Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Happy Hour Roundup

* Still hope for that vote on the middle class tax cuts: Despite increasing signs House Dems may not hold that vote, I'm told that at a House Dem leadership meeting today, there was pretty strong pushback from those who want it to happen. Still no final decision.

* The Post previews the "Pledge to America" that House Republicans will unveil tomorrow. Among the highlights: An across the board government spending freeze, health reform "repeal and replace," and continuation of the Bush tax cuts.

Also: Only two social issues mentioned, a ban on the taxpayer funding of abortions and protecting "traditional marriage." The full document is here. Dig in.

* So good: Jon Ralston gets his hands on audio of Sharron Angle openly bragging about how much money she's able to raise by going on Rush Limbaugh and Fox.

When you pair that with her recent claim that she wants the press to be her "friend," and ask the questions she wants to answer, you get a sense of her view of the press's proper role.

* Also: The Angle campaign's response is striking:

Angle's spokesman could not confirm whether it's the campaign's official position that it's appropriate to use media interviews to fundraise.

* What to watch tonight: I'm told Keith Olbermann will be doing a long segment on the fight over the tax cuts for the rich. He'll bang away at those Dems who continue to defend the high-end tax cuts and will also take an in-depth look at the "small businesses," a.k.a. big companies, that will be impacted if the high end cuts expire. Keep an eye out for that.

* Pushback of the day: Ben Smith reports that the Ohio Dem chair who cursed about Tea Partyers is not exactly apologetic. "I will NEVER apologize for speaking out forcefully against them," he says of Tea Party tactics.

* Senate Dem candidates in trouble? A new batch of CNN polls finds the GOP candidates leading in Pennsylvania, Colorado (where Dems are counting on a win) and Wisconsin (perhaps confirming other polls showing Russ Feingold trailing aren't outliers).

Bright spot for Dems: Chris Coons is crushing Christine O'Donnell.

* Breaking: Another Dem Senate candidate comes out against extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Coons tells David Dayen that he only supports an "extension of middle class tax relief" -- not for the top two percent.

* But: Brian Beutler reports that now it's uncertain whether the Senate will hold a vote on extending the middle class tax cuts -- and even Chuck Schumer from very blue New York State won't say he wants one.

* Good suggestion from Steve Benen: Dem leaders can placate moderates by holding votes on extending both the middle class and high end tax cuts. If the latter passes, Obama can veto it.

* Key point from Joan McCarter: Some of the House Dems who support a vote on the middle class tax cuts are also in tough races, but aren't flinching..

* A useful guide to some of the names jockeying to replace Larry Summers.

* Random question: Am I allowed not to obsess over whether Rahm will run for mayor before he makes his decision? I. Just. Don't. Care.

* And the takedown of the day: Ruth Marcus skewers the ludicrous right-wing assault on Obama's claim that "we can absorb a terrorist attack."

A taste: She recalls Dick Cheney saying another terrorist attack is "not a matter of if, but when."

What else is happening?


By Greg Sargent  | September 22, 2010; 6:00 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, Foreign policy and national security, Happy Hour Roundup, House Dems, House GOPers, Senate Dems, Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Rand Paul kisses neocons' ring, but some neocons remain wary
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments

@Benen:

Disgraced Republican lobbyist Ralph Reed insists he's "proud" of the work he did for Jack Abramoff.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ralph-reed-proud-his-work-jack-abramoff-it-was-outstanding-it-advanced-sound-public-policy

Chuck Grassley wants a return to the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION... ummm one would hope that he meant without slavery and with women's and minority voting rights... But jeez, how ignorant do they come?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_09/025796.php

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 22, 2010 6:04 PM | Report abuse

The WITCH-HUNT AGENDA.

Former President Bill Clinton warned that House Republicans would launch "two years of unrelenting investigations" if they took control of the House. Today, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) has apparently tipped his party's hand in a new document.

Dave Weigel: "There are two lists: One of oversight totally neglected by Democrats, one of hearings requested by Republicans that never happened. The first list: federal agency performance management, federal emergency management, federal IT systems, federal financial management, the Presidential Records Act, ACORN, Countrywide, food safety, stimulus spending, the SEC, TARP, and "the independence of inspectors general.' The second list: Food Safety, Homeland Security, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Health care reform oversight, stimulus spending, the Minerals Management Service, and Climategate (which Issa's staff calls 'Politicization of Science')."

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/09/22/the_investigation_agenda.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 22, 2010 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Can't we start articulating the tax cuts a little more precisely? They are not mutually exclusive.

The first tax cut, despite being called a "middle class tax cut" is a tax cut for EVERYONE on all individual income under $200,000.

The second tax cut is exclusively for the richest Americans and is an ADDITIONAL tax cut for this group.

The issue isn't shouldn't the richest Americans get a tax cut -- it's: should the richest Americans get an ADDITIONAL tax cut versus everyone else?


Posted by: wkristol | September 22, 2010 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Health care changes taking effect this week:

* Young adults can remain on family health plans until they turn 26.

* Free immunization provided for kids.

* Free preventive care provided, such as mammograms and cholesterol screenings.

* No more lifetime coverage limits, and annual limits start to phase out.

* Plans can't cancel coverage for people who get sick.

* No denial of coverage for kids with pre-existing health conditions.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 22, 2010 6:11 PM | Report abuse

So, on the tax cut vote for Dems.

Let me get this straight: blue dogs who are the most vulnerable because they can't support the party's agenda want to pull that agenda farther to the right, therefore rendering the whole party even more vulnerable?

Suicide, unassisted.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 22, 2010 6:12 PM | Report abuse

6 Months Ago Paul Ryan (Loony Tunes - WI):

Reconciliation is

"a convoluted legislative charade,"
"an extraordinary and unprecedented abuse,"
"not good democracy"

Yesterday:

"We do want to use reconciliation, you ultimately have to use reconciliation to get there"

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/22/after-blasting-ryan-reconciliation/

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 22, 2010 6:17 PM | Report abuse

wkristol, that's reasonable, but how to do it in shorthand?

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 22, 2010 6:18 PM | Report abuse

I was wondering when you were going to get in a dig at Sharron Angle. Still NOTHING about Bob Woodward's expose on Barack Obama?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 22, 2010 6:20 PM | Report abuse

"Mourning in America" - if you haven't yet seen it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/21/AR2010092104408.html?sid=ST2010092105485

Posted by: sbj3 | September 22, 2010 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Wow, that interview between DDay and Chris Coons is stellar. He supports just about everything I do and opposes cuts to SS to boot. The O'Donnell primary victory is going to be quite a boon to progressives. Here he is on manufacturing.

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

On trade policy and manufacturing. I hardly expect any Democrat anymore to talk about trade policy, but Coons has been more than willing to do so. He says that what we have done in both tax policy, by increasing inequality, and trade policy, have killed the middle class. “We’re setting up a society where everyone is driving Chinese cars and working as Wal-Mart greeters. It’s not a great vision. Quality jobs are what this country’s been built on. And there’s a palpable sense that’s been given away.” He wanted to stay concrete, with targeted measures for fair trade, manufacturing, innovation and small business, rather than (as a swipe against his opponent) ranting about liberty and the Founders. “Not that the founders and liberty aren’t important. But I’m running against someone whose economic platform is that the government has no role. No protection for the environment, no protection for investors, no protection for consumers, no promotion of public health.”

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

Here's our "community organizers" actblue page link again if you're so inclined.

http://www.actblue.com/page/plcommunity

Posted by: lmsinca | September 22, 2010 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Greg, how about:

Tax cuts, two bills, two votes.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 22, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Check out the link I added on the Ohio Dem party chair refusing to apologize for cursing about Tea Partyers. Great stuff.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 22, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

"Disgraced Republican lobbyist Ralph Reed insists he's "proud" of the work he did for Jack Abramoff."

Of course he is. I bet his particularly proud of the work they did scamming the Tigua Indians out of $4.2 million.

I hope there's a particularly hot spot in hell for so-called Christians who use their religion to line their own pockets.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 22, 2010 6:28 PM | Report abuse

SCat, it's gonna get crowded.

Off to a "Women for Hedrick" meeting. See y'all later.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 22, 2010 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Regards What’s up with these tea-party f***ers?

Per Allahpundit: "Hey — it beats “teabagger."

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/09/22/ohio-democratic-chairman-whats-up-with-these-tea-party-fers/

Posted by: sbj3 | September 22, 2010 6:35 PM | Report abuse

As for Christine O'Donnell getting "crushed", Mike Castle thought that too, once upon a time. She has raised over $2.5 million since she won the GOP primary (Rush Limbaugh pointed out that next day that every listener of his could donate just $1 each to her and she'd have all the campaign money she would need -- sorry if you and Jon Ralston think that's "bragging"). LOL!!!

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 22, 2010 6:35 PM | Report abuse

...and we are supposed to believe the jokers who wrote this lastest "Contract on America" regarding fiscal responsibility? That's rich.

Once again, they've written nothing but a paean to free-market capitalism, shrinking gov't and traditional values. Yawn.

What they haven't written in this latest screed, and let me fill in the blanks:
-gutting of environmental regulation
-gutting of regulation *generally*
-privatization of whatever they can get their hands on
-more appointments (should they get the chance)of industry cronies (remember Mine Safety anyone?) to executive branch positions
-imposition of whatever their wingnut Right can force them to do
-more "cowboy" diplomacy (or lack of diplomacy)

I can go on and on. So America, you are getting far more with the lastest Contract On America than what is written in it.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 22, 2010 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Bright spot for Dems: The Bearded Marxist is winning in the polls.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 22, 2010 7:03 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA HAS TO RESIGN OVER THIS ONE


IN Bob Woodward's book, Obama is quoted as saying "We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger."


So, the person in charge of DEFENSE, wants to LEAVE THE NATION UNDEFENDED ???


All this - is apparently a part of a DECISION ON THE PART OF OBAMA to leave Afghanistan - in DIRECT VIOLATION of Obama's campaign pledges.


I for one am getting sick of saying that Obama said one thing in 2008 - only to see Obama TURN AROUND AND DO THE EXACT OPPOSITE. That is bad faith - I have never seen a bigger deception in my life.


Obama is WEAK ON NATIONAL SECURITY - and this book proves that OBAMA HAS BEEN DOING THIS ON PURPOSE. Obama would rather have innocent Americans DIE ON THE STREETS OF AMERICA THAN FIGHT IN AFGHANISTAN.


This is a betrayal of the American People.


Obama should be IMPEACHED IMMEDIATELY IF HE WILL NOT RESIGN.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 22, 2010 7:08 PM | Report abuse

The conclusion is astonishing:


Obama LIED during all of 2008 when he said he would stay in Afghanistan to win the war.


Instead, NOW we find out that Obama is seeking to leave - whether we win the war or not.


Afghanistan - the good war - was just a bunch of deceptions and lies which Obama NEVER had any intention of carrying out.

If Obama wants to give back his campaign commitments, why don't he give back the votes too???

If Obama did not make that commitment on Afghanistan, Obama would NEVER have been elected - this is a serious breach of TRUST.

The American People have ANOTHER REASON to be angry with Obama

The silence from the left today has been unbelievable - the left is just wondering if they can get through this one without much damage - or people noticing.

OBAMA LIED


OBAMA LIED


OBAMA LIED

For a group of people who ran around for years saying Bush lied - you wouldn't have expected Obama to have so many lies in his platform, would you?


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 22, 2010 7:14 PM | Report abuse

Oh, is THAT what Ruth Marcus allegedly "skewer[ed}"? LOL!!!

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 22, 2010 7:16 PM | Report abuse

The Repubwiccans "Pledge to America" will support "traditional marriage"? Is that the traditional "Biblical" marriage in which the man can have multiple wives? Or is that the traditional marriage in which the woman is chattel? Or the traditional marriage in which you only marry someone of the same race? Or the traditional marriage in which two men can experience sexual intimacy with each other, but only if they married to women and the "intimacy" occurs in an airport restroom? Or the traditional marriage in which the man can have an affair, leave Wife #1 when she is hospitalized with cancer, have another affair with a subordinate at work, leave Wife #2, and become a Catholic (conveniently) after marrying former-subordinate Wife #3? Or is that the traditional marriage that would be utterly destroyed if gays and lesbians could partake of it?

Hmm, let me guess . . .

Posted by: bearclaw1 | September 22, 2010 7:18 PM | Report abuse

Iraqi: Saddam 'delighted' in terror attacks on US embassies but had no interest in partnering with Al Qaeda

Former Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, a prominent member of Saddam Hussein's inner circle, told the FBI that the dictator "delighted" in the 1998 terrorist bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa but had no interest in partnering with Osama bin Laden, declassified documents show.

"Saddam did not trust Islamists," Aziz said, according to handwritten notes of a June 27, 2004 interrogation, although he viewed al-Qaida as an "effective" organization.

[...]

More than seven years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, suspicions Saddam might have secretly collaborated with al-Qaida or other terror groups remains central to the continuing debate over the wisdom of launching the war, which has cost more than 4,400 U.S. lives.

The administration of former President George W. Bush based its case for war in part on fears that Iraq might provide nuclear arms to al-Qaida for use against the U.S.

No nuclear weapons - or any sign of an active nuclear program - have been found in postwar Iraq, and the Aziz interrogation records support arguments that while Saddam viewed the U.S. as his enemy, he was also hostile to al-Qaida and its radical religious ideology.

Saddam considered bin Laden and other Islamic extremists to be "opportunists" and "hypocrites," Aziz told the FBI, during one of four interrogations in a U.S. detention facility in Baghdad.

"In Aziz's presence, Saddam had only expressed negative sentiments about UBL," the interrogation summary said, referring to bin Laden.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IRAQ_INTERROGATIONS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2010-09-22-18-22-27

Bush LIED US INTO WAR.

Proof positive finally revealed.

Republicans endanger this country every d@mn day and NEOCON lies led to the deaths of over 4,000 American troops.

More Americans died because of George W. Bush's NEOCON LIES than died on 9/11.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 22, 2010 7:21 PM | Report abuse

Greg

I hate to be so graphic, but if a family member of yours dies in a terrorist attack, I don't think you would find anything "ludicrous"

And the takedown of the day: Ruth Marcus skewers the ludicrous right-wing assault on Obama's claim that "we can absorb a terrorist attack."

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 22, 2010 7:25 PM | Report abuse

bearclaw1:

It's the "traditional marriage" as defined here in the U.S. for over 200 years (one man and one woman). I hope that clears up any confusion you may have had : )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 22, 2010 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Draft of the GOP's "Contract on America"

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/tpm-brings-you-the-gop-pledge-to-america-governing-agenda-in-draft-form.php

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 22, 2010 7:26 PM | Report abuse

Greg

I hate to be so graphic, but if a family member of yours dies in a terrorist attack, I don't think you would find anything "ludicrous"

And the takedown of the day: Ruth Marcus skewers the ludicrous right-wing assault on Obama's claim that "we can absorb a terrorist attack."

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 22, 2010 7:26 PM | Report abuse

"It's the "traditional marriage" as defined here in the U.S. for over 200 years (one man and one woman)."

Yes, Jake is quite a history buff. Can you tell us again Jake how we bought TX from France?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 22, 2010 7:30 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010:

You probably believed everything that Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf (aka Baghdad Bob) said too. And, I'm the "fool"?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 22, 2010 7:30 PM | Report abuse

Jake,

Oh, the traditional marriage in which the woman couldn't vote or own property, and in which anti-miscegenation laws helpfully made sure you only married someone of your race? Those laws prevailed for over half of our nation's history, and were viewed by many as essential to preserving the institution of marriage.

Come on Jake. You are certainly smart enough to know that the only constant with marriage has been change.

If the "traditional marriage" crowd were serious, they would propose a constitutional amendment allowing: one man, one woman, one time. In other words, prohibit remarriage after divorce. After all, Jesus specifically condemned that as adultery. But you and I know that won't happen, because divorce rates are so high among conservative "traditional marriage" Christians.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | September 22, 2010 7:34 PM | Report abuse

scat:

Texas was indeed one of the claimed terrorities under the Louisiana Purchase (unless you really think that present-day Louisiana was the only thing we bought).

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 22, 2010 7:34 PM | Report abuse

bearclaw1:

You think that I don't want to get rid of "no-fault" divorce statutes?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 22, 2010 7:37 PM | Report abuse

@jd2: And, I'm the "fool"?

First correct thing you have written...

Posted by: srw3 | September 22, 2010 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Greg I just wrote this to Ruth Marcus - who obviously has no idea what she is talking about.


Ruth Marcus


You can not be taken seriously with this piece - if you insist on being deceptive about what was said - well at that point no one can have a constructive conversation with you.


AT what point will your partisan blindness end ?


This is a life and death situation.


I believe you know perfectly well what Obama said - however I will outline it.


In the face of drawing down forces, Generals at the Pentagon made it clear - repeatedly - a WEAKER POLICY IN AFGHANISTAN MEANT THE US IS IS MORE VULNERABLE TO A TERRORIST ATTACK ON US SOIL.


A strong policy in Afghanistan meant US citizens WERE SAFER IN US CITIES.


The Generals said this because they understood the military situation - and the risks of terrorism.


To that DECISION - OBAMA STATED CLEARLY HE WISHES TO RISK AMERICAN LIVES IN US CITIES FOR THE SAKE OF HAVING A WEAKER POLICY IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

MS. Marcus - PLEASE DO NOT ANSWER TO ME - ANSWER TO THE FAMILIES OF THE VICTIMS OF A POTENTIAL TERRORIST ATTACK.

PUT YOURSELF IN THEIR POSITION - WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE YOUR FAMILY AT RISK -


I CAN JUST IMAGINE THE FAMILIES AT THE FUNERALS - WONDERING IF THE DEATHS OF THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED WITH A STRONGER MIDDLE EAST POLICY.

I really do not want to accuse you of partisan motivations in your defense of this unbelievably stupid policy - however I can see no other way.

I'M SURE IF A MEMBER OF YOUR FAMILY ENDS UP IN THE MIDDLE OF SUCH AN ATTACK, YOUR OPINION WOULD CHANGE QUICKLY.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 22, 2010 7:39 PM | Report abuse

scat:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Louisiana1804a.jpg

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 22, 2010 7:39 PM | Report abuse

bearclaw,

Re: What is trad wedlock?

If you're married, don't ask your spouse.

{{{snortiggle}}}

Posted by: tao9 | September 22, 2010 7:41 PM | Report abuse

srw3:

Fück you.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 22, 2010 7:44 PM | Report abuse

@SaveTheRainforest

Where did it all go wrong? Did you get left at the satanic altar? The amount of CO2 you have wasted with your substance-free posts is just astounding.

Just so you know...your posts are subject to the 90/10 troll rule...90% is BS logic and falsehoods and the remaining 10% is made up of little factoids (quotes, statements etc..) that serve as your preamble for your BS.

Now given your predisposition to indulge in fantasy, it's still rather shocking that you confuse the verb to ABSORB with
to LEAVE UNDEFENDED.

Try harder.

Posted by: JColtrane | September 22, 2010 7:48 PM | Report abuse

BG:

You said on an earlier thread:

"I should probably give an example of something that I wouldn't dignify with a detailed counter-argument, but it will probably not convince. Suffice to say for now that the accumulation of wealth as the motive force for the structuring of a system of capital is NOT something I'm interested in granting as a premise."

I don't actually recognize that as a premise held by anyone, although I confess I don't really understand what you mean, so perhaps it is a premise that I or others hold, just stated differently. So maybe you could explain what exactly this premise means, and who you think holds it.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 22, 2010 7:50 PM | Report abuse

@strf: WONDERING IF THE DEATHS OF THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED WITH A STRONGER MIDDLE EAST POLICY.

They would be closer to reality by wondering if a terrorist attack would have been prevented if the US didn't mount a wars of aggression against Iraq and Afghanistan, demonized muslims, Arabs, and Islam in general, and spent its efforts aiding poor muslim countries instead of indiscriminately killing 100,000 Iraqi civilians and an untold number of Afghans with the Trillion+++ dollars we spent there.

Posted by: srw3 | September 22, 2010 7:50 PM | Report abuse

"Texas was indeed one of the claimed terrorities under the Louisiana Purchase (unless you really think that present-day Louisiana was the only thing we bought)."

And now we have the GOP's War On Geography. And THEY are winning! Reality is going to bite us nastily very soon. Read the current Rolling Stone, read about the ice caps melting at accelerating and unimagined rates. Science doesn't care whether we believe in it or not, it will do what it does.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 22, 2010 7:54 PM | Report abuse

Chuck Grassley wants a return to the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION... ummm one would hope that he meant without slavery and with women's and minority voting rights... But jeez, how ignorant do they come?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 22, 2010 6:02 PM
-------

I may not be able to afford a slave, but do you suppose I could rent Beyonce and Halle Berry for a couple of weeks?

Posted by: Brigade | September 22, 2010 7:55 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Chambliss's office has determined that yep, it was one of his staffers who posted the "All Fa--ots Must Die" comment on the Joe.My.God website just after Senate Republicans prevented a vote on repealing DADT.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/sen_chambliss_office_says_it_was_source_of_faggot.php?ref=fpblg

Stay classy Saxby.

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 22, 2010 7:56 PM | Report abuse

"Texas was indeed one of the claimed terrorities under the Louisiana Purchase (unless you really think that present-day Louisiana was the only thing we bought)."

Ummm, no. A relatively small portion of modern day Texas was claimed by the US.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/United_States_1803-04-1804-03.png

You'll notice it's hardly encompassing anywhere near the entire area of Texas.

The border dispute was eventually resolved, in Mexico's favor, by the Adams-Onis Treaty of 1819.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adams-On%C3%ADs_Treaty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Territorial_Acquisitions.png

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 22, 2010 7:57 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010 wrote,
"Former President Bill Clinton warned that House Republicans would launch "two years of unrelenting investigations" if they took control of the House. Today, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) has apparently tipped his party's hand in a new document."
-----

Wasn't it good ole Jerry Brown who introduced the world to Whitewater?

Posted by: Brigade | September 22, 2010 7:58 PM | Report abuse

I'm looking forward to a GOP-controlled House addressing climate change. You know, from the members of that Party that don't deny it (Are there any?). Along with all the impeachment hearings. Nothing spells gridlock like impeachment hearings...

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 22, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

"What to watch tonight: I'm told Keith Olbermann will be doing a long segment on the fight over the tax cuts for the rich."
-----

LOL. Are there actually people who still watch that dolt?

Posted by: Brigade | September 22, 2010 8:01 PM | Report abuse

cmcauley60-

Nice. More fun from the GOP if they get the House. Homophobia, Islamophobia, fill-in-the-blankophobia.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 22, 2010 8:02 PM | Report abuse

cmccauley60-

Nice. More fun from the GOP if they get the House. Homophobia, Islamophobia, fill-in-the-blankophobia.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 22, 2010 8:03 PM | Report abuse

Sorry for double post, y'all. Mea culpa.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 22, 2010 8:05 PM | Report abuse

Jake

Im not going to dispute you on Texas

However I thought that Lousiana was the lands in the Mississippi watershed.


I know there was a treaty with the King of Spain in 1819 or around there - which set the boundary with Texas and the rest of the Spanish holdings -


However, that was right after the declaration of Mexican Independence, before the Spanish recongized it - so I don't know how all that falls.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 22, 2010 8:06 PM | Report abuse

I've heard seen some criticism of Krugman today but I think the guy is great even if he does believe he knows everything about everything:

Waaaaah Street
A great piece about Wall Street rage by Max Abelson. Basically, they feel underappreciated. How dare Obama talk about fat cats, or suggest that runaway finance had something to do with the mess we’re in?

Bankers are offended. They speak of betrayal. Feelings have been hurt.

Did our nation’s elite always consist of such spoiled brats? I don’t think so. We’re in the new Gilded Age — but while the old robber barons said “The public be damned”, the new ones say “Ma! He’s looking at me funny!”

And these are the Masters Of The Universe

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/waaaaah-street/

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 22, 2010 8:08 PM | Report abuse

The truth re: U.S.AID (official, not counting private donations) to "poor Muslim countries" and regions (FY 2009):

Afghanistan $1,459,560,810
Pakistan $1,084,746,818
West Bank/Gaza $798,497,531
Jordan $515,749,676
Sudan $467,960,516
Nigeria $290,736,554
Tanzania $204,370,738
Indonesia $177,123,304

http://www.usaid.gov/policy/budget/money/

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 22, 2010 8:08 PM | Report abuse

Jake,

I'm not assuming anything about your position on "no fault" divorce or anything else. I'm simply stating that Republicans like to talk "traditional marriage," but there is no way they will be advocating for what Jesus (and Paul) taught, which basically is: don't divorce, but if you do divorce, don't remarry. There is no provision for remarriage, whether the divorce is due to "fault" or not. I don't see the sizeable "serial marriage" wing of Conservative Christian Republicanism adopting Christ's view of "traditional marriage" anytime soon.

You have lived consistent with what you believe, and I respect that.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | September 22, 2010 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Whoops...typo.

Should be Spain not Mexico as the signatory to the Adams-Onis Treaty.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 22, 2010 8:11 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne and scat:

I never said "the entire area" known as Texas today.

SaveTheRainforest:

I posted a map.

bearclaw1:

If we can't even stop same-sex marriage, there's no way we are going to turn back the clock on no-fault divorce.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 22, 2010 8:13 PM | Report abuse

srw3 7:50 PM


Obviously I disagree - your thoughts appear to be in line with those who say that the United States someone provoked 9/11 with its foreign policy.


Others tend to say that the United States actually deserved 9/11 because of our foreign policy over the years.


Well - we have had Fort Hood last year.

We almost had a plane blown up in Detroit over the winter.


We almost had a bomb kill more than 3,000 people in Times Square in April - that estimate is from a report by the NYC Police Department.


And just last weekend, a terrorist tried to place a bomb in Chicago which would have killed 3,000 people.

YOU think these innocent people DESERVE TO BE BOMBED???


I'm not sure what your thoughts are.

First, I am horrified by Obama's quote - and it must be true because Gibbs did not deny it today.


Also, Obama is basically ADMITTING THAT HE LIED IN 2008 TO GET ELECTED. Because without assurances on Afghanistan, Obama would have never been elected.


So we have a LIAR-IN-CHIEF Obama running national security policy - PURPOSELY TRYING TO LOSE THE AFGHAN WAR.

Obama should resign - if he had ANY HONOR Obama would resign now.


But Obama has NO MANHOOD - AND HE APPARENTLY HAS NO PERSONAL HONOR.

OBAMA MUST BE IMPEACHED - BEFORE MORE INNOCENT PEOPLE ARE KILLED.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 22, 2010 8:13 PM | Report abuse

wkristol:

"The second tax cut is exclusively for the richest Americans and is an ADDITIONAL tax cut for this group."

So then, you believe that the "richest Americans" pay an ADDITIONAL tax, above the regular income tax that everyone else pays. Right?

Greg:

"wkristol, that's reasonable, but how to do it in shorthand?"

It is a sad commentary on the state of today's journalism when an ostensible "journalist" thinks that sophistry and blatant partisan spin is "reasonable".

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 22, 2010 8:13 PM | Report abuse

cmccauley60-

Couldn't agree more.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 22, 2010 8:14 PM | Report abuse

"Sorry for double post, y'all. Mea culpa."

Meh.

We spend our day scrolling past rant after crazy double-spaced rant. It's actually refreshing to see two single-spaced concise comments in a row.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 22, 2010 8:15 PM | Report abuse

Jake

I see the map - I see a dashed line - but who knows what the terms were.

One thing I would like to say - it was a good thing that we did purchase Louisiana because the French did make some claims EAST of the Mississippi too - especially on the routes to the Great Lakes.


So the inland boundaries are difficult to figure out exactly.

ON a side note - there was a county which Texas had - and Texas administered for years - but was later found to be in Oklahoma - and there was a whole dispute as to whether it would stay in Texas or go over to Oklahoma - a county.


So the border between Texas on the north - well that took a long, long time to determine - even after it was settled that Texas was a State.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 22, 2010 8:20 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010 wrote,
"Bush LIED US INTO WAR.
Proof positive finally revealed. . ."
-----

I'd say that's a little strong. I was for the war before I was against it---like Bill and Hillary Clinton and between 25 and 30 of Hillary's colleagues in the Senate. People made decisions based on the evidence available at the time---the evidence Clinton's man Tenent said was a slam dunk. Are you suggesting Colin Powell is part of a neo-con conspiracy?

I can say with honesty: had I known then what I know now, I would not have supported the invasion of Iraq. But for political reasons, Bush and Cheney could never say this to the parents and loved ones of those who died there. And also for political reasons, Democrats would not do the honest and courageous thing and say, I made what I thought was the best decision at the time based on the evidence available---to have done otherwise would have been dereliction on my part. We screwed up. But, no, they had to come up with the preposterous lie that wiley ole GW and Dick hoodwinked all those poor, gullible Dems.

And what's even funnier is that Obama, who wasn't even in the Federal government at that time, has tried to make hay out of opposing the invasion when, in fact, his Chicago constituency---Jeremiah Wright, Loonie Loouie Farrakhan, et al.---would have tarred and feathered him had he supported it, regardless of whether Saddam had WMD.

Posted by: Brigade | September 22, 2010 8:21 PM | Report abuse

bearclaw1:

I would happily outlaw all re-marriages too : )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 22, 2010 8:21 PM | Report abuse

"I never said "the entire area" known as Texas today"

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

I fail to see the words "portions of" in the following two sentences of yours:

"Texas was indeed one of the claimed terrorities under the Louisiana Purchase "

"When the United States purchased Louisiana from France in 1803, American authorities insisted that the agreement also included Texas. The rest is history."

You might want to think about giving up trying to be an amateur historian and go back to shilling for O'Donnell.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 22, 2010 8:23 PM | Report abuse

scat-

I raise a glass to ya'!

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 22, 2010 8:23 PM | Report abuse

Ethan writes:


Bush LIED US INTO WAR.


___________________________________

Everyone knows that the ONLY President who EVER said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was BILL CLINTON


So, you are a LIAR - and you continue to lie.


The American People are sick of the lies of the democrats - desperate.

______________________________________

THE REASON we went into Iraq WAS because US intelligence thought Saddam had CHEMICAL WEAPONS - which they believed could have been transfered to terrorists and used in US CITIES.


Saddam did have chemical weapons, and he used them on his own people.


So - it wasn't Bush - it was the entire US INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY - it was BILL CLINTON


And how many democrats in Congress voted FOR THE WAR ???


YOU lie and decieve for partisan advantage -

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 22, 2010 8:25 PM | Report abuse

Check out the link I added on the Ohio Dem party chair refusing to apologize for cursing about Tea Partyers. Great stuff.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 22, 2010 6:27 PM
-----

Hey, skipsailing, how are the Ohio Dems doing these days?

Posted by: Brigade | September 22, 2010 8:26 PM | Report abuse

SaveTheRainforest:

Look at these two maps ...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/27/Texas_population_map.png

vs.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/United_States_1803-04-1804-03.png

Most of current-day Texas is within the "Unorganized" portion of the Louisiana Purchase.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 22, 2010 8:31 PM | Report abuse

@Chuck: Thanks!

How's Denton? I bet it's changed a ton since I was there 20 yrs ago.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 22, 2010 8:31 PM | Report abuse

JColtrane 7:48 PM


If one of your family members is involved in the next terrorist attack, you will change your mind at the funeral -


Meanwhile - if the PENTAGON GENERALS are saying that a stronger policy will make US CITIES SAFER - then I support that policy.


IN contrast, Obama has decided on a weaker policy - and he indicated a willingness for us to "absorb" an attack.

If you do not see that in the words - you are a liar.

.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 22, 2010 8:33 PM | Report abuse

scat:

I was only referring to "Texas" (not yet named in 1803-04) terriority under the Louisiana Purchase. Nice try though.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 22, 2010 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Wow, Keith Olberman DEMOLISHED the "tax cuts for the rich help small business" lie.

The "small businesses" that will see a 3% rise in their tax rate AREN'T SMALL BUSINESSES with a small number of employees and a small amount of income...

They are HUGE corporations with small numbers of OWNERS.

This is NOT the end of this story.

Get ready fraudsters, your jig is up.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 22, 2010 8:34 PM | Report abuse

Brigade:

I just wanted to make sure you saw my response from this morning on yesterday's Happy Hour. It was not my intent to suggest that you personally didn't care about the welfare of illegals.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 22, 2010 8:36 PM | Report abuse

"Most of current-day Texas is within the "Unorganized" portion of the Louisiana Purchase."

"MOST"? Seriously? You need to just give up. It's starting to get embarassing.

If you look at the following map, the red line shows you the outline of the eastern and northern borders of Texas....you can see how little of the disputed territory is over that line. That is hardly "MOST" of current day Texas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Adams_onis_map.png

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 22, 2010 8:38 PM | Report abuse

Nice. More fun from the GOP if they get the House. Homophobia, Islamophobia, fill-in-the-blankophobia.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 22, 2010 8:03 PM
-----

The Seattle Weekly reported that its editorial cartoonist, Molly Norris, who started "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" has been forced into hiding because the F.B.I. is unable to protect her from the forces of radical Islam who have now vowed to kill her. Islamophobia anyone? This has received little coverage because we wouldn't want to stoke the fires of hate, but I'd hate to be Muslim in America if they ever start following through on some of their wild threats. I doubt reactions in the population at large would all be as reasoned and reserved as some might hope.

Posted by: Brigade | September 22, 2010 8:38 PM | Report abuse

s-cat:

Well, its over 100K population, still wierd, still funky as long as you are in the central part.

MANY Bill White yard signs and stickers. Literally not a single Perry sign.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 22, 2010 8:38 PM | Report abuse

Wait, it may have been named "Texas" by then -- at least I had earlier noted that the name derives from "táysha", a word in the Caddoan language of the Hasinai, which means "friends" or "allies" -- either way, the U.S. claimed most of it under the Louisiana Purchase.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 22, 2010 8:39 PM | Report abuse

To the liberals here


You are either being intentionally deceptive or you just are not following:


The quote from Obama in Woodward's book has to do with the months of discussions about the war in Afghanistan


The Pentagon Generals were making it CLEAR that a stronger policy would MAKE US CITIES SAFER.


Those same Generals were saying that a weaker Afghan policy would MAKE US CITIES MORE VULNERABLE TO TERRORIST ATTACKS.


In the context of this CHOICE - OBAMA STATED WE "CAN ABSORB A TERRORIST ATTACK"


So, Obama was indicating a willingness TO ALLOW US CITIES TO BE MORE VULNERABLE - IN ORDER TO GET A WEAKER POLICY IN AFGHANISTAN.

Context matters - and those were the discussions.

If the liberals insist on lying about the comment - no one can help you.


NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY SHOULD NOT BE PARTISAN

But if Obama does not want MAXIMIUM SECURITY FOR US CITIES, HE SHOULD RESIGN - GET OUT.


OBAMA HAS NO BUSINESS IN THE JOB IF HE DOESN'T WANT TO PROTECT US CITIZENS ON US SOIL.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 22, 2010 8:40 PM | Report abuse

Btw, ScottC refuses to show any proof as to why the flat tax makes economic sense. It hikes taxes on the poor and gives the rich a MASSIVE tax cut. He is suggesting raising taxes on people whose children are fighting HUNGER while martini-drinking billionaires get a huge tax cut.

I've been asking him for days now for some proof as to why this makes economic sense, and every time I do HE DISAPPEARS!

Why is that, ScottC?

Where is your EVIDENCE? HMMM?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 22, 2010 8:41 PM | Report abuse

@Chuck: Aww...I miss Texas. (Especially Whataburger....)

I've got my fingers crossed for White for ya'll!

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 22, 2010 8:43 PM | Report abuse

Tom Roeser of the Chicago Daily Observer:

"In 2008 it seemed to many that Obama was the embodiment of sweet reason on race: a highly cultured Sidney Poitier type who starred in "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner"-the 1967 soft-liberal rendition that showed us a black physician who was every bit as sophisticated as the upper-class family played by Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn. But to many Obama has emerged as a dangerously unskilled president... maimed by his soft-hidden but nevertheless demonstrable black radicalism... to show himself as an immature, consummate narcissist really uneducated-and for all his suavity--a boob. He's wearing very thin.

"He's even wearing thin with the Left: Howard Fineman of Newsweek and George Herbert of The New York Times editorial page... not to mention Frank Rich of the NYT. In short he's beginning to be lampooned on Saturday Night Live as an unskilled orator who substitutes speech-ifying for strategy. With his speeches, he is coming very close to the caricature of Algonquin J. Calhoun, the fast-talking lawyer on radio and TV's old Amos `n Andy... someone who can stretch definitions beyond the breaking point. Lawyer Calhoun was an egotist too... remember, people who are old enough?... who believed he could spin words faster than listeners could compute."

-----

BginCHI, what do you know about this?

Posted by: Brigade | September 22, 2010 8:43 PM | Report abuse

Brigade-

So, you are admitting that Americans cannot tell the difference between a criminal and someone who practices Islam? Nice. Sounds like 1920's Mississippi or 1700's Ireland vis-a-vis Protestants and Catholics.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 22, 2010 8:44 PM | Report abuse

Brigade:

I just wanted to make sure you saw my response from this morning on yesterday's Happy Hour. It was not my intent to suggest that you personally didn't care about the welfare of illegals.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 22, 2010 8:36 PM
---

I did see it. Thanks for the feedback. Never worry about criticizing me. I'm used to it. Once in a great while, I'm even wrong about something or other.

Posted by: Brigade | September 22, 2010 8:46 PM | Report abuse

scat:

Yes, I said "MOST" of Texas, based on the map YOU linked to earlier ...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/United_States_1803-04-1804-03.png

If not this map ...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Louisiana1804a.jpg

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 22, 2010 8:46 PM | Report abuse

What ScottC and other Republicans are suggesting is ECONOMIC OPPRESSION of POOR AMERICANS so the richest people on Earth can have MORE $$$$$$$$$$$.

And worse, whenever someone asks WHY we should oppress poor Americans?

They're *POOF* gone.

It would be funny if it wasn't so disgusting and reprehensible.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 22, 2010 8:48 PM | Report abuse

schrodingerscat 8:38 PM


Your map means nothing - your map is the treaty line from 1819.


Jake is talking about what was included in the agreement with the French in 1803

So, again shrodingersCat, you are wrong - and completely confused about the issue.


________________________

Jake - even after that time, Texas was trying to extend its border north of the Red River

__________________________


I want to remind everyone that Mexico declared Independence in 1810 - and the treaty with Spain was in 1819 - so the extent to which Mexico would feel bound by the treaty with Spain - is questionable.


Also, the objective of the treaty with Spain in 1819 was to get Florida -

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 22, 2010 8:50 PM | Report abuse

Brigade-

So, you are admitting that Americans cannot tell the difference between a criminal and someone who practices Islam? Nice. Sounds like 1920's Mississippi or 1700's Ireland vis-a-vis Protestants and Catholics.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 22, 2010 8:44 PM
----

You tell me. Were the rioters in South Central L.A. too bigoted or too stupid to know that Reginald Denny and others like him had nothing to do with the Rodney King verdict? Did they thing it was helpful to the neighborhood to start burning things down. Insurance red line anyone?

Posted by: Brigade | September 22, 2010 8:54 PM | Report abuse

E,

Careful hanging ya'll's "ProofPositive!!!!eleventy111!!!!" on Aziz. He's, uh, compromised a little bitty.

He does have more cred than Olby, though.

So ya got that goin' for ya.

Posted by: tao9 | September 22, 2010 8:59 PM | Report abuse

Jake and SchroedingerCat


I know you are fighting over Texas -


However SchroederingerCat's map from 1819 has a problem - the line was drawn with the King of Spain.


But Mexico declared its Independence in 1810 - and Mexico did not recognize it until 1821 - so WHY should Mexico recognize a treaty made AFTER its declaration of Independence ?

Furthermore - after the Mexican War - the Texans who had agreed to be a State - were still fighting over the boundary - this time the Texans wanted it further north - into Oklahoma.


The Texans organized a County - and ran the place like it was part of Texas - collecting taxes and all.


So - the boundary line through there was not settled in 1803 - and it wasn't settled in 1819 either.


After the Mexican War, they were still talking about it - and it took a Court case to the Supreme Court to settle the whole thing way after Texas became a State.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 22, 2010 9:00 PM | Report abuse

Brigade-

Same old same old I guess then, right? And, I'm sure those with large audiences will *go on record* regularly stating, like George W. did, that we are "not at war with Islam". It may take some doing, but it is eminently worth doing. Right?

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 22, 2010 9:02 PM | Report abuse

"It would be funny if it wasn't so disgusting and reprehensible."

That they haven't answered your question? Or have an opinion different than yours?

What if they think it is more equitable? Can reasonable people disagree on that?  If I recall, Barry wants to raise Capital Gains taxes, and when it was pointed out to him that increases in Capital Gains taxes often result in less revenue, he said he wanted them raised because it was an issue of fairness. 

Why didn't Barry spout facts and figures?  Because to him, taxation is about fairness (as well as redistribution).  Am I to understand that only Barry gets to take the "fairness" position?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 22, 2010 9:08 PM | Report abuse

This is the big issue of the day:

Woodward's book portrays Obama and the White House as barraged by warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and confronted with the difficulty in preventing them. During an interview with Woodward in July, the president said, "We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . .

________________________________

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 22, 2010 9:08 PM | Report abuse

"Your map means nothing - your map is the treaty line from 1819."

No sh*t, Sherlock. The point was to show Jake how LITTLE territory in TX the U.S. had claimed as part of the La. Purchase and how LITTLE territory they agreed to no longer claim as part of the 1819 treaty.

And please don't lecture me about TX history. I grew up there and have taken more TX history classes then you could ever hope to absorb through the University of Google.

I'm consistently amazed to what lengths some people will go to to avoid saying or admitting that they are wrong. You guys are like the Fonzis of the internet. The level of intellectual dishonesty is just jaw-dropping.


Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 22, 2010 9:08 PM | Report abuse

tao9-

When you die, on your deathbed, you'll receive total conciousness...

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 22, 2010 9:10 PM | Report abuse

E,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o76WQzVJ434

"Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony."

Monty Python still cracks me up after all these years.


Posted by: tao9 | September 22, 2010 9:12 PM | Report abuse

"Monty Python still cracks me up after all these years. "

That scene has always been one of my favorites. Pure comic genius.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 22, 2010 9:17 PM | Report abuse

Brigade-

Same old same old I guess then, right? And, I'm sure those with large audiences will *go on record* regularly stating, like George W. did, that we are "not at war with Islam". It may take some doing, but it is eminently worth doing. Right?

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 22, 2010 9:02 PM
-----

One would hope.

Posted by: Brigade | September 22, 2010 9:18 PM | Report abuse

Troll-

You say potato, I say potato re: "fairness". You wanna address the growing gap between the rich and poor?
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3220

G*ddamned right folks are pissed about it and they should be.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 22, 2010 9:19 PM | Report abuse

ChuckinD,

Carl Spackler is a singular visionary sensei.

Posted by: tao9 | September 22, 2010 9:20 PM | Report abuse

SchrodingerCat


YOU are WRONG AGAIN - and the way you carry on when you are WRONG is getting ridiculous


Here is your stupid wiki article - the boundaries were never really clear.


However Jake is 100% CORRECT when he says that the United States made a claim with Spain for ALL of Texas based on its holdings from the Louisiana Purchase.

_________________________

The territory's boundaries had not been defined in the 1762 Treaty of Fontainebleau that ceded it from France to Spain, nor the 1800 Third Treaty of San Ildefonso ceding it back to France, nor the 1803 Louisiana Purchase agreement ceding it to the United States. The United States claimed Louisiana included the entire western portion of the Mississippi River drainage basin to the crest of the Rocky Mountains and land extending southeast to the Rio Grande.


_________________________________

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 22, 2010 9:20 PM | Report abuse

Brigade-

Good to hear. Cheers!

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 22, 2010 9:21 PM | Report abuse

For anyone who missed it, someone managed to capture SaveTheRainforest during one of his unhinged rants on here.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/attachment.php?s=aa5ab7a923d4dde7bb073562c40a1691&attachmentid=55242&stc=1&d=1142920093

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 22, 2010 9:27 PM | Report abuse

{{{{{{s'cat, sshhhh...listen...you post, "OK, TX came all in w/the LA Purch" and I'll send $25 to lms's ActBlue...ssshhhh...OK? Cool.}}}}}

Posted by: tao9 | September 22, 2010 9:27 PM | Report abuse

Chuck:

"G*ddamned right folks are pissed about it and they should be."

Why should they be?

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 22, 2010 9:28 PM | Report abuse

This is serious stuff


Woodward's book portrays Obama and the White House as barraged by warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and confronted with the difficulty in preventing them. During an interview with Woodward in July, the president said, "We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . .


_____________________________

The point is Obama wants OUT of Afghanistan - whether we win or not.

That is a horrible national security policy.


When the Generals told Obama that such a policy would result in A GREATER VULERABILITY TO TERRORIST ATTACKS ON US SOIL, OBAMA SAID WE CAN ABSORB ANOTHER ATTACK.

So, leaving Afghanistan is more important to Obama than preventing a terrorist attack ON US SOIL THAT COULD KILL THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT AMERICANS.

I disagree

And I question seriously the motives of those who do not take this issue with Obama seriously. I think you are all BLINDED by your partisanship.


Obama needs to RESIGN over this.


The Blue Dogs should act to IMPEACH Obama as soon as possible BEFORE WE ARE ATTACKED.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 22, 2010 9:31 PM | Report abuse

"You wanna address the growing gap between the rich and poor? "

No, because I'm not convinced that there is any sort of correlation between the two. It is popular to decry how rich the rich are, but I fail to understand how that makes me any poorer, or my economic trajectory any poorer.

And just to be particularly snide, I'd rather be poor here than anywhere else.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 22, 2010 9:37 PM | Report abuse

"We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . .


_________________________________

WHAT REAL AMERICAN WOULD SAY SUCH A THING???

Anyone who complains that Obama is not viewed a truly American - can only point to this quote - and there is sufficient reason to doubt Obama.

Americans are OFFENDED by 9/11 - and we don't want to allow it to happen again.


Obama seems to have been on some cocaine binge on 9/11 - Obama acts and speaks like he really did not experience 9/11 at all - like Obama wasn't around at all.

Obama's words about 9/11 at West Point - they all must be viewed as untrue - given the recounting of events in Woodwards book - one can not believe anything that Obama said about wanting to win in Afghanistan OR seeing the Afghan conflict as a way to protect American lives.

Obama is a NATIONAL DISGRACE.

America is outraged at Obama - and the democrats should support American - not Obama on this issue.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 22, 2010 9:43 PM | Report abuse

Troll,

I've asked him repeatedly for proof that his tax regime makes economic sense. Nada.

People are free to disagree about things, of course, but the whole idea of equitable treatment doesn't apply to everyone in the same way.

Saying that we should raise taxes on poor people - people who struggle to put food on the table to feed their children - as an issue of fairness to the ultra-rich is kind of like a slavemaster demanding that their slave bend over to be whipped instead of standing up straight because it strains their whipping hand.

Making poor, hungry Americans pay taxes so the rich can get a tax cut is neither smart economics, nor is it fair or equitable by any definition of the word. That is why there is no discussion on that tax regime as a realistic option for America and why it is relegated to being a talking point made only by far right extremists like ScottC and QB.

As to your example, I'd be happy to discuss it further at a later date provided that you have legitimate sources for your information and are not forcing me to rely on 2nd and 3rd hand info, like you just attempted to do. I also find it hard to take you seriously when you call the President of the United States "Barry".

Sorry for my double post, I'm on my BB.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 22, 2010 9:44 PM | Report abuse

Troll,

I've asked him repeatedly for proof that his tax regime makes economic sense. Nada.

People are free to disagree about things, of course, but the whole idea of equitable treatment doesn't apply to everyone in the same way.

Saying that we should raise taxes on poor people - people who struggle to put food on the table to feed their children - as an issue of fairness to the ultra-rich is kind of like a slavemaster demanding that their slave bend over to be whipped instead of standing up straight because it strains their whipping hand.

Making poor, hungry Americans pay taxes so the rich can get a tax cut is neither smart economics, nor is it fair or equitable by any definition of the word. That is why there is no discussion on that tax regime as a realistic option for America and why it is relegated to being a talking point made only by far right extremists like ScottC and QB.

As to your example, I'd be happy to discuss it further at a later date provided that you have legitimate sources for your information and are not forcing me to rely on 2nd and 3rd hand info, like you just attempted to do. I also find it hard to take you seriously when you call the President of the United States "Barry".

Sorry for my double post, I'm on my BB.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 22, 2010 9:44 PM | Report abuse

"However Jake is 100% CORRECT when he says that the United States made a claim
with Spain for ALL of Texas based on its holdings from the Louisiana Purchase."

It doesn't matter. I could claim I'm the Queen of England. I'm not....and the TX territory was not an official part of the United States until 1845. The U.S. acknowledged that in the 1819 treaty.

Now, in honor of Tao's promise:

OK, TX came all in w/the LA Purch

....and that's it, I'm done.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 22, 2010 9:45 PM | Report abuse

TrollMcWingnut | September 22, 2010 9:37 PM

Gap between rich and poor

______________________________

Does the Gap really mean anything? I rather see programs to get the children out of the inner-cities - so they won't feel pressure to join gangs, sell drugs and become criminals.

The "gap" - who cares?


Let's just get the kids out - or take care of the children -


That has nothing to do with the rich or their taxes rates.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 22, 2010 9:51 PM | Report abuse

TrollMcWingnut | September 22, 2010 9:37 PM

Gap between rich and poor

______________________________

Does the Gap really mean anything? I rather see programs to get the children out of the inner-cities - so they won't feel pressure to join gangs, sell drugs and become criminals.

The "gap" - who cares?


Let's just get the kids out - or take care of the children -


That has nothing to do with the rich or their taxes rates.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 22, 2010 9:52 PM | Report abuse

@JakeD I and several other posters on this blog are on the record as saying we respect your beliefs.

What I don't understand is what makes you think you have the right to force your beliefs down the rest of our throats. Why can't you respect OUR beliefs.

No snark intended..we don't have Czars in our government in the literal sense..and we don't have Ayatollahs...but if we ever create a position of Ayatollah we certainly would nominate you.

Seriously and sincerely do you not realize how arrogant it is to lecture someone from YOUR religious perspective. If you don't believe in divorce...don't get divorced.
If you don't believe in remarriage after divorce..then don't divorce and remarry..if you don't believe in gay marriage then don't turn gay and marry another male. Really it's not that hard Jake..it's called live and let live and stay the eff out of all of our bedrooms!!!

And again in case you might be confused...and again I mean this with no snark but simple explanation...WE ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION!!!

Again from the Treaty of Tripoli...

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"

NOT IN ANY SENSE Jake...and so we are wondering who died and left you as the moral judge?

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 22, 2010 9:55 PM | Report abuse

SchrodingerCat


The United States had little chance that Mexico would agree to the treaty line of 1819 -


Mexico had declared its independence in 1810 - so why should they recognize a Treaty made by the King of Spain in 1819 -

That treaty was mainly about Florida

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 22, 2010 9:56 PM | Report abuse

Chuck & Scat, I almost moved to Denton County Texas a few years ago. I'm economically better off in Georgia though. The real estate taxes of $13,000 on a home of the same value as the one I have in GA would have been triple the $4,300 I was paying. When I computed the total tax paid in Texas (which has no income tax) I was going to pay more in taxes in a no income tax state than an income tax state. I don't know about the rest of the state, but an apartment renter in Dallas probably pays less for housing than the owner of a middle class home after the tax is thrown in.

Posted by: actuator | September 22, 2010 9:58 PM | Report abuse

rukidding7 9:55 PM


This is a Christian nation


And if you don't like it, move to Tripoli

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 22, 2010 10:00 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010,

Why do you say "right wing extremist" like it's a bad thing? I wear the moniker proudly. I might even include the word "revolutionary" to it as well, for more punch.

As I mentioned, and you're no doubt aware, perhaps my right wing extremist (revolutionary) bretheren think that "fairness" trumps "economic sense"? To be honest, I do not know. However, I do know that Barry (or BARRY, if that makes you more comfortable and me more serious) believes that "fairness" trumps "economic sense". Unfortunatly, we cannot travel back in time to literally see BARRY say this, so any evidence I provide would have to be secondary (or even tertiary!).

I don't care if you take me seriously because I call D**ch*bag, Barry. Just like I don't care that you have an obsession with CAPLOCKs. I suppose though, you'll call for my banning.

And here's Barry, in his own words, preferring "fairness" to "economic sense".

Unfortunately for all of us, we have to take Barry seriously. At least until 1/21/2013.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpSDBu35K-8

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 22, 2010 10:07 PM | Report abuse

Tom Roeser of the Chicago Daily Observer:

"In 2008 it seemed to many that Obama was the embodiment of sweet reason on race: a highly cultured Sidney Poitier type who starred in "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner"-the 1967 soft-liberal rendition that showed us a black physician who was every bit as sophisticated as the upper-class family played by Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn. But to many Obama has emerged as a dangerously unskilled president... maimed by his soft-hidden but nevertheless demonstrable black radicalism... to show himself as an immature, consummate narcissist really uneducated-and for all his suavity--a boob. He's wearing very thin.

"He's even wearing thin with the Left: Howard Fineman of Newsweek and George Herbert of The New York Times editorial page... not to mention Frank Rich of the NYT. In short he's beginning to be lampooned on Saturday Night Live as an unskilled orator who substitutes speech-ifying for strategy. With his speeches, he is coming very close to the caricature of Algonquin J. Calhoun, the fast-talking lawyer on radio and TV's old Amos `n Andy... someone who can stretch definitions beyond the breaking point. Lawyer Calhoun was an egotist too... remember, people who are old enough?... who believed he could spin words faster than listeners could compute."

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 22, 2010 10:08 PM | Report abuse

"Now, in honor of Tao's promise:

OK, TX came all in w/the LA Purch "


Thanks tao and scat, here's the link amigo:

http://www.actblue.com/page/plcommunity

Posted by: lmsinca | September 22, 2010 10:17 PM | Report abuse

actuator like so many are clueless when it comes to property taxes.

Homeowners are not the only people paying property taxes. As someone who own rental property I can assure you that out of necessity I pass through all property taxes as part of the RENT apartment owners pay.
This is such an ancient canard and so incredibly stupid...renters do end up paying property insurance.

On many commercial leases it's actually even more direct than that. In commercial real estate there is a lease called a triple net lease. Simply stated it means the lessee pays a certain rent per square foot...and then also has to pay the TAXES and insurance on their rental space.
Virtually every drug store in the United States is a triple net lease. The drug stores do not own the property but they STILL pay the property taxes!!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 22, 2010 10:21 PM | Report abuse

Bad typing...renters pay property taxes not necessarily insurance.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 22, 2010 10:23 PM | Report abuse

Troll, Scott-

"Being poor here rather than..." well, you already admit that that's not an answer, right?

Even Alan Greenspan thinks it cannot be ignored: http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/2266816/

Good series of articles, btw, that explodes some myths...

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 22, 2010 10:25 PM | Report abuse

Troll-

Well, kudos on admitting your extremism but, to quote AuH2O, "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice". Now, check his election returns...

Cheers!

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 22, 2010 10:32 PM | Report abuse

"I can assure you that out of necessity I pass through all property taxes as part of the RENT apartment owners pay."

I am shocked, SHOCKED! to hear that this capitalist exploiter rukidding is passing on taxes to helpless renters!

Why, I read on this blog all the time that taxes on capitalist exploiters don't impact others and can't be passed down the line!

Has he no compassion, no humanity!?

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 22, 2010 10:33 PM | Report abuse

lmsinca 10:17 PM


Make sure you tell us all how much you raised.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 22, 2010 10:33 PM | Report abuse

Chuck, I've read most of the series. Looks like education and the overweight of CEO vs employee salaries have had the greatest impact on income disparity.

I was also reading that by 2025 at least 60% of jobs will need a college degree. Even the states with the highest number of college grads are far below that number.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 22, 2010 10:33 PM | Report abuse

Did ya'll see the last item in the GOP Congressman's Pledge to America?

"We will immediately take action - utilizing the full strength of law — which would permanently prevent double-spaced comments on all American political based blogs."

I'd say that's something we can all get behind.

Posted by: tao9 | September 22, 2010 10:35 PM | Report abuse

rukidding7 10:21 PM

Of course the renters pay the property tax


It is a cost of the property - whether the lease is structured as a triple net or not.


I like triple net leases.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 22, 2010 10:35 PM | Report abuse

tao, you had me at permanently prevent. And don't forget, a promise is a promise.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 22, 2010 10:38 PM | Report abuse

Q.B. You are simply ignorant. What you think passes for snark simply reveals you to be an utter irreconcilable JERK!

No wonder Tena spent all that time calling you those names...because they all fit JERK.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 22, 2010 10:38 PM | Report abuse

tao Agreed...that is something we can all get behind. :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 22, 2010 10:39 PM | Report abuse

Thanks s'cat! {{i think}}

lms: (DOH!!!)...It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done....

Posted by: tao9 | September 22, 2010 10:42 PM | Report abuse

Let's get back to protecting the American people against terrorist attacks


Im sure the liberals would stay at their computers during a terrorist attack - just to quibble.

OBAMA IS NOT DEFENDING THIS NATION PROPERLY

And the liberals will not agree until alot of people die.


That is the problem.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 22, 2010 10:43 PM | Report abuse

"And moderation in the pursuit of Justice is not virtue"

l'chiam

And I assume your referring to Goldwater's returns in the 1964 Presidential election. I'm also guessing that you're relating Goldwater's political positions as being "right wing extremism" as well as being related to his loss. Ok, he lost because he was (perceived as being) a "right wing extremist". Again, why is being a "right wing extremist (revolutionary) a bad thing?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 22, 2010 10:43 PM | Report abuse

"utter irreconcilable JERK"

I'm with ya, I want my jerks to be utterly reconcilable.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 22, 2010 10:47 PM | Report abuse

Here is an interesting factoid...

More jobs were created during the Clinton Administration than the Reagan, BushI and Bush II Administrations COMBINED.

Boy those R's certainly weave economic magic when it comes to job creation!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 22, 2010 10:53 PM | Report abuse

Troll-

Congrats on getting the Goldwater reference. Don't you think extremism, of any stripe, is not politically smart? Good luck with that...

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 22, 2010 10:54 PM | Report abuse

STRF-

A rare moment of humor! Awesome. I *get* you now. Deep.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 22, 2010 10:57 PM | Report abuse

"Don't you think extremism, of any stripe, is not politically smart"

Well, being labeled an "extremist" can be politically unfortunate.

But my question is why being labeled a "right wing extremist" is a bad thing?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 22, 2010 11:00 PM | Report abuse

Imsinca-

re: degrees- I've often thought a college degree is = high school diploma of 20-30 years ago. Kudos to Obama for emphasizing its importance.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 22, 2010 11:00 PM | Report abuse

rukidding7 10:53 PM


Yea, but where did those Clinton jobs go when the internet bubble burst - and so many portfolios took such a hit???


AND one must remember that Clinton signed ALL those Free Trade deals - GIVING AWAY JOBS THAT ARE STILL DRIFTING OVERSEAS, NEVER TO COME BACK.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 22, 2010 11:03 PM | Report abuse

@troll,

I hate to make such an obvious points, but one reason to avoid being seen as a right wing extremist is that you can't get elected. Mr. Goldwater only won 39% of the vote and 6 electoral votes. Sixty one per cent of the voters voted for the other guy.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 22, 2010 11:05 PM | Report abuse

Troll, that was a pretty weak post even for you. Let me know if you have anything worthwhile to add. I won't hold my breath. As for banning, I don't think you should be banned. You should be ejected from the planet.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 22, 2010 11:05 PM | Report abuse

Troll, that was a pretty weak post even for you. Let me know if you have anything worthwhile to add. I won't hold my breath. As for banning, I don't think you should be banned. You should be ejected from the planet.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 22, 2010 11:05 PM | Report abuse

Troll-

Maybe you missed my comment that extremism "of any stripe" means political death, be it Left or Right. I'm talking in the real world, not some kind of absolutist fantasy that we all probably wish for at times.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 22, 2010 11:05 PM | Report abuse

@lmsinca & Chuck I hope you two realize that in tea party circles you guys are elitists. Education...higher education?

I've often thought that the tune that should open the 2012 R convention to the roaring applause of the tparty crowd who will be in total control by then should come from Pink Floyd.

Imagine speeches from Sister Sarah set up by the stirring sounds of "The Wall"

"We don't need no education"
"Teachers leave them kids alone"

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 22, 2010 11:07 PM | Report abuse

Those Clinton job creation numbers really are not correct/fair or anything like that


We all know we have business cycles up and down, up and down.


To start Clinton at a low point in the cycles - and then end at a high point in the cycle - that really does NOT tell the correct story.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 22, 2010 11:08 PM | Report abuse

Let's examine some typical hot air from Ethan.

Speaking of Scott, he said: "I've asked him repeatedly for proof that his tax regime makes economic sense. Nada."

You want "proof" that it "makes economic sense"? That's a meaningless statement, reflective either of shallow and shoddy thinking or deliberate obfuscation.

"Saying that we should raise taxes on poor people - people who struggle to put food on the table to feed their children - as an issue of fairness to the ultra-rich is kind of like a slavemaster demanding that their slave bend over to be whipped instead of standing up straight because it strains their whipping hand."

If a conservative had made such a preposterous and "offensive" equation, you would be beside yourself with rage. Indeed, Bilgey was banned largely for slavery comparisons.

There is always a major fallacy underlying these arguments of yours as well, and that is the assumption that under a flat tax the "poor" would be worse off than they are now. You are assuming, with no support at all, that a flat tax would not change economic conditions but would simply shift taxes downward. I.e., your whole argument is circular.

I note that you claim that the country is full of starving children -- under a progressive tax regime. Indeed, according to the government, the 40+ year war on poverty hasn't changed poverty rates at all.

"Making poor, hungry Americans pay taxes so the rich can get a tax cut is neither smart economics, nor is it fair or equitable by any definition of the word."

Here are a world of errors in logic.

First, under a flat, simpler tax system, they might not be poor and hungry, even it if is true that they now are under a progressive system in which half pay not taxes.

Second, advocacy of a flat tax has nothing to do with the idea of raising taxes on the poor "so the rich can get a tax cut." Taxes are spent on expenditures, not on tax cuts. By definition.

Third, as to fairness, here is a common definition: Fairness means equal treatment. That is a definition under which a flat tax is most definitely fair.

"As to your example, I'd be happy to discuss it further at a later date provided that you have legitimate sources for your information and are not forcing me to rely on 2nd and 3rd hand info, like you just attempted to do."

You seem fine with 2d and 3d hand data when it suits you. This is a blog. Do you really think economic theories can be proven or disproven in these comments?

"and why it is relegated to being a talking point made only by far right extremists like ScottC and QB."

A centrist is a far-right extremist to you, so I don't think anyone cares a lot about your opinions on that topic.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 22, 2010 11:08 PM | Report abuse

ruk-

Lol! They are without irony, I'm afraid.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 22, 2010 11:10 PM | Report abuse

lms,

Done.

25samoleans to Feingold.

Posted by: tao9 | September 22, 2010 11:12 PM | Report abuse

Q.B. Talk about an epic fail...

"A centrist is a far-right extremist to you, so I don't think ANYONE cares a lot about your opinions on that topic."

Anyone...LMAO...we could always take a poll.
I for one care a lot more about Ethan's opinion than your reactionary drivel! I suspect...although I'm not the all knowing blog god you presume to be that there are others on this blog who feel the same way.

We look at Kevin, perhaps Brigade, tao and some others as perhaps centrist...we view you as the right wing reactionary ideologue your posts reveal.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 22, 2010 11:13 PM | Report abuse

tao, good choice, thanks. You're a man of your word. And thanks to SCat as well.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 22, 2010 11:26 PM | Report abuse

"we view you as the right wing reactionary ideologue your posts reveal."

Oh sweet Jesus, I thought the pejorative was "right wing extremist" to which I added "revolutionary" for punch. Can I at least get a memo, or the correct TPS report, when things change?

Chuck,

I'm not arguing that being labeled "extremist" is, at times, politically bad. And I suppose that being labeled "extremist" and then losing politically would be considered, by some, as a bad thing. However, the label "right wing extremist" was wielded by the always level headed Ethan2010 and was used as a pejorative and I asked why it should be considered pejorative.

Ethan2010, "You should be ejected from the planet." Why the eliminationist rhetoric?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 22, 2010 11:27 PM | Report abuse

Well here's a laugh boys and girls. While we progressives are over here beating each other up because we are unhappy with the leadership provided by Obama and the capitulation of the Bluekitty D's...

Guess what they're doing over at redstate...beating each other up because of the failure of the R's to lead.

Erick Erickson's reaction to the R's unveiling of "Pledge to America"

"These 21 pages tell you lots of things, some contradictory things, but mostly this: it is a serious of compromises and milquetoast rhetorical flourishes in search of unanimity among House Republicans because the House GOP does not have the fortitude to lead boldly in opposition to Barack Obama.

I have one message for John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and the House GOP Leadership: If they do not want to use the GOP to lead, I would like to borrow it for a time."

I post this not to make fun of conservatives or Eric Erickson...but to make fun of ALL of us. The colors may change from Blue to Red but at the end of the day it's all the same complaint. LMAO

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 22, 2010 11:29 PM | Report abuse

I was just reading through the "Pledge" myself, pretty quick read BTW if you're interested. But what does this mean?

"Will require that every bill have a citation of constitutional authority"

Is the Supreme Court expected to ratify legislation prior to the vote? That's probably not in the Constitution. Interesting idea.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 22, 2010 11:38 PM | Report abuse

Troll-

I can't speak for how or why others use the term.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 22, 2010 11:41 PM | Report abuse

I'm out tonight, had a long and busy day, manana all.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 22, 2010 11:49 PM | Report abuse

Brigade, in response to your long and crazy-sounding quote from the Chicago Daily Observer.

I had honestly never heard of it. And I was surprised, as I thought if it was something in any way mainstream it would be out in circulation.

Well, of course, it's a right-wing rag whose Chairman of the Board is Ron Gidwitz.

Look him up. Right wing and full of shitt. It's a vanity paper.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 23, 2010 12:01 AM | Report abuse

Let me be clear:


Tonight we are all less safe because the terrorists KNOW that Obama is willing to give them "one free shot."


I don't like how this is shaping up.

Does anyone?


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 23, 2010 12:07 AM | Report abuse

Bginchi


I've never heard of the Chicago Daily Observer.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 23, 2010 12:12 AM | Report abuse

Bginchi


I've never heard of the Chicago Daily Observer.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 23, 2010 12:12 AM | Report abuse

Ims and Ruk
You've peaked my interest and I guess now I will have to read the latest "switch & bait" for America from the GOP.

Posted by: Andy94 | September 23, 2010 12:13 AM | Report abuse

re; "citation of Constitutional authority".

Well, since the definition of the constitution has been morphing since day one, that citation is whatever teh TeaOP says it is and is worth about as much as the 1's and 0's that sentence takes up on a PDF file.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 23, 2010 12:19 AM | Report abuse

Got bored and charted job creation after the 2001 recession and this one.

http://liberaldefenderoffreedom.blogspot.com/2010/09/job-creation-during-recent-recoveries.html

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 23, 2010 12:21 AM | Report abuse

It makes total sense... many Insurance companies decided today to get out of the business of insuring children. This way they don't have to comply tomorrow with the Health care reforms that require all vehicles that get towed.

Posted by: Andy94 | September 23, 2010 12:26 AM | Report abuse

Andy-

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_insurers_children

Certainly you can't mean *all* children get towed? That would smack of winger-hyperbole...

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 23, 2010 12:53 AM | Report abuse

How to get your polls to reflect Republican leads in states where you want them to be leading: Don't poll significant numbers of non-whites and don't poll 18-34 year olds. Go check the demographics listings for the CNN polls. Non whites "N/A" 18 - 34 year olds, "N/A"

Did somebody repeal the voting rights acts? It's not that they didn't ask about race, because whites get a vote breakdown, so they had to have asked.

Posted by: ceflynline | September 23, 2010 12:58 AM | Report abuse

ceflynline-

Interesting. At the very least, it points out where the GOP is lacking.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 23, 2010 1:12 AM | Report abuse

mike-

Then, "the worst recession/economic crisis since the Great Depression" is just a librul talking point. ;)

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 23, 2010 1:18 AM | Report abuse

ru, quote me accurately please, not with your own caps. Perhaps I should have been clearer and said "anyone who would not be viewed by most people as a left-wing extremist," as you would be, but I instead used what Kevin has called the "royal you."

"Blog god"? What insults will you think of next?

Btw I notice that you don't have any response to the substance of my comment. Don't you find Ethan's argument to be circular? Don't you find it strange that he judges the results of a hypothetical flat tax sytem without any empirical basis except for the results of a progressive system he himself claims leaves millions of children starving? Don't you find his demands for "proof" strange, especially when he has offered none for his own assertions?

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 23, 2010 3:39 AM | Report abuse

How to get your polls to reflect Republican leads in states where you want them to be leading: Don't poll significant numbers of non-whites and don't poll 18-34 year olds. Go check the demographics listings for the CNN polls. Non whites "N/A" 18 - 34 year olds, "N/A"

Did somebody repeal the voting rights acts? It's not that they didn't ask about race, because whites get a vote breakdown, so they had to have asked.

Posted by: ceflynline | September 23, 2010 12:58 AM
-----

In fewer words: don't poll significant numbers of people who are unlikely to vote in the upcoming election.

Posted by: Brigade | September 23, 2010 6:45 AM | Report abuse

ru,

"Q.B. You are simply ignorant. What you think passes for snark simply reveals you to be an utter irreconcilable JERK!"

I had missed this. You pollute this blog with endless comments calling me and other conservatives heartless Plutocrats, lacking in humanity, blah blah blah. You are always in the forefront of the libs who is sure that taxes on, and tax cuts for, rich capitalists don't affect anyone else.

And yet here you are scolding people for not realizing that even you pass on your property taxes. Then you can resort to third-grade name calling when I poke a little fun at you for it and turn your own language back on you.

Quite a performance, even for you. I know I'm laughing! LMAO at how your contradictions are on display yet again.

Btw, answer this simple question, if you can. Yesterday I posed the hypothesis that conservatives like me better understand liberal positions and reasoning that vice versa. Do you agree that Ethan's ongoing quest to have some justificaiton for a flat tax system explained is further proof that I'm right? After all, I and any number of other conservatives can explain the liberal case for progressivity, Keynesianism, and "taxing the rich." But you and your comrades can't explain -- because you are ignorant of -- arguments for a different approach.

Am I wrong?

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 23, 2010 7:21 AM | Report abuse

chuck says:

"Well, since the definition of the constitution has been morphing since day one, that citation is whatever teh TeaOP says it is and is worth about as much as the 1's and 0's that sentence takes up on a PDF file."

That's what conservatives have been saying for years about how liberals treat the Constitution. It's good to see someone acknowledge that liberals treat it as meaningless.

I have not yet read the Pledge, but I would assume that provision is intended to draw a contrast with Dems, who do indeed treat the Constitution as irrelevant when passing their stacks of new unconstitutional legislation like Obamacare. Citing constitutional authority would also tend to help clarify the intent of Congress if legislation is challenged in court.

Not surprised citing the Constitution is consdiered eccentric by liberals, but hope that helps clear it up for you all.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 23, 2010 7:31 AM | Report abuse

"Chuck, I've read most of the series. Looks like education and the overweight of CEO vs employee salaries have had the greatest impact on income disparity."

I think one major factor has been the Radical Right's demonization and destruction of the Union Movement. After all, individual workers --especially in working-class jobs -- have very little negotiating power. And if you've ever been in that position you know what I mean. The Radical Right undermined unions by using the anti-labor South as the escape, just as they do now by shipping jobs to China and India. The Capitalists don't need organization because they have all the power, but they are very organized anyway. Workers do need organization but the Radical Right has deprived them of the power to organize. The Radical Right pretend to be for individual freedom when it is really opposed to collective action that attempts to offset the inherent coercive power of the SuperRich.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 23, 2010 7:31 AM | Report abuse

lms:

"Is the Supreme Court expected to ratify every piece of legislation before a vote?"

No. Believe it or not, congressmen (and indeed, even many of us regular people) are able to read the constitution, understand whether or not it grants congress the authority to do a certain thing, and then cite the part of the constitution which grants the authority, all without seeking the Supreme Court's opinion on the matter.

Do you really think the meaning of the constitution is beyond the grasp of everyone except nine lawyers in robes seated on the Supreme Court?

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 23, 2010 7:32 AM | Report abuse

The Radical Right's abuse of the Constitution brings new meaning to "Con Law." Almost everything they say about the Constitution is false but, as someone said a bit earlier, their strategy is to simply overwhelm all opposition with superior resources, including people who make the same false arguments over and again, regardless of truth or facts. The Radical Rights's War On Reality is no accident; ignorance and confusion are essential to methods of deceit.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 23, 2010 7:38 AM | Report abuse

@Tao:

My wounded TX heart thanks you!

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 23, 2010 7:44 AM | Report abuse

Reagan's 1980 pollster and strategist, Richard Witrthlin, wrote:

"People act on their perception of reality; there is, in fact, no political reality beyond what is perceived by the voters."

Invisible Hands, p. 252.

Once that is recognized the next step is to create a reality that is politically favorable to the Radical Right. That is what the GOP's War On Reality is all about.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 23, 2010 7:44 AM | Report abuse

"The Radical Right's abuse of the Constitution brings new meaning to "Con Law." Almost everything they say about the Constitution is false . . . ."

Invert reality, accuse the other side of what you do, loudly and unceasingly. That's what you do. In a style that's like reading a stream of Worker's Daily editorials (love those capitalized terms).

The Constitution forbids Congress from abridging freedom of speech. It doesn't happen to say anything about state regulation of abortion, or about gay marriage. Sorry, but your side is the one shredding the document.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 23, 2010 7:57 AM | Report abuse

qb:

"Let's examine some typical hot air from Ethan."

Good analysis, but it really is a waste of time. Ethan is clearly not interested in understanding other positions, getting us to understand his, or even, really, in demonstrating why we are wrong about something. He engages in what is the blog equivalent to plugging his ears shouting "I can't hear you, I can't hear you", and then pounding his chest about how you "ran away" from his incisive and devastating analysis when you give up trying to engage him rationally. He's good, I suppose, for a little entertainment value once in a while, but that is about it. I'm guessing the smarter of his brethren on the left probably understand this already.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 23, 2010 7:59 AM | Report abuse

Scott and qb, you make it sound so simple, citing constitutional authority. Isn't that what the Supreme Court is for? How many times do right and left come out on different sides of Constitutionality on any given issue. Normally, legislators believe they are on pretty solid ground prior to votes. Citizens United, gay marriage, HCR, abortion, etc. etc. are just a few issues where both sides use the Constitution to support legality or not. Sounds like Republicans want to reverse the process to me, judicial first, legislative second. Just a guess.

I just thought it was interesting. The rest of the pledge seems like pretty typical conservative talking points, nothing new really.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 23, 2010 8:09 AM | Report abuse

The Radical Right launches a war on the working class and then decries class warfare. Says it all, right there. The Radical Right are Masters of Deceit, as Good Ol' J. Edgar would say.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 23, 2010 8:09 AM | Report abuse

@wbgonne: "The Radical Right's abuse of the Constitution brings new meaning to 'Con Law.' Almost everything they say about the Constitution is false"

Really? Almost everything that the radical right (defined as who?) says about the constitution is wrong. My, how do they get away with it?

"but, as someone said a bit earlier, their strategy is to simply overwhelm all opposition with superior resources, including people who make the same false arguments over and again"

Or perhaps their opposition consistently proceeds from false assumptions about their opponents arguments, and a decidedly incurious nature about their opposition, and, since their assumptions are wrong, their arguments and political strategies are poor, and they find they can't hold onto power, even after being swept into office in a significant majority. :)

Just a thought.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 23, 2010 8:11 AM | Report abuse

"Invert reality, accuse the other side of what you do, loudly and unceasingly. That's what you do."

Breathtaking propaganda work. Kudos. Koch-Head of the Week!

Posted by: wbgonne | September 23, 2010 8:11 AM | Report abuse

"'Invert reality, accuse the other side of what you do, loudly and unceasingly. That's what you do.' -- Breathtaking propaganda work. Kudos. Koch-Head of the Week!"

No, you are.

No, *you* are.

I know you are, but what am I?

I am rubber and you are glue. Whatever you say bounces of of me and sticks to you!

Nuh-uh.

Uh-huh!

Check. Mate. Match.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 23, 2010 8:14 AM | Report abuse

Radical Right Con Law:

"We solemnly pledge to make the Constitution mean whatever we want it to mean."

Posted by: wbgonne | September 23, 2010 8:18 AM | Report abuse

Scott,

I agree and know. I was more interested in demonstrating (trying at least) the shallow and fallacious nature of Ethan's comments (and using it as an example of his inability to comprehend the "other" side) than I was expecting of any meaningful response. Or maybe I just got home late and needed to unwind. : )

It amazes me that it passes for deep argument to start with what he says is the desperate poverty situation we have under the very progressive type of tax system he defends, assume that all a flat tax would do is make the poor more miserable, and declare victory. He doesn't even realize he is actually condemning his OWN position, without supplying a shred of proof about a flat or "flatter" tax.

I thought is comment about a flat tax not being just "under any definition" was one of the best examples of unthinking dogmatism I've seen yet.

Another day in the loony bin.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 23, 2010 8:19 AM | Report abuse

Kevin:

False equivalency is yet another successful propaganda strategy. So then the faux moderates can say, well, they both do it so what are you gonna do. In fact, Reality does exist. Some things are true, others are false. Now that the Radical Right's propaganda extends to a War On Science nothing is off-limits.

And I say faux moderate pointedly: No one who supports Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnell, and the rest of the GOP Looney Tunes candidates is a moderate. A Radical in Moderate garb.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 23, 2010 8:25 AM | Report abuse

@mikefromarlington: "Got bored and charted job creation after the 2001 recession and this one."

Interesting. But there doesn't seem to be much getting around the difference in the overall employment rate. Of course, net job creation (or loss) is important, but saying Obama lost half as many jobs as Bush did, when Bush still ended up with 4% - 5% unemployment (generally considered to be the maximum level of possible employment), vs. the 10% it's been hovering at with Obama (not Obama's fault, BTW, I surely recognize that--none of these numbers is more that passingly related to who the president is in any causal sense). Still, the super-simplified picture is that much of the Bush term was full employment, and so far all of Obama has been high unemployment (higher that most voters have seen in their lives, or at least the past 40 years).

While it's arguable that net job loss is more telling, the reality is jobs need to increase to the levels they were after the recovery from the 2001 recession, before that's a compelling argument to independents or slightly-right-of-center folks.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 23, 2010 8:30 AM | Report abuse

lms,

"Sounds like Republicans want to reverse the process to me, judicial first, legislative second. Just a guess."

I have to say, I really don't get what you are saying here. I think you are making something out of nothing.

What they are pleding would not in any way "reverse the process" of judicial review. They are simply saying, when we pass legislation, we will cite the specific authority we believe the Constitution delegates to Congress to pass it. Congress does often go through at least the appearance of examining its authority to pass legislation. But Republicans would argue that it is often a sham under Democrats.

And, in particular I would guess that Obamacare plays a large role in this Pledge item, because the Dems, including Obama personally, insisted that the mandate was not a tax or enforced through a tax, but now the O administration is arguing in court that it is constitutional because it is a tax, and Democrats generally hold the view that Congress can do anything it wants in the form of imposing taxes, of any kind.

So R's are probably saying, look, if the D's had been forced to say in the bill what they were arguing pre-passage -- that they claimed interstate commerce authority, not taxing authority -- the Obama admin would have a harder time getting away with flip flopping now.

That's what I think this is probably about.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 23, 2010 8:31 AM | Report abuse

"Another day in the loony bin."

Suck it up. That's why you get paid the Big Bucks!

Posted by: wbgonne | September 23, 2010 8:31 AM | Report abuse

@wbgonne: "False equivalency is yet another successful propaganda strategy."

Yes, that's what it is. False equivalency. No doubt about it. Check. Mate. Match.

You win. Cigars and champagne for everybody!

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 23, 2010 8:32 AM | Report abuse

"Check. Mate. Match."

Lloyd: You're it.
Harry: You're it.
Lloyd: You're it, quitsies!
Harry: Anti-quitsies, you're it, quitsies, no anti-quitsies, no startsies!
Lloyd: You can't do that!
Harry: Can too!
Lloyd: Cannot, stamp it!
Harry: Can too, double stamp it, no erasies!
Lloyd: Cannot, triple stamp, no erasies, Touch blue make it true.
Harry: No, you can't do that... you can't triple stamp a double stamp, you can't triple stamp a double stamp! Lloyd!
Lloyd: [hands over ears] LA LA LA LA LA LA!
Harry: LLOYD! LLOYD! LLOYD!

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 23, 2010 8:33 AM | Report abuse

"Congress does often go through at least the appearance of examining its authority to pass legislation. But Republicans would argue that it is often a sham under Democrats."

Once more into the breach!

Yes, when Republicans federal pass laws criminalizing everything under the sun and imprisoning America citizens for decades they are acting with Constitutional restraint. even though the Police Power is the paradigm power reserved for the states. Con. Law.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 23, 2010 8:36 AM | Report abuse

All, Morning Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/the_morning_plum_96.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 23, 2010 8:37 AM | Report abuse

"And I say faux moderate pointedly: No one who supports Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnell, and the rest of the GOP Looney Tunes candidates is a moderate. A Radical in Moderate garb."

Polls show that substantially more people say Palin's views are closer to theirs than Obama's.

You must feel queasy in the tummy when you confront such facts. : (

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 23, 2010 8:39 AM | Report abuse

However, when Democrats enact legislation fostering the Public Welfare they are exceeding federal power. This is just another facet of the Radical Right's strategy of obliterating the power of the American people to act collectively, in order to protect the inherent coercive power of Concentrated Wealth. Every economic position the Radical Right takes furthers the primary goal of undermining the freedom of the American people to act collectively through their national government. That way, the SuperRich have unchecked power.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 23, 2010 8:41 AM | Report abuse

"Yes, when Republicans federal pass laws criminalizing everything under the sun and imprisoning America citizens for decades they are acting with Constitutional restraint. even though the Police Power is the paradigm power reserved for the states. Con. Law."

If a rational person could make any sense out of your wild claims, it might be possible to address them. But one can't.


Posted by: quarterback1 | September 23, 2010 8:45 AM | Report abuse

Palin is an ignorant grifter whose entree into American politics has delivered us to a nadir of political rot. You applaud that because the more ineffectual government is the less threat it is to the Oligarchs who run the country. That is cynical beyond measure.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 23, 2010 8:46 AM | Report abuse

qb, actually, I just thought it was an interesting point in the pledge that I hadn't heard before. You're probably right though, it's a feeble attempt at accusing Dems of trying to slide unconstitutional legislation through.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 23, 2010 8:47 AM | Report abuse

So if a constitutional challenge is filed regarding a particularly piece of legislation, is the Department of Justice going to be limited to arguing only those provisions of the Constitution that Congress cited when the law was passed?

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 23, 2010 8:53 AM | Report abuse

"If a rational person could make any sense out of your wild claims, it might be possible to address them. But one can't."

Whatsamatter? They don't learn you the Police Power in Koch Brothers Con Law classes?

Posted by: wbgonne | September 23, 2010 8:55 AM | Report abuse

"So if a constitutional challenge is filed regarding a particularly piece of legislation, is the Department of Justice going to be limited to arguing only those provisions of the Constitution that Congress cited when the law was passed?"

Excellent question. I can't wait for the Radical Right's propaganda response.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 23, 2010 8:58 AM | Report abuse

Let me be clear:


Tonight we are all less safe because the terrorists KNOW that Obama is willing to give them "one free shot."


I don't like how this is shaping up.

Does anyone?


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 23, 2010 9:05 AM | Report abuse

lms:

"Isn't that what the Supreme Court is for?"

No. The SC exists to arbitrate disputes over what the Constitution means. That doesn't mean that legislators/presidents have no obligation/ability to justify whether or not what they are doing is authorized by the constitution. For example, Bush betrayed his oath of office when he signed McCain-Fiengold into law even though he believed that it was unconstitutional and expressed the hope that the SC would declare it so.

"How many times do right and left come out on different sides of Constitutionality on any given issue."

Far, far too many to be explained away by true confusion about or a lack of clarity in the constitution itself. I think there is a certain subset of people who really believe that the only limit on the authority of government to act is whether or not the act is deemed (by them, of course) to be "good" or "necessary", and that constitutional authority can "interpreted" into the cosnstitution for just about anything they desire. And that subset of people is not small. Pete "the federal government can do most anything" Stark is not alone in his thinking.

"Citizens United, gay marriage, HCR, abortion, etc. etc. are just a few issues where both sides use the Constitution to support legality or not."

Not true. Under conservative legal thinking, abortion could remain entirely legal even if conservative legal doctrines were adopted by the Supreme Court. Conservatives do not justify their opposition to abortion by citing the constitution.

Likewise gay marriage. Indeed, some conservatives proposed an amendment to the constitution precisely because they recognize that the constitution as it exists is mute on the subject.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 23, 2010 9:07 AM | Report abuse

All, please come over to the new thread:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/the_morning_plum_96.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 23, 2010 9:12 AM | Report abuse

"So if a constitutional challenge is filed regarding a particularly piece of legislation, is the Department of Justice going to be limited to arguing only those provisions of the Constitution that Congress cited when the law was passed?"

Probably not as a technical matter. But the courts do try to identify the intentions of Congress. So if the first paragraph of Obamacare said it is enacted under the Commerce Clause, it might be hard for Holder to argue in court that it is constitutional under the "power to lay and collect taxes."

It could be even more difficult if this was the standard practice, because then the courts would likely start to say, Congress normally cites the power to tax as one basis of authority for taxes it imposes, and in the case of Obamacare, for example, it didn't, so it doesn't appear they intended this as a tax. Now, the Court might just say, we don't care what they called it, we know a tax when we see it, but congressional intent would normally be considered.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 23, 2010 9:12 AM | Report abuse

And it could also impose greater political accountability for flip flops like Obamacare.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 23, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

I get the feeling (call it a silly hunch on my part) that the American people don't fully appreciate the implications behind the prospect of the GOP taking back the House and the Senate in January. I know what you're thinking and I agree. The Democrats are beyond worthless. Let's face some serious facts here: Any party with a pathetic and befuddled old Andy Gump like Harry Reid as their leader is going to have - "issues" shall we say? But the thing that has to be remembered about our elected Democratic representatives in Washington is the fact that - for the most part - their hearts are in the right place. The same cannot be said for the Republicans, They long ago ceased being a political party. They are now an organized criminal enterprise. If that sounds to you like the extreme ramblings of an embittered Lefty, that's fine. But I am convinced that within a decade, 20/20 historical hindsight will prove me correct. Call me in ten years and we'll compare notes.

http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

Posted by: tomdeganfrontiernetnet | September 23, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

" If that sounds to you like the extreme ramblings of an embittered Lefty, that's fine."

No, it sounds like the extreme ramblings of an embittered, crazed, lunatic Lefty who hates freedom and American constitutional government.

Don't see another explanation.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 23, 2010 9:21 AM | Report abuse

@wbgonne: "You applaud that because the more ineffectual government is the less threat it is to the Oligarchs who run the country."

I used to not believe in telepathy, but so many people seem to be able to read other people's minds--and not just read their minds, but do it at a great distance, with nothing more than their handle in the comments section of a blog to go by--that it must be so.

"And I say faux moderate pointedly: No one who supports Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnell, and the rest of the GOP Looney Tunes candidates is a moderate"

While you don't say it explicitly, I'll assume you're referring to me (and, for the record, I think the the equivalencies I draw are entirely legitimate), but I'm not sure why.

As I have noted before, I do not claim to be a moderate, or a maverick. Also, while I support Sarah Palin pretty thoroughly (although, frankly, I see a certain Kate Gosselin thing going on with the 2 years of reality TV show stardom that has passed that is a bit troubling), I'm not 100% behind any of the tea party candidates I can think of right now. Specifically O'Donnell and Angle, though I don't feel either as hostile too, or as prone to look down my nose at, either of them as some. And, yes, if I was in Delaware, I'd probably vote for O'Donnell (or Castle in a write-in campaign). And if I was in Nevada, whoever had the best chance of defeating Harry Reid, I'd vote for that person, even if it was the Easter Bunny.

When presenting my views, I characterize myself as a rock-ribbed conservative for a reason. Mainly, because while I may not be as rock-ribbed as ScottC3 or qb, I think--when wanting to converse in a dialog with liberals--it's best not to use terms like "moderate" that might create a false expectation of greater moderation in, say, voting habits that I actually exhibit.

My "moderation" (so-called) is mostly about how I believe dialog between folks who disagree about stuff should be conducted, even when we're far away, even when we're just handles in the comments section of a website, even when there's little to lose by engaging in hyperbole, invective, and name calling.

Of course, all of that might be a total non-sequitur. If so, apologies for the tangent.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 23, 2010 9:26 AM | Report abuse

Con Law Legal Dictionary:

freedom = preventing the American people from acting collectively to solve their common problems

Posted by: wbgonne | September 23, 2010 9:28 AM | Report abuse

"I support Sarah Palin pretty thoroughly"

Case closed.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 23, 2010 9:30 AM | Report abuse

Scott,

"Likewise gay marriage. Indeed, some conservatives proposed an amendment to the constitution precisely because they recognize that the constitution as it exists is mute on the subject."

And didn't a judge in CA determine that their rights are already protected under the Constitution. See the dilemma?

Honestly, when I started this debate last night, not actually my intention, I just thought it was a very odd way to ask for something that is already done. And I wondered if there was some sort of underlying new threshold that they wanted met through the courts.

I've come to realize this morning that it's really nothing more than another way to say, without actually saying it, that Dems just don't understand the Constitution as well as Repubs. Very clever.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 23, 2010 10:10 AM | Report abuse

lms:

"And didn't a judge in CA determine that their rights are already protected under the Constitution. See the dilemma?"

No, I don't. If gay marriage is protected under the constitution (plainly, it isn't, but let's assume the judge is correct), then it is necessary to amend the constitution to prohibit gay marriage. There is no dilemma.

"I've come to realize this morning that it's really nothing more than another way to say, without actually saying it, that Dems just don't understand the Constitution as well as Repubs."

I don't think it is that at all (although certainly many conservatives do think that Dems are mindless of constitutional limits when/if they believe a policy preference of theirs is "good".) I think it is a way for R's to sell themselves to voters as accountable to constitutional limits in a way that Dems cannot (or are not willing to).

There is, I think, a pretty obvious inclination on the left to believe that the government can do anything and everything provided the constitution doesn't specifically prohibit it, rather than that the government cannot do anything other than those things specifically authorized by the constitution.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 23, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Scott

"then it is necessary to amend the constitution to prohibit gay marriage."

Assuming the issue comes before the Supreme Court, via the CA decision or another state's ruling, and IF they decide the right to gay marriage is upheld by the Constitution, do you seriously believe Republicans will try to amend the constitution?

I don't believe there is as much support for regressive policy as you might think.

As to the assumption on your part that Dems believe anything under the sun is allowable unless specifically prohibited, it just sounds like another pejorative against liberals we hear all the time. Because you think it's true, assuming you do, doesn't make it a fact.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 23, 2010 12:28 PM | Report abuse

@wbgonne: "'I support Sarah Palin pretty thoroughly' -- Case closed."

What case is that? Was there any disagreement?

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 23, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

@ScottC3: "There is, I think, a pretty obvious inclination on the left to believe that the government can do anything and everything provided the constitution doesn't specifically prohibit"

More specifically, many of the left seem to think the commerce clause allows them to legislate any progressive idea under the sun into law, and usually, if there is a court challenge, the commerce clause is where justification is found. It's like magic! ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | September 23, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

lms:

"...do you seriously believe Republicans will try to amend the constitution?"

Some of them already have tried. There was a vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006. Whether I think they can succeed is a different story.

"I don't believe there is as much support for regressive policy as you might think."

Opposition to gay marriage is fairly strong. Whether that would translate into equally strong desire to overrule a SC decision by amending the constitution, I don't know.

"it just sounds like another pejorative against liberals we hear all the time."

Maybe, but is it wrong? Can you envision a policy, any policy, the purpose of which you agree with, but which you would oppose on the grounds that it is unconstitutional?

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 23, 2010 2:13 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