Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Happy Hour Roundup

* Can this be? A House leadership aide tells Christina Bellantoni that House Dems may not put John Boehner on the spot by staging a vote on whether to extend tax cuts just for the middle class, which Boehner suggested he might be able to support.

Another Dem leadership aide insists to me that discussions are ongoing over whether to have a vote, and Dems could conceivably have one even if the Senate ends up not holding one. Some Dem leaders are pushing for this House vote to illustrate the differences with House Republicans, this aide says. So it's not over yet.

* Keep an eye on this: HuffPo profiles five House Dems who are trying to survive the GOP wave by sticking by progressive policies in very tough districts.

* And let's compare and contrast their fates to those of the moderate House Dems who think it would be a better idea to do the GOP's bidding and only hold a vote on all the tax cuts, not just the middle class ones.

* Indeed, marvel at the headline of the day, from the Hill, perfectly capturing how amazing it is that some Dems want to flinch from this fight, and what the consequences are:

Divided Democrats battle each other over extending tax cuts for rich

* The White House keeps driving the wedge between Boehner and the rest of Republicans who won't support a measure extending the middle class tax cuts:

If Republican Leader Boehner took his position in order to show that he was not "holding middle-class tax cuts hostage," then clearly the implication is that Senate Republicans are prepared to do exactly that.

* Breaking: Daily Caller staffer nabbed participating on a secret center-right listserv! (To be clear, I couldn't care less about this or any other lists on the right.)

* Tea Partyers for government grants! Russ Feingold targets wealthy Tea Party-backed foe Ron Johnson with a new ad bashing him for using a government grant to expand his private company, even as he rails against government spending to create jobs.

* And: Feingold rips Johnson as "the country club version of Rand Paul and Sharron Angle."

* I noted below that Republicans think the Bush tax cut fight will help them raise the specter of Washington politicians arguing about tax hikes amid a recession to stoke anti-incumbent fervor. Mitch McConnell made a similar case on the House floor today.

* As Steve Benen points out, Newt Gingrich's comments about "Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior" will do nothing to dissuade networks from granting him a platform on a regular basis.

* And the takedowns of the day: Adam Serwer and Publius take apart the Forbes article by Dinesh D'Souza that formed the scholarly underpinnings of Gingrich's observations.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  |  September 13, 2010; 6:40 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , Happy Hour Roundup , House Dems , House GOPers , Political media , Senate Dems , Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Cantor, Ryan distance themselves from Boehner on middle class tax cuts
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments

"Keep an eye on this: HuffPo profiles five House Dems who are trying to survive the GOP wave by sticking by progressive policies in very tough districts."

I imagine their fights would be much easier if they had the slightest bit of encouragement from The Top. Instead, the White House cuts the knees out from under every Liberal not only by disparaging The Left, but by giving them NOTHING to run on, not even widely popular progressive policies like the public option and taxing the rich.

Spin away, Liam, but I am disgusted all over again. It's as if these guys don't want to win.

Night, All.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 13, 2010 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Rammesh has a *great* response to put int he mouth of any GOPer who fears the Dem's tax increase ploy:

"If the Democrats wanted to extend the middle-class tax cuts they could have done so at any point in the last two years. The reason we are only a few months away from a tax increase is that they haven’t. Even today, when they say they want to keep the middle-class tax cuts, they are not moving a bill to do that. And they’re not allowing a vote on keeping all the tax cuts because they’re afraid it would pass.

“Here’s the difference between the parties on this issue right now. Democrats want to blame us for a tax increase. Republicans want to stop a tax increase.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/246399/boehners-fumble-ramesh-ponnuru

Posted by: sbj3 | September 13, 2010 6:49 PM | Report abuse

I dunno, sbj. How do you square that talking point with the Dem support for continuing the tax cuts for those making less than $250K?

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 13, 2010 6:55 PM | Report abuse

It would appear that Newt Gingrich yearns for the return of The Colonial Era, when White People occupied all most all of Africa, and treated the indigenous peoples like beasts of burden, or worse.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 6:57 PM | Report abuse

@greg: That is squared up because the Dems have not introduced such a bill.

Posted by: sbj3 | September 13, 2010 6:58 PM | Report abuse

The other side of the taxes coin, being govt spending.

This is an open question to ANY Republican, Indie, or Dem:

"Stop spending."

ON WHAT SPECIFICALLY?

AND WHY?

I want to see hard evidence that explains WHAT you would cut and WHY.

Anyone? Skip? SBJ? Anyone?

What specifically would you cut and why.

Evidence supported by facts and cited please.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 13, 2010 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Tell you what, Ethan. You come up with a list of everything that we *should* spend money on (evidence supported by facts and cited please). Anything that the government spends money on that is not on your list is something that we should cut. Have at it!

Posted by: sbj3 | September 13, 2010 7:06 PM | Report abuse

"And the takedowns of the day: Adam Serwer and Publius take apart the Forbes article by Dinesh D'Souza that formed the PSEUDO-scholarly underpinnings of Gingrich's observations."

There. Fixed that for you, Greg.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 13, 2010 7:06 PM | Report abuse

Larison took it apart with hammer and tongs a few days ago, also.

Funny, I seem to recall someone on here arguing that D'Souza's speculations were the equivalent of hard evidence...for basically whatever D'Souza wants to make up, I guess.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 13, 2010 7:09 PM | Report abuse

"Tell you what, Ethan."

So, SBJ is for no cuts.

Anyone else?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 13, 2010 7:15 PM | Report abuse

This is also pretty good on D'Souza:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/09/obama_derangement_syndrome

From, you know, that left wing mag The Economist.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 13, 2010 7:17 PM | Report abuse

Larison took it apart with hammer and tongs a few days ago, also.

Funny, I seem to recall someone on here arguing that D'Souza's speculations were the equivalent of hard evidence...for basically whatever D'Souza wants to make up, I guess.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 13, 2010 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Apparently Obama is planning on addressing students nationwide to kick off the start of school like he did last year. And like last year I got a note home from my 3rd grader saying that any parent could have their children excused from the broadcast by sending a note to school. Not too shocking since I live in the middle of Wingnutistan.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 13, 2010 7:21 PM | Report abuse

Lets us take a time travel journey back to the period, just before the Bush Tax Cuts were enacted. Those cuts for the Very Wealthy would not have ever even come up, if there was not already a lot of very wealthy people in the country.

How on earth did they manage to achieve that level of wealth, without the Bush Tax Cuts?

The Bush Tax cuts did not create the wealthy. They were already wealthy, and doing just fine, before those Tax Cuts, and so was the country.

The reality is; The Rich pushed to get to keep more and more money, and Bush catered to those greedy rich bastards, which ended up destroying much of the nation's middle class.

Fat Cats do not trickle down. They just keep on getting fatter fatter, and fatter, while the working class descends into poverty.

To hell with making the very rich, even more wealthy. To hell with the sick joke, known as Trickle Down Economics.

A Rich guy will not buy as many appliances as a thousand working stiffs will. So, let us put the money in the hands of the working class, and they will spend it, and it will percolate up, creating jobs, and still allow the fat cats to take more than their fair share of the profits.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

S'cat, let us know afterwards what the indoctrination does to the little tyke.

I assume he'll come home with a book of Mao sayings and then immediately impose Sharia law on your house.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 13, 2010 7:24 PM | Report abuse

I guess we missed the part where Ryan talked about the deficit or specific cuts. I'm sure Hannity asked him about that.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/goper-paul-ryan-its-all-or-nothing-on-tax-cuts.php?ref=fpa

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 13, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

You want to find some spending cuts? Look here.

Why is the Defense Budget of the USA equal to the next forty nine countries combined?

Surely China, Russia, India, Germany, France, Great Britain, France, Brazil, etc, must want to defend their countries, just as much as the USA wants to defend itself. What is going on here. Is it the Military Industrial Complex at work?

Was the Iraq war more about Halliburton than WMD? After all, they did receive the very first contract, for Iraq, on a no-bid basis, and sure continued to rake in tons of money, from the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld created Iraqmire, long after it was established that there was no WMD there. So did we invade because of the WMD, or because of The Military Industrial Complex? How would President Eisenhower answer that question?

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 7:31 PM | Report abuse

It would appear that Newt Gingrich yearns for the return of The Colonial Era, when White People occupied all most all of Africa, and treated the indigenous peoples like beasts of burden, or worse.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 6:57 PM
-----

We always get back to this sort of nonsense. I suppose he wants to bring back slavery to this country as well---oh, but wait, we already have; it's called illegal immigration.

Posted by: Brigade | September 13, 2010 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Brigade, what parts of Gingrich's comments do you agree with?

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 13, 2010 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 13, 2010 7:15 PM
----

Get rid of the Department of Education. Notice I didn't say close the schools. As far as I'm concerned you can get rid of the Department of Homeland Security and kick some butt at the CIA and FBI until they learn how to do business.

And you can raise Ethan and Liam's taxes and give me a tax cut. Or at least an earmark or something.

Posted by: Brigade | September 13, 2010 7:45 PM | Report abuse


It would appear that Newt Gingrich yearns for the return of The Colonial Era, when White People occupied all most all of Africa, and treated the indigenous peoples like beasts of burden, or worse.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 6:57 PM
-----

We always get back to this sort of nonsense. I suppose he wants to bring back slavery to this country as well---oh, but wait, we already have; it's called illegal immigration.

Posted by: Brigade
................

Newt Gingrich was the one who raised an objection to "Post Colonial" thinking. Ergo; he must prefer the way things were handled in Africa by The White Colonial Masters.

Newt was the one who went back to it, so take it up with him, if you do not like having it come up.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 7:47 PM | Report abuse

What, exactly, did Gingrich say?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 13, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

I noted this on the prior thread but it deserves a mention for fresh eyes. From Sarah Palin yesterday...

“This Statue of Liberty was gifted to us by foreign leaders, really as a warning to us, it was a warning to us to stay unique and to stay exceptional from other countries. Certainly not to go down the path of other countries that adopted socialist policies,”

There is no need for book-learnin' or humility when truth has no importance at all.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 13, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Brigade, the Dept of Ed does good things and bad things. If the states weren't in some cases so inept, we could probably leave it to them.

As for your earmark, which part do you want cropped? Top or the lobe?

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 13, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Brigade, what parts of Gingrich's comments do you agree with?

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 13, 2010 7:42 PM
----

I'll have to plead ignorance. I've neither heard nor read the comments to which you refer. However, I'm willing to bet he didn't say anything about White People occupying Africa or making indigenous people beasts of burden. Feel free to advise me if my guess is wrong.

Posted by: Brigade | September 13, 2010 7:50 PM | Report abuse

When Bush was in the White House, guys like Newt were all about spreading Freedom and Democracy to the rest of the world.

Now that Obama is in the White House, guys like Newt, are completely against all of that, and want to segregate American Muslims, and condemn the people of Kenya for having fought for their independence from The Brits.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 7:52 PM | Report abuse

Brigade, check out what D'Souza and Gingrich said (use the Google). Seriously, it's nutty, racist stuff and I doubt you'd want to be associated with it.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 13, 2010 7:56 PM | Report abuse

I'll have to plead ignorance. I've neither heard nor read the comments to which you refer. However, I'm willing to bet he didn't say anything about White People occupying Africa or making indigenous people beasts of burden. Feel free to advise me if my guess is wrong.

Posted by: Brigade | September 13, 2010 7:50 PM |

...................

Since Ignorance is the state that you admit you operate from, then so be it. Carry on.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Liam-still wrote,
"...he must prefer the way things were handled in Africa by The White Colonial Masters."

Are you reading between the lines? I thought this was the sort of thing for which people were chastising D'Souza. Mind you I've haven't read his latest piece either, but I've always found him to be sharp and literate.

-------

"Newt was the one who went back to it, so take it up with him, if you do not like having it come up."

-------

I don't care what comes up. Let 'er rip. It's not my mission to defend everything Gingrich says, I just sensed a bit of hyperbole in your response.

Posted by: Brigade | September 13, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

@BG: "I assume he'll come home with a book of Mao sayings and then immediately impose Sharia law on your house."

Yes, but only after we've all sworn allegiance to Bill Ayers.

BTW, thanks for the link to the Economist. Good stuff.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 13, 2010 8:01 PM | Report abuse

I was curious what the Dept of Education does, so I went to their website. Turns out there are a lot of programs, but a couple caught my eye.

1. Pell grant program. I benefited from this when I went to school. Would abolishing the DofE abolish federal school aid?

2. Adult literacy programs. I teach adult literacy, so I'm an advocate. Should this be abolished?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 13, 2010 8:03 PM | Report abuse

Brigade, check out what D'Souza and Gingrich said (use the Google). Seriously, it's nutty, racist stuff and I doubt you'd want to be associated with it.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 13, 2010 7:56 PM
----

You never can tell. On the Fix I could be called nutty and racist by one poster and then accused by another of being a card-carrying member of the NAACP.

Do you have any idea where I can find some of those sheets with the eyeholes already cut out?

Posted by: Brigade | September 13, 2010 8:03 PM | Report abuse

I don't care what comes up. Let 'er rip. It's not my mission to defend everything Gingrich says, I just sensed a bit of hyperbole in your response.

Posted by: Brigade | September 13, 2010 7:59 PM |
....................

So, you admit that you have no idea what Newt was talking about. You said that you are completely ignorant of what he said, but you feel compelled to defend him, from my sense of what he was implying.

That has made my day.
Carry in in your state of Blissful Ignorance.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Actually, brigade is speaking the God's truth. He was accused of being a card carrying NAACP member. That was funny.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 13, 2010 8:05 PM | Report abuse

Carry in in your state of Blissful Ignorance.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 8:04 PM
------

Brigade: "Smile when you say that."

Liam: "I always smile when I've got a gun in my belly."

Brigade: "Now tell them that you lied."

Liam: "There doesn't seem to be any question about it."

Brigade: "That'll do for now."

Posted by: Brigade | September 13, 2010 8:07 PM | Report abuse

Well it would be nice if he actually was aware of what Newt had said, before he ripped into me for "going back to that", when it was Newt who "went back to that".

Of course; If ignorance be bliss, then it is folly for Brigade to know what the hell he is talking about.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Of course; If ignorance be bliss, then it is folly for Brigade to know what the hell he is talking about.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 8:10 PM
-----

It makes me feel like a kindred spirit to know we have at least this one thing in common. :)

Posted by: Brigade | September 13, 2010 8:12 PM | Report abuse

Brigade, notice that I said to give evidence as to WHY you want that particular cut?

What are the pros and cons of eliminating the Department of Education? How much would it save taxpayers?

If you can't or won't respond with specifics then I put you with SBJ in not being serious about spending cuts.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 13, 2010 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Brigade, notice that I said to give evidence as to WHY you want that particular cut?

What are the pros and cons of eliminating the Department of Education? How much would it save taxpayers?

If you can't or won't respond with specifics then I put you with SBJ in not being serious about spending cuts.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 13, 2010 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Ok, if no one does, I'll post what Newt said.

Gingrich says that D’Souza has made a “stunning insight” into Obama’s behavior — the “most profound insight I have read in the last six years about Barack Obama.”

“What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?” Gingrich asks. “That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior.”

“This is a person who is fundamentally out of touch with how the world works, who happened to have played a wonderful con, as a result of which he is now president,” Gingrich tells us.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0910/Gingrich_flirts_with_the_fringe.html?showall
----------------------------------
Next: what does D'Souza's insightful article say?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 13, 2010 8:15 PM | Report abuse

David Frum on Gingrich's latest, the follow-up from D'Sousa (Republican Honorary White Person)...

"When last was there such a brazen outburst of race-baiting in the service of partisan politics at the national level? George Wallace took more care to sound race-neutral."

http://www.frumforum.com/gingrich-obama-wants-whiteys-money

Posted by: bernielatham | September 13, 2010 8:15 PM | Report abuse

@Bernie: Seriously...she said that? Sweet molasses, that woman's level of ignorance never fails to surprise me.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 13, 2010 8:17 PM | Report abuse

Brigade, notice that I said to give evidence as to WHY you want that particular cut?

What are the pros and cons of eliminating the Department of Education? How much would it save taxpayers?

If you can't or won't respond with specifics then I put you with SBJ in not being serious about spending cuts.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 13, 2010 8:13 PM
----

The 'why' is to save money. I thought that's what we were talking about. I'll let you supply the 'cons', since you're the one in favor of keeping it. As for a dollar figure on what exactly we could save, I'll leave that to you as well for the time being. When I'm elected and ready to cast the deciding vote, I'll have the figures in hand. As long as I'm just blogging, there's a limit as to the amount of time I'm going to spend going over the budget. Now if I really thought there was any chance of changing your mind on the subject . . . but of course we both know there's no chance of that. I answered your question, but I'm not going to do a research paper for you.

Posted by: Brigade | September 13, 2010 8:20 PM | Report abuse

@Ethan2010: re: What to cut

I'm not an expert at government waste, but I expect there probably is some. Tom Coburn had a few ideas:

http://www.coburnforsenate.com/Newsletter20100303.aspx

Those don't sound half-bad to me.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 13, 2010 8:21 PM | Report abuse

re: waste

Another bit. Do a search on government duplication, waste and fraud, and other good stuff comes up.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 13, 2010 8:23 PM | Report abuse

The fascinating thing about this comment by Newt about President Obama's absent father is: Newt never knew his own father either. So is he being guided by his ghost of a father?


http://www.whorunsgov.com/politerati/uncategorized/newt-gingrich-rips-obama-as-kenyan-anti-colonial-thinker-sunday-reading

/Former House speaker Newt Gingrich, who is considering a bid for the presidency in 2012, told National Review Saturday that he believes President Obama is operating from within a “Kenyan, anti-colonial” worldview. Gingrich, whose harsh rhetoric in the mid-90s transformed him from a Republican leader into a bogeyman, cited Dinesh D’Souza’s “stunning insight” in the Forbes article “How Obama Thinks” for the giving him the idea.

D’Souza’s article, which Gingrich told NR was the “most profound insight I have read in the last six years about Barack Obama,” said:

Our President is trapped in his father’s time machine. Incredibly, the U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s. This philandering, inebriated African socialist, who raged against the world for denying him the realization of his anticolonial ambitions, is now setting the nation’s agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son. The son makes it happen, but he candidly admits he is only living out his father’s dream. The invisible father provides the inspiration, and the son dutifully gets the job done. America today is governed by a ghost.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 8:23 PM | Report abuse

"Adult literacy programs. I teach adult literacy, so I'm an advocate. Should this be abolished?"

Good grief, no!

Please see the Palin quote up above. If that woman ever becomes president SOMEONE's going to have to teach her to read.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 13, 2010 8:23 PM | Report abuse

Excuse me, it's not an article. It's a book titled The Roots of Obama's Rage.

From the inside book jacket:

The real Obama is a man shaped by experiences far different from those of most Americans; he is a much stranger, more determined, and exponentially more dangerous man than you'd ever imagined. He is not motivated by the civil rights struggles of African Americans in the 1960s those battles leave him wholly untouched. He is not motivated by the socialist or Marxist propaganda that hypnotized a whole generation of wooly-minded academics and condescending liberals' those concepts also leave him cold.

What really motivates Barack Obama is an inherited rage-an often masked, but profound rage that comes from his African father; an anticolonialist rage against Western dominance, and most especially against the wealth and power of the very nation Barack Obama now leads. It is this rage that explains the previously inexplicable, and that gives us a startling look at what might lie ahead.

In The Roots of Obama's Rage you'll learn: Why Obama's economic policies are actually designed to make America poorer compared to the rest of the world

Why Obama will welcome a nuclear Iran

Why Obama sees America as a rogue nation-worse than North Korea

The real reason Obama banished a bust of Winston Churchill from the White House and ordered NASA to praise the scientific contributions of Muslims

Why Obama would like to make America's superpower status a thing of the past.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 13, 2010 8:23 PM | Report abuse

David Frum on Gingrich's latest, the follow-up from D'Sousa (Republican Honorary White Person)...

"When last was there such a brazen outburst of race-baiting in the service of partisan politics at the national level? George Wallace took more care to sound race-neutral."

http://www.frumforum.com/gingrich-obama-wants-whiteys-money

Posted by: bernielatham | September 13, 2010 8:15 PM
-----

Does race-baiting sound anything like
White People as slavemasters re-occupying Africa or making indigenous people beasts of burden? Just wondering.

Posted by: Brigade | September 13, 2010 8:26 PM | Report abuse

Does everyone know that D'Souza's book is just now going to "pre-order"?

Could that be just part of the book tour?

Check it out: http://www.dineshdsouza.com/

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 13, 2010 8:27 PM | Report abuse

Those don't sound half-bad to me.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 13, 2010 8:21 PM

.................

Yes, but knowning how Tom operates, he would just take that money and spend it on Prisons, and incarcerations for all people who carry concealed Reproductive Rights thoughts.

He would probably be willing to toss a trillion or two at the effort to rescue discarded embryonic stem cells from research labs, and return them to their proper pro-life, incinerator safe havens.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 8:28 PM | Report abuse

From Gingrich: "“In the Alinksy tradition, he was being the person he needed to be in order to achieve the position he needed to achieve . . . He was authentically dishonest.”

Kind of like when the married Gingrich was leading the impeachment charge against Clinton while boinking his staffer. I guess you could call that "authentically dishonest". Jacka*s.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 13, 2010 8:29 PM | Report abuse

Mike Tomasky also notes the O'Donnell/PUMA thing (though he misses the more important background history there) but then he writes a couple of wonderful graphs...

"However, O'Donnell is in a statistical tie with the establishment GOP candidate, Mike Castle, who is 71 and has held elective office of one sort or another for four decades. She could win tomorrow. One would think in Delaware this would almost ensure the election of the Democrat, a fellow named Chris Coons. So lots of liberals are cheering for an O'Donnell win tomorrow.

I'm the type who gets a little nervous about such hopes. It's like hoping Palin is the GOP nominee (Palin has endorsed O'Donnell). Well, sure, she'd probably get walloped. But what if unemployment is 9% and there's a terrorist attack on Oct. 27? I mean, if I were a salafist terrorist, I would most certainly want Sarah Palin to be the president of the United States and watch the dialectic play out in compressed time before my very eyes"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2010/sep/13/us-midterm-elections-2010-delaware

It is simply a fact of the dynamics here that the neoconservatives and the Islamic radicals want the same thing. Yes, they are both (in a functional sense) evil and in great part that is because both believe this to be the opposite of the truth - absolutely.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 13, 2010 8:30 PM | Report abuse

I also can't help but notice that Gingrich has a new film out (who woulda thought?):

America at Risk

Watch trailer at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPBv1tZhd-E&feature=player_embedded

So D'Souza sells books. Gingrich sells books and movies. They endorse each others' products. Cha-ching.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 13, 2010 8:35 PM | Report abuse

@Brigade: "Does race-baiting sound anything like White People as slavemasters re-occupying Africa or making indigenous people beasts of burden? Just wondering."

Who said that?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 13, 2010 8:35 PM | Report abuse

@Liam-still: "Yes, but knowning how Tom operates, he would just take that money and spend it on Prisons, and incarcerations for all people who carry concealed Reproductive Rights thoughts."

Well, that wouldn't be a good thing. However, I didn't say that in the proposals. I may have just missed it.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 13, 2010 8:36 PM | Report abuse

Yes, but knowning how Tom operates, he would just take that money and spend it on Prisons, and incarcerations for all people who carry concealed Reproductive Rights thoughts.

He would probably be willing to toss a trillion or two at the effort to rescue discarded embryonic stem cells from research labs, and return them to their proper pro-life, incinerator safe havens.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 8:28 PM
-------

More psycho talk, Liam. I suppose you have quotes from Tom to prove that he's in favor of such things. No hyperbole, right?

I keep coming back to this: why are Democrats so angry? You've got the presidency and huge majorities in both houses of Congress. You should be dancing in the streets. But all I've seen or heard now for two years is bitterness and bile---fussing about George Bush and the "Party of No." What are you going to do if you get your plow cleaned in November? Hang yourself?

Posted by: Brigade | September 13, 2010 8:37 PM | Report abuse

Check it out: http://www.dineshdsouza.com/

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 13, 2010 8:27 PM

......................

Do people know that Dinesh, was actually born in Post Colonial India, and immigrated to America. Talk about The Kettle calling The Non Existing Kettle a Post Colonial!!

Just like Orly Taitz was born in the Soviet Union, and now has wormed herself into a position where she gets to agitate against the elected President of the USA.

Recall all those Russians who were rounded up recently, that had been sent here to establish their selves in positions of influence in American Society. I think the FBI might want to take a long hard look at this Orly creature. She sure fits the profile of some one who might have been sent here, for the very same purpose. Perhaps this Dinesh guy might also be worth looking into. After all, there was a very strong Communist party in his "Post Colonial" native India.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 8:37 PM | Report abuse

Brigade,

I will not respond to you any more, since you clearly do not have an sense of when someone is engaging in satire, and I do not want to take you out of your prefer state of blissful ignorance.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Krugman on the newt...

"Via Jon Chait, a stark demonstration of the madness that has overtaken the American right. It seems that Newt Gingrich is approvingly citing an article in Forbes by Dinesh D’Souza, alleging that Obama is a radical pursuing a “Kenyan, anti-colonial” agenda.

His prime example is that the Export-Import Bank has made a loan to Brazil’s offshore oil project, which D’Souza finds incomprehensible except as a plan to shift power away from the West.

Except, you know, the Ex-Im bank’s job is to promote US exports — and this was a loan for the specific purpose of buying US-made oilfield equipment. And the board approving the loan was … a board appointed by George W. Bush.

In other words, aside from being ignorant, this is complete the-Commies-are-putting flouride in the water to steal our vital bodily fluids stuff. Yet there it is in Forbes, being cited by the former Speaker of the House, who is a regular guest on Sunday TV.

Scary."
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/13/ex-im-bonkers/

For a time, D'Souza spent his Saturday evenings (and Sabbath, one expects) doing the dirty with Ann Coulter (this followed her earlier lusting with the son of the founder of Penthouse Magazine). I know, one immediately has Brando as Kurtz - "the horror...the horror" come to mind. Perhaps there's an explanation in there somewhere.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 13, 2010 8:45 PM | Report abuse

Who said that?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 13, 2010 8:35 PM
-------
see Liam @ 6:57PM, 7:47PM.

Posted by: Brigade | September 13, 2010 8:45 PM | Report abuse

Well, that wouldn't be a good thing. However, I didn't say that in the proposals. I may have just missed it.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 13, 2010 8:36 PM

.................

But you do know that Tom wants to outlaw all abortion procedures, even for cases of rape or incest, and he does want to criminalize the use of the left over embryos, from fertility clinics, for stem cell research. Even though they have always been discarded and incinerated. Get the snark now?

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 8:48 PM | Report abuse

More evidence of the Chamber of Commerce's corruption.

http://www.alternet.org/news/148174/how_the_chamber_of_commerce_allegedly_laundered_millions_in_charity_dollars_to_beat_back_financial_reform_and_re-elect_dubya/

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 13, 2010 8:50 PM | Report abuse

Brigade,

I will not respond to you any more, since you clearly do not have an sense of when someone is engaging in satire, and I do not want to take you out of your prefer state of blissful ignorance.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 8:41 PM
-----

Suit yourself. I will continue to call out your more idiotic posts. Judging from this evening, your best strategy may in fact be just to acquiesce in silence.

Posted by: Brigade | September 13, 2010 8:52 PM | Report abuse

@Brigade: "Does race-baiting sound anything like White People as slavemasters re-occupying Africa or making indigenous people beasts of burden? Just wondering."

Who said that?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 13, 2010 8:35 PM

..................

Here is what I actually said, but of course Brigade, would not want to just accurately quote me. Hell, he admits that when he attacked me for saying it, he did not know anything about what Newt had said. Since Newt came out against Post Colonial thinking in Kenya, then how far can my comment be off the mark, about how he actually feels about the Colonial treatment of the African peoples, in their own lands.

"It would appear that Newt Gingrich yearns for the return of The Colonial Era, when White People occupied all most all of Africa, and treated the indigenous peoples like beasts of burden, or worse".

That is what I actually said, and the context in which it was said.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 8:57 PM | Report abuse

"The 'why' is to save money"

See that's why we need to have these conversations.

You can't just cut a program to "save money" when the output of that program "saves" even more money than it originally cost.

Take Pell Grants for instance. Just using common sense, how productive a career would one expect to have with a high school diploma versus a college degree? Obviously, a college degree will earn that individual more money.

That career means higher income tax payments to the government and more likely LESS money needed to support that individual if they lose their job or need govt subsidized health care.

The net-net of the government funding that Pell Grant is that the government spends LESS MONEY on the Pell Grant than it would have needed to spend on other social programs.

Do you follow?

THAT is why I asked what programs you'd cut and WHY.

The WHY is critical.

And when people like you have serious budget concerns and want to "cut spending" but you offer NO FACTUAL PROOF that what you are suggesting is indeed good for the country, then I am left to believe that as much an advocate as you are for "cutting spending," in the end you really are not serious about reducing the amount of government spending.

Now, that would be one thing if this problem was relegated to commenters on the interwebs...

...but it's not.

The EXACT SAME PROBLEM exists at the national level in the Republican Party.

There is NO effort to explain their proposed cuts -- if they even MAKE any propositions -- and there is NO effort to adequately assess what their proposition entails.

It is merely a shell game that they play with people like you who actually do care about spending.

Here's another bit of information.

I don't like government spending or high taxes either. But there are essential government services that, at the end of the day, IMPROVE OUR QUALITY OF LIFE.

To suggest cutting some of those services just to "save money" in the short term REDUCES OUR QUALITY OF LIFE in the medium to long term.

This debate NEEDS to happen all across the country.

The only reason why it is not happening is because we have a Republican Party that is not interested in being serious about the government, about government spending, about the deficit, about the national debt, etc.

It is truly SAD.

I encourage Republicans to think long and hard about what THEY want to see from their government and dive into the specifics. WHAT would you cut or reduce? WHY? What are the pros and cons -- in the BIG PICTURE -- as to what would happen if those cuts were made?

Those are debates we need to have. And we -- Democrats -- are READY to have those debates. But we don't have a partner in the Republican Party who is intellectually honest enough to really look at our current situation and how we can collectively improve our lot, both in the short term and the long term.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 13, 2010 8:57 PM | Report abuse

Joe Scarborough keeps saying about Newt: "what's he doing. Where is he getting his material". Then, wild laughing.

Check the video out: http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201009130003

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 13, 2010 8:58 PM | Report abuse

When you haven't even read the thing a commenter is talking about, you're not in a very good position for "calling out" anything. Calling someone out on something when you know nothing about it is known as "trolling."

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 13, 2010 8:58 PM | Report abuse

“The Congressional bonehead award goes to Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) who, on a visit to JPL, asked if Mars Pathfinder had taken an image of the flag planted there in 1969 by Neil Armstrong! Quipped Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-MI) to the Washington Times: “We just don’t teach enough science.” Worse, Jackson Lee, who represents Houston, is a member of the House Science Committee’s space subcommittee. Perhaps some committee reassignments are in order…”---AP

As long as we're engaging in crazy talk and controversial statements from politicians.

Posted by: Brigade | September 13, 2010 9:00 PM | Report abuse

'(Georgia Congressman) Hank Johnson, at a House Armed Service Committee last week, expressed his concerns that if America sent troops to Guam, the island may tip over:

"My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize."' --AP (April 2010)

Posted by: Brigade | September 13, 2010 9:04 PM | Report abuse

That is funny. Poor Sheila. I hope that she was not just engaging in Post Moon Landing P

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 9:06 PM | Report abuse

That is what I actually said, and the context in which it was said.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 8:57 PM |
----

Which, of course, is what I said you said. Also, the second post about "White slavemasters." Keep race-baiting. That is one of the left's constant ploys. An oldie but a goodie. Unfortunately, it's not working any more.

Posted by: Brigade | September 13, 2010 9:09 PM | Report abuse

shrod said: '@Bernie: Seriously...she said that? Sweet molasses, that woman's level of ignorance never fails to surprise me."

Yup. She's beyond hope. Anyone who thought she might take this extended opportunity to face and correct her lack of curiosity and knowledge can't be encouraged by anything she's done or said over the last two years. She's quite happily stupid and does not think she can be otherwise or that she needs to be otherwise.

And that really ought to alert us to neoconservative support for her (Kristol, Podhoretz, NR, Weekly Standard, etc). Those people aren't stupid and aren't incurious. Palin is far closer to Joe the Plumber than to those folks. The chances they would want or allow Palin to run the GOP or a rightwing think tank or one of their magazines or even a minor corporation in which they held a financial interest is zero. But the Presidency of the world's most powerful, wealthy and armed country? No problem.

And if one asks why something so preposterous might seem attractive to them, you get to the only plausible answer - an easily controlled figurehead. And that would really be ideal for them. For their purposes, there is actually no more ideal situation.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 13, 2010 9:09 PM | Report abuse

"As long as we're engaging in crazy talk and controversial statements from politicians."

Pretty stupid, I'll admit - but the problem is that you Republicans have a terrible habit of wanting your idiots to be president.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 13, 2010 9:12 PM | Report abuse

Newt said it, he is either in favor of African Independence, or not.

Republicans are either in favor of all nations being free, or the are not.

What Newt said about Kenya, clearly reveals that he does not like it one bit, that they got rid of the British Colonial Masters.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 9:12 PM | Report abuse

@mike - thankyou kindly for the C of C piece!

Posted by: bernielatham | September 13, 2010 9:14 PM | Report abuse

Those are debates we need to have. And we -- Democrats -- are READY to have those debates. But we don't have a partner in the Republican Party who is intellectually honest enough to really look at our current situation and how we can collectively improve our lot, both in the short term and the long term.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 13, 2010 8:57 PM
----

Very good, Ethan. I agree. However, every program has its constituency, and it's like pulling teeth to get rid of a program once it's taken root. But we really do need to make some cuts somewhere.

Posted by: Brigade | September 13, 2010 9:14 PM | Report abuse

@bernie,

If the Kristols of the world think that Mrs. Palin would be easily controlled, they better think again. I doubt that very much. In fact, I would bet controlling her would be akin to setting up bumpers for a Toon Town vehicle.

First, can you imagine keeping her out of the camera.

Second, can you imagine keeping her quiet.

Third, can you imagine keeping her away from world leaders.

Fourth, can you imagine keeping Levi Johnston out of the camera and quiet.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 13, 2010 9:14 PM | Report abuse

Brigade to Liam:

"Suit yourself. I will continue to call out your more idiotic posts."

B, have fun but you'll probably eventually conclude this babbling clown is not worth your reading let alone responding to his assinine recitations.

Although I am forever grateful that he drove the execrable Tena out of Moonbat Manor in a shocking display of liberal on liberal violence!

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 13, 2010 9:19 PM | Report abuse

"I will not respond to you any more, since you clearly do not have an sense of when someone is engaging in satire, and I do not want to take you out of your prefer state of blissful ignorance."

And Brigade's warm weekend welcome crashes against the rocks of liberal orthodoxy.

I will say you comments tonight have been exceedingly pithy and I've enjoyed them very much.

I've often thought about why the left has been so angry these last two years and I think it has to do with the Republicans, and hence conservatism, not accepting defeat and knowing it's place, to meekly acquiesce to Democratic initiatives.

Rush Limbaugh's "I hope he fails" and DeMints(?) "Waterloo" comment startled a lot of Democrats. Then, the House Republicans solidarity vis a vis the Stimulus bill forced the realization that the Republican party was not going to roll over and was going to in fact fight tooth and nail.

In short, the Republican Party did not die.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 13, 2010 9:19 PM | Report abuse

When you haven't even read the thing a commenter is talking about, you're not in a very good position for "calling out" anything. Calling someone out on something when you know nothing about it is known as "trolling."

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 13, 2010 8:58 PM
----

Your living proof of that, buford. When someone is race-baiting I think it's fairly safe to call them out. Liam "implied" that Gingrich was in favor of returning to colonial days in Africa, white slavemasters, using indigenous people as beasts of burden, etc., but he did not provide any quotes to support his conclusion. However outlandish his quotes may have been, had he actually said what Liam implied, you can bet direct quotes would have been supplied. When called out, he fell back on the old chesnut that he was being satirical, but we all know what he was doing. He was calling Gingrich a racist. Liberals see a racist in every closet.

So you see, I was not responding to what Gingrich did or didn't say. I was responding to Liam, and I was spot on.

Suck on that, troll (buford).

Posted by: Brigade | September 13, 2010 9:23 PM | Report abuse

@12bar - she is presently a study in the controlled and stage-managed. It is what defines her engagement with and role in the world now.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 13, 2010 9:25 PM | Report abuse

Pretty stupid, I'll admit - but the problem is that you Republicans have a terrible habit of wanting your idiots to be president.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 13, 2010 9:12 PM
----

I'm not a Republican. But you Democrats have a habit of actually electing your idiots.

Posted by: Brigade | September 13, 2010 9:27 PM | Report abuse

@bernie,

I don't understand your last comment. Please expound.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 13, 2010 9:28 PM | Report abuse

@bernie,

OT sorry. I lurk on this site and several others. One of my favorites is Balloon-Juice. I haven't been able to log onto the site in days. I noticed in a previous thread you linked to them. Have you not had any trouble?

Posted by: christie4 | September 13, 2010 9:29 PM | Report abuse

I think it was back in July when Obama signed this bill that actually does cut spending and waste in government. I linked it and tried to begin a conversation about how he was actually, you know, doing something about runaway spending by the government, no one seemed too interested at the time. But here's a brief excerpt from his speech, interesting he mentions the Dept. of Education, but not quite how you might imagine.

"And we've begun an unprecedented effort to put an end to a problem known as improper payments, which is the purpose of the bill that I'm signing into law today. Now, these are payments sent by the government to the wrong person, or for the wrong reasons, or in the wrong amount. Payments to a defense contractor that's been disbarred for shoddy work but somehow managed to get through the system. Payments to companies that haven't paid their taxes, or to folks who are incarcerated -- or who are dead.

Sometimes these payments are the result of innocent mistakes or reflect valid claims that were paid at the wrong time. But sometimes, they result from abuses by scam artists and crooked companies. And all told, they added up to $110 billion. I want everybody to understand -- just get some perspective on that. That is more than the budgets of the Department of Education and the Small Business Administration combined. And that's unacceptable.

With these new tools, the challenge I'm making to my team today is to reduce improper payments by $50 billion between now and 2012. This goal is fully achievable due in no small part to some of the great work of the members of Congress standing with me today, particularly Senator Tom Carper and Representative Patrick Murphy, who sponsored the bill I'm about to sign and worked with all the other members of Congress who are here today to get it passed.

And I think, by the way, it's worth noting that this bill passed unanimously in both the House and the Senate -- a powerful reminder of what we can accomplish when we put partisanship aside and do what's best for the people we serve."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/07/22/obama_signs_improper_payments_elimination_act_106433.html

Posted by: lmsinca | September 13, 2010 9:33 PM | Report abuse

I want the Republican Party to be restored, as a rational moderate to right of center, alternative to my Democratic Party. The country needs that. One party rule is always dangerous. The competition for ideas, is always needed. I just wish Republicans would get back to being the party they were, before the absurd social issues, started to dominate their approach to winning.

It has gotten so out of hand, that they are now devouring their own moderates, and rational conservatives, like Mike Castle and Senator Bennett.

Perhaps it will have to play itself out, and the current crop of radical social conservatives will have to crash and burn, before the Traditional Republican Party can be restored.

I thought that Scott Brown winning in Mass, was going to be the start of The Republicans returning to being a broader based, more moderate party, but it looks like the Tea Party types, can not live with any Republican who reaches across the aisle on even a single issue.

People forget that Mass used to elect Republican Senators, until The Kennedy clan emerged. Mass even elected a Black Republican Senator. It would be good for the country, if the Republicans could regenerate their party, to be that sort of Party again.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 9:34 PM | Report abuse

"But you Democrats have a habit of actually electing your idiots."

Can you be a bit more specific?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 13, 2010 9:35 PM | Report abuse


"But you Democrats have a habit of actually electing your idiots."

Can you be a bit more specific?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 13, 2010 9:35 PM

.....................

I think he was talking about we electing Sonny Bono, Ronald Reagan, George Murphy, The guy from Love Boat, the Austrian Steroid Freak, who lifted heavy things, and put them down in the same place, Quitter Palin, Sharron Angle, ......

Oh, wait; those were not Democrats. That is very different. Never mind!

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 9:41 PM | Report abuse

Can you be a bit more specific?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 13, 2010 9:35 PM
-----

Well, I just provided quotes from two of them. I see Liam has listed Ronald Reagan. Comparing career accomplishments, I guess if Reagan was an idiot, then the guy currently occupying the White House must certainly qualify----corpseman anyone?
How many of our 57 states have you visited?

Posted by: Brigade | September 13, 2010 9:48 PM | Report abuse

"Funny, I seem to recall someone on here arguing that D'Souza's speculations were the equivalent of hard evidence...for basically whatever D'Souza wants to make up, I guess."

This sloppy-thinking poster has some problems with basic concepts like facts, evidence, theories, and opinions.

Please, if you can, provide a quotation from me making any reference to "hard evidence," let alone claiming that any speculations were its equivalent.

D'Souza has theory. You'll recall that I repeatedly referred to it as that.

But you claimed it is nothing but speculation and based on no facts whatsoever. Of course, that was patent nonsense, since he has a assembled a very large set of facts. Whether they support his theory is a matter of opinion. But your opinion has no merit, for the simple reason that you ignored all facts and pretended they didn't exist.

"Brigade, check out what D'Souza and Gingrich said (use the Google). Seriously, it's nutty, racist stuff and I doubt you'd want to be associated with it.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 13, 2010 7:56 PM"

It's funny, when I asked before what the evidence of racism is, no one could say. Funny too that you folks label a native Indian immigrant a racist.

I don't know whether D'Souza's analysis of Obama is right. His book isn't even out yet. But I read through some of the chapters that are on the Amazon preview pages, and it looks like a pretty interesting piece of work, unfortunately for you folks, loaded with facts about Obama and his education and upbringing, and his father.

As for your de rigeur "racism" charge, D'Souza says his theory actually isn't about race at all. That is, he says it isn't about race for Obama and wasn't for his father. In fact, he says that was one of his original theories about Obama but that he ended up rejecting it because the evidence didn't fit. He ended up with the anti-colonialist explanation.

As I said the other day, on one level none of that seems terribly new other than, as these things go, that someone is putting a particular focus on it in a new way. But it looks like the book will make an quite an interesting case. For example, Obama's rude return of the Churchill bust to the Brits has always been one of his more puzzling acts. The standard critique is simply that his snub was intended to show that he rejects the "special relationship" and wants the Brits to know it. But overlooked is the fact that Churchill was a defender of the British empire (ie, he resisted independence movements). This is something I knew but hadn't really connected. I would be surprised given what is known about Obama's education if he did not find the Churchill bust objectionable.

But I know none of the deep-thinking scholars here will bother to examine D'Souza's actual case, since you "know" the truth already without looking at the evidence or testing the theory yourselves.
I'll give it a read if I get the chance.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 13, 2010 9:48 PM | Report abuse

"When someone is race-baiting I think it's fairly safe to call them out. Liam "implied" that Gingrich was in favor of returning to colonial days in Africa, white slavemasters, using indigenous people as beasts of burden, etc.,"

Actually, I just took Newt at his word, having read what he said, and he clearly came out in favor of the Colonial Rule in Africa, when the indigenous people were treated like that.

Newt was the one who implied that he favored the Colonial era, in Africa. He has nothing but contempt for "The Post Colonial" liberated people of Kenya.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 9:49 PM | Report abuse

@Bernie: She's quite happily stupid and does not think she can be otherwise or that she needs to be otherwise.

"happily stupid" - what a perfect characterization - do you mind if I steal it?

I think you're right in that Palin would be the perfect empty vessel for a neocon agenda. However, I don't think she can be as easily corralled as they may have originally imagined. I think she's beginning to buy into her own hype and has no sense of her own limitations. Combine that with very thin skin, an inability to tell the truth about the most basic things, a bully of a husband, and a penchant for "going rogue" and I think she's going to implode if she decides to run in 2012. I just don't think she can handle the scrutiny.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 13, 2010 9:53 PM | Report abuse

"Very good, Ethan. I agree. However, every program has its constituency, and it's like pulling teeth to get rid of a program once it's taken root. But we really do need to make some cuts somewhere."

I agree 100% with that comment.

I also think there's more to what you said...

It's not about "cut this program" or "eliminate this agency"...

We really are better served by specific line-by-line cuts.

I wish our politicians, particularly our GOP politicians, were adult enough to sit together and hammer out a real clean, lean, and REALISTIC budget.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 13, 2010 9:56 PM | Report abuse

Notice that this Brigade guy keeps claiming that he is not a Republican, and keeps asking why Democrats are so angry.

Yet all those he defends happen to be Republicans, and he accuses Democrats of electing idiots.

Looks like this Brigade creature is just another Republican, too ashamed to admit that he is one. He has lots of company, in that regard, since that is what all those Tea Party activists really are. The pretend to be not Republicans, while only working to elect Republicans.

Brigade is not a Republican, like Dick is not a Republican now, or never has been.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 9:57 PM | Report abuse

Here's another bit of good news from the WH. It's looking more and more likely that Warren will get the nod to head the CFPB, at least in the interim.

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

"WASHINGTON — The White House is considering appointing Elizabeth Warren as interim head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, bypassing a likely Senate confirmation battle, according to sources.

Under the Dodd-Frank regulatory reform law signed July 21, the Treasury Department has the power to appoint a temporary head of the new agency until a permanent one is nominated and confirmed.

By naming Warren interim head, the White House would sidestep — for now — a likely fight over her nomination. Obama can still choose to formally nominate Warren sometime next year, or select another candidate if she becomes too polarizing.

Warren supporters are urging the White House to make the appointment quickly, which would give the Harvard professor time and authority to get the new agency running.

"We would like the appointment fast-tracked because of the need to establish the bureau and set standards for the industry," said David Berenbaum, chief program officer for the National Community Reinvestment Coalition.

Sources cautioned the White House has not made a final decision yet and could still pursue other options, including nominating Warren directly without an interim appointment or choosing an alternative candidate."

http://www.americanbanker.com/issues/175_176/elizabeth-warren-consumer-financial-protection-bureau-1025463-1.html

Posted by: lmsinca | September 13, 2010 9:59 PM | Report abuse

Hi lms!

Caught "numero quatro."

Light is comin' right out of the picture. You have done very well, Ma'am.

Hope your NM trip was a success.

Posted by: tao9 | September 13, 2010 10:04 PM | Report abuse

Ethan and Brigade, don't you think the bill signed in July is helpful in cutting spending. They already cut waste to the tune of $110 billion this year, more than the combined annual budget of the Dept. of Education and the Small Business Administration. And, it was bi-partisan.

When was the last time any administration did something like that?

Posted by: lmsinca | September 13, 2010 10:05 PM | Report abuse

If D'Souza has facts, I would be interested in seeing them.

What he lists on his book jacket sounds like voodoo psychobabble intended to sell the hell out of books.

I am descended from a northern Ireland terrorist who fled the country to avoid hanging. So, am I channeling terrorism? I really don't think the experience and nationality of someone's father is the destiny of the son.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 13, 2010 10:06 PM | Report abuse


lmsinca

I wonder if she really wants the spot. Especially if Summers and Geitner are still around.

I would love to see her take the spot, but I do not like the past history of those two guys, and they just might make it hard for her to be effective.

I am glad to see Austin Goolsbee emerging, as the financial spokesperson. I am starting to read in to that, that the influence of Geitner and Summers may be waning. I sure hope so.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 10:06 PM | Report abuse

"Well, I just provided quotes from two of them."

Oh, I thought you meant presidents. I can take a couple idiots in congress - it's the ones with their finger on the button that frighten me.

And seriously - 57 states? That's really weak. So he misspoke due to exhaustion on the campaign trail. Does that even remotely compare to W's problems with the english language?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 13, 2010 10:07 PM | Report abuse

I am descended from a northern Ireland terrorist who fled the country to avoid hanging. So, am I channeling terrorism? I really don't think the experience and nationality of someone's father is the destiny of the son.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 13, 2010 10:06 PM

...............

Really?

Which side was he on?

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 10:09 PM | Report abuse

Hey tao, thanks, I'm back and pretty exhausted. It's always a challenge spending time with my little sis. We're making progress on her case, had depositions Friday again and meetings this morning. Spent the weekend getting her geared up for the winter, propane, fire wood, new boots and jacket, that sort of thing. Glad to be home.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 13, 2010 10:10 PM | Report abuse

@liam,

We're talking the 1798 Rebellion. Name of Edward Gallagher. Left his wife and many children, fled to Boston and never saw them again. Obviously, he's not my father, but I like to think of him and his courage. But, that in no way inclines me to go to the basement and construct bombs.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 13, 2010 10:15 PM | Report abuse

@Brigade: "Keep race-baiting. That is one of the left's constant ploys. An oldie but a goodie. Unfortunately, it's not working any more."

Actually, I don't think it tends to work generally, as long as the race that is the subject of derision still controls a large percentage of the vote. The "bad guys" tend to react poorly to being called racists ( or otherwise being put in the roll of "the bad race" or "the bad culture") and vote accordingly. There was a fair amount of "angry white man" rhetoric pre-1994. I don't think it worked.

re: electing the stupid. I think too often we equate human falibility with stupidity. I don't for a minute think Obama is stupid, or that Bush or Reagan were, or that Palin is. Although, of course, none of them are as smart as us Internet commentors. That just goes without saying.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 13, 2010 10:16 PM | Report abuse

Liam, I get the feeling Warren wants the job, maybe not indefinitely, and I don't honestly think either Summers or Geithner scare her all that much. She's challenged Geithner several times already which is why I had my doubts about her appointment. I'd love nothing more than to see those two guys find a new line of work though.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 13, 2010 10:19 PM | Report abuse

"I am Kilrain and I'm a fightin' man and I come from County Clare

And the Brits would hang me for a Fenian so I took me leave of there..."



Posted by: tao9 | September 13, 2010 10:20 PM | Report abuse


Good god in heaven! This is what Sarah Palin said yesterday...

“This Statue of Liberty was gifted to us by foreign leaders, really as a warning to us, it was a warning to us to stay unique and to stay exceptional from other countries. Certainly not to go down the path of other countries that adopted socialist policies,”

This individual is beyond hope.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 13, 2010 7:40 PM

........................

She is A National Lampoon Treasure.

The statue was dedicated in 1886.

Those French people sure were foresighted, to give it as a warning symbol for us, to not become, what socialist countries would become much later on. Why; it was as if the French gave us our very own Psychic Network Statue!

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 10:21 PM | Report abuse

@lmsinca: "I think it was back in July when Obama signed this bill that actually does cut spending and waste in government."

No, that's not possible. I have it on good authority that there's no room to cut any spending in the government, anywhere, ever. :)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 13, 2010 10:23 PM | Report abuse

"He ended up with the anti-colonialist explanation."

I suppose that's why in the Forbes article he made sure to point out that Obama's father was a philanderer and an alcoholic and a wife-beater, etc. Totally relevant to the anti-colonialist theory.

"Funny too that you folks label a native Indian immigrant a racist. "

Why would you think that was funny? Racism/bigotry exists in all sorts of ways in all sorts of societies. You should check out the Economist article that BG linked to earlier - it gives a pretty good overview of D'Souza's background.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 13, 2010 10:25 PM | Report abuse

12Bar,

"But, that in no way inclines me to go to the basement and construct bombs."

Agreed.

However, I must admit that when I hear bagpipes I experience a very powerful urge to tear off my shirt and pick up a large branch.

Posted by: tao9 | September 13, 2010 10:26 PM | Report abuse

@liam,

We're talking the 1798 Rebellion. Name of Edward Gallagher. Left his wife and many children, fled to Boston and never saw them again. Obviously, he's not my father, but I like to think of him and his courage. But, that in no way inclines me to go to the basement and construct bombs.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 13, 2010 10:15 PM |

................

Ah, he was one of the Bold United Irishmen, when Presbyterians and Catholics fought side by side for Independence. Too bad, that the Brits were later able to divide and conquer just on the basis of religion.

There Were Roses.

A true event. Give it a listen.

"And the places where we say our prayers, have just got different names".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGMPUYfVw20

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 10:29 PM | Report abuse

@tao,

Love those pipers, too. I'll stay away from the large branches, thank you very much.

Now me, I love the smell of ammonium nitrate in the morning.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 13, 2010 10:31 PM | Report abuse

"I suppose that's why in the Forbes article he made sure to point out that Obama's father was a philanderer and an alcoholic and a wife-beater, etc. Totally relevant to the anti-colonialist theory."

So that's racist, now? Good thinking. That part of the book is actually readable at Amazon. If you'd bothered to read it, you would know why D'Souza mentions it.

But I know stuff like actual facts and evidence and reasoning isn't your thing. So just go with your knee-jerk reaction.

"You should check out the Economist article that BG linked to earlier - it gives a pretty good overview of D'Souza's background."

I'll check it out if I get the chance, although I've been aware of him for a long time. Too bad you don't bother to read what doesn't confirm your biases.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 13, 2010 10:32 PM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"Yes, they are both (in a functional sense) evil and in great part that is because both believe this to be the opposite of the truth - absolutely."

That is quite a definition of evil...the belief that one is not evil. Hmmmmm...let's try this one out.

Is Bernie Latham evil?

(BTW...how in the world can a person who rejects the existence of objective morality, as Bernie has explicitly done, start declaring that other people are "evil"? Bernie's lack of self-awareness truly astounds sometimes.)

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 13, 2010 10:33 PM | Report abuse

@liam,

Of course! You know a lot about this. Fill me in, my friend. I've tried to do some research but it's really hard to find much about that time. I've only found about 5 books. Do you have any recommendations?

Both sides of my Irish family were northern, Gallagher and McNulty and Catholic. When I say I'm cradle Catholic, I'm not just whistling Dixie. My grand uncle was the Bishop of Galveston during the hurricane and lived through it, but barely.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 13, 2010 10:36 PM | Report abuse

Why would you think that was funny? Racism/bigotry exists in all sorts of ways in all sorts of societies. You should check out the Economist article that BG linked to earlier - it gives a pretty good overview of D'Souza's background.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 13, 2010 10:25 PM |

................

Why; it isn't as if India has had a long history of discrimination, with a Caste System, based on skin color, with the darkest being labeled as The Unclean, now is it?(Just a bit of snark, to enhance your point)

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 10:38 PM | Report abuse

"If D'Souza has facts, I would be interested in seeing them."

I doubt anyone will stop you.

"What he lists on his book jacket sounds like voodoo psychobabble intended to sell the hell out of books."

Authors don't usually write those blurbs, but who knows about his.

"I am descended from a northern Ireland terrorist who fled the country to avoid hanging. So, am I channeling terrorism? I really don't think the experience and nationality of someone's father is the destiny of the son."

And of course that isn't his argument. But it would require your actually reading it to know that.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 13, 2010 10:39 PM | Report abuse

"Now me, I love the smell of ammonium nitrate in the morning."

Aye, the farming life is grand.

;>)

Posted by: tao9 | September 13, 2010 10:40 PM | Report abuse

I missed all the Newt/D'Zouza stuff but is anti-colonialism bad? I remember Kennedy waaaaaaaaaaay back in the 60's celebrating the soon to be end of colonialism and I thought it was basically a non-partisan issue.

It does sort of sound like Newt is once again trying to appeal to the fringe on the right to prove his bonafides with them, no?

Posted by: lmsinca | September 13, 2010 10:46 PM | Report abuse

"I think too often we equate human falibility with stupidity. I don't for a minute think Obama is stupid, or that Bush or Reagan were, or that Palin is."

I don't think Reagan was stupid. I don't think Bush was stupid, either - maybe not a scholar, but I think most of his problem was that he was uninterested - despite Rove's insistence that he read 95 books one year. (Seriously? The POTUS has time to read almost 8 books a month? I've got 3 yr old twins and I can hardly make it through 1 book a month. I'm pretty sure being POTUS is more work than raising two 3 yr olds - or it least it should be if you're doing it right.)

You lost me at Palin, though. Sorry. It's not even just her inability to articulate words or her obvious lack of knowledge about the world around her. Even when W was tripping over his tongue, you knew he was making a rational point. Not Palin. My 8 yr old can put together a more rational argument than she can. And when a Republican has to write "tax cuts" on their hand so they won't forget it - that doesn't point to the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 13, 2010 10:48 PM | Report abuse


@liam,

Of course! You know a lot about this. Fill me in, my friend. I've tried to do some research but it's really hard to find much about that time. I've only found about 5 books. Do you have any recommendations?

Both sides of my Irish family were northern, Gallagher and McNulty and Catholic. When I say I'm cradle Catholic, I'm not just whistling Dixie. My grand uncle was the Bishop of Galveston during the hurricane and lived through it, but barely.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 13, 2010 10:36 PM

...............

This will get you started. After you have read it, take the most important leaders names, such as Wolfe Tone(A Protestant Leader for Irish Independence) and just Google the names, and that will lead you to a lot more information, and additional links.

http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/history/17891800.html

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 10:52 PM | Report abuse

I don't think Palin is stupid. I think she is ordinary and under educated and WAY out of her league. She has some personality traits that do not serve her, such as a resistance to using her time out of office to bolster her knowledge.

But, that doesn't equate to stupid. Stupid is below average.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 13, 2010 10:54 PM | Report abuse

"I missed all the Newt/D'Zouza stuff but is anti-colonialism bad?"

D'Souza has a theory or account of how specific aspects of anti-colonialist thought absorbed by Obama through his childhood, education, and search of identity might explain much of how he views the world and his policy approaches, which conservatives of course find horrifying. But it isn't a matter of "anti-colonialism bad" or whether the Euros should have kept their empires.

And, no, it doesn't say "Obama's daddy was a socialist anti-colonialist, so Obama is too." The simplistic thinking of people is so tiresome. From the parts available to be read, it actually appears somewhat sympathetic to Obama has a human being.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 13, 2010 10:59 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, liam, I'm already reading about Tone.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 13, 2010 11:00 PM | Report abuse

If you think Palin is stupid, be honest and admit Biden is stupid. That guy is a first-class doofus.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 13, 2010 11:02 PM | Report abuse

Palin is a very cunning type of psychopath. She will do and say what ever it takes, in the moment. Truth to her is malleable,and can be shaped and reshaped to fit each new time and place.

She will also smear the hell out of anyone who gets in her way, and then turn right around a feign hurt and outrage at some imagined slight. Notice how she turned what Rahm said about F...ing Retarded Liberals, into a personal insult aimed at her child. But she later on had no problem saying that Jan Brewer had larger testicles than President Obama. Of course she never had any problem, during the campaign, labeling then Senator Obama as a Pal of Terrorists.

The woman is down right evil, and would be a disaster for America. Fortunately, the voters would never elect her President, and if that should ever change, then America will have already been lost, and her election would only be the confirmation of that reality.

I do however feel that she has the strongest chance, out of all the possible candidates, to actually capture the Republican nomination in 2012.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 11:07 PM | Report abuse

Have you ever noticed that NO ONE ever defends Mrs. Palin's intellect. It's always that someone else is just as stupid.

No, I don't find Joe Biden stupid. I don't find Mrs. Palin stupid. Isn't that just what I said?

There are stupid people in Congress though, I suppose.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 13, 2010 11:09 PM | Report abuse

@qb: So that's racist, now? Good thinking. That part of the book is actually readable at Amazon. If you'd bothered to read it, you would know why D'Souza mentions it.

Seriously - I know we don't agree on, well, anything - but do you seriously have to be such an a-hole all of the time?

Where the did I say that was racist? Where exactly, Mr. "actual facts and evidence and reasoning"? C'mon, tell me - or are you just going to go with "your knee-jerk reaction"?

You said he was going with a "colonialist theory" and I was just pointing out that I don't know what that had to do with his father being an alcoholic. If it's in the book fine - I was basing my comment on the cover story in Forbes magazine. Perhaps he should've either not put that in the article if he didn't have enough room to explain why it was relevant to his "insightful theory" or he should've put an asterisk by it and told everyone to go read his book.

"Too bad you don't bother to read what doesn't confirm your biases."

I don't know what that has to do with anything. What makes you think I haven't read D'Souza before? Once again, I'd be careful about those knee-jerk reactions because you don't know sh*t about what I do or don't read and you certainly don't know sh*t about my biases.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 13, 2010 11:09 PM | Report abuse

So I read that Economist post slamming D'Souza. It's shallow, uninformed, and ad hominem.

What exactly does it contribute or prove?

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 13, 2010 11:14 PM | Report abuse

ad hominem? O Lord; Tune Town Lawyer, you make me laugh. So what would call what D'Souza, and Newt said about President Obama?

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 11:21 PM | Report abuse

No, liam, you don't understand. Here's the scoop:

Newt says D'Souza's book is the most insightful thing he's read since Moby Dick was a guppy.

D'Souza has written an article which we can read and has a website, which we can reference.

But, we can't take anything there as actually written by D'Souza, because we have to read the book.

But, the book is not out.

See?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 13, 2010 11:27 PM | Report abuse

Query re.: the Obverse Palin

Is it possible to be highly educated, extraordinary (grading on a curve here given MSM/Hollywoodized hyperbole; and the very word begs the question: "At what?"), eloquent, et.al., yadayoda, &soforth...and still be WAY out of their league?

I'd say, why yes, yes one can!

Americans once were less accomplished (by our present superficial and deflated standards) but in the aggregate possessed far, far more wisdom.

The ghost of Adlai Stevenson walks the earth in search of an AxelRove.

Posted by: tao9 | September 13, 2010 11:31 PM | Report abuse

@liam,

I just ordered the History of Ireland in the Eighteenth Century by Lecky. It's coming from San Francisco State U. which is now in my library system. You've inspired me to continue my education about rebels. Particularly, MY rebels.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 13, 2010 11:39 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues

Well, you know I think I just might have thought of a way, that we can dispense with the Pentagon budget.

Since Palin has those Winky Laser Beam Eyes, that can send sparkles flying around, through every home in the nation, and her super vision allows her to keep an eye on Russia, and other foreign lands, at all the times:

All she has to do is borrow that Wonder Woman costume, from Old Geller, and our National Security will be all set.

Why, I bet she could just wink at Airports, all around the world, and Terrorist bombs will instantly detonate in their underwear, before they can ever board planes.

Have a good night all. Don't be thinking any Post Colonial Thoughts now. You will just upset Newt1775.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 11:42 PM | Report abuse

s-cat,

This comment seems very much to have implied that you were endorsing the charge of racism made by the other lefties here. Indeed, you you clearly implied that D'Souza is a racist.:

""He ended up with the anti-colonialist explanation."

I suppose that's why in the Forbes article he made sure to point out that Obama's father was a philanderer and an alcoholic and a wife-beater, etc. Totally relevant to the anti-colonialist theory.

"Funny too that you folks label a native Indian immigrant a racist. "

Why would you think that was funny? Racism/bigotry exists in all sorts of ways in all sorts of societies. You should check out the Economist article that BG linked to earlier - it gives a pretty good overview of D'Souza's background."

This statement is a bit revisionist:

"I was just pointing out that I don't know what that had to do with his father being an alcoholic."

Actually, what you said was the above, to repeat: "Totally relevant to the anti-colonialist theory."

"because you don't know sh*t about what I do or don't read and you certainly don't know sh*t about my biases."

Your biases are pretty well on display. And I know you didn't read the book chapters I read before you passed judgment. But you did read an irrelevant ad hominem attack on D'Souza that you found somehow relevant.

Like most on the left here, I find little to suggest that you have any real understanding of the other side of issues, which indicates to me that you haven't done much serious reading or consideration of the other side of issues. Perhaps I'm completely wrong, but that's my opinion based on all of your comments I've read.

Not that it makes you different in my estimation from othe liberals. I have yet to see any liberal comment here who has shown any meaningful understanding of opposing points of view. Sad but true.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 13, 2010 11:43 PM | Report abuse

Liam-

Bingo on Palin, although, "psychopath"? I'm not a psychiatrist but I will agree that she seems to have some kind of feel/instinct/luck? for PR.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 13, 2010 11:45 PM | Report abuse

Getting back to sbj3's question earlier. Why didn't Barry, Speaker Pelosi and Majority leader Reid enshrine the Bush Tax Cuts, at least for the middle class, as a first action, to solidify their, what, empathy with the middle class? Kind of a "who loves ya kid" thing?

I think the Democrats were (or maybe are)going to use it as some sort of pre-election wedge and it blew-up in their face. Ditto immigration, the demagogueing of SB 1070 seems to have had the opposite effect.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 13, 2010 11:46 PM | Report abuse

"Have you ever noticed that NO ONE ever defends Mrs. Palin's intellect. It's always that someone else is just as stupid."

Because it really isn't possible to convince someone that someone is isn't stupid. It's just their *stupid* opinion.

But there is some room to shame a person by pointing out other people they don't want to admit are stupid. Libs have declared every Republican to come along stupid. We really don't care about your opinion.

For the record, GWB did better at Yale than Al Gore, and I think Biden is borderline stupid (definitely a major goofball). I've watched that knucklehead since he was making a fool of himself in judiciary hearings in the 80s. Of course, his problem is that he makes himself look stupider than he is by trying to act like he is brilliant.

A mediocrity affecting genius -- sure recipe for looking stupid. And Biden's forte.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 13, 2010 11:51 PM | Report abuse

@christie4: "OT sorry. I lurk on this site and several others. One of my favorites is Balloon-Juice. I haven't been able to log onto the site in days. I noticed in a previous thread you linked to them. Have you not had any trouble?"

I don't know if you're still out there. I meant to reply to you earlier. I go to BJ quite a bit (mostly lurk). I haven't had any problems getting there but they've mentioned that quite a few people are having trouble. I think they said some sort of virus on the site might be to blame. Have you tried a different browser? If you're using wi-fi, I think someone suggested restarting your connection, too.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 13, 2010 11:51 PM | Report abuse

tao9

There is something to be said for what you are alluding to. Stevenson just could never appeal to the average working stiff.

Republicans have had good success selling the amiable oaf persona, that "you feel you could have a beer with".

I do not want a President that is my equal. I want someone far superior to me, both in intellect, and leadership qualities. Anyone that I feel would have a beer with me, is someone who would be disqualified from being President.

I never understood that ego thing, where people say that they want a President just like they are. Hell no. I do not want that.

Of course people always natter on and on about common sense, also, as if they were all melded together into one giant shot and and a beer, Common Sense Super Chip.

I guess that is why Hillary tossed down that shot and a beer, and the Common Sense network fell for it.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 13, 2010 11:54 PM | Report abuse

QB1, I think you were referring to Marx and Labor the other day. Saw this in the Greenroom over at HA. Nice little primer.

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/09/12/don%E2%80%99t-forget-the-regulatory-state-requires-you-to-be-a-marxist-laborer/

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 14, 2010 12:00 AM | Report abuse

Liam,

The interesting thing is that we will (presumably) never elect a Harry Truman again.

And yet that is precisely what is needed.

Posted by: tao9 | September 14, 2010 12:00 AM | Report abuse

Witching hour.

slainte

Posted by: tao9 | September 14, 2010 12:03 AM | Report abuse

Tao,

I was thinking the same thing about Truman, but then I had second thoughts about it; since I doubt if he would have ever earned the nomination for President, under his own steam. We just got lucky that we had a fairly solid VP on the ticket, when FDR passed.

I am not crazy about how Truman got us bogged down in Korea, and I still wish he didn't have to drop the bomb on two cities. I know that a strong case can be made for how many lives an invasion would have cost. I just wish that we could have found a way to make three or four more bombs, and then drop the first one or two, as demonstrations of what devastation they could cause, in some remote unpopulated area, and invite Japan to send a delegation to see the results, and let them know that if they did not surrender, we would be forced to use the bombs on their cities.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 14, 2010 12:09 AM | Report abuse

@christie4

Sorry for delay and hope you read this...

Not sure if by "logging in" you mean just opening the site or logging in to comment. I don't think I've ever commented at BJ so if there's a problem in that respect I wouldn't have encountered it. If you mean the other, just accessing the site, I've had no problems (though don't go to it every day).

Could you clarify?

Posted by: bernielatham | September 14, 2010 12:33 AM | Report abuse

Here's another reason not to extend tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans: they were the ones who most benefitted from all the government bailouts. Not just the rich bankers; people in the top few percent also own most of the stocks and other financial instruments, all of which would have been wiped out without TARP. Their fat got pulled out of the fire, while it fell to mostly middle and lower-income people to find themselves unemployed in the fallout or to lose a home, go through life savings while looking for work, etc etc etc.

I'd say that the almost $800 billion spent in TARP that allowed them to hold onto their wealth in return for $660 billion repaid via slightly higher (though still historically very low) marginal tax rates over the next decade is a sweetheart of a deal.

The only reason anyone wouldn't see it as such would be because they think someone else ought to have to pay for what it cost to clean up the mess - to their benefit more than anyone else's - or for the privilege of saving their butts.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 14, 2010 12:37 AM | Report abuse

@qb: "This comment seems very much to have implied that you were endorsing the charge of racism made by the other lefties here."

I don't have a clue what comment you're talking about and from your inability to format your reply I can't possibly discern what you're trying to point out.

But I do like the fact that you accuse me of something because I "seem" to "have implied" that I was "endorsing" something that someone else might have said. Maybe you should go back to yesterday's posts and see what you accused Bernie of doing to Gingrich.

"This statement is a bit revisionist"

No, it's not. When I wrote "Totally relevant to the anti-colonialist theory." I was being SARCASTIC and "was just pointing out that I don't know what that had to do with his father being an alcoholic." See? They're the same thing.

"And I know you didn't read the book chapters I read before you passed judgment."

I never said that I did....but that somehow makes me biased? I read D'Souza's own article in Forbes - but in your world I'm biased because I didn't go to Amazon and read his book? The article in the Economist was based on the Forbes article - not his book. You just love to move the goalposts, don't you?

"But you did read an irrelevant ad hominem attack on D'Souza that you found somehow relevant."

Please....D'Souza's entire article is an ad hominem attack on Obama. That was the entire POINT of the Economist article.

"Like most on the left here, I find little to suggest that you have any real understanding of the other side of issues, which indicates to me that you haven't done much serious reading or consideration of the other side of issues."

That's funny, because I find little to suggest that you have any intellectual integrity whatsoever. Twice today I've pointed out errors in your posts and neither time you've owned up.

The other thing I've noticed about you is you have this remarkable ability to disappear the moment someone contradicts you. I notice you sure didn't stick around long after Boehnor's 3% remark - and you were nowhere to be found when everyone was discussing the Bloomberg article on tax cuts. Convenient, huh?

"I have yet to see any liberal comment here who has shown any meaningful understanding of opposing points of view."

Oh...that's so crushing. How will I ever sleep tonight knowing that you've judged us all unworthy? You can be as dismissive as you want - I've seen you do it to lots of people on this board - but it doesn't hide the fact that you're not nearly as smart as you think you are.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 14, 2010 12:53 AM | Report abuse

Liam-

Good point about "telegraphing" the force/impact of "The Bomb" ahead of time.

I don't know what possible *other* reasons Truman may have had to do it the way he did. If, in fact, a "demonstration" was ever in the offing. Hmmmm...

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 14, 2010 1:08 AM | Report abuse

schrod said: "I just don't think she can handle the scrutiny."

That is the conundrum because she obviously could not. But that assumes "scrutiny" will follow prior or traditional modes, ie interviews, debates, reporter interactions, etc.

But note the mode that is now in place with Palin and which many others like Paul, Brewer, Angle, and others are using:

- NO interviews other than with rightwing media
- No debates
- No answering press questions in person
- communications out handled by (written by or edited by) operatives
- and coincident with all of this, constant attacks which demean and devalue all media which is not extremist rightwing as Palin did yesterday ("moles") thus giving justification for this new mode of absolutely cynical candidate marketing.
- and not to be forgotten, huge dollars put into TV ads, direct mail, etc using sophisticated and experienced marketing firms running pro-candidate narratives and anti-opposition smear tactics.

So the question is, do Palin's handlers/backers believe they can push this mode through a Presidential election? Obviously, they are going for it on Senate and House races which in previous elections we would have thought unimaginable.

But the Presidency is different in peoples' minds, surely. It seems to me the only way they could pull this off (or come to believe they could) is if they can manage over the next two years to make people so unhappy and frightened (and the media so cowed or compliant) that the noise, confusion, and Machiavellian nature of such a set of tactics would somehow become acceptable or unnoticed.

That they are heading that way is undeniable. I don't think they can pull it off with her but I've been overly optimistic before.

I just don't know.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 14, 2010 1:29 AM | Report abuse

Ims asked: "It does sort of sound like Newt is once again trying to appeal to the fringe on the right to prove his bonafides with them, no?"

Howdy, goil.

The smartest take I've bumped into yet on this came from Fineman on Matthews tonight.

He suggested that this is an attempt (really, a continuing component of the attempt) to devalue one of Obama's real strengths as an American political figure - his rise from such an unlikely and relatively inhospitable beginning to what he finally achieved through talent, hard work and the support of good women - in other words, the American Myth made real.

I think that is exactly right. They couldn't do to Obama what they did to Gore or Kerry...spoiled rich european elitist probably gay. (We ought to note here that Clinton and Obama both meet this myth in a manner far more accurately than Bush Jr who was a spoiled rich kid from the establishment elite).

I've made the point before that it is a classic strategy to demean a candidates strengths and elevate his weaknesses. But Obama doesn't have many weaknesses so it's all demeaning that we see these folks pushing. Another example is the strength of Obama's appeal (from his first national speech) for speaking to the national identity rather than the partisan identity. They've gone after this one and still are with a vengeance. Bipartisanship MUST be invalidated, demeaned and made to look like it was either deluded or a flat out lie. We can't be "one nation" but a real one and a traitorous false one.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 14, 2010 1:53 AM | Report abuse

@12bar - I hope my response to shrod above has also answered your query.

Good night all. A quick prayer for O'Donnell's victory then to bed.

Posted by: bernielatham | September 14, 2010 2:03 AM | Report abuse

Bernie-

You've hit the nail on the head re; media scrutiny vis-a-vis Palin. The first time we had any *real* unscripted, extensive knowledge of her was the debate w/ Biden. And she *nailed* the "disarming/homespun/yadayada" crap. Which plays to a certain demo...Angle does tha same...but not with the same joi de vivre. Damb.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 14, 2010 3:03 AM | Report abuse


yeah that is true, major brands do give out free samples of their popular health products best place to get yours is http://bit.ly/9fz66r tell your friends and family too

Posted by: juanluis14 | September 14, 2010 3:27 AM | Report abuse

Once again, Bernie! Your post @ 1:53 is dead on re: Obama's appeal to a national identity, rather than to a partisan one.

Although, I have to say, his recent speech with its partisan tone has countered that, it is with good reason. In the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, the TeaOP has decided that a "Waterloo" was a more (cynical) "winning" route than the most minimal cooperation. The Bush Admin. intiated the "bailout" but, once he was gone, they jettisoned any pretense of cooperation. *Shame* on them for putting rank politics before the national welfare.

How else could it be? I think Shakespeare would have a take on this...

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 14, 2010 3:28 AM | Report abuse

One has to raaly question the patriotism of the TeaOP in the last two years. With their "Waterloo" stance, all pretense of concern for the suffering has been lost (never had?) to the shear grasp for power.

What else can one expect from the Party of the top 2%.

Where were they on Health Care Reform when they had the Trifecta of Executive/Senate/House?

Face it: change that benefits the "little man" originates from a Progressive/Domocratic impulse:
From the early 20th C. until today.

Tax cuts for the rich are about all they have up their sleeve and some vague notions of free-enterprise (Citizen's United, anyone?) and deregulation.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 14, 2010 3:59 AM | Report abuse

OK, questioning the patriotism of the TeaOp was overthetop. Apologies. Sometimes the partisanship gets heavy. I'll be the first admit it.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 14, 2010 6:04 AM | Report abuse

s-cat:

"Maybe you should go back to yesterday's posts and see what you accused Bernie of doing to Gingrich."

I think it was me, not QB, who pointed out Bernie's dishonesty with regard to Gingrich.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 14, 2010 7:56 AM | Report abuse

All, Morning Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/the_morning_plum_89.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 14, 2010 8:30 AM | Report abuse

quarterback1:

Thank you for your posts!

JennOfArk:

No one ever said that "D'Souza's speculations were the equivalent of hard evidence." Nice strawman though.

12BarBlues:

I've REPEATEDLY defended Gov. Palin's intellect, and here's just one FACT from D'Souza's article (you can look up the rest):

"A few months ago, NASA Chief Charles Bolden announced that from now on the primary mission of America's space agency would be to improve relations with the Muslim world ... Bolden said he got the word directly from the President."

http://www.forbes.com

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 14, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

BTW: John H. Richardson at Esquire is the one lying. D'Souza's theory is NOT just based on the title of one of Obama's books (the fact about NASA, of all agencies, being given an order to "improve relations with the Muslim world" is just ONE FACT of many cited above). Too bad that Mr. Richardson falsely accuses D'Souza of lying:

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/dinesh-d-souza-091310

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 14, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Palin/D'Souza 2012!!!

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 14, 2010 12:28 PM | 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