Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Happy Hour Roundup

* Michael Bloomberg, in keeping with his inexplicable desire to also represent his Muslim constituents, invites the Muslim cabbie/stabbing victim to City Hall.

* Shocker of the day: Fox News declines to run that ad calling attention to News Corporation's $1 million donation to the Republican Governors Association.

* Sharron Angle's campaign, responding to Harry Reid's criticism of her agreement that there are "domestic enemies" within Congress, blasts Reid for "putting words in her mouth."

* But Reid keeps hammering away, and the "domestic enemies" story is a big one out in Nevada.

* America in the 21st century: Religious leaders are growing alarmed at the right's increasing use of "sharia" as a slur.

* It's buried deep in a column imploring that John McCain step forth and save the republic, but unless I'm misreading this, David Broder has come out and denounced the GOP for unprincipled obstructionism:

One of the conspicuous failings in the past few years has been the absence of a second party making principled decisions on when to support and when to oppose the president. McCain has the best opportunity -- and the best credentials -- to restore this.

* Aaron Blake has an interesting look at how the drug problem in eastern Kentucky ballooned into a political problem for Rand Paul.

* Marco Rubio's first general election ad sands away the harsh Tea-Party edge with soft music, soft lighting, and talk of the American dream.

* The right wing's attacks on Imam Feisal Adbul Rauf have descended into comical incoherence and self parody.

* No, liberals are not ideologically committed to growing government for its own sake.

* Obama will deliver his big Iraq speech next week from the Oval Office.

* Dems wanted to face Tea Party-backed Senate candidate Ken Buck because he's extreme, but polls show he has a sizable lead over incumbent Dem Senator Michael Bennet.

* Nate Silver, now finally at The New York Times, forecasts that Dems are in "increasing jeopardy" of losing their majority in the Senate.

* Obama held a conference call today with his economic advisers, all of whom still appear to be employed despite John Boehner's demand that they all be fired.

* And maybe Mitt Romney should sign up Sylvester Stallone as a foreign policy adviser to his 2012 campaign.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  |  August 25, 2010; 5:35 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , Foreign policy and national security , Happy Hour Roundup , House GOPers , Senate Dems , Senate Republicans , Tea Party  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: More House Dems fleeing (and bashing) Obama and Pelosi
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments

Ha! Media Matters busted. FNC calls their bluff.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/did-fox-news-call-media-matters-bluff-over-1-million-gop-donation-ad/

Posted by: sbj3 | August 25, 2010 5:49 PM | Report abuse

"McCain has the best opportunity -- and USED TO HAVE the best credentials -- to restore this."

There, fixed it.

Posted by: lmsinca | August 25, 2010 5:49 PM | Report abuse

I have a hard time believing that anyone this thin-skinned can make it through an entire presidental primary season without having a major meltdown:

http://palingates.blogspot.com/2010/08/todd-palins-aggressive-encounter-with.html

Posted by: schrodingerscat | August 25, 2010 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Interesting take from an Alaska political blogger on what happened there last night.

http://www.themudflats.net/2010/08/25/august-surprise-%e2%80%93-palin-backed-joe-miller-poised-to-overthrow-murkowski-dynasty-in-alaska/

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 25, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

"Bloomberg, in keeping with his inexplicable desire to also represent his Muslim constituents"

There are about as many Muslims in New York City as there are people in the state of Alaska.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 25, 2010 6:05 PM | Report abuse


Hey Greg, Since you seem to know that everyone in the Beltway is doing today ... where is your WaPo colleague Chris Cillizza who predicted with arrogant surety that Miller would be trounced in the Alaska GOP primary?

Has Cillizza gone into hiding so he does not have to eat crow today? His underlings the B-team are writing The Fix today.

Posted by: screwjob21 | August 25, 2010 6:15 PM | Report abuse

McCain's former economic adviser blasts Boehner:

"Former McCain economic adviser, and longtime stimulus defender, Mark Zandi took issue today with House Minority Leader John Boehner's criticisms of President Obama's economic policies, and with multiple GOP calls for Obama's top economic advisers to resign.

"I think we'd be in a measurably worse place if not for the stimulus," Zandi said at the Christian Science Monitor breakfast this morning. "If we had not had the stimulus...we'd have fewer jobs today than we actually have."

Zandi was responding to Boehner's contention yesterday that stimulus spending "has gotten us nowhere." Asked whether he agreed with Boehner, Zandi said "no."

"Without the stimulus spending," Zandi insisted, "instead of a 9.5 percent unemployment rate, we'd have an 11.5 percent unemployment rate."

...

Zandi took particular issue with the size of the stimulus. He says it should have been larger, with more money dedicated to tax incentives to small businesses and less to infrastructure spending. More infrastructure spending, he said, "would have enormous productivity benefits," but is necessarily stimulative in the near-term.

"I would have made it larger," Zandi said. "I think we underestimated -- significantly underestimated -- the severity of the situation that we were in and still are in. And that that would have argued for a larger stimulus package."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/former-mccain-adviser-says-boehner-wrong-on-stimulus-geithner-and-summers.php?ref=fpb

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 25, 2010 6:23 PM | Report abuse

schrodingerscat:

Have you never heard of a "Stalking Horse" candidate?

Posted by: JakeD2 | August 25, 2010 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of Murkowski's apparent loss in Alaska, Benen makes an interesting point:

For all the talk about endangered incumbents, alienated establishment types, and gender advantages in the Republican primaries this year, it seems the most meaningful takeaway of 2010 so far is the willingness of the Republican base -- everywhere -- to punish those open to compromise and constructive policymaking.

The message from the base to Republican lawmakers who might consider constructive lawmaking: don't do it. Party activists don't want responsible leaders who'll try to solve problems; they want hard-right ideologues. No exceptions.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_08/025379.php

WIth the economy slowing and the stimulus expiring, ANY GOP gains and I'm afraid we're in for a long 2 years.

Posted by: cmccauley60 | August 25, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Hello all, back after 2 weeks off the grid in parts west.

Greg, you pluck the silver lining nicely out of Broder's otherwise typically pollyanna-ish column. He gives McCain a pass that assumes that the failed Presidential candidate was always as mavericky as he claims.

Broder can't identify an opportunist when he sees one. Wonder why.

Posted by: BGinCHI | August 25, 2010 6:36 PM | Report abuse

"Michael Bloomberg, in keeping with his inexplicable desire...." Greg Sargent, your use of the word "inexplicable" is interesting. In my view, what Mr. Bloomberg "did," is what good leaders do. I guess the reason you used the word "inexplicable," is because, sadly, there are few true leaders in the political world. Kudos to Mayor Bloomberg.

Posted by: dozas | August 25, 2010 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Glad you're back BG, we sent out an APB the other night. Hope it was a nice vacation.

Posted by: lmsinca | August 25, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

"And maybe Mitt Romney should sign up Sylvester Stallone as a foreign policy adviser to his 2012 campaign."
----------------------------------------------

Let's say he does. So assuming Huckabee runs again too, think Stallone could take Chuck Norris?

Posted by: CalD | August 25, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

dozas and others, um, Greg was being facetious.

As in "who could BELIEVE a mayor would actually stand up for part of his constituency."

Having been off the intertubes for a couple of weeks, I'm struck by how similar this August is to last August: hysteria from the right about something that is not really threatening. Is August a particularly sensitive time for people who are selfish and ignorant? Why the pissypants?

Posted by: BGinCHI | August 25, 2010 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Ken Mehlman is gay.

Yay!

Posted by: sbj3 | August 25, 2010 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Here's another Dean Baker piece regarding the debt hysteria during an unemployment crisis. He also talks about SS again, I know I'm over doing it, but "you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall".

I posted the entire thing below, so no link.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How else can we explain the fact that in a country suffering from the worst unemployment crisis in 70 years, CNN Money headlines a piece: "America’s Debt Crisis?" CNN Money probably does not have access to financial market information otherwise it would know that the interest rate on U.S. government bonds are near 60-year lows.

This suggests that financial markets are not at all worried about U.S. government debt. The debt crisis exists only in the heads of people who are either unaware of financial markets or who are trying to spread fear in order to get political support for things like cutting Social Security.

The piece notes the opposition of many groups to cuts to Social Security, but then tells readers that: "nonpartisan deficit experts say the debt trajectory for the country is so worrisome that nothing in the federal budget can be off the table. That includes Social Security, which will only be able to pay out roughly three-quarters of promised benefits to future retirees by 2037."

This might be true, but nonpartisan deficit experts also point out that if the United States fixed its health care system then it would have massive budget surpluses as far as the eye can see. Nonpartisan deficit experts also point out that Social Security payments are already relatively meager compared to what most other countries pay their retirees.

Nonpartisan deficit experts also point out that most retirees have very little other than Social Security to support themselves. And, they point out that Social Security’s shortfall can be relatively easily made up with revenue increases that are comparable to those put in place in the decades of each the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s, and the 1980s.

It appears as though CNN Money only spoke to nonpartisan deficit experts who wanted to cut Social Security.

Posted by: lmsinca | August 25, 2010 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Thanks lms. I missed the PL community wisdom.

Even sbj, kind of, a little.

Now, I'm waiting for Mehlman to apologize profusely for all the anti-gay policies he participated in via the RNC and the GOP in general. I'm also waiting for Limbaugh to denounce his support for the Muslim Community Center (what are we calling it here?) as "what only a f*g would do."

Posted by: BGinCHI | August 25, 2010 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Hey BG!! Welcome home!

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 25, 2010 7:03 PM | Report abuse

@BG: You've been gone?

Posted by: sbj3 | August 25, 2010 7:07 PM | Report abuse

sbj, I feel the love. You can't hide it.

Posted by: BGinCHI | August 25, 2010 7:11 PM | Report abuse

@BG: Hugs and kisses

XXXX0000

Here's a link to the Mehlman article. You won't find an apology but perhaps you will understand.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/08/bush-campaign-chief-and-former-rnc-chair-ken-mehlman-im-gay/62065

Posted by: sbj3 | August 25, 2010 7:14 PM | Report abuse

"Have you never heard of a "Stalking Horse" candidate?"

Sure....but I'm not entirely clear what you're suggesting here.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | August 25, 2010 7:16 PM | Report abuse

And BTW: Glad you're back, BG.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | August 25, 2010 7:18 PM | Report abuse

Welcome back, BG!

I hope you had a great time. Looks like you haven't missed a beat.

Posted by: wbgonne | August 25, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

I'll pose a question for sbj and any others of the righty persuasion: do the political leaders who vehemently oppose the Cordoba House know full well that it's not a threat or insult but pretend otherwise to gain the support of their followers who blindly hate Muslims?

Not a felicitously worded question, but what I'm getting at is the Mehlman thing. He comes out of the closet right after coming out for the rights of Muslims. Both things vilified by his party and its base. Since I don't think he's all that different from Rove and others, the distinction seems to be that he has nothing to lose politically. He isn't running and isn't in charge, and he is making decisions based on principles.

This is entirely missing on the right, where political power and its retention is the only game in town.

Posted by: BGinCHI | August 25, 2010 7:39 PM | Report abuse

Another interesting point from Benen, albeit a point that has been made many times by others but still worth repeating:

Those on the right want to cut taxes, because tax cuts are necessarily good. They want smaller government, because smaller government is necessarily good. They want to privatize public programs because privatization is necessarily good.

The left has no parallel ideological desires (wanting bigger government just for the sake of having bigger government).

The left starts with a policy goal (more people with access to medical care, more students with access to college, less pollution, more Wall Street safeguards) and crafts proposals to try to complete the task. The right starts with an ideological goal (smaller government, more privatization, lower taxes) and works backwards.

I can imagine a scenario in which the president hosts a big meeting with all the congressional leaders, and suggests it's time to review the economic recovery efforts of the last year and a half, looking closely at what worked and what didn't, and then working on what to do next. For Dems, the task would be fairly straightforward -- let's do more of what was the most effective, and less of what was the least effective.

For Republicans, it doesn't work quite that way -- they have ideological ideals that outweigh evidence. GOP leaders could be shown incontrovertible evidence that the most effective methods of creating jobs and improving the economy are aid to states, infrastructure investment, unemployment insurance, and food stamps, and they'd still say tax cuts for millionaires is the better way to go. Why? Because their ideology dictates that government spending is bad, government intervention in the economy is bad, and tax cuts are good.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_08/025376.php#more

Posted by: cmccauley60 | August 25, 2010 7:53 PM | Report abuse

"One of the conspicuous failings in the past few years has been the absence of a second party making principled decisions on when to support and when to oppose the president. McCain has the best opportunity -- and the best credentials -- to restore this."

...but of course chooses not to.

It's sad how stuck in the past people can become as we get older. Reading Broder is like peering through a little peep hole into the US political landscape before Newt Gingrich. But seriously, after the first 25 years you'd think a little of the present might start to seep in around the edges. I miss the days when responsible Republicans still roamed Washington DC too Dave, but pretending they still exist isn't going to bring them back. To the contrary, I think.

Posted by: CalD | August 25, 2010 8:04 PM | Report abuse

OMFG! Ben Quayle won his primary!!!

It's too good.

Posted by: CalD | August 25, 2010 8:15 PM | Report abuse

@BG...Welcome back. Hope you enjoyed your trip. If you're able to get away for a long weekend my wife and I return to the U.P. for the second two weeks in September.

Hopefully you'll notice a bit of a change here. We acquired some righties who are able to discuss issues without all the partisan rancor...Kevin W comes to mind...SBJ is still here playing troublemaker but he doesn't go off the deep end at least...and a JakeD who might be to the right of Attila the Hun at least makes all his points thoughtfully and can agree to disagree agreeably. Too many forms of agree there? lol

At any rate welcome back. We were hoping while you were out West you could get Tena to return to the blog. I know SBJ misses her and of course Q.B. is still around he always loved Tena as well. We've put out an APB for her as well...do you suppose she ran off with the pool boy? Just joking Tena in case your still reading the blog. :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 25, 2010 8:42 PM | Report abuse

Greg:

"Shocker of the day: Fox News declines to run that ad calling attention to News Corporation's $1 million donation to the Republican Governors Association."

2nd shocker of the day: Greg Sargent declines to tell the truth about FOX.

FOX did not "decline to run the ad". FOX requested that two factual errors be fixed, one of which Media Matters refused to make.

From sbj's link:

"Fox News says it still plans to run the spot if it can be brought up to their standards. At this point, though, it seems unlikely that Media Matters will amend the ad to FNC’s standards."

FOX has nothing on you, Greg, when it comes to deceptive reporting.

Posted by: ScottC3 | August 25, 2010 8:58 PM | Report abuse

I'm going to try this and see if it makes sense. Last night a few of the regulars here were discussing the Park 51 issue. And my impression was that both Scott and qb, I think, made the point that it was sort of ludicrous for "lefties" to worry about what kind of impression the nastiness out there has on radical Islam. They seem to interpret our concern over the situation to be in the interest of not pissing off terrorists.

I didn't jump in and just sort of breezed through all the comments, so I don't really know if anyone else made this point or not, but it's not the radicals we're trying to win the hearts and minds of obviously, it's the moderates in the Middle East and even our own Muslim Americans here. We could build or not build Park 51, the terrorists responsible for the hate that caused 9/11 will still hate us no matter what we do.

When I read the cab drivers account of being stabbed and the fear he feels, even before this incident, I realized that it's men, women and children like him we need to show our tolerance to. I don't get what part of that some people don't understand.

Posted by: lmsinca | August 25, 2010 9:02 PM | Report abuse

One thing being overlooked and misreported about Rubio's win is that he did NOT run unopposed. Last night K.O. reported on Countdown that Marco Rubio unopposed will be the R candidate for Senate in Florida.

Understandably most of the interest last night was on the Meek/Greene race...and so nobody noted what really happened on the R side....Rubio did not run unopposed after Crist dropped out. Certainly Crist would have presented the only REAL challenge but there were two other candidates, who were obviously completely underfunded, had no name recognition...I live in Florida and was unaware of this pair until last night's results and look how poorly these two did against tea party hero Marco...

U.S. Senate - GOP Primary
6867 of 6867 Precincts Reporting - 100%
Name Party Votes Vote %
Rubio, Marco GOP 1,059,513 85%
Kogut, William GOP 111,584 9%
Escoffery, William GOP 81,873 7%

That's right..two unknowns with no budgets combined for over 15% of the vote. The anybody but Marco movement has already started...within the R party itself. This doesn't bode well for Marco and could give Meek a shot at what is currently an R Senate seat. Although I must confess I believe Crist is the real winner in all of this...he'll get the majority of I's and peel off folks from both the R and D side.

Meanwhile Marco "special interests" Rubio will have to try and bury his actual record as Speaker of the Florida House. Special interests owned Tallahassee under Rubio's leadership and Marco COINCIDENTALLY quadrupled his income during his tenure. It got even better when he left and could take what amounts to bribes a bit more in the open...e.g. he funneled millions of dollars to a small community college in S Florida as Speaker and then immediately after leaving office..again COINCIDENTALLY of course..landed a six figure job at that same college for teaching a couple of courses.

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 25, 2010 9:06 PM | Report abuse

California is the FIRST STATE to pass legislation to set up the health care insurance exchanges passed by law in March.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704540904575452020633405364.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLETopStories

Posted by: maritza1 | August 25, 2010 9:19 PM | Report abuse

BeeeeGeeeeinCHI!!

"Whatcha doin' layin' on your back oooh
Whatcha doin' layin' on your back aaah
You should be dancing yeah
Dancing yeah!"

Welcome Back

Posted by: tao9 | August 25, 2010 9:33 PM | Report abuse

My favorite part of Scott's post: "Fox News says it still plans to run the spot if it can be brought up to their standards."

You know, because, famously, their standards are unimpeachable.

Posted by: BGinCHI | August 25, 2010 9:37 PM | Report abuse

tao!

Catch me up in the northwoods. What's going on with your lacrosse and your sore old man body? I fished some great rivers in OR that reminded me of the water around the Finger Lakes (where I lived before I moved here).

Read a terrific Michael Chabon novel and now most of the way through Justin Cronin's The Passage. The latter is great for the first third but since then is letting me down. And it's longgggg.

Posted by: BGinCHI | August 25, 2010 9:40 PM | Report abuse

ruk, thanks for the update and good to hear from you. Thanks also for the invite; Sept is going to be busy, but I'll talk to the better half and see what she says. Would LOVE to come up there. I'm getting up there next summer if it kills me.

Useful info too on FL. Nutso politics in your state, my friend. Let's hope the sane voters come out in Nov to get some votes out where they matter. I loathe Rick Scott. What a crooked a55hole. Rubio's just a crook, full stop.

Posted by: BGinCHI | August 25, 2010 9:45 PM | Report abuse

@BG: "I'll pose a question for sbj and any others of the righty persuasion: do the political leaders who vehemently oppose the Cordoba House know full well that it's not a threat or insult but pretend otherwise to gain the support of their followers who blindly hate Muslims?"

Some of them, almost certainly. Some pundits are completely sincere, like Andrew McCarthy and Robert Spencer. Some politicians are probably sincere, too. Many probably don't want to be on the wrong side of their base in November.

"This is entirely missing on the right, where political power and its retention is the only game in town."

I don't think it's (principle-based decision making) entirely missing on the right, or entirely present on the left. Hard to go deep on an iPhone, so I'll just say that sort of absolutism would be very familiar to the Park 51 protestors. :)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 25, 2010 9:46 PM | Report abuse

Ladies and Gentlemen, Rick Scott, GOP candidate for Governor or Florida:

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/08/25/scott-mcdonalds/

What a dirt bag.

Way to go, teabaggers! This guy would suck all the money out of your wallets and throw you out of the hospital if he could. But you're all for freedom from competition for the health care industry oligopolies, so you vote him.

It's like sheep cheering for the butcher.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | August 25, 2010 9:49 PM | Report abuse

cMac,

re: comparative ideologies distilled

Here is the essential Burkean criteria: Does a policy enhance or diminish liberty?

What's the lefts'?

Posted by: tao9 | August 25, 2010 9:51 PM | Report abuse

Burke's "the greatest utility for all" is a great idea, until you start trying to agree on what "utility" means to all parties concerned.

One man's trash....

Posted by: BGinCHI | August 25, 2010 9:56 PM | Report abuse

Kevin, points taken but not agreed with, alas.

I'd say the arguments for Cordoba House from the left are clear and substantial and those from the right either beg the question, offer no real argument, play on unsubstantiated fears, or are simply politically motivated.

Has anyone made a stronger, clearer argument than Mayor Bloomberg? Even if I don't agree with him or support him, I acknowledge readily that his argument holds the field.

Posted by: BGinCHI | August 25, 2010 10:00 PM | Report abuse

Rick Scott completely shatters any chance Republicans might have had trying to paint Dems as corrupt.

He's not just allegedly corrupt. His old company had to pay a fine of 1.5 billion for defrauding Medicare.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 25, 2010 10:02 PM | Report abuse

Imsinca: "it's not the radicals we're trying to win the hearts and minds of obviously, it's the moderates in the Middle East and even our own Muslim Americans here."

Amen, ims! The people I am most concerned about are:

American Muslims, people who are citizens, some of whom can trace their families roots here back generations.

Muslims here who are resident aliens, or students studying here. They have the opportunity to experience what is best about the west, and take that home with them.

Moderate Muslim countries, like Turkey in particular who is a NATO ally.

Our own Muslim soldiers serving in Iraq or Afghanistan, in particular, as well as all the rest who are serving elsewhere.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 25, 2010 10:05 PM | Report abuse

@cmccaulley: " The left has no parallel ideological desires (wanting bigger government just for the sake of having bigger government)."

Well, many on the right certainly think the left wants bigger government for the sake of bigger government. And logic should tell you that conservatives aren't going to agree that they want smaller government just to have a smaller government. Rather, they want liberty, self-determination, merit-based achievement, entreprenuers being allowed to keep more of their own money, etc. The idea is that more people prosper with less government. When Thomas Jefferson says the government that governs least governs best, he was concerned with the effect of a large government on his concept of a utopian agrarian society of gentlemen farmers who had all read Plutarch and Homer.

BTW, the self-congratulatory nature of that analysis ("liberals just want good, reasonable things, and think of smart ways to do them, while conservatives are evil and stupid") should make you suspicious of the objectivity of said analysis. It's always a little too convenient when "objective" value judgements happen to put you in the group of smart, thoughtful, moral, courageous heroes, while the folks you disagree with ate all amoral twits.

However, if you aren't trying to construct a model that accurately describes a given reality, but just want one with easy good guys and bad guys, then ... go for it!

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 25, 2010 10:06 PM | Report abuse

edit: * are all amoral twits.

In all fairness, that was a lot to type on an iPhone.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 25, 2010 10:12 PM | Report abuse

BG,

Ideologies in a sec.

Go here:
http://www.lakeplacidlax.com/photos.php

Click on "2010 Photo Album." There's a scroll of thumbnail shots under the page/frame picture. Click the thumbnail right arrow (+>) to scroll all the way (to the end of the thumbnails (you'll be in the team pictures). Click the left arrow once. Click on the 5th thumbnail from the right. Blue goalie w/ G on the helmet. The ball is bouncing off the sternum of Tao.

Good times!

Posted by: tao9 | August 25, 2010 10:22 PM | Report abuse

The idea is that more people prosper with less government. When Thomas Jefferson says the government that governs least governs best, he was concerned with the effect of a large government on his concept of a utopian agrarian society of gentlemen farmers who had all read Plutarch and Homer.
====================================

Later on came Standard Oil, The Stockyard, the PATRIOT Act, and spying on Americans without a warrant. Standing armies, also.

I don't see anything about today's Republican party that squares with concept of more people prospering. Since 1980, it's the rich must get richer and to hell with everyone else.

The policies and the numbers both show the same thing, as do selected quotes.

"Some people call you the elites; I call you my base."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn4daYJzyls
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | August 25, 2010 10:25 PM | Report abuse

BG,

oops FOURTH thumbnail from right.

Posted by: tao9 | August 25, 2010 10:26 PM | Report abuse

Kevin:

"BTW, the self-congratulatory nature of that analysis ("liberals just want good, reasonable things, and think of smart ways to do them, while conservatives are evil and stupid") should make you suspicious of the objectivity of said analysis."

Quite correct.

You are polite in calling this kind of analysis "self-congratulatory" and lacking in objectivity. It is, frankly and quite obviously, stupid.

Posted by: ScottC3 | August 25, 2010 10:30 PM | Report abuse

tao, got it!

That's gonna leave a mark....

Didn't know you were a keeper. That explains your masochist streak right there.

Best part of the pic though is the other team's shorts. LOVE the argyle.

Posted by: BGinCHI | August 25, 2010 10:33 PM | Report abuse

BG:

"You know, because, famously, their standards are unimpeachable."

Manifestly no worse than Greg's own.

Posted by: ScottC3 | August 25, 2010 10:35 PM | Report abuse

@thunder: I also meant to add, there is nocase in which electing Republicans has lead to remotely smaller government, ever, so it's an odd objection from that standpoint, too.

re: prospering. I don't think everyone in the GOP wants Americans to suffer. I think some of them may actually want positive outcomes for regular people. Crazy, I know.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 25, 2010 10:35 PM | Report abuse

@Scott: "self-congratulatory" is a very important part of why people seriously undertake analysis that, just by coincidence, ends with them being in an elite group of totally awesome people. And look how stupid and bad those almost subhuman Others are! Ha-ha.

But seriously, you know what's wrong with our country? Those Others.

This is an incredibly common sort of "analysis"--I was amazed to find out how smart and practical the people who like the "correct" movies or music are, versus the brain-dead subhumans that don't. And don't get me started on sports franchises.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 25, 2010 10:46 PM | Report abuse

Where are the Burkeans in the conservative side of our government now? I haven't seen one in quite awhile. Burke would not have approved of messing with the 14th.

Posted by: lmsinca | August 25, 2010 10:48 PM | Report abuse

BG,

"LOVE the argyle."

Baltimore boys--very fancy, and slick stix too. They nipped us though...arrghh.

Masochist? Perhaps.
I like to think: Last line of defense.
{{{heh}}}

Posted by: tao9 | August 25, 2010 10:54 PM | Report abuse

kevin: "I think some of them may actually want positive outcomes for regular people."

Soon as you can show evidence of ACTION taken to insure positive outcomes for regular people rather than just "wanting" (which sounds a tad ethereal, btw), maybe you'd really have an argument to make?

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 25, 2010 10:55 PM | Report abuse

@Kevin...good evening my conservative friend.

I'm not trying to single out R's here...God knows there are plenty of D's that could fall into this category..but you said...

"re: prospering. I don't think everyone in the GOP wants Americans to suffer. I think some of them may actually want positive outcomes for regular people. Crazy, I know."

First the caveat...you inserted EVERYONE in that sentence and so I can't disagree with your basic statement.

However while it's not everyone, I would posit that a significant % of R's..at least the elected ones and nominees could give a rat's arse about "regular" people. Perhaps they care about their vote or their wallets...but care about "regular" people.

e.g. Virtually everyone acknowledges we have a huge problem with an unsustainable health care system. And how did R's approach that debate...I don't expect them to offer single payer/medicare for all even though polls show that majorities favor that plan and experts have said finances will force us into this eventually regardless...

No Kevin they approached with health care solutions like "Obama's waterloo". That's simply naked political expediency. Death panels and pulling the plug on granny...a demonstrable lie perpetrated originally by a paid lobbyist who simply wanted to kill HCR. The R's did absolutely nothing to indicate they care about "regular" people's struggle with health care...which btw is the leading cause of bankruptcy among "regular" people.

S.S. is for "regular" people yet the R's continue to demagogue that issue. It's not financially insolvent...won't be for a couple of decades..and could be fixed immediately with the simply act of eliminating the cap on FICA which of course only effects "regular" people. If you'll accept my definition of "regular" as someone making that magic # of $250,000 or less. I do payroll and we have employees who are now paying more in FICA than they do income tax. How fair is it to the "regular" people that they pay 7.65% of their income while the millionaire pays only .00765%....well enough to chew on for now...hope I haven't overloaded your iphone. You're a better man than me if you can type all that on a phone...I have a Droid and can do all of that stuff...but typing...I still need an old fashioned keyboard.

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 25, 2010 10:57 PM | Report abuse

"Those Others."

GOP Except-them-ism.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 25, 2010 10:58 PM | Report abuse

lms,

"I haven't seen one in quite awhile."

I know. Sigh.

Christie (NJ) seems promising.

Posted by: tao9 | August 25, 2010 11:06 PM | Report abuse

Soon as you can show evidence of ACTION taken to insure positive outcomes for regular people rather than just "wanting" (which sounds a tad ethereal, btw), maybe you'd really have an argument to make?

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 25, 2010 10:55 PM
===============================

Don't you see, suekzoo1? They want to cut programs that benefit most Americans because those things make the people soft and lazy, and it's important to cut spending when you're facing a double-dip recession (or worse).

But the plutocrats need their tax cuts and corporate welfare, because tinkle-on economics, dontcha know.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | August 25, 2010 11:11 PM | Report abuse

Soon as you can show evidence of ACTION taken to insure positive outcomes for regular people rather than just "wanting" (which sounds a tad ethereal, btw), maybe you'd really have an argument to make?

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 25, 2010 10:55 PM
===============================

Action&Evidence, indeed.

Pace the Veep: "Three letters...JOBS!"

They're a tad ethereal these days, btw.

Posted by: tao9 | August 25, 2010 11:21 PM | Report abuse

ruk:

"How fair is it to the "regular" people that they pay 7.65% of their income while the millionaire pays only .00765%."

It is perfectly fair if the payout that the "regular" people can expect to receive as a benefit is a function of 7.65% of his income while the payout that the millionaire can expect to receive is only .00765% of his income.

The whole reason that FICA is calculated separately from regular income tax is that it is supposed to be paying for an explicit individual benefit in the future, not for generic government expenditures. Therefore it makes no sense to compare what people pay into it as a percent of their income without also comparing the benefit to be received as a percent of their income as well.

Posted by: ScottC3 | August 25, 2010 11:21 PM | Report abuse

tao: "They're a tad ethereal these days, btw."

We would be further ahead in job creation if the JustSayNo GOP Senators would stop blocking a vote on the Chamber-endorsed jobs bill. Just sayin'...

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 25, 2010 11:35 PM | Report abuse

btw Tao, take a look at this WSJ chart. GOP job creation over the long haul is nothing to sing about.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

What were you saying, again? Ethereal? Yeah, for a hell of a long time now.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 25, 2010 11:42 PM | Report abuse

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

Won't argue w/ the WSJ (a quibble tho, they're talking overall new jobs in 8 yrs not employment %).

Check the date though, someone's coming up real fast in W's rearview mirror, and given the last UE report and the general fisc, they're going to be pedal to the metal for a long while (@ least til 11/2).

Posted by: tao9 | August 25, 2010 11:56 PM | Report abuse

tao: "Won't argue w/ the WSJ (a quibble tho, they're talking overall new jobs in 8 yrs not employment %)."

Ah, but you weren't talking about %either. ;o)

"Pace the Veep: "Three letters...JOBS!"
They're a tad ethereal these days, btw.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 26, 2010 12:30 AM | Report abuse

@suekzoo: "'Those Others.' -- GOP Except-them-ism."

Except when we're talking about liberals and Democrats. That's when "Those Others" become the GOP and conservatives. As is usually the case with people, it's okay to think in terms of *some* people as "those scary Others". I mean, when we're talking about Republicans. Do you *see* how they are? ;)

That's 100% justified, there. :)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 26, 2010 8:05 AM | Report abuse

Gad. I sooo despise the modern conservative movement.

"Ken Mehlman, President George W. Bush’s campaign manager in 2004 and a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, has revealed that he is gay and is working to advance the cause of same-sex marriage." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/26/us/politics/26mehlman.html?hpw

Posted by: bernielatham | August 26, 2010 8:14 AM | Report abuse

Here's one to raise an eyebrow...

"The aide to President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan at the center of a politically sensitive corruption investigation is being paid by the Central Intelligence Agency, according to Afghan and American officials."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/26/world/asia/26kabul.html?hp

That sort of thing from the CIA is like almost unheard of.

Posted by: bernielatham | August 26, 2010 8:19 AM | Report abuse

@ruk "First the caveat...you inserted EVERYONE in that sentence and so I can't disagree with your basic statement."

I strive for clarity. The implication is (you made one earlier this week regarding positive Republican legislation from a liberal perspective) there there are NO good Republicans (sort of a "the only good x is a dead x", as they say) that all Republicans (which is usually the case with "the scary Others", whoever the "Others" are in our personal scenario) are monolithic. Ergo, they are undifferentiated, homogenous "badness" with no internal variation, and no positive aspects. It moves the discussion from policy positions, or lack thereof, to the assertion that the problem is not this "bad" policy involving tax breaks for the rich, or this bad policy of pre-emptive wars, but these bad *people* who are the problem.

You can sometimes convince people that policies, ideas, and worldviews are bad. It's harder to convince them that *they* are bad, or that they're friends, or the people the admire, are *bad*. Easier to convince them that they are wrong on this particular issue. Just sayin'.

"The R's did absolutely nothing to indicate they care about 'regular' people's struggle with health care..."

Largely agreed. Elected Republicans, following the Republican leadership and at the urging of their base, made the issue about defeating Obama rather than solving any kind of healthcare problems. So they--a majority of elected Republican senators and congressmen--were wrong on that issue, or handled it poorly.

@ruk: "S.S. is for "regular" people yet the R's continue to demagogue that issue. '

Then they, and I, am wrong on that issue, not suffering from a deep structural flaw (that liberals fortunately don't suffer from). I can guarantee you (though you might not believe me) that I agree with most of the Republican's plans for SS reform not because I hate the middle class, want to serve the interest of fatcat Wallstreet bankers, or want to destroy Social Security. Rather, I think it would be a better system, over time, for the largest amount of people. And I don't think most of the Republicans who are "demagogues" regarding SS want to ruin Social Security so that the poor suffer to the benefit of the rich.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 26, 2010 8:20 AM | Report abuse

@bernie: "Gad. I sooo despise the modern conservative movement."

But we love you, Bernie. And one day, you'll come to--well, if not love us, than appreciate us for who really are, not who you feel we should be.

:)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 26, 2010 8:23 AM | Report abuse

Hopefully, the up-coming Beck/Palin rally at the Lincoln Memorial will answer the question, "Can whites, finally, own Martin Luther King?"

This is a question of fairness and of equality and presents a clear distinction between the advantages of the black race in our culture and the corresponding victimization of whites.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/25/AR2010082507063.html?hpid=topnews

Posted by: bernielatham | August 26, 2010 8:28 AM | Report abuse

All, Morning Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/08/the_morning_plum_82.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 26, 2010 8:35 AM | Report abuse

I love the comments from the right re objectivity -- if you want objectivity, maybe you should be commenting on Drudge or Fox.

Posted by: cmccauley60 | August 26, 2010 8:46 AM | Report abuse

For the love of Pete! The cabbie-stabber is a Leftist peacenik from the School of Visual Arts in Manhattan.
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/08/26/2010-08-26_maniac_wanted_better_for_everyone.html

"Raised in Brewster, which is in Putnam County, Enright is a senior at the School of Visual Arts and does volunteer work for Intersections International, a group that promotes peace and tolerance."

This (alleged) "hate" crime vigilantism is a extreme version of the Leftist hoax tactic called a “moby”.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=moby

The term is derived from the name of the liberal musician Moby, who famously suggested in February of 2004 that Left-wing activists engage in this type of subterfuge: “For example, you can go on all the pro-life chat rooms and say you’re an outraged right-wing voter and that you know that George Bush drove an ex-girlfriend to an abortion clinic and paid for her to get an abortion. Then you go to an anti-immigration Web site chat room and ask, ‘What’s all this about George Bush proposing amnesty for illegal aliens?’”

The fact that hate hoaxing (intended to smear your political opponents) is epidemic among Leftists illustrates the nature of this sheep-in-wolves clothing tactic (masquerading as “hate”).
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200408/crying-wolf-fabricated-crimes

If Bloomberg honestly knows of anyone making domestic terrorist threats to attack Muslims, then Bloomberg has a duty to report those threats to the FBI under Federal “misprision of felony” statutes. But Bloomberg won’t— because this is a Leftist moby hoaxer.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000004——000-.html

Try harder not to reward this Leftist moby with political demogoguery, Bloomberg.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 26, 2010 8:57 AM | Report abuse

All the Quislings here should apologize to the secular Muslim NY Cabbie and his family for inciting this pro-jihad mosque vigilantee to moby violence.

It's time to take a little ownership for your orchestrated Islamo-supremacist advocacy campaign.

/chickens... roost!

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 26, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company