, to basic traditional values like "freedom," and to a society in which individual "virtue" is understood as something to be enabled and expanded, not angrily defended as a fixed and endangered commodity. How we talk about "middle-class values," not just on "cultural issues" but on core economic issues, will go a long way towards determining whether we can maintain the Democratic Party's longstanding position as the party of the masses, not the classes. ...but just how the libertine party manages to convince anyone they are the party to expand virtues...
...how the party that hates the bourgeoisie can cozy up to 'middle class values'...
...and how the party that cozies up to Hugo Chavez convinces anyone that they are interested in freedom...
Will depend on whether they can find a world class liar to be their spokesman. Then again, they have a certain flair for that.
As if big government weren't antithetical to freedom. That is gonna be some creative lying.
|
|
| 290 | Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157 Fri, Apr 16, 2010, 21:38
|
That party being the Palin Party, as Chavez sponsors the blatantly irresponsible sport of long distance snow machine racing.
|
|
| 291 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Apr 16, 2010, 21:38
|
Actually, Democratic success at the polls don't depend upon that entirely. If they can convince enough Americans, as they did last election, that the Republicans have no ideas and actually want to go backwards then most Americans will continue to want to give Democrats the ball.
The GOP will want to make next election some kind of confidence test. But no election occurs in a vacuum, and if the GOP can't come up with its own viable plans then voters aren't going to want to make a switch.
And by November the Dems will have the wind at their back, with a likely economic recovery starting to kick in, jobs returning, no brownshirts busting down doors as Bachman, et all, insist would happen, etc.
|
|
| 292 | Boldwin
ID: 11301223 Fri, Apr 16, 2010, 22:42
|
Admittedly putting off the euthanasia for half a decade until Americans were lulled into resignation was a stroke of genius.
|
|
| 293 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Apr 16, 2010, 23:00
|
It is a lot easier to kill someone after they are kneeling, hands behind their head....
[wait--did I say that out loud?]
|
|
| 294 | Boldwin
ID: 11301223 Sat, Apr 17, 2010, 12:18
|
You're not in the safety of a Columbia University faculty room you know.
|
|
| |
| |
| 297 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, May 11, 2010, 17:45
|
It looks like Sestak is really moving in the race against Specter. Good for him. I was impressed with him during the town hall debates on the health care bill, and Sestak has the resume and the rhetorical chops to be a very good US Senator.
Specter's biggest appeal all along is that he would give the Dems another seat (and that he would beat Toomey in the general election). More and more, however, voters aren't really buying it.
Ironically, Obama's election in 2008 (running on the case, essentially, that competence matters more than party) would short circuit Specter's main appeal to voters in this state.
|
|
| 298 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, May 13, 2010, 19:49
|
As long as we're keeping a tally, let's not forget the special election for NY-23.
Way to go Tea Party! Take a safe GOP seat and hand it to the Democrats.
|
|
| |
| 300 | Boldwin
ID: 24528715 Tue, Jun 08, 2010, 07:11
|
Rock the Vote Long time reader, first time writer. 22 years old. Just wanted to comment briefly on something you mentioned about Obamacare. I have a lot of friends my own age who were all for socialized medicine, and wholeheartedly supported the idea of healthcare reform. We’re talking very, very, very liberal kids. They hate this thing. The overwhelming consensus among kids my age is pretty much as follows: We pay into social security which we KNOW we’ll never get anything from. In much the same vein, Obamacare is yet another way in which we’re being taxed to support a bunch of old people. Overwhelmingly, we feel that we’re being taken advantage of to subsidize a bunch of old people we don’t know, will never meet, and frankly shouldn’t need to be paying to support. Overwhelmingly, we had hoped to see a health care system that didn’t take advantage of young people and burden them even more than we already are. College loans are killing us, social security payments take a chunk out of every check, for those of us lucky enough to have jobs, and now this.
I can’t even tell you how many people my own age who voted for Obama have come to me and told me how disappointed they are in what he’s done with this whole thing.
|
|
| 301 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Jun 08, 2010, 09:21
|
Not surprising--young people who don't feel they will ever need health care are mad that they have to pay for insurance.
|
|
| 302 | Boldwin
ID: 24528715 Tue, Jun 08, 2010, 09:38
|
Denial. Let me direct you to the title of this thread. 'The Direction of the Democratic Party (II)'
Going from fainting at Obama rock concerts, to 'why am I paying into another program I'll never use'...is gonna make the next MTV 'Rock the Vote' effort into a whole nuther thing.
Whine about how unfair it all is all you want. Here's a crying towel.
|
|
| 303 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Jun 08, 2010, 09:59
|
Denial? That's your response to my point that the young don't feel they need health insurance?
Oh, wait--you think (hope) that the young will turn against Obama because of this and vote for whoever is running for the GOP? Yours isn't a point about the young at all, but a sidebar on your projected hopes that this will derail Obama in the election.
Keep hoping. Since the GOP is out of ideas this is all you have, really.
Whine about how unfair it all is all you want. Here's a crying towel.
Where, exactly, did I whine?
|
|
| 304 | Boldwin
ID: 24528715 Tue, Jun 08, 2010, 10:05
|
Does this impact the direction or not? Don't tell me why you don't think it should.
|
|
| 306 | Boldwin
ID: 24528715 Tue, Jun 08, 2010, 10:08
|
'Yeah, but they're young and stupid' does not count. Except as a whine.
|
|
| 307 | Mith
ID: 482583111 Tue, Jun 08, 2010, 10:10
|
You're saying that far-left liberals who supported Obama in 2008 will vote GOP this year because healthcare reform wasn't socialist enough for them?
|
|
| 308 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Jun 08, 2010, 10:11
|
Are you reading the Fox News Style Guide for Quotations now?
If you want to (grudgingly) address my point I'd be happy to hear it. But so long as you insist on reading different words than I am writing you will continue to be a lonely windmill-tilting outposter.
|
|
| 309 | Mith
ID: 482583111 Tue, Jun 08, 2010, 10:11
|
Man it would be some kind of RNC ad campaign that pulls that one off.
|
|
| 310 | Boldwin
ID: 24528715 Tue, Jun 08, 2010, 10:20
|
'young people who don't feel they will ever need health care are mad' = 'Yeah, but they're young and stupid'
Exactly
|
|
| 311 | Mith
ID: 482583111 Tue, Jun 08, 2010, 10:30
|
B did you read the excerpt in your own post?
"I have a lot of friends my own age who were all for socialized medicine, and wholeheartedly supported the idea of healthcare reform."
Their beef is that the system doesn't give them socialized medicine (which would seem to fit your definition of 'stupid').
Anyway, why would they suddenly switch over to the party that was collectively determined to kill anything resembling a public option?
|
|
| 312 | Boldwin
ID: 24528715 Tue, Jun 08, 2010, 11:14
|
Direction: 'more likely to sit on their hands in a midterm'.
But who knows. Campaigning is usually an Obama strong points so...
|
|
| 313 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Tue, Jun 08, 2010, 11:20
|
Democrats Skip Town Halls to Avoid Voter Rage
The sentiment that fueled the rage during those Congressional forums is still alive in the electorate. But the opportunities for voters to openly express their displeasure, or angrily vent as video cameras roll, have been harder to come by in this election year.
If the time-honored tradition of the political meeting is not quite dead, it seems to be teetering closer to extinction. Of the 255 Democrats who make up the majority in the House, only a handful held town-hall-style forums as legislators spent last week at home in their districts.
It was no scheduling accident.
|
|
| 314 | Boldwin
ID: 24528715 Thu, Jun 10, 2010, 05:56
|
Referendum on Socialismhe one message that stands out from all the others after Tuesday's primaries: The ideology that has dominated the Democratic Party for decades is set for a whuppin' this fall.
Some might be tempted to spin Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln's unexpected victory in the Democratic primary runoff against Lt. Gov. Bill Halter as a sign that the Democratic establishment is not in that much trouble after all.
But consider: The White House is noting that the loser was the candidate of Big Labor. An Obama official made a point of pointing out to the Politico's Ben Smith that "organized labor just flushed $10 million of their members' money down the toilet on a pointless exercise." The losing Halter had the big backing of the AFL-CIO, the SEIU and other major unions.
The senior staffer went on to claim that "if even half that total had been well-targeted and applied in key House races across this country, that could have made a real difference in November."
Could it? Ask Republican Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts or New Jersey GOP Gov. Chris Christie about the effect of this president supporting their opponents — and both their races were before the bottom really fell out of President Obama's popularity.
While it's true that Lincoln did tout her support from the president — and former President Clinton's endorsement to boot — the fact is she is a comparative moderate who was running against a union-backed liberal. Moreover, that opponent's polling numbers were never very good. And finally, Lincoln only squeaked through.
Let's look at the "tea leaves" elsewhere. In California, anti-amnesty blogger Mickey Kaus — with virtually zero resources — got more than 90,000 votes in the Democratic Senate primary. Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina handily won the GOP race and looks to be in a good position to defeat incumbent Democrat Sen. Barbara Boxer, whom Kaus ran against. His 90,000 votes are more portentous than the several thousand votes that made the difference in Arkansas.
Fiorina's win, along with Meg Whitman's in the California GOP gubernatorial primary, means that candidates representing smart business sense will be pitted against two personifications of profligate liberalism: Boxer and former Gov. Jerry Brown. Whitman referred to herself and Fiorina as career politicians' "biggest nightmare: two businesswomen who know how to create jobs, balance budgets and get things done."
In Nevada there will be no pastel colors this fall, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid faces Sharron Angle, a former assemblywoman and Tea Party Republican committed to deep cuts in taxes, big cuts in government and fundamental reform of entitlement programs.
In many respects, this fall's elections will be the most philosophy-oriented in many a year.
What about those who argue that the Democratic Party's base is just as energized as the Tea Party movement? They must explain how, exactly, it's a positive for what they believe in when bodyguards are forced to form "a six-person ring around" House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at a liberal event on Tuesday, as described by the Washington Post's Dana Milbank.
Your supporters are supposed to cheer you when you're in power, not try to boo you off the stage. Yet in spite of mega-spending and a government health care takeover, the grass-roots left remains unsatisfied with the Obama-Pelosi-Reid triumvirate.
This November's showdown is going to be over ideas, and it will be hard for those whose ideas have wreaked havoc for two years of total rule in Washington to get through the approaching storm.
|
|
| 315 | biliruben
ID: 16105237 Thu, Jun 10, 2010, 07:42
|
"...and both their races were before the bottom really fell out of President Obama's popularity."
He's been running around 50% approval for almost a year. There wasn't any bottom falling out.
Fiorini = smart business sense? Giggle. She ran her company into the ground.
Whitman ran as a racist, not a business woman. Listening to her race-bating every commercial break on the Dodger games made me want to vomit.
I guess editorials don't have to have their facts right, but as opinion pieces go, that one should have been in the WSJ opposite-land editorial page for it's predictive ability.
|
|
| 316 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Jun 10, 2010, 09:33
|
Love how they say things like "senior staffer" and "An Obama official" as though they have some kind of inside source they can't reveal but which backs them up. Truth is, it was Robert Gibbs, at the daily briefing, who issued those comments.
This November's showdown is going to be over ideas
They got this one right. The idea that an open Birther (and Oath Keeper) can be elected as Senator is one. Maybe she'll win on her anti-fluoride stance?
|
|
| 317 | Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157 Thu, Jun 10, 2010, 09:55
|
Less than 5% of Arkansas workers are union. Gibbs is absolutely correct in stating "organized labor just flushed $10 million of their members' money down the toilet on a pointless exercise."
Lincoln is a Blue Dog, and just as the right has targeted moderate Republicans for exile, so the left has it out for responsible spending Dems. My Blue Dog congressman, Jim Matheson, was forced into a primary against an uber liberal, in payback for voting against health reform.
|
|
| 318 | biliruben
ID: 358252515 Thu, Jun 10, 2010, 11:40
|
I wouldn't characterize Obama as pro-union. RTTT is a direct attack on teachers unions.
|
|
| 319 | Boldwin
ID: 45561815 Fri, Jun 18, 2010, 16:06
|
William Galston, than whom there is no better thinker among Democrats today, [and with whom I keep current - B] has been reading the same polls as his Brookings colleague E. J. Dionne, but takes a much harsher view of what Democrats can do. “In a blogpost on The New Republic website headlined “Prepare yourself for Speaker Boehner,” Galston tell House Democrats “it’s time to press the panic button,” and cites the analysis of political scientist Alan Abramowitz on Larry Sabato’s website and the analysis by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg of the poll he and Republican pollster Glenn Bolger conducted for NPR. Here’s Galston’s advice for House Democrats: “
Democrats must face the fact that much of the legislation that seems both necessary and proper to them looks quite different to the portion of the electorate that holds the balance of political power. And they must face a choice as well—between (to be blunt) the politics of conviction and the politics of self-preservation. They can continue on as they have been going since January 2009, or they can adopt a concerted strategy designed to take the edge off public anger and reduce their losses. They can spend the summer arguing about matters like immigration, climate change, and the war in Afghanistan, all of which are valid and important but way down on the public’s list of the most urgent problems—or they can refocus on jobs and the economy, reinforcing the ‘Recovery Summer’ theme the White House unveiled on Thursday.”
Read that first sentence again. It reminds me of the old story about the advertising agency and the dog food. The best ads in the world failed to increase sales of the dog food. So they sent a market researcher in and found the reason: The dogs didn’t like the dog food. The Democrats’ problem is similar. The American people don’t like the dog food (“legislation that seems both necessary and proper to them”) produced by the Obama Democrats.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/They-dont-like-the-dog-food--96672484.html#ixzz0rEjtk4Yl
|
|
| 320 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Jun 18, 2010, 16:10
|
You're doing a great service to Democrats, Baldwin. Nothing like lighting a fire under their asses to get them to get into campaign mode.
|
|
| 321 | Boldwin
ID: 45561815 Fri, Jun 18, 2010, 16:17
|
You are under the impression this site is influential?
|
|
| 322 | Boldwin
ID: 34837183 Sat, Sep 18, 2010, 10:10
|
Debbie Halvorson's astroturf. Getting some national attention for really going for low blows.
My district. Dems so desperate that they are pulling support from Chicago races to save 3 districts in downstate Illinois, Halvorson among them.
Her goose is so cooked tho. Republicans ran one of the most attractive candidates I have ever seen. The guy could easily be the next president from Illinois. He is so popular that there are 4x8 signs everywhere. Didn't see my first Halvorson sign for months later.
|
|
| |
| 324 | Boldwin
ID: 46834294 Wed, Sep 29, 2010, 09:59
|
Alan Grayson in trouble.
I would helpfully point out to him that Al Franken has left a clown seat opening on SNL.
|
|
| 325 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Wed, Sep 29, 2010, 10:18
|
Don't know how Boldwin missed this one.
|
|
| 326 | Boldwin
ID: 46834294 Wed, Sep 29, 2010, 11:23
|
I'm deliberately stepping down my participation for the next two months. Lots of great stuff I read, not getting posted.
|
|
| |
| |
| 329 | Boldwin
ID: 10843012 Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 16:28
|
Rats, ship.
|
|
| 330 | biliruben
ID: 34820210 Fri, Oct 01, 2010, 01:09
|
Don't be calling your next mayor a rat.
|
|
| 331 | Boldwin
ID: 4693818 Fri, Oct 01, 2010, 09:38
|
In his case it's more like 'mother of all rats'. There won't be a contract let out in the city that isn't mob connected when that brass knuckles rat gets done.
|
|
| 332 | walk
ID: 517172117 Fri, Oct 01, 2010, 09:48
|
NYT: Big Leagues for Rahm
A rundown of some of the reasons why he will, and will not, get elected mayor of Chicago.
|
|
| 333 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Fri, Oct 01, 2010, 09:50
|
He should change his name to Daley.
|
|
| 334 | Boldwin
ID: 4693818 Fri, Oct 01, 2010, 11:31
|
Obama praising Rahm recounts the time in his youth when he injured his middle finger thus rendering him mute!
Yeah, that captures him. His idea of congressional cloak-room ettiquete was to explain how he was going to bury you.
|
|
| 335 | Mith
ID: 28646259 Fri, Oct 01, 2010, 12:27
|
I'll certainly agree with anyone on the right who thinks the White House, congress and probably the country as a whole will be better off.
|
|
| 336 | The Left Behind
ID: 66232012 Fri, Oct 01, 2010, 13:00
|
Chicago will be lucky to have him. "Never let a good crisis go to waste."
|
|
| 337 | Mith
ID: 28646259 Fri, Oct 01, 2010, 13:14
|
It'll be interesting to see what happens. I don't think Rham is what DC politcs needs now (maybe he was better suited in the 90s, idk). But in Chicago maybe he turns out to be the just right kind of cut-throat, since that neems like a prerequisite there. Not part of my region of the country, so I'm just guessing.
|
|
| 338 | Boldwin
ID: 4693818 Fri, Oct 01, 2010, 13:44
|
He was born for it. Intimidation, corruption, payoffs, complete lack of ethics and principles. He will be a legend. If he can get elected the first time. Sometimes being black is required. He doesn't meet the legal residency requirement. It's Chicago so maybe that matters, maybe it doesn't.
|
|
| 339 | Tree, not at home
ID: 18342816 Fri, Oct 01, 2010, 14:50
|
Sometimes being black is required.
this fits into one of those posts MITH makes about "why do they say these things?!?!"
|
|
| 340 | Boldwin
ID: 17956115 Fri, Oct 01, 2010, 16:56
|
That's not racist. In the election that Harold Washington won originally, it was a forgone conclusion that a black would win it. I don't know why it was then and not when Daley was elected. Something idiosynchratic with machine politics or maybe the media. But that was the oft stated zeitgeist at the time.
|
|
| 341 | bibA
ID: 48627713 Fri, Oct 01, 2010, 17:09
|
I see. When a black wins, it is because the machine required it. Otherwise, it is idiosynchratic with machine politics or the media.
|
|
| 342 | Boldwin
ID: 17956115 Fri, Oct 01, 2010, 18:00
|
I don't know if the culture of the city just demanded blacks get their turn at the time, which is understandable given their numbers there, but that same sentiment never dominated another election there to my memory. You have a better theory, give it.
|
|
| 343 | Boldwin
ID: 17956115 Fri, Oct 01, 2010, 18:10
|
The wiki on Washington adds stuff I forgot. He won due to a split between white Jane Burn and Rich Daley. Since Washington's days, it has been the black community that cannot unite behind a single man and so keep losing the primary.
|
|
| 344 | Boldwin
ID: 329169 Wed, Oct 06, 2010, 10:46
|
Dick Morris on the turnout gap.
|
|
| 345 | Boldwin
ID: 329169 Wed, Oct 06, 2010, 11:24
|
Amazingly NY Senate seat is in play. NY certainly not a hotbed of conservatism but the Dem incumbent is the perfect example of who the public has their pitchforks set for.
Defender of ACORN when dems were running for the hills on that.
Played role in forcing sub-primes on banks and then personally profited handsomely selling short sub-prime lenders.
Near perfect record flip-flopping on every issue.
Vain.
Former big tobacco lawyer who later lied about it.
Cheerleader for the GZ mosque.
Sockpuppet for Schummer/Pelosi/Reid.
|
|
| |
| 347 | Boldwin
ID: 38957618 Wed, Oct 06, 2010, 20:08
|
The advantage of having VP on the resume when applying for president has always been dubious and in every other way, connection to Obama is toxic to her chances.
Not gonna happen. Besides she says it's not gonna happen.
|
|
| 348 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Oct 06, 2010, 20:34
|
#345: I think you mean NV rather than NY.
Angle has been trending downward but is still in it, mostly because of Reid's unfavorables. Hard to tell what will happen there with so many variables in play, but the national Dems will put in a lot of money into that race over the next 3+ weeks (while pulling out of states already decided, like NY).
|
|
| 349 | Boldwin
ID: 40921621 Wed, Oct 06, 2010, 22:26
|
Read the link before correcting me, PD.
|
|
| 350 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Oct 06, 2010, 22:42
|
My bad. I thought you were referring to an actual race.
Gillibrand has been consistently leading her opponent in double digits for quite some time. If you are looking for some good news for your "side," you best stick with looking West because you are going to be 0-2 in New York State on Election Day.
|
|
| 351 | Boldwin
ID: 40921621 Wed, Oct 06, 2010, 22:53
|
You would think...
|
|
| 352 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Wed, Oct 06, 2010, 23:26
|
i wonder if Baldwin even realizes it was Republicans and Conservatives that got Gillibrand into office in the first place in NY's traditionally conservative 20th district.
|
|
| |
| |
| |
| 356 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Oct 08, 2010, 11:11
|
Ha! Yes, the dead and prisoners are now going to vote Democratic because they got $250.
|
|
| 357 | Boldwin
ID: 33943722 Fri, Oct 08, 2010, 11:24
|
They are cheap votes.
|
|
| 358 | Boldwin
ID: 40945137 Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 08:46
|
The experts scratching their heads as Dem in deep blue Arizona district starts to look vulnerable. Calling for a boycott of your own state in the middle of a depression will do that.
|
|
| 360 | Tree, not at home
ID: 18342816 Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 10:38
|
just as a point of concern for Guru and this board, weren't we really told to avoid copying and re-posting large chunks of articles from the internet?
|
|
| 361 | Boldwin
ID: 40945137 Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 11:08
|
Manifestos were meant to be manifest.
|
|
| 362 | Tree, not at home
ID: 18342816 Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 12:45
|
Manifestos were meant to be manifest.
not if it gets Guru sued and rotoguru shut down.
i posted that not to argue a point with you, but just to bring it to the attention of the mods - if they feel it's ok, no argument from me.
|
|
| 363 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 12:48
|
FYI, I'm cutting 359 in a minute. Baldwin, please note:
"All site contents © Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC."
article link
|
|
| 365 | The Left Behind
ID: 66232012 Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 12:52
|
359 is the truest post I have ever seen in this forum. Good work Boldwin.
|
|
| 366 | Mith
ID: 28646259 Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 13:13
|
Ignorance as an asset once again. According to that writer's standard, not only am I not a liberal either, but I don't even know a single one, and I live just outside NYC.
You really think the American right doesn't contradict conservative values far more readily and more often? No need to prop up a fringe kook to present as the face of the movement, look at actual governing foreign policy, fiscal policy. What a stupid column, much less one to share a ridiculous high five over.
|
|
| 367 | Boldwin
ID: 40945137 Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 13:19
|
Fair enuff. Given the current threat to free speech.
Blogs have now become closed to those without the time to click on every link in every blog. A sad farewell to a golden era of the internet and an open invitation to those who cannot stand the light of day shined on them to scurry about once again unexposed.
|
|
| 368 | The Left Behind
ID: 66232012 Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 13:22
|
359 was a grand slam and you know it Mith.
|
|
| 369 | Mith
ID: 28646259 Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 13:39
|
You and I see the world from very different perspectives, TLB.
I didn't see the post so if there was more to it than the linked column then I don't know what you're talking about. But the column was a only a grand slam if you are truly clueless about liberal ideals or just can't tell ignorance and hypocrisy from thoughtful commentary.
|
|
| 371 | Boldwin
ID: 40945137 Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 13:40
|
I have e-mailed Bob Siegel for reprint permission. I'll keep you up to date, LB.
|
|
| 372 | Boldwin
ID: 40945137 Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 13:44
|
MITH
You remind me of 'non-denominational' churches who run away from admitting their provenance like vampires from water.
"Just tell me how you want your ears tickled and no you may not pin me down on anything".
|
|
| 373 | Tree, not at home
ID: 18342816 Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 13:49
|
I didn't see the post so if there was more to it than the linked column then I don't know what you're talking about.
the entire column, save for the first three paragraphs, was c-and-p'd onto this board. basically the entire "manifesto".
as for the "manifesto" itself, it's only a home run for those who see things in the blackest of black and the whites of white, with no colors, shading, or tinting in-between.
it reminds me of the original BASIC programming language, and an "If Then" statement, where as because you were dealing with a computer that had to be told EXACTLY what to do, there weren't any other options.
|
|
| 374 | The Left Behind
ID: 66232012 Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 13:50
|
But the column was a only a grand slam if
you wake up in the morning and observe the world around you.
|
|
| 375 | biliruben
ID: 358252515 Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 13:51
|
Us liberals shore due luv bein' told what we tink bout stuff. Golly! Yukity yuk yuk!
|
|
| 376 | Mith
ID: 4982142 Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 14:23
|
For you, TLB
1. I don't know any American liberals who believe "...George Bush, other Republicans, or right-wing, born-again Christians who are clearly responsible historically for most of the evils of the world."
2. I don't know any American liberals who "...like the laws in China that limit how many children one can birth..."
3. I believe a government by the people is rightly responsible for for expressing it's preference for who presides over it's federal judical branch. I have no idea why any "conservative" would equate that responsibility with the ather libertarian preference to allow people to raise their children however they want.
4. Forcing government control over what women can do with their own bodies is disenfranchisement. The furthest this line of thinking can go is that liberals choose disenfranchisement of the unborn over the born. If that were the point he were making, it would be a fair one in my opinion.
5. I have no idea why this writer thinks it is hypocritical that liberal tolerance does not extend to the intolerant.
6. I don't know any American liberals who "...strongly support those who sue churches for refusing to marry gay couples...."
7. I don't know any American liberals who believe the "...only possible motive [to oppose the nomination of Sonya Sotomayor] must clearly have been racism...."
8. Sotomayor did not broadly "...claim that a Latina woman will give better rulings than a white male judge." That statement from a political debate was taken wildly out of context by the rightist media.
9. I don't know any American liberals who believe that "...all rich people are evil..."
That's half of them. Hopefully you get the point.
TLB, the world you observe around you is a caracature of American liberalism as presented by the rightist media. I'm sure you could find people who believe those things, but they are the fringe, just like I can find fringe rightists who ignore conservative principles to advance absurd opinions such as birthers like Orly Tatze or christianist anti-gay crusaders like the Westboro Baptist Church or the arsonists who burned down that mosque in TN. You think I couldn't write up the same column based on how these people distort conservatism?
Just like smart mainstream conservatives reject these people as contradictory to their principles, Siegel is lying to you when he advances these fringe ideals as typical modern liberal opinions.
It's only a grand slam for people in search of another reason (honest or otherwise) to hate liberals but for anyone who was looking for an honest assessment of ideals, Siegle just grounded into a triple play to end the game.
|
|
| 377 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 15:59
|
Siegal is completely correct, Liberals are hypocrites just like conservatives and 99% of the population and if you try and not be hypocrite and be consistant i what you believe you get looked at as crazy...see ron paul.
|
|
| 378 | Mith
ID: 4982142 Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 16:25
|
Boikin, Ron Paul isn't a conservative so much as a libertarian. And while there's a romantic appreciation for libertarianism on both sides, hard libertarian policies just aren't very popular in this country, including with a great number of people who walk around calling themselves libertarians. People don't call Paul crazy because of his integrity, they call him crazy because they think libertarian policies are crazy -- and they often qualify that opinion by noting respect for Paul's integrity.
And I don't believe for a second that 99% of liberals you know meet the criteria in Siegel's list.
|
|
| 379 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 17:34
|
Boikin, Ron Paul isn't a conservative so much as a libertarian
I know what he is, and clearly you miss the whole point of what i was saying. The point is, it is easier to be inconsistent in ones views than it is to be consistent and look a fool.
And I don't believe for a second that 99% of liberals you know meet the criteria in Siegel's list.
If the criteria is being hypocrite I do.
|
|
| 380 | Mith
ID: 28646259 Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 19:04
|
The criteria is laid out in 18 different specific points on what it means to be a liberal, hypocrisy regarding liberal ideals simply being a common theme. You said Seigel is "completely right" but I highly doubt you'll try to defend his examples.
|
|
| 381 | Boldwin
ID: 40945137 Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 21:01
|
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 12:38 AM, David Helson wrote:
As silly as it sounds on it's face to have to ask...May I manifest your manifesto?
In the age of Michelle Obama's former law co-worker suing anyone he can who cut-n-pastes to a blog and given that reposting would require a lengthy snippet, and given the WT copyright, I need to ask for permission to repost that brilliant grand slam to the Rotoguru political forum. -------------------------------------------------
Hi David
You are free to use the Liberal Manifesto so long as credit is given to me as the author. I appreciate your caution. Yes, we do live in litigation laced times and it is always safe to be sure.
Warmest
Regards
Bob Siegel
Oh, one more thing David, although I am sure you already knew this. Nothing in my writing is to be changed, edited or deleted. That includes the introduction at the beginning explaining that the piece is satire and why I wrote it.
Thanks
Bob
So am I free to post the whole thing per his instructions. PD?
|
|
| 382 | Boldwin
ID: 40945137 Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 21:10
|
I'm sure you could find people who believe those things, but they are the fringe, - MITH
No those points represent Obama's czars to a Tee, including their "I heart Mao" T-shirts.
|
|
| 383 | Boldwin
ID: 40945137 Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 21:13
|
But hey, maybe you've concluded Obama's administration is the lunatic fringe of the party.
|
|
| 384 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 21:58
|
As long as you have permission and follow his conditions, you can feel free to do so, IMO.
|
|
| 385 | Boldwin
ID: 40945137 Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 22:31
|
Confession time: I was once a liberal. The reason I no longer call my self a liberal is, that frankly, when I examine liberal values one at a time, I cannot avoid observing that each passionately held liberal value ultimately crashes head on into another, no less important, liberal value.
Actually, if we want to parse the definition, I suppose I still am liberal. That is, I am liberal in the historic sense of the word and in its generic usage: one who marches to the beat of a different drum, one who does not always follow the pack, one who challenges a conventional wisdom most people accept without analysis simply because it comes from respected institutions (academia, the media etc). Unfortunately, the definition has changed. Today, the term liberal is used to describe the status quo, the politically correct, and other “virtues” offered up as sacred; ideologies taken for granted and portrayed as the only clear, sensible positions. Such people stifle debate and resort to name-calling when they are challenged. Today the word “liberal” no longer means liberal. Truth be told, today’s liberals should call themselves conservatives inasmuch as they cling to popular ideas, even if these ideas are only a few decades old.
In any event, whatever we should call ourselves, I will no more call my viewpoints liberal than Nancy Pelosi would ever describe herself as a conservative. And so, taking the current definition (flawed as it may be), I present my own unique understanding of current liberal thought. In a tongue- in- cheek fashion, I am writing a kind of “Liberal Manifesto” in the first person. Of course, even if the style is satirical, I am very serious. No, I doubt that you will ever hear liberals describe themselves in exactly this fashion, but the ideas I present here are an honest result of connecting all the subtle contradictions of liberal thought into their incoherent whole. Naturally there are exceptions and variations from individual to individual. I am critiquing the generalized thought. But exceptions to the rule ought not make us ignore the rule. Otherwise, the big elephant in the room is never confronted (and I apologize to my liberal friends for using a Republican mascot just now to make a point).
THE LIBERAL MANIFESTO:
1) We believe that notions of good and evil are outdated and should never be used unless we are talking about George Bush, other Republicans, or right-wing, born-again Christians who are clearly responsible historically for most of the evils of the world.
2) We are strong advocates of choice, unless people want to choose their own schools, radio shows, cars, cigars, unhealthy food, health care providers, amount of energy to use in the home, salaries to pay employees, location for religious assembly, location for religious symbols, and the amount of money to leave their children in a will as opposed to giving half to the government. We do continue to celebrate “a woman’s right to choose an abortion” but we also like the laws in China that limit how many children one can birth because too many people in the world contribute to Global Warming, so the one remaining choice is only a temporary one.
3) We believe that having women on the Supreme Court offers necessary balance, as women will always bring a perspective men cannot offer with important decisions that guide our country. On the other hand, when it comes to guiding children in a family atmosphere, we do not believe gender to be of any importance whatsoever. Indeed, a child with two fathers is going to be every bit as healthy as a child with a father and a mother and in such a case, female influence is nonessential to development and health.
4) We believe in standing up for the rights of the weak and the disenfranchised, (unless we are talking about an unborn baby.)
5) We believe in tolerance and those who are unwilling to tolerate the same lifestyles we tolerate should no longer be tolerated. Thus, we strongly advocate laws forbidding hate speech, and if those guilty of hate speech do not see their speech as hateful, it only means they are especially hateful and that their intolerance should be especially NOT tolerated.
6) We believe that as regards gay marriage, church and state should be completely separated. Christians have no right to pass laws about who can or cannot be married out in the secular world. Marriage in the church can be defined any way they want, so long as they do not impose that belief on the rest of us. However, we strongly support those who sue churches for refusing to marry gay couples because, after all, this is a civil rights issue and not a religious issue. Therefore, religious people should not be exempted.
7) As a specific example of our inclusive philosophy, we believe that when conservatives opposed President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, their only possible motive must clearly have been racism. It couldn’t possibly be for concerns about a judge who would legislate from the bench. However, when Democrats opposed Clarence Thomas and Alberto Gonzalez, race had nothing to do with it.
8) In that same vein, we accept Judge Sotomayor’s right to claim that a Latina woman will give better rulings than a white male judge. Such a statement cannot be construed as racist because people of color do not have the power even though this woman, as a judge, has kind of, sort of, had a lot of power for years. Meanwhile, should a white judge ever claim that a white man can rule better than a Latina woman, we will expose him as the sexist, racist, bigoted vermin he truly is.
9) We believe that all rich people are evil, with the exception of rich Democrat politicians, George Soros, Michael Moore or any left-wing Hollywood activist.
10) We believe religion should be left out of any political discussion unless some Democratic politician wants to say that Jesus would have accepted illegal immigration or some gay, Episcopal priest wants to talk about how the Bible teaches that God is loving and tolerant. In such cases, religion is a very appropriate ingredient to bring into the mix.
11) We believe intelligent design does not belong in the classroom due to church and state legalities and should not be put forth, even as a theory, to be discussed. We also believe that if an instructor wants to talk about how stupid it is to believe in God, he should be allowed. Separation between church and state does not apply in such a situation.
12) When a professor, such as Ward Churchill, compares the victims of 9/11to Nazis, his speech (outrageous as it is) must be protected under the First Amendment. On the other hand, when the President of Harvard suggests that men and women tend to score differently on math tests, such talk should never be allowed because (First Amendment put aside) the college campus must hold its staff to a higher standard. Besides, we know that men and women are not different at all about anything, (even though, once again, women do bring a unique perspective to the Supreme Court.)
13) We believe it is wrong for a mother to spank her child. That is child abuse. But if she wants to kill this child in the womb, that is her fundamental right.
14) We are very concerned about global warming and those who would ask us to prove it scientifically should just get with the program and stop being so dog darned argumentative. However, we will ask Christians to prove their belief in God scientifically and if they can’t, they have no place in our public dialogue. Indeed, they pollute our public dialogue. Oh yes, and if Christians claim they can prove God scientifically, they should be especially banned from public dialogue. Never mind that we asked them to prove God. We only asked because we were sure they couldn’t do it.
15) We believe that almost anything you can imagine (and a lot of stuff you never would have dreamed up in a million years) contributes to global warming, including Christmas lights and even cow dung. But the private jets that Democrats fly around in to give lectures on global warming are not a problem. While we are on the subject of private jets, when Wall Street CEO’s fly on such jets, they are EVIL!.. That is, they would be evil if such a thing existed and in the cases of people we don’t like, it does exist. (See Point One)
16) We believe that smaller cars will keep our atmosphere safer even if accidents in such cars will kill a whole lot more people than big cars. People come and go, but the planet is most important.
17) We believe sanctuary cities demonstrate compassion and anyone who asks an employee to prove her citizenship is a racist, unless the employer happens to be a Republican running for governor.
18) Finally, we believe right-wing ideas are too stupid to even debate. That is why we do not debate them. We call right-wingers names instead, because they deserve to be called names. (Hitler is always a good one.) Would you debate with a Nazi or with the Ku Klux Klan? Of course not! Can we prove that all right wing people are like the Nazis or the Klan? Well, no. To do that, we would have to have a debate and we are not going to debate. Haven’t you been paying attention?
In the name of tolerance, free thought, open discussion, personal choice and sound reason, we the undersigned do proudly uphold this Liberal Manifesto.
--
Bob Siegel is a radio talk show host and columnist. Information about his radio show can be found at www.bobsiegel.net.
Reactions to all of Bob's articles will be read and commented on over the radio. The reader who posts comments is welcome to call in and respond to on-air remarks. Call in toll free number: 1-888-344-1170.
|
|
| |
| 387 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Thu, Oct 14, 2010, 01:39
|
Nothing in my writing is to be changed, edited or deleted. That includes the introduction at the beginning explaining that the piece is satire and why I wrote it.
he knows you well.
|
|
| 388 | Boldwin
ID: 25923143 Thu, Oct 14, 2010, 11:51
|
What's odd is I thot what got people in trouble was posting the whole thing. Instapundit posts a snipet and asks you to go read the whole thing. No one says "post the whole thing or don't bother referencing me, Glenn Reynolds".
Wasn't that the old rule? Allowed to c-n-p as long as you don't appropriate the whole thing?
|
|
| 389 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Oct 14, 2010, 11:52
|
You did cut and paste the whole thing. That was the problem.
|
|
| 390 | Boldwin
ID: 25923143 Thu, Oct 14, 2010, 11:56
|
Actually Siegel's second e-mail pointed out in effect that my original post hadn't been complete enuff because he wanted the whole article posted, not just the manifesto.
|
|
| 391 | Mith
ID: 4982142 Thu, Oct 14, 2010, 12:30
|
There's no old rule vs new rule. Generally you can cite a portion of a work *and the writer or at least the publication* to support a point. Otherwise, limiting the republish to the opening paragraph (the 'lead' for any writer worth his spit) is a safe way to go.
The internet and blogosphere have never been exempt from copyright and intellectual property laws. That some boggers and others have been getting away with long enough that we're now just too lazy to properly credit someone else's ideas doesn't make it ok.
|
|
| 392 | The Left Behind
ID: 66232012 Thu, Oct 14, 2010, 13:01
|
Siegel is lying to you when he advances these fringe ideals as typical modern liberal opinions.
I would guess you could go through the contents of this forum and pull opinions from people that satisfy his definition of liberals.
|
|
| 393 | Mith
ID: 4982142 Thu, Oct 14, 2010, 13:24
|
392
In 10 years worth of posts, sure. But that you could wade through search results for a few hours to come up with examples of people supporting some of those positions doesn't make them typical among liberals. This forum has also had no shortage of hard-right tinfoil-hat positions over the years that I couldn't and wouldn't attribute to the greater American political right. Defining your political opponents by the craziest among them only succeeds in generating anger, fear and hate and destroys any chance of an honest exchange of ideas.
That said, I should acknowledge that I skimmed the first few paragraphs of the column and completely missed that it was apparently satire, as he explicitly explained in his email to Boldwin, pasted in #381. I wouldn't have been as critical had I realized that. Not the first time I've made that mistake.
And continuing my response to your post, I should also note that the writer of the piece doesn't seem to believe those points accurately reflect the typical ideology of modern American liberals, either.
|
|
| 394 | The Left Behind
ID: 66232012 Thu, Oct 14, 2010, 13:30
|
But that you could wade through search results for a few hours to come up with examples of people supporting some of those positions doesn't make them typical among liberals.
Do you believe the liberals here are typical?
|
|
| 395 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Oct 14, 2010, 13:36
|
Depends on what you mean by "liberals," I believe.
Are the people you call "liberals" on this forum typical of liberals in the real world? Doubtful, based on a classification error on your part.
|
|
| 396 | Mith
ID: 4982142 Thu, Oct 14, 2010, 13:36
|
Typical enough, especially among the common demographic, which I guess I'd describe as white men over 30.
|
|
| 397 | Mith
ID: 4982142 Thu, Oct 14, 2010, 13:37
|
Yeah I guess I should ask you exactly what you mean by liberal.
|
|
| 398 | Tree, not at home
ID: 18342816 Thu, Oct 14, 2010, 14:29
|
based on my positions on Israel alone, there are plenty of folks who would toss me out of the liberal camp.
probably my stance on gun rights too, actually.
|
|
| 399 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Thu, Oct 14, 2010, 14:40
|
The relevant questions to the conservatives on here would be:
"if I bothered to take the time to explain where my beliefs agreed with that manifesto and where they don't, would you bother to stop assuming I agree with all of that stuff?"
|
|
| 400 | Boldwin
ID: 25923143 Thu, Oct 14, 2010, 14:59
|
MITH#393
You still are lost. It's satire because he was speaking as if he was still a liberal who held those contradictions in his head.
Those contradictions are why in actuality [as opposed to the satirical position] he can no longer stay in the liberal camp.
|
|
| 401 | Boldwin
ID: 25923143 Thu, Oct 14, 2010, 15:04
|
"if I bothered to take the time to explain where my beliefs agreed with that manifesto and where they don't...
...then you could explain why you spend all day defending an administration full of Maoists who do hold those views.
And since you do that, without reservation I might add, your protestation that you don't personally hold those views is operationally a distinction without a difference.
|
|
| 402 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Thu, Oct 14, 2010, 15:17
|
Boldwin, I already knew your answer to that question was "no, I'll continue to do that because I prefer not to be honest about these sorts of things", based on multiple occasions where I've specifically asked you to not do that and you have done it anyway. But thanks for clarifying that my thoughts in that area were right.
It's too obvious to point out that you're 1. lying directly when you say that, and 2. are making the exact same mistake in lumping in with your post.
Anyway, you've stated that you think lying about people who disagree with you is OK before, so I have no interest in your opinion on the matter.
|
|
| 403 | Boldwin
ID: 25923143 Thu, Oct 14, 2010, 15:29
|
No, show me where you've been taking Obama or liberalism to task consistantly on a subject and I'll consider it, but your lockstep support is well demonstrated. And LB's point about your principles inexorably leading you to those positions is a valid one.
We've seen it in operation. Without any exception I can remember liberals here all supported dehydrating Terri Schiavo to death while at the same time believing the contradiction that you weren't in favor of a T4 program to 'solve' the disabled problem. And then you go and support a medical takeover that will deny the elderly and disabled the same quality care as the rest of us.
All you guys snickering at the 'death panel' label will be defending them when it is no longer possible to deny their nature. Like night following day. Like a bull with a ring in it's nose.
|
|
| 404 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Thu, Oct 14, 2010, 15:46
|
"We've seen it in operation. Without any exception I can remember liberals here all supported dehydrating Terri Schiavo to death while at the same time believing the contradiction that you weren't in favor of a T4 program to 'solve' the disabled problem. And then you go and support a medical takeover that will deny the elderly and disabled the same quality care as the rest of us."
Please show me ONE post I have made on this forum directly regarding the Terri Schiavo situation. It should be easy for you: Google exists, and the forum has a search feature. Until you produce this, please stop lying regarding attributing my position to posts other people made about it. (This is precisely the point of this discussion by the way -- that you choose to do this instead of attempting rational debate about actual issues -- so if you can't undertake this one basic task, you have proven the point for everyone to see.)
You've also drastically mis-characterized my general position on health care in general, but that's kind of minimal compared to alleging I've said certain things about a topic I am pretty darn sure I haven't even covered.
|
|
| 405 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Thu, Oct 14, 2010, 15:48
|
"No, show me where you've been taking Obama or liberalism to task consistantly on a subject and I'll consider it, but your lockstep support is well demonstrated."
Does disagreeing with a portion of a program while agreeing with an overall intention count? Because that's more than you've EVER bothered to do in the other direction.
Actually, I'm not going to bother to waste thirty seconds of copy and paste time for you until you undertake the challenge in the post above. For someone actually interested in being honest about these things I'd consider it.
|
|
| 406 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Thu, Oct 14, 2010, 16:45
|
For the people who will actually read this and comprehend it, here's some areas where I'm pretty sure I disagree with Obama (note: this is not intended to be a comprehensive list):
1. Failure to repeal "don't ask, don't tell".
2. Lots of foreign policy stuff, including off the top of my head the continued presence in Iraq for as long as we have been there and continue to be; I alsothink he's still too far into Israel's corner on a lot of issues.
3. I don't think cap and trade is a particularly great way of trying to control environmental emissions. I also don't think his administration is doing nearly enough in terms of pushing incentives for alternative energy solutions.
4. His support and continued abuses of the Patriot Act are complete garbage, as are a lot of the Internet nanny-state stuff.
5. Some of the health care stuff doesn't make a lot of sense -- it would be much preferable, in my opinion, to have a fully nationalized health care system for basic services (pay for it out of taxes), and then allow people to purchase additional health insurance coverage for more expensive procedures and emergencies. Our current system is called "health insurance" but it's really a weird hybrid of a health plan and health insurance.
6. I don't think the bailouts were a good idea from a strict policy perspective (though I am not sure if there was a better option -- it's a legitimately complicated issue).
7. I think he's been an absolute wuss on immigration reform.
8. He seems to want far more trade restrictions than I would personally agree with.
|
|
| 407 | Mith
ID: 4982142 Thu, Oct 14, 2010, 18:17
|
400 Boldwin
Fair enough. So I did not initially misinterpret him and my previous criticism remains fully valid.
|
|
| 408 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Thu, Oct 14, 2010, 19:26
|
an administration full of Maoists
What's next, Pol Potters?
|
|
| 409 | Tree
ID: 248472317 Thu, Oct 14, 2010, 20:54
|
All you guys snickering at the 'death panel' label will be defending them when it is no longer possible to deny their nature. Like night following day. Like a bull with a ring in it's nose.
statements like this are exactly why you have pretty much no credit on these boards anymore.
there are no death panels. there weren't when you were initially to the heavens that they were, and there won't be in 2.3 days when you decide that death panels are again your pet project d'jour, until some child abuser who happens to belong to some radical right wing fringe group gets his kids taken away for beating them, when that will again be your pet project.
yes, i realize you'll go to some article in WND, or perhaps pick a random blog from the ether, or maybe even provide a link to some document from the UN called ProJecKt2040 where you misinterpret a line that reads "the smog in Beijing is thick" to mean "we will force people over the age of 30 to explode, keeping our population young and reducing over population."
as much as you think the present is like the Death Carousel in Logan's Run, it's not. your perceived reality is just like the film - nothing but fiction:
|
|
| 410 | Boldwin
ID: 35959153 Fri, Oct 15, 2010, 05:09
|
Dwetz, no, proving that you think Obama isn't extreme left enuff, does not remove you from coverage under the 'liberal' manifesto.
It was however predictable.
|
|
| 411 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Fri, Oct 15, 2010, 10:15
|
Still waiting for you to google up my Terri Schiavo comments, or are you conceding that that was a lie? I'm not going to let you ignore this as you always tend to do when you are proven a liar.
|
|
| 412 | The Left Behind
ID: 66232012 Fri, Oct 15, 2010, 12:31
|
Typical enough, especially among the common demographic, which I guess I'd describe as white men over 30.
I am going to remember this. Now that I know the liberals here are mainstream and all.
|
|
| 413 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Oct 15, 2010, 12:52
|
Don't forget to apply the label correctly.
|
|
| 414 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Fri, Oct 15, 2010, 13:00
|
For someone who repeatedly personally attacked me for dismissing an off-topic question (I BUTTed the apropriate thread containing extensive opinions from me on the question and related matters) he sure doesn't seem interested in responding to 395 and 397, the latter post explicitly qualifying the one he did choose to respond to.
Perhaps TLB could get around to that while he waits for the next odd-sounding liberal opinion offered her to provide him with his "gotcha" moment?
|
|
| 415 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Fri, Oct 15, 2010, 14:36
|
I've decided that being called a liberal by Boldwin is a compliment, as liberal apparently means to him "anyone who doesn't favor a theocracy which supports child abusers, like I do, and likes to directly lie about what other people have actually said to support my views".
So, thanks, Boldwin. Keep defending the child abusers and lying, and I'm proud to be someone you despise. Honored, even. It means I'm doing the right thing. Doing God's work, even. Thanks for reaffirming my beliefs.
|
|
| |
| 417 | Boldwin
ID: 79132821 Fri, Oct 29, 2010, 07:02
|
Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.“Reagan stands shoulder to shoulder with the extremists who want to halt our progress in its tracks. He stands for the tired, discredited voices of the past, with the voices of reaction and retreat.” - Pat Brown, 1966 Paul Krugman, 2010
Yeah, that'll work, Paul.
|
|
| 418 | biliruben
ID: 34820210 Fri, Oct 29, 2010, 09:06
|
Now I prefer his economics posts to his political ones, but his point wasn't to brand them as extremists, his point was to point out that there stated main objective was Obama's destruction, not bettering our country by, you know, governing. Part of governing is working with the other party. Your analogy falls flat.
You had to go back almost 50 years for a poor analogy?
|
|
| |
| 420 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Fri, Oct 29, 2010, 13:25
|
i am confused has the The Onion gone serious? Outside of the made up quotes this reads like something you would read on CNN.com
|
|
| 421 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Oct 29, 2010, 13:31
|
That's what makes it so brilliant.
|
|
| 422 | Boldwin
ID: 22902914 Fri, Oct 29, 2010, 15:00
|
"From Maine to Hawaii, in big cities and small towns, we will collapse into a fetal position"...and cram ourselves back up our marxist womb.
|
|
| 423 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Fri, Oct 29, 2010, 15:18
|
You know, it's only humorous when it isn't malicious bile.
|
|
| 424 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sat, Oct 30, 2010, 17:29
|
#422: If that is what passes for WWJD then count me as an atheist.
|
|
| 425 | Boldwin
ID: 199353118 Sun, Oct 31, 2010, 20:31
|
"...our collective marxist womb, naturally."
|
|
| 426 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Fri, Nov 05, 2010, 10:50
|
My congressman, Democrat Jim Matheson, is one of the few Blue Dogs to survive this week. Matheson has the balls to state what many are thinking.
Dump Pelosi
|
|
| 427 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Nov 05, 2010, 11:25
|
I always hated the idea of Pelosi as Speaker--said so at the time that she was too divisive. Of course, given this crowd of Republicans anyone would be a lightning rod for their shrill cries, but there was no reason to borrow trouble.
I heard Heath Shuler was going to run against her if she was trying for the post of House Minority Leader. What a bag of rocks that guy is.
I'd love to see a real moderate like Rush Holt (NJ) step up for the job.
|
|
| 428 | Boldwin
ID: 251049519 Sat, Nov 06, 2010, 12:03
|
There are no blue states, only blue cities...[with possible small state exceptions in the NE].

aidwatch
|
|
| 429 | Mith
ID: 28646259 Sat, Nov 06, 2010, 13:11
|
Yeah if only square miles could vote rather than human beings.
|
|
| 430 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sat, Nov 06, 2010, 15:37
|
Exactly. I see they've included government owned property as being red, ironically. The federal government owns about 88% of the land in the state of Nevada, but it is all red despite the President being a Democrat and the Democratic Senate majority leader being from Nevada.
|
|
| |
| 432 | Boldwin
ID: 01012615 Sat, Nov 06, 2010, 16:12
|
You have some reason to think an NYU professor with a foreign aid blog colored that map with his rightwing agenda brush?
|
|
| 433 | Mith
ID: 28646259 Sat, Nov 06, 2010, 16:32
|
Only actual presented facts. As usual we'll leave the mind reading to you.
|
|
| 434 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sat, Nov 06, 2010, 17:02
|
Nobody is questioning the guy's partisanship. Just the usefulness of the map. Just because the map isn't altogether accurate or useful doesn't make it Right Wing, despite many unaccurate or unuseful things coming from the Right these days, purporting to be.
|
|
| 435 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Sat, Nov 06, 2010, 18:51
|
I have it on good authority that an Kyrgyzstani radio host said they read in a Ethiopian blogger's bathroom wall that the actual numbers were more like 86% of the counties voted Libertarian, so until they retract that I don't believe that map that was posted. That map's clearly unbelievable.
|
|
| 436 | Boldwin
ID: 01012615 Sun, Nov 07, 2010, 01:59
|
Moral of the story: flee big cities before you end up feeling helpless and dependent.
|
|
| 437 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sun, Nov 07, 2010, 02:10
|
I'm going to have to dig out that map which shows red states getting huge amounts of money from the federal government over what they pay in taxes.
I'd say the rural areas, dependent as they are on a wasteful Farm Bill, is far more dependent than cities which pay out more in taxes than they receive back.
|
|
| 438 | Boldwin
ID: 01012615 Sun, Nov 07, 2010, 04:41
|
You won't get any resistance from the tea partiers on cutting there.
|
|
| |
| 440 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sun, Nov 07, 2010, 12:28
|
#438: Unfortunately, the Tea Partiers will have little power in Congress, even in the House. I'll remain interested if they actually stand against it, despite the House GOP leadership foursquare behind the massive yearly Farm Bill.
|
|
| 441 | Boldwin
ID: 471028117 Thu, Nov 11, 2010, 09:04
|
"The chief business of the American people is business." said Calvin Coolidge, [The American people]"are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world. The great majority of people will always find these are moving impulses of our life."
Fill out a 1099 for every transaction? Misrepresent scientists in order to shut down LA. and TX. oil industry? Drive energy costs thru the roof with "cap and tax"? Treat the private sector like the undeserving stepchild to your dear public sector?
What the anti-business party forgot
|
|
| |
| 443 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Tue, Nov 16, 2010, 19:11
|
Rangel guilty on 11 counts
And he was just re-elected! Resignation won't even cross his mind, fueling accusations of a "Gangster Government," even though Rangel has been a congressman for 4 decades.
|
|
| 444 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Tue, Nov 16, 2010, 20:19
|
He was, until very recently, rumored to want Pelosi's job should the Dems lose the house. I think you are right that he won't even think he should resign.
|
|
| 445 | Boldwin
ID: 3610451619 Tue, Nov 16, 2010, 20:54
|
even though Rangel has been a congressman for 4 decades.
How does that ameliorate his premeditated, longstanding, unrepentant, in-our-faces, gangster lawlessness?
I wonder if it's too late for Pelosi to claim she finally got around to draining the swamp like she promised? Certainly too little.
|
|
| 446 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Tue, Nov 16, 2010, 21:21
|
Rangel's indiscretions are about the same par as Palin's, so at least she had the decency to resign.
My point was about an earlier post I made today where Michele Bachman decried what she called “gangster government, when government goes in and takes over one private industry at a time.”
It's not like Rangel pulled a Jefferson, but his actions did violate House ethics rules, and his continued obstinance in the face of those charges is a testament to the entitlement some career politicians seem to feel is their right.
|
|
| 447 | Boldwin
ID: 101055172 Wed, Nov 17, 2010, 04:49
|
Name me a Palin indiscretion that even is indisputable let alone on a par with Rangel. Her 'indiscretions' were just a bunch of phony flotsam thrown up by the corrupt Alaska republican cabal she's needled so they can close the door to the back room and get back to dirty dealin.
|
|
| 448 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Wed, Nov 17, 2010, 08:08
|
#447
To borrow a phrase, "Look at yourself."
Misuse of official stationary is premeditated, longstanding, unrepentant, in-our-faces, gangster lawlessness
but when
Palin was required to pay back income taxes on thousands of dollars in expense money she received while living at her home in Wasilla and when she was forced to pay back the State of Alaska more than $8,100.00 for nine trips taken by her children that she had improperly charged as being part of official state business
link
it's just a bunch of phony flotsam .
|
|
| 449 | Razor
ID: 57854118 Wed, Nov 17, 2010, 09:27
|
I found the Troopergate scandal far more troubling. Clear abuse of power.
But this isn't about Right vs. Left. Wrong is wrong, and Rangel should be out. Best we'll get is a reprimand, which is nothing.
|
|
| 450 | Boldwin
ID: 211053178 Wed, Nov 17, 2010, 10:51
|
I looked at your link, and there were no details about the purpose of the trips for her kids so I am not impressed. The charge that the link does detail is that she took per diem for 45 mile trips between Wassila and Juno when per diem is limited to 50 miles or greater.
Perfect example of the sort of illegitimate nuisance harrassment she was put thru daily.
There are always multiple miles within city traffic in both destination and origination cities, no matter how far the crow flies.
As if this charge was worthy of comparing to Rangel even if it were legitimate.
Rangel's illegally holding down over ten rent-controlled units when only one was allowed isn't borderline no matter how you slice it.
|
|
| 451 | biliruben
ID: 34820210 Wed, Nov 17, 2010, 10:56
|
Look up the definition of apologist... and find Boldwin's ugly mug looking back at you.
|
|
| 452 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Nov 17, 2010, 11:35
|
The Palin's are small town bullies, who like to lord it over people and, when cornered, harass, badger, and in short do anything they can to "get back" at those who stand in their way.
Rangel should resign because he broke House rules. He broke no laws, however. Palin, on the other hand, broke laws. And continues to do so.
My dream of a Sarah Palin nomination isn't shared by Alaskans, unfortunately.
|
|
| 453 | Tosh Leader
ID: 057721710 Wed, Nov 17, 2010, 11:43
|
I wish that I could get a per diem for staying home, or going to a basketball tournament.
The popular governor collected the per diem allowance from April 22, four days after the birth of her fifth child, until June 3, when she flew to Juneau for two days. Palin moved her family to the capital during the legislative session last year, but prefers to stay in Wasilla and drive 45 miles to Anchorage to a state office building where she conducts most of her business, aides have said.
She wrote some form of "Lodging -- own residence" or "Lodging -- Wasilla residence" more than 30 times at the same time she took a per diem, according to the reports. In two dozen undated amendments to the reports, the governor deleted the reference to staying in her home but still charged the per diem.
Palin charged the state a per diem for working on Nov. 22, 2007 -- Thanksgiving Day. The reason given, according to the expense report, was the Great Alaska Shootout, an annual NCAA college basketball tournament held in Anchorage. link
|
|
| 454 | Boldwin
ID: 211053178 Wed, Nov 17, 2010, 11:53
|
he broke House rules. He broke no laws, however. - PD
Did you think congress manages NYC rent controls and why do you believe those don't count for law?
|
|
| 455 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Wed, Nov 17, 2010, 11:59
|
Rangel is his own worst enemy. Instead of showing some humility and remorse, admitting his transgressions and moving on, he's played the Sarah Palin card, claiming victim status and walking out on the procedure yesterday muttering something about lack of due process and needing a new lawyer. It should be noted that the chairwoman of the ethics panel is a Democrat, Zoe Lofgren, so it's impossible for Rangel to claim it's a partisan witch hunt.
The dude is 80. He was a Korean War hero and served his Harlem constituents admirably for decades. It's sad that at this stage of his life he's chosen to be a martyr instead of gracefully retiring to the Bahamas for shuffleboard and cocktails.
|
|
| 456 | Seattle Zen Leader
ID: 055343019 Wed, Nov 17, 2010, 12:01
|
Excellent post, PV 455. I completely agree.
|
|
| 457 | biliruben
ID: 358252515 Wed, Nov 17, 2010, 12:02
|
Apparently willow and Bristol are attempting to smack down haters of "Sarah palin's Alaska" with gay slurs.
|
|
| 459 | Boldwin
ID: 211053178 Wed, Nov 17, 2010, 12:30
|
Beware of the insidious cost of Palin Derangement Syndrome.
This is your brain on Palin.
|
|
| 460 | Razor
ID: 57854118 Wed, Nov 17, 2010, 12:50
|
Wonder how Obama opting to spend most of his time in his Chicago home rather than the White House would be viewed. Positively for saving the taxpayers money?
Enough about Palin. It's offtopic for this thread. Palin doesn't have a thing to do with Rangel.
|
|
| |
| 462 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Nov 17, 2010, 18:58
|
Nice. Really. The Modern GOP is all about style, and that ad's got it.
|
|
| 463 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Nov 17, 2010, 19:01
|
Dems have decided on another couple of years of pushing a rock. Pelosi re-elected House Democratic leader.
Ugh. I guess, between her and Schuler I'll take her. But I would have been pleased with some other alternative. How do you reward a person who oversaw such a large loss of seats as Pelosi, who was almost certainly heavily featured in the political literature of pretty much all the members of the incoming GOP Congressmen?
|
|
| 464 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Wed, Nov 17, 2010, 19:21
|
I'm having a hard time relating to the video in #461. That may because every time I turn around, there's a new facility bringing thousands of jobs within a couple miles of my house.
I've mentioned the new $1.9 billion NSA data center being built up the street before, but that's a government facility, so maybe it shouldn't count, even though private firms are building it and will service it, and the private sector will benefit from it financially in a big way.
Then there's Edwards Lifesciences.
"We look forward to providing a rewarding environment in which our employees can thrive in producing technologies to address the unmet needs of clinicians and their patients suffering from cardiovascular disease and critical illnesses," said Michael A. Mussallem, chairman and CEO of Edwards Lifesciences. "To help fulfill this mission, we plan to hire up to 1,000 new employees at this new center in the coming years."
Adobe Systems
LEHI — Software giant Adobe Systems Inc. announced plans Friday to build a campus in Lehi that will add hundreds more jobs to the state within the next 10 years.
Adobe, which acquired Orem-based Omniture Inc. for $1.8 billion last year, brought its employees from its Orem campus to celebrate the new location near the Cabela's store off of I-15.
The company expects to add as many as 350 more jobs with the likelihood of bringing another 1,000 jobs to the state over the next decade.
and now,
Twitter.
The micro-blogging site Twitter is moving its technical operations infrastructure to Utah. The custom-built data center will open in the Salt Lake area later this year.
Marty Carpenter with the Salt Lake Chamber says several big companies have announced they are coming to Utah.
"It's one of those deals where success breeds success and momentum builds upon itself. You see a company like EA Sports building downtown and hear about Goldman Sachs bringing a large part of its operation here," he says.
Twitter says it will be hiring locally for the new data center but didn't say how many jobs will be involved.
"We're known around the country and around the world for having a young, well-educated workforce that is tech-savvy as well," says Carpenter.
Utah economic development leaders thrilled at announcement
How did Utah leaders react to the news? They posted short messages on their Twitter pages, of course.
Gov. Gary Herbert wrote, "Great news for our growing software and technology economic clusters. Economic development is happening in Utah."
Third District Congressman Jason Chaffetz also posted a Twitter welcome: "Picked a good home for the operations center!!"
Thousands of new jobs. Long term economic growth. Not one word about taxes, health care or waiting and seeing. That's left to those who wallow in negativity with nothing better to do than make silly videos.
|
|
| 465 | Boldwin
ID: 110121722 Wed, Nov 17, 2010, 23:31
|
Oh, that's representative. Obviously the Tea Party won't gain any traction in Utah. Other than Mike Lee beating out Bennett and taking his senate seat of course.
|
|
| 466 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Thu, Nov 18, 2010, 00:09
|
Other than Mike Lee beating out Bennett and taking his senate seat of course.
How many times does this have to be repeated? Lee and Tim Bridgewater were 1 and 2 in the state Republican convention, and were pitted against each other in the primary. Had there been an open primary, Bennett would have won handily. It was the state Republican Mafia machine that determined Bennett was too moderate, not Utah voters.
None of that has anything to do with the point of the video, which boldly declares that the country is bankrupt and makes mythical claims of companies refusing to expand based on political bias. I gave irrefutable evidence to the contrary.
|
|
| 467 | Boldwin
ID: 110121722 Thu, Nov 18, 2010, 11:39
|
I gave irrefutable evidence to the contrary
1] Keep your day job and don't take up science if 4 anecdotal examples constitutes irrefutable evidence to you.
2] Did Utah elect the Tea Party candidate or not?
3] Tell it to Utah.
|
|
| 468 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Thu, Nov 18, 2010, 11:42
|
So you're telling the guy from Utah to "tell it to Utah?"
I think your time on the internet has broken your self-certified expertise warning light...
|
|
| 469 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Thu, Nov 18, 2010, 12:24
|
"So you're telling the guy from Utah to "tell it to Utah?""
I giggled.
It's like he isn't even trying any more. (Which is, in it's own way, a good progression.)
|
|
| 470 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Thu, Nov 18, 2010, 12:44
|
Keep your day job and don't take up science if 4 anecdotal examples constitutes irrefutable evidence to you.
Says the guy who posts a fictional video and convinces himself it is more representative of reality than actual facts that multiple businesses within a few miles of my home are expanding and hiring, obliterating the entire basis of the fictional video.
You'll forgive me if I ignore your advice, even though I do intend to keep my day job.
|
|
| 471 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415 Thu, Nov 18, 2010, 12:59
|
Are you saying a telegenic chick with horn-rimmed glasses could ever lie, PV? Inconceivable!!!!
|
|
| 472 | Boldwin
ID: 110121722 Fri, Nov 19, 2010, 01:30
|
So you're telling the guy from Utah to "tell it to Utah?" - PD
Obviously PV and Utah don't see eye to eye, and they need to have a little conversation to explain to PV why the Tea Party candidate was needed in the senate.
|
|
| 473 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Nov 19, 2010, 01:33
|
I'm pretty sure PV explained how the election occurred, from an insider's view.
I realize you're more into cheerleading that election analysis at this point in your political watching career, but really you don't need to respond on the point any longer.
|
|
| 474 | Boldwin
ID: 110121722 Fri, Nov 19, 2010, 02:38
|
And when you explain to them that 'Happy Days Are Here Again' try to remember in your irrational exuberance, that QE2 does not refer to an Obama celebration tour on the Queen Elizabeth II.
|
|
| 475 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Fri, Nov 19, 2010, 09:00
|
Obviously PV and Utah don't see eye to eye, and they need to have a little conversation to explain to PV why the Tea Party candidate was needed in the senate.
Obviously, the fact that Blue Dog Dem Jim Matheson retained his House seat against Tea Party candidate Morgan Philpot should explain to you why Utah needed a moderate voice in Washington. Utah hasn't elected a Democrat to a statewide seat in decades, in fact, only one in the 25 years I've lived here, Attorney General Jan Graham. So if you think Lee's election is some kind of political epiphany for Utah, then you're welcome to believe that. Replacing a conservative Republican with someone who claims to be an even more conservative Republican isn't about to alter the Senate make-up. Had Philpot defeated Matheson, I could see why you'd be crowing, but all you're doing is distracting from the point of the video in #461.
The irony is that my #464 could have been an opportunity for you to make supportive comments about the economic environment created in a conservative area instead of making snarky, irrelevant comments.
A lot of the credit for creating this environment goes to moderate former governor, Jon Huntsman, as well as his Republican predecessors and current Governor Herbert for creating a business-friendly environment in the state. Utah is a right to work state, so worries about union activism are non-existent. Utah has a young, educated work force with the lowest percentage of alcohol and tobacco use in the country, resulting in healthier employees.
Cost of living is reasonable despite rather high state taxes, and overcrowded and underfunded schools remain a problem.
Overall, Utah's conservatism is a positive element for business development and growth. That's true whether Bennett or Lee is the senator.
|
|
| 476 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Fri, Nov 19, 2010, 10:00
|
Is it possible that some companies are expanding in Utah, while other companiesd are fearful of the future. Is it possible for both things to be happening at the same time?
|
|
| 477 | Boldwin
ID: 110121722 Fri, Nov 19, 2010, 10:14
|
While there are many interesting points in #475, and while I appreciate your tone, and the pro-business aspects of Utah you mentioned...overall I don't believe the average business is going to go out on a limb until they know the burden of Obamacare and feel confident hostile regulators aren't rumbling towards them with the long knives out.
This is something you as a self-employed businessman should easily pick up on. Maybe your business is atypical. No employees? Recession-proof? Unusually high margin? Unusually large loyal customer base? Virtually no competition? If you don't feel the tug of too many imponderable negative variables in the air I don't get it.
|
|
| 478 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Nov 19, 2010, 10:38
|
#476: I thinks that is probably likely. I can't imagine businesses in say, California, being as hopeful as in some other states.
|
|
| 479 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Nov 19, 2010, 10:40
|
I meant to add that even in places like here in PA, there is a wide variance across the state. Here in the Poconos there is a feeling that we won't feel the effects of a recovery until it is well underway because of the nature of our area (heavily dependent upon resort money and new housing). This isn't necessarily a pro- or anti- business climate--just the nature of a highly variable country.
|
|
| 480 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Fri, Nov 19, 2010, 11:09
|
Is it possible for both things to be happening at the same time?
Of course. However, the point of the video in #461 is that profits should be ignored and trivialized, instead focusing on negativity based on political motivations.
Maybe some people don't mind having their intelligence insulted by a fictional situation featuring bad acting and a script written by partisans with no economic credentials, but I prefer to base my economic views on things I can actually see and data received from a variety of sources.
|
|
| 481 | Boldwin
ID: 110121722 Fri, Nov 19, 2010, 18:09
|
intelligence insulted by a fictional situation
Many businesses are at record cash-on-hand situations, buying back their own stock because they can't find anything they'd rather do with it. Give them less government hostility to wealth creation aka profit, give them predictability and they'll start risking again and we can all put this crisis behind us.
|
|
| 482 | Boldwin
ID: 110121722 Fri, Nov 19, 2010, 18:21
|
Community organizers who love a good strike, need to learn that sword cuts both ways.
|
|
| 483 | biliruben
ID: 358252515 Fri, Nov 19, 2010, 18:24
|
I've already shown that when you poll small businesses (sorry, they only included non-fictional ones), they aren't concerned about what you repeatedly and erroneously claim they are worried about. Instead, they are concerned about not enough demand to buy their crap.
Feel free to keep focusing on the fictional businesses, but it really just kinda makes me scratch my head at what a strange dude you are.
|
|
| |
| 485 | Razor
ID: 265539 Fri, Nov 19, 2010, 19:00
|
Having someone repeat what you say in a more intelligible way is not evidence.
|
|
| 486 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Nov 19, 2010, 19:02
|
Krauthammer hasn't been relevant, or right, for many years.
|
|
| 487 | Boldwin
ID: 110121722 Fri, Nov 19, 2010, 19:03
|
bili
Ok, now the issue you raise is very significant especially for small business, never-the-less the real cash won't flow until the uncertainty goes away. I'd love to predict that will be the TP swearing-in but if the election itself didn't entirely assauge their fears...there was an uptick buuut...
|
|
| 488 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Nov 19, 2010, 19:05
|
The election wasn't about assuaging their fears. It was about expressing them.
|
|
| 489 | Boldwin
ID: 110121722 Fri, Nov 19, 2010, 19:05
|
PD
I'll tell Krauthammer the big bad moderator has made a pronouncement..
|
|
| 490 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Nov 19, 2010, 19:21
|
Uh, right. You do that.
That's your response? Man, your idea tank is down to fumes.
|
|
| 491 | Boldwin
ID: 311037205 Sat, Nov 20, 2010, 06:37
|
The one area Krauthammer isn't vulnerable is intellect. He is right about a great deal and he is relevant by having his finger on the salient points of the day.
Progressives thump the 'common ground' drum like they invented it yet they can't figure out how to drive a wedge between me and a guy who helped insert trotskyites into control of the republican party and usher out the Reagan Revolution.
I'm not gonna kickstart your brain any further than that.
|
|
| 492 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Sat, Nov 20, 2010, 09:29
|
Charles Krauthammer: "There are three major areas a corporation, small or large, has to worry about: health care costs, energy costs and the cost of money.
Krauthammer conveniently omits a major area a corporation has to worry about, certainly as much as health care and energy costs: the value of its stock.
Why would Krauthammer, of the invulnerable intellect, make such a glaring omission when commenting on the health of this country's corporations, other than the obvious attempt to tie all corporation woes to Obama policies? Could it be that his colleagues on the right are committed to a campaign of fear designed to devastate the value of corporations' stock?
Krauthammer's colleagues are insistent in their advice that Americans shouldn't invest in this nation's corporations, and fear is the prime motivator behind this position. For those who doubt this to be a true statement, I offer just one of a daily barrage of e-mails I receive:
Dear Moenynews Reader,
You have less than six hours remaining to view a 100% FREE, private airing of Newsmax’s Crisis Investing Summit.
The summit is vital, especially if you share the same concern as Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Warren Buffett, and an endless list of economists — that Ben Bernanke and the Fed have pushed our fragile economy over the edge. And that inflation and a dying dollar are inevitable.
You will want to view this time-sensitive broadcast right now. But you must hurry.
If you are concerned that your investments may not withstand another crippling recession. And you want to use new and exciting methods to conquer the gold market — you will want to immediately watch the Crisis Investing Summit.
You will get powerful insights on the troubles facing our economy and your wealth in these uncertain times. And more importantly, you will get solutions that will help you safeguard your investment portfolio while discovering innovative and cost-effective gold solutions for prospering when inflation kicks in.
The summit features Bob Wiedemer, the best-selling author of “Aftershock,” and internationally acclaimed gold investor David Skarica discussing the most pressing economic issues and offering you actionable guidance you can put into effect immediately.
This is just a sample from Newsmax, but Townhall and other right wing media outlets echo the same refrain. Don't invest in the stock market(unless it's gold mining ETFs).
It's important to recognize that these presentations don't simply advise that investing in gold is a good idea, and that gold has done fabulously well in the past few years. These presentations use fear and uncertainty as the basis for the sales pitch.
Charles Krauthammer - And when you don't know what's going to happen, you don't invest.
I suggest Krauthammer poll a few corporate CEOs and CFOs with the question:
"Which do you fear more, seeing the value of your company's stock drop 80% or implementing health care policies?"
|
|
| 493 | Boldwin
ID: 311037205 Sat, Nov 20, 2010, 11:26
|
Chicken or the egg. Why would that sales pitch work so well? Because the fed has lowered interest so much that good returns are unrealistic and they might as well buy security instead. A sense of insecurity is pervasive or the pitch wouldn't work.
What I am really afraid of short-term is that they'll repeat history and use the cash strike as an excuse to resort to Rosevlelt style fascistic strong-arming of business. Something Carville may be hoping for when he taunts Obama to borrow one of Hillary's balls.
|
|
| 494 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Sat, Nov 20, 2010, 11:59
|
"Which do you fear more, seeing the value of your company's stock drop 80% or implementing health care policies?"
I expect the answer to this question would be "8%? Are you NUTS? I have stock options that I have to exercise in like four months! We can't do anything like that!
Wait, you said EIGHTY? Get outta here."
|
|
| 495 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Sat, Nov 20, 2010, 13:01
|
they might as well buy security instead
That's certainly what people are led to believe, that buying gold provides security. And maybe they're right. But if the scenario provided by Newsmax promotion of Aftershock were to become reality;
It could be very bad for most. Even more jobs will be lost. Houses will be abandoned. Strip malls will sit empty. Life savings will be eradicated.
the apparent rebirth of Wall Street is nothing more than final death throes.
Soon the “recovery” the media is talking about will be exposed as a sham . . . a fake . . . something that never was. And when the aftershocks come, the consequences will be disastrous.
10% Unemployment? — Try 40-60%! A Few Banks Fail? — What If the Entire Banking System Collapses? A Weakened Dollar? — How About No Dollar! Imagine a One-World Currency! Scared of Double-Digit Inflation? — Try to Comprehend Triple-Digit Hyper-Inflation! Goodbye Social Security — Hello Social Welfare! The Recent Stock Market Surge? — The Future 50% (or more) Plunge!
If these things happen, what are you going to do with that gold? Eat it? Drink it? Fuel your vehicle with it? Heat or air condition your house with it? Turn it in for dollars that are worthless? You think suddenly you'll be able to go to the 7-11 with a few specks of gold for a Big Gulp?
If you're convinced of a doomsday scenario, I don't see how gold will save the day for you, as is claimed:
Imagine the price of gold doubling . . . tripling . . . or rising even further in value. It’s not as staggering a concept as it once was. And that’s why you should be stockpiling it now.
If a financial advisor said,
"Imagine the price of General Motors doubling . . . tripling . . . or rising even further in value. It’s not as staggering a concept as it once was. And that’s why you should be buying GM stock now"
your next call would be to the State Mental Institution.
Those who are convinced of an economic doomsday should take that money they're going to invest in gold and buy some property that is fertile; some chickens, cows, pigs and goats; as many cases of bottled water as possible; as many 50 gallon drums of fuel as possible; a fishing pole, and as many rifles, handguns and ammunition as possible.
|
|
| 496 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sat, Nov 20, 2010, 13:18
|
The irony of it all, to me, is that if those selling the gold really believed their own ads, they would never sell their gold.
|
|
| 497 | Boldwin
ID: 311037205 Sat, Nov 20, 2010, 18:43
|
When it all goes 1984 the only treasure that matters is spiritual.
|
|
| 498 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sat, Nov 20, 2010, 19:40
|
You better stop squandering it on this site, then. The more you post, the less spiritual you seem to be.
|
|
| 499 | Boldwin
ID: 11101218 Sun, Nov 21, 2010, 09:41
|
Seems like sacrilege when peeking out the basement door of the church of big government, eh PD?
|
|
| 500 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sun, Nov 21, 2010, 10:08
|
I'm not the member of the church who considers what you do here a sin, B. I'll answer to my god, and you answer to yours.
|
|
| 501 | Boldwin
ID: 41052115 Sun, Nov 21, 2010, 16:14
|
This is my one and only outlet for all this current event knowledge. Time will tell if God considers me sufficiently loyal and unreservedly supportive of his kingdom.
I know Tree's friends will make the passage into it, a real acid test.
|
|
| 502 | Tree
ID: 2010312116 Sun, Nov 21, 2010, 17:31
|
This is my one and only outlet for all this current event knowledge.
so far, your knowledge is virtually zero.
I know Tree's friends will make the passage into it, a real acid test.
do explain. my friends? care to elaborate?
|
|
| |
| 504 | CJ
ID: 5311491012 Fri, Dec 10, 2010, 13:50
|
486 Perm Dude Krauthammer has not been right for years....HA HA HA this guy has not only been right one but even when he critized Bush was dead on even when the Conservs did not want to beleive it.
|
|
| 505 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Dec 10, 2010, 14:41
|
He gave speeches at the time, supporting preemption invasion. He was a strong supporter of the surge, and throughout the Bush Administration he felt that the Iraqis would shower Americans with gratitude once the yoke of Hussein was lifted. He was wrong.
He did, indeed, criticize Bush. Over the the Miers nomination to SCOTUS. Other than that, he's been a solid neoconservative: Strong support of the Bush doctrine of using our strength (primarily military) to foster American democracy abroad. He was, in fact, a full-throated supporter of the Bush Doctrine, particularly its military interventionist elements.
If there is any substantial or meaningful criticism of him against Bush at the time I'd be glad to hear of it. Most of the stuff involves cheap shots for not going deeper into the neoconservative weeds.
|
|
| 506 | Boldwin
ID: 211117110 Sat, Dec 11, 2010, 01:17
|
I don't think CJ was denying K is a neocon. And it is blindingly obvious so save us the lecture.
the Iraqis would shower Americans with gratitude once the yoke of Hussein was lifted. He was wrong.
I don't think anyone seriously thot the whole shia world would become pro-america, but if you think they aren't grateful Saddam is gone, play the tape of his hanging. Read the atrocities he committed against the shia. That goes double for the Kurds.
|
|
| 507 | Mith
ID: 1610231620 Sat, Dec 11, 2010, 02:13
|
but if you think they aren't grateful Saddam is gone, play the tape of his hanging.
That was gratitude on exhibit in Sadr City?
|
|
| 508 | Boldwin
ID: 211117110 Sat, Dec 11, 2010, 03:30
|
They were glad to see him gone.
|
|
| 509 | Mith
ID: 371138719 Sat, Dec 11, 2010, 04:00
|
The point PD was challenging was not that Iraqi Shi'ites were glad Saddam was removed from power.
Are you fooled by your own non-sequiturs?
|
|
| 510 | Boldwin
ID: 371119122 Sun, Dec 12, 2010, 03:58
|
That was the Iranian faction on display in Sadr City.
Be realistic. Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld didn't promise that the same radical element who took the embassy hostage in Iran, would suddenly convert and name their firstborn Bush.
But the average muslim on the sreet who you are constantly telling us we musn't conflate with the radical jihadis, were surely grateful someone had the balls and the concern to finally stopped Saddam from lining Shia up on the road and black-topping over them, or gassing the Kurds.
Your failure to recognize that has everything to do with Bush Derangement Syndrome and nothing to do with human nature or the facts on the ground.
|
|
| 511 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Sun, Dec 12, 2010, 09:37
|
finally stopped Saddam from..... gassing the Kurds.
How embarrassing and absurd to use the Kurdish genocide as a justification for the 2003 Iraqi invasion.
The Anfal campaign of 1986-89, with the Halabja gas attack of March 1988 being the largest single chemical attack on a civilian population in history, occurred during Reagan's presidency. Reagan didn't condemn Saddam for the attack, indeed, he tried to blame Iran, since Saddam was his ally. By 2003, Iraqi Kurds were completely insulated from Saddam's intrusions, thanks to the no-fly zone and Israeli and CIA support in building the peshmerga militia into a formidable regional defense unit capable of repelling any attack by Saddam's military.
Any condemnation of gassing the Kurds needs to be accompanied by condemnation of Reagan and his legacy of failure and immorality in the region.
|
|
| 512 | Tree
ID: 111143128 Sun, Dec 12, 2010, 09:43
|
well, looks like someone has been schooled once again, or, in the vernacular of 2008, p0wn'd!
|
|
| 513 | Boldwin
ID: 1511181210 Sun, Dec 12, 2010, 12:26
|
Where is Chemical Ali now and who do the Kurds have to thank for it? [liberal's favorite British media outlet)
Realpolitic is ugly. So what? Not like you would have supported Reagan if he had come to their rescue. And would Reagan have handled it the same if he didn't have to factor liberals like you into the calculus?
But you would never ignore that kinda stuff, not like the evil Reagan, not in your good guy immaculate white hat.
Derangement is thinking this and liberal posts in this thread can be coherently held positions in the same head. Liberals.
|
|
| 514 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sun, Dec 12, 2010, 12:39
|
Derangement is thinking that Bush I left the Kurds out to dry? You mean, when he sorta promised them he would support their revolution but sat on his hands?
Real world politics is, indeed, ugly and difficult. Which is why your persistent belief that "liberals" are always wrong makes me wonder if you really believe that, or if you only mention it in order to excuse bad behavior by conservative American politicians.
|
|
| 515 | Boldwin
ID: 1511181210 Sun, Dec 12, 2010, 13:08
|
I genuinely believe liberals care not one iota whether their ideas help anyone in he real world.
|
|
| 516 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Sun, Dec 12, 2010, 13:30
|
Well, that's because you're a delusional cult member, and you're projecting your cult beliefs that you don't care what happens to anyone in this world onto others.
|
|
| 517 | Boldwin
ID: 1511181210 Sun, Dec 12, 2010, 13:42
|
No, that's because a bag of groceries actually left on someones porch at the right time, beats turning everyone into paupers so we can try your 'five year plan' #infinity. Which in theory might work even tho it never has in the past.
|
|
| 518 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sun, Dec 12, 2010, 14:35
|
the Iranian faction on display in Sadr City.
There are close ties between Iran and all of Shi'ite Iraq, as far as I know. But Muqtada al-Sadr was actually well known for persistantly distancing himself, Sadr City and the Mahadi Army from Iranian influence.
From Muqtada al Sadr's Wiki page:He envisions a Shi‘a-dominated government, much like Iran's, but independent from Iran.[6] He has met Khamenei and "told him that we share the same ideology, but that politically and militarily, I would not be an extension of Iran." Unlike many other Shiite Iraqi leaders, he refused to flee to Iran after the Persian Gulf War. Ties between him and Iran do seem to have thawed in the years following Saddam's removal, as he has been in Iran since 2007. But Iranian assistance to the Mahadi Army probably didn't start until about that time, (actually the following year, based on Wiki). I'm aware of no reason to believe that Sadr City has any closer ties with Iran than most other Shi'ite areas in Eastern Iraq, especially in the first few years after the 2003 American invasion, except that it is a convenient historical revision for people who are sympathetic to and frequently find themself defending Bush era neoconservatism, such as yourself.
|
|
| 519 | Boldwin
ID: 1711591214 Sun, Dec 12, 2010, 16:20
|
Why focus on Sadr City?
Either we buy the usual liberal position that there is a reasonable Islamic majority with lots of space between them and the jihadis...god forbid we make generalizations..
Or we buy the other usual liberal generalization that every Iraqi Shia is so monolithic in Synch with the jihadis that they all are on the Bush Derangement bandwagon.
let me know which side you really come down on.
|
|
| 520 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313 Sun, Dec 12, 2010, 16:33
|
Why focus on Sadr City?
If anyone is curious about just how many non-sequitur responses it takes to sufficiently bury his defense of Charles Krauthammer's mistaken prediction that Iraqis would react to the American conquer of their country with gratitude, I'll bother to continue.
|
|
| 521 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sun, Dec 12, 2010, 18:24
|
#515: I genuinely believe liberals care not one iota whether their ideas help anyone in he real world.
This statement is at odds with practically all other statements you've made about "liberals" in the past (and you've made a lot of them). Previous to this, "liberals" were people with genuinely-felt feelings about helping others, but their real-world naivety prevented those policy ideas from having any chance of success.
I guess the latest meme of dehumanizing people you believe to be political opponents has caused this shift where those people are no longer allowed to hold genuine feelings which do not map to your political beliefs. Now, liberals are merely cynical beings without true empathy for others. Or so says the man who decided that those people who smoke marijuana for medical reasons (for example) are just stoners.
|
|
| 522 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Sun, Dec 12, 2010, 20:16
|
520: Trust me, you'll never hit the bottom of that well. I'd set the over-under at 27.5, but I don't think you have the stamina.
|
|
| 523 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Sun, Dec 12, 2010, 21:16
|
Not like you would have supported Reagan if he had come to their rescue. And would Reagan have handled it the same if he didn't have to factor liberals like you into the calculus?
Are you talking to me?
|
|
| 524 | Boldwin
ID: 58111130 Mon, Dec 13, 2010, 01:02
|
If you wrote #511, yes.
|
|
| 525 | Tree
ID: 01132137 Mon, Dec 13, 2010, 08:32
|
:: munches popcorn ::
this is going to be highly entertaining, and i hope you have your hands empty baldwin, because you're about to need them when PV hands your ass to you.
|
|
| 526 | bibA
ID: 48627713 Mon, Dec 13, 2010, 09:52
|
Tree, PV cannot win such a debate. All B has to do is retort that Reagan wouldn't have screwed anything up if he did not have to factor liberals like PV into the calculus.
|
|
| 527 | bibA
ID: 48627713 Mon, Dec 13, 2010, 10:26
|
If it had not been for people like PV, I'm sure Reagan would have responded strongly to the killing of over 200 marines in Lebanon, he would not have supported death squads in Central America, he wouldn't have run up record deficits, he wouldn't have expanded the government into a bigger entity than it had ever been, he would not have supported Saddam Hussein, he wouldn't have signed legislation raising payroll, income and gasoline taxes, some of them among the largest in our history.....one can go on and on.
|
|
| 528 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Mon, Dec 13, 2010, 11:00
|
How do you debate hypothetical "would haves" instead of "what did happen?"
Not only did Reagan not come to the rescue of the Kurds,
Soon after the attack, the United States approved the export to Iraq of virus cultures and a billion-dollar contract to design and build a petrochemical plant the Iraqis planned to use to produce mustard gas.
link
Would Reagan have handled it the same if he didn't have to factor liberals like you into the calculus?
That's just mindless gibberish. Clinton was more than happy to sell Turkey Sikorsky Blackhawk helicopters that were used to mount a scorched earth campaign against its Kurdish minority and has killed over 25,000 Kurdish civilians, destroyed over 2,600 Kurdish villages and forced over 2,500,000 Kurds from their homes. U.S. military sales to Turkey have made the United States a direct accomplice to Turkey's ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity and genocide against its 20 percent Kurdish minority.
I can't recall Obama saying one word in defense of the continuing struggle for Kurdish rights and independence, so the attempt to portray a liberal/conservative element into the calculus only shows a vapid disinterest in reality.
You want to use Saddam's "gassing of the Kurds" as a rhetorical justification even though you've never shown one bit of empathy for their plight. The transparancy of your concern, coupled with a refusal to acknowledge Reagan's complicity in Kurdish genocide(along with successive presidents of both parties), renders your credibility as a spiritually-guided person very suspect.
|
|
| 529 | Tree, not at home
ID: 3910441615 Mon, Dec 13, 2010, 11:03
|
yep. school is in session.
|
|
| 531 | Boldwin
ID: 58111130 Mon, Dec 13, 2010, 12:19
|
re PD#521
PD
If it were so you'd see...
1) A fierce determination that failing programs be axed and only ones which efficiently delivered real cost effective benefits be allowed to exist.
2) A sober respect for the lessons learned of past big government failures. Those lessons would be in the forefront of their consciousness. They'd stop repeating the same mistakes. They'd have a memory.
3) Far less hubris in their faith in 'government knows best' based on #2.
4) They wouldn't deliberately bankrupt the country 'for the children'.
5) They would allow race relations to heal instead of keeping the wound raw and bleeding for cynical and selfish political gain.
6) Feminists would have actually cared about Clinton's female employees
7) They'd let kids go to schools that have succeeded instead of trapping them in failed government monopolies.
8) So you care about frankenfood and monoculture farms? You like free-range and locally grown? Hate fertilizer run-off? Hormone injected food? Transfats? I saw a deer back around the bend.
9) You care about the environment? Is the only solution socialism? Have you actally checked their environmental record?
10) If they really cared, the solution wouldn't always be other peoples money.
The only thing I see liberals giving genuine TLC to is their own power and their own self-image.
|
|
| 532 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Dec 13, 2010, 12:21
|
I don't believe that you think the Democrats have evolved at all since the 60s. Clinton (and Obama, for that matter) are a lot more moderate that you care to acknowledge.
|
|
| 533 | Boldwin
ID: 58111130 Mon, Dec 13, 2010, 12:27
|
PV
You obviously don't remember our extended and very emotional discussion of the anfal campaign, or the many times I've pointed out the very similar historic plight of the Armenians.
|
|
| 534 | Boldwin
ID: 58111130 Mon, Dec 13, 2010, 12:39
|
I don't believe that you think the Democrats have evolved at all since the 60s.
Stuck in the Sixties. Frozen in time. Haven't had a philosophical insight since.So what have we learned? If Turley is to be believed, the overwhelmingly black school district, with its black Superintendent and overwhelmingly black school board, is conspiring with the Police Department (with its black, local-grown Chief of Police), the black Mayor, and the overwhelmingly black City Council, to use mace on high school kids, thereby oppressing them and making it unpleasant to go to school in order to maintain the iron grip of the elite over black people.
Pardon me if I suggest this seems just a bit unlikely.
Of course, there's a much simpler explanation. Turley heard "Birmingham," "96 percent black," and brutal police and just went chasing off after a favorite explanation without thinking.
Once he'd decided that, the gratuitous drive-by slander was easy to come by. All he has to sacrifice is intellectual honesty, his own reputation, and what progress has been made in race relations in Birmingham since the times of Dr. King.
|
|
| 535 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Mon, Dec 13, 2010, 17:15
|
Thank you. You've confirmed my belief in where you are coming from.
|
|
| |
| 537 | Tree
ID: 320371412 Thu, Jan 20, 2011, 08:00
|
good catch. we'll need to note MITH's 536 when some sort of random blanket statement about liberals is again posted on these boards...
|
|
| 538 | Boldwin
ID: 10029209 Thu, Jan 20, 2011, 10:40
|
Let me get this straight, this liberal saying the other side are a bunch of nazis, is the newest hero of the ramp-down-the-rhetoric crowd. Fascinating.
|
|
| 539 | Tree, not at home
ID: 3910441615 Thu, Jan 20, 2011, 14:04
|
lol. is that REALLY what you think?
for god's sake, take off your blinders and have some common sense.
he's no one's hero here.
it's fairly obvious that TPM's posting of it, including the original article that reported it, was a condemnation.
it's fairly obvious that MITH's posting of it is a condemnation.
it's fairly obvious that my comment on MITH's posting is a condemnation, and at the same time pointing out that we liberals can disagree with other liberals.
are you so partisan and oblivious to the obvious at this point that you can't even see that!?!?
amazing.
|
|
| 540 | Mith
ID: 371138719 Thu, Jan 20, 2011, 23:38
|
A simple correction probably would have been sufficient.
|
|
| |
| 542 | Tree
ID: 320371412 Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 08:07
|
eh, i hate those apologies. can't anyone just say "hey, i was wrong."
|
|
| 543 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 11:06
|
Exactly. Those "sorry is anyone was offended" apologies aren't apologies at all. This is like wading into a crowd swinging your fists, then when your done apologizing "if anyone was hit."
|
|
| 544 | Boldwin
ID: 16253251 Wed, Mar 30, 2011, 04:58
|
The 2010 election never happened as far as Illinois' governor Pat Quinn is concerned. Note his reality based assessment of Catepillar's latest announcement.The Pantagraph of Bloomington, Ill., reported last week that Caterpillar Chief Executive Doug Oberhelman had starkly warned in a letter to Gov. Pat Quinn that he'd been "cornered in meetings" and "wined and dined" to relocate his company to Wisconsin, Texas, South Dakota, Nebraska and other states lining up in the wake of Illinois' massive tax hike this year on business.
"I want to stay here," the CEO wrote. "But as the leader of this business, I have to do what's right for Caterpillar when making decisions about where to invest. The direction that this state is headed in is not favorable to business, and I'd like to work with you to change that."
[does Pat Quinn even know that CEO's are required to do the right thing by their shareholders? - B]
Amazingly, Quinn responded that it was impossible that one of Illinois' largest employers and taxpayers would move out of state, then changed the subject. It was pure Louis XVI:
"Caterpillar is not leaving Illinois. They have well-skilled workers who know how to get the job done. They just signed an agreement with the United Auto Workers, I think for six years. I don't think we should get in a panic at all."
[Cat just pulled out their billion dollar a year tech research dept and sent it to Texas and Quinn didn't even call them to see if he could talk them out of it. Quinn had no concessions he was willing to offer - B]
But even the local UAW boss was appalled at Quinn's nonchalance and told an NBC affiliate in East Peoria that Caterpillar does not bluff. "When they are talking to you, you better listen. Because if you don't listen, bad things can happen," said Local 974 President Dave Chapman, in authentic union vernacular.
---
According to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation: "The corporate income tax will rise from 7.3% to 10.9%, a 49% increase and (making Illinois') the highest state corporate income tax in the United States and the highest combined national-local corporate income tax in the industrialized world."
In other words, anyplace Caterpillar moves — and that means anywhere — the tax situation will be an improvement on what it faces in Illinois. How is that for reality based?
Reality is Peoria's 110,000 residents about to be glimpsed standing on the ledge of a mid-sized office building contemplating what life used to be like as the only small town in the world with it's own Fortune 50 company.
How 20,000 Chicago leeches ate a catepillar. When close elections go bad.
|
|
| 545 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Mar 30, 2011, 09:20
|
I see the Tax Foundation is up to its usual tricks.
Illinois needs to get its fiscal house in order. Sometimes that means raising taxes.
|
|
| |
| 547 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Wed, Mar 30, 2011, 10:28
|
10.9% * 0 = 0
|
|
| 548 | Razor
ID: 172252412 Wed, Mar 30, 2011, 10:37
|
Corporate tax reform is coming. We'll hear the howls of how it will destroy the economy and how communist it is, but conservative hero Ronald Reagan went through this same exercise 25 years ago.
|
|
| 549 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Wed, Mar 30, 2011, 10:52
|
|
|
| |
| |
| 552 | Frick
ID: 387512315 Tue, Nov 29, 2011, 08:38
|
I saw part of Frank's interview on the Today show. He came across as a bitter old man IMO. He started every answer with stating that the interviewer was spinning every question into a negative on him. Guess he was expecting softballs about how great he was. What was even better was he stated that the media was to blame for Congress's low popularity ratings. Not Congress itself or its actions, but journalists painting everything they do in a negative light.
|
|
| 553 | sarge33rd
ID: 271155415 Mon, Dec 05, 2011, 00:31
|
Stocks do better under Dems, than under Reps
"Democrats are seen as being pro-regulatory, and more willing to enact laws against Wall Street and laws against CEOs," said Don Luskin, chief investment officer at Trend Macrolytics.
But here's Wall Street's strange little irony -- studies show the stock market performs better and tends to be less volatile when Democrats are in power.
Doers the Party in Power, Matter for Economic Performance?
In this brief paper, I consider whether five common political beliefs have any basis in fact. Does the economy grow faster when Republicans are in charge? Does the size of the government actually keep expanding? If so, is this growth correlated with Democrats being in charge? Does bigger government lead to slower growth? Finally, is it accurate to characterize Democrats as the “tax and spend” party? While correlation is not causation and theoretical relationships are complex, the data on U.S. economic performance during the postwar period does not appear to support any of these beliefs, and in fact tends more to support the alternative hypotheses.
The truth, shall set you free.
|
|
| 554 | Boldwin
ID: 81144421 Mon, Dec 05, 2011, 06:04
|
Is there a good explanation for the increase in tax receipts under Democrats? While Republicans would offer their own interpretation, one could easily argue that Democrats have behaved with more fiscal responsibility.
Someone call the Onion. Someone is infringing on their territory.
|
|
| 555 | Boldwin
ID: 81144421 Mon, Dec 05, 2011, 06:25
|
So many huge factors ignored in that study. Crediting Clinton for Gingerich's spending decisions. Ignoring that the three Bush terms were big spending neocon terms, not conservative republican terms. Ignoring that Republicans have the sole burden of resupplying the military that the democrats spend down on. Etc, etc. So when Obama expends all our cruise missiles for example it gets counted as republican spending.
|
|
| 556 | Boldwin
ID: 81144421 Mon, Dec 05, 2011, 06:34
|
Not to mention inadequately taking into account the business cycle.
Or the difference between the top corporations which use the democratic party to stifle their competition, and small business which depends on conservative policies.
|
|
| 557 | DWetzel
ID: 31111810 Mon, Dec 05, 2011, 10:44
|
"Ignoring that the three Bush terms were big spending neocon terms, not conservative republican terms."
Quit perpetuating the big lie. I guess Reagan and Nixon were massive neocons too, as are you: "Ignoring that Republicans have the sole burden of resupplying the military that the democrats spend down on." So, you're firmly in the palm of the defense contractors. Congratulations. You've completely stopped thinking.
I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell you.
I am now firmly convinced you are simply making this stuff up for your own personal amusement. Nobody could be that wildly self-contradictory in the same paragraph and actually mean all of it.
|
|
| 558 | sarge33rd
ID: 291113511 Mon, Dec 05, 2011, 12:13
|
Historic truth Boldwin. Lie, obfuscate, apologize, do what ever. It honestly makes no difference to me. The truth, is in the numbers, which are there, and history has born out the lie of the Rep marketing machine. The sad part of it all? The lie is SO entrenched, that even when presented with proof of it, you still deny that truth.
|
|
| 559 | DWetzel
ID: 31111810 Mon, Dec 05, 2011, 13:36
|
War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, massive spending is fiscal responsibility. Quite simple really.
|
|
| |
| 561 | Boldwin
ID: 327262311 Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 14:53
|
Remember not so long ago when the most dangerous place to be was between Chuck Schummer and a TV camera?
So where's Chuck Schummer lately?
And meanwhile there's 'rising star' Dick Durbin from Illinois chained to Obama.
|
|
| 562 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 08:00
|
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over a loss of fiscal responsibility, always followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world's great civilizations before they decline has been 200 years. These nations have progressed in this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage."
|
|
| 563 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318 Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 09:44
|
From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over a loss of fiscal responsibility, always followed by a dictatorship.
The most positive thing this country can take away from the Tea Party electoral victories in 2010 is the focus on debt and government spending, which they insisted was/is unsustainable. It should be remembered that the Tea Party moniker came from a quip on CNBC, a business news channel owned by a media conglomerate that a lot of those who claim Tea Party sympathy relentlessly villify as a major source of liberal bias. It should also be remembered that the original focus of the Tea Party movement was the scope of government spending. Unfortunately, as the movement became hijacked by the noisy fringes of right wing partisans, the focus became so distorted that groups like Tea Party Patriots include birther conspiracies as part of their agenda. The slavish committment to Grover Norquist pledges revealed an unwillingness to understand, or at least admit, that only a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases can address the country's financial fragility moving forward.
It should be apparent, given the results of 2010 and the tight race between Obama and Romney, that in this country the majority doesn't always necessarily vote for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury. That's a rather insulting analysis that should be shelved in favor of discussion that focuses on the positive aspects of the economy, of which there are many, as well as policies designed to continue to grow what is a much healthier economy relative to the instability of recent and not so recent crises.
|
|
| 564 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 10:00
|
It should be apparent, given the results of 2010 and the tight race between Obama and Romney, that in this country the majority doesn't always necessarily vote for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury.
I am not sure a close race says that at all I would just says the two candidates are really about the same, but if we were to make generalities what are the the main talking points on this issue, Dem's: don't worry you don't have to pay, the rich can pay since they are not paying any taxes; GOP: don't worry no one has to pay we will just cut spending since half the country is living on dole. Now if one party was saying we need to all make sacrifices of less benefits and pay more taxes then I would say you are correct.
That's a rather insulting analysis that should be shelved in favor of discussion that focuses on the positive aspects of the economy, of which there are many, as well as policies designed to continue to grow what is a much healthier economy relative to the instability of recent and not so recent crises.
I agree, but that will not happen because those kind of policies involve ideas like ending farm subsidies, ending the mortgage tax deduction, admitting maybe it not a good idea to think everyone should go to college...
|
|
| 565 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 12:37
|
Nobody I am aware of, has said that everyone should go to college. I believe, the Obama position is that everyone should have the OPTION of going. Semantics perhaps, but there are differences.
|
|
| 566 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 14:28
|
Arne Duncan is peddling just that, sarge--that everyone should go to some kind of college or trade school.
|
|
| 567 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 14:34
|
college, and trade school..arent the same. I agree, that in todays world, one or the other is almost a necessity. Are there exceptions? Of course, but by and large?
|
|
| 568 | Frick
ID: 2193319 Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 16:19
|
Race to the Top has the intention of preparing every high school graduate for college. And schools that don't meet that requirement are labeled failures.
Both parties seem to be pushing this rhetoric about public schools being failures and in favor of privatizing education, which is a terrible idea IMO.
|
|
| 569 | Biliruben
ID: 358252515 Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 16:28
|
Rttt is horrendous; I agree.
Bill gates has been pushing his evidence-free agenda down Seattle schools throats for years now.
First we need to determine what is effective.
|
|
| 572 | Tree
ID: 421111810 Sat, Dec 08, 2012, 11:19
|
somehow, i missed post 562.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.
this was never said, at least by anyone of note. that might be why you're not attributing it to anyone.
|
|
| 573 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169 Sat, Dec 08, 2012, 13:37
|
It is a fake quote.
"When in doubt, pass around a fake quote attributed to someone long dead." -- George Mason.
|
|
| 576 | Seattle Zen
ID: 3603123 Sat, Dec 08, 2012, 17:33
|
Wow, look at how dated and ill conceived post one is today.
In 1990 or so he wrote a book that warned that if the Dems didnt get this stuff straightened out, they might never win a presidential election again.
Snicker, only have won 4 of the next six.
|
|
| 577 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Sat, Dec 08, 2012, 20:19
|
Such sentiments from that time should serve as a reminder for Democrats to not get too cocky.
|
|
|